environment effects statement...4.3 impact assessment method 21 4.3.1 dewatering drawdown estimates...

Groundwater impact assessmentEES Technical Report D

Environment Effects StatementJuly 2020

Revision – 11-Jun-2020Prepared for – AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty Limited – ABN: N/A

AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APATransmission Pty Limited11-Jun-2020

Groundwater impactassessmentGas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project EES Technical Report D

Technical Report D: Groundwater impact assessment

Prepared for – AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty Limited – 60592634

AECOM

Groundwater impact assessmentGas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project EES Technical Report D

Client: AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty LimitedABN: N/A

Prepared byAECOM Australia Pty LtdLevel 10, Tower Two, 727 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3008, AustraliaT +61 3 9653 1234 F +61 3 9654 7117 www.aecom.comABN 20 093 846 925

11-Jun-2020

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001, ISO14001 AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM). All rights reserved.

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No otherparty should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to anythird party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements andAECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professionalprinciples. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of whichmay not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Environment Effects StatementTechnical Report D: Groundwater impact assessment


AECOM

Table of contentsExecutive summary iAbbreviations ivGlossary of terms i1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose 11.1.1 Why understanding groundwater is important 1

1.2 Project description 21.2.1 Gas Import Jetty Works 21.2.2 Pipeline Works 21.2.3 Construction 21.2.4 Operation and maintenance 31.2.5 Decommissioning 31.2.6 Groundwater considerations in the pipeline design 41.2.7 Groundwater considerations at the Crib Point Receiving Facility 9

1.3 Project Area 101.3.1 Study area 10

2.0 Scoping requirements 122.1 EES evaluation objectives 122.2 Assessment of specific environmental effects 12

3.0 Legislation, policy and guidelines 144.0 Methodology 17

4.1 Existing conditions assessment 174.1.1 Desktop assessment 174.1.2 Field program 17

4.2 Risk assessment method 19Application of mitigation measures 21

4.3 Impact assessment method 214.3.1 Dewatering drawdown estimates 224.3.2 Modification of groundwater flow regime 22

4.4 Assumptions and limitations 234.5 Stakeholder engagement 234.6 Linkage to other technical reports 24

5.0 Existing conditions 255.1 Topography and surface water 255.2 Geology 255.3 Hydrogeology 275.4 Hydraulic conductivity 275.5 Groundwater management 285.6 Groundwater quality and beneficial uses 295.7 Groundwater use 29

5.7.1 Groundwater dependent ecosystems 305.8 Groundwater - surface water interactions 315.9 Summary: hydrogeological conceptual model 32

6.0 Risk assessment 337.0 Impact assessment 37

7.1 Construction 377.1.1 Drawdown estimates from dewatering (relevant to Risk IDs HG1,

HG2, HG3) 377.1.2 Impacts on groundwater levels 387.1.3 Impacts on groundwater quality 417.1.4 Water supply (Risk ID HG6) 427.1.5 Loss of registered bores (Risk ID HG7) 42

7.2 Operation 437.2.1 Preferential flow paths (Risk ID HG9) 437.2.2 Impeded groundwater flow paths due to piles (Risk ID HG10) 44



AECOM

8.0 Recommended mitigation measures 459.0 Conclusion 46

9.1 Impact assessment summary 469.2 Residual risk 46

10.0 References 47

Appendix AFigures A

Appendix BTables B

Appendix CField program methodology C

Appendix DBorelogs D

Appendix ERising head tests E

Appendix FDewatering drawdown estimates F



iAECOM

Executive summaryThis report assesses potential impacts to groundwater associated with the construction and operationof the proposed Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project (the Project).

The Project would establish a gas import jetty and pipeline in Victoria comprising:

· a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) at Crib Point Jetty – the Gas Import Jetty Works

· a gas pipeline between Crib Point and Pakenham to connect to the Victorian TransmissionSystem (VTS) east of Pakenham – the Pipeline Works.

The Project would provide an additional supply of natural gas into the south-eastern Australian gasmarket for industrial, commercial and residential customers.

Potential supply gaps in Victoria’s gas market are predicted from 2024. The Project would improveenergy security for industrial, commercial and domestic customers and would increase competition inthe market.

Marine, surface water and contaminated soils, acid sulphate soils and contaminated sedimentstechnical assessments have been prepared to consider other water related impacts.

MethodologyThe groundwater study area includes the proposed pipeline alignment and its options, and a bufferarea of 200 metres either side of the pipeline, being the area where groundwater levels, flow orgroundwater quality could be impacted. The Crib Point Receiving Facility portion of the Gas ImportJetty Works was also assessed as part of this study.

The assessment of existing conditions for groundwater was based on a review of publicly availablegroundwater data and studies, and results of a field program carried out in December 2018 andJanuary 2019. Twenty-six shallow groundwater monitoring bores were installed along the pipelinealignment to characterise the groundwater quality, depth to groundwater and hydraulic conductivity ofthe geology along the pipeline alignment.

Potential impacts on groundwater have been identified by considering the proposed constructionmethods and identifying risks that may impact beneficial uses or groundwater users. Methods tomitigate potential impacts have been developed based on existing construction guidelines andpractices to manage environments surrounding construction sites of similar type and scale.

Existing conditionsThe study area is within the Western Port Basin (the basin). The sediments and volcanic flows of thebasin form a multilayered aquifer system dominated by a Tertiary Age sedimentary sequence, overlainby a relatively thin veneer of Quaternary sediments - including coastal and inland dune deposits,swamp and lake deposits and alluvial deposits. The maximum depth of trench excavations along thepipeline alignment is approximately three metres, but more typically two metres. Thrust bore bell holesmay be up to four metres deep. The geology encountered to this depth during the field program isunconsolidated and includes clay, silt and sand with occasional gravels.

The watertable along the pipeline is generally shallow (less than four metres below ground), butdeeper than the typical open cut trench depth of two metres in most monitoring wells installed alongthe pipeline alignment. Watertable fluctuations of up to 0.5 to two metres are typical in comparableshallow groundwater environments, with water levels shallowest in late winter/early spring anddeepest in late summer/early autumn. Although groundwater levels were measured towards the end ofsummer as part of this study (when levels are likely to be deeper), the impact assessmentconservatively considered a high watertable scenario close to ground surface (that is, within 0.5metre). Groundwater levels have previously been encountered between approximately six and eightmetres below ground surface beneath the western portion of the Crib Point Receiving Facility (wheretrenching and piling is proposed).



iiAECOM

Shallow geology is mostly fine grained (clay and clay/silt) with occasional sands and gravelly sands.This is consistent with generally low hydraulic conductivity values in shallow monitoring wells(geometric mean of 0.007 metres per day but up to 0.3 metres per day (measured at one location)).

Moderate to high potential aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that may rely on groundwater have beenmapped in the study area based on national assessment, particularly in the southern portion of thestudy area. These include watercourses that cross the pipeline alignment and are mapped aspotentially gaining streams (that is, receiving groundwater as baseflow). These potential groundwaterdependent ecosystems (GDEs) were considered as part of the groundwater impact assessment.

There were 69 registered bores within the study area (of which eight were designated as ‘not used’),with 48 being for consumptive use and 21 for monitoring purposes. Four consumptive use bores(stock, stock and domestic, and irrigation) were within 30 metres of trenched pipeline sections andnone were within 60 metres of thrust bore bell holes and HDD tie-in bell holes – conservativelyestimated as the extent of reduced groundwater levels due to dewatering activities.

Impact assessmentPotential impacts identified for the construction phase of the Pipeline Works and Gas Import JettyWorks included:

· reduction in groundwater levels if dewatering activities are required with the subsequent potentialto affect registered bore users, groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and induce salineintrusion

· groundwater quality impacts from horizontal directional drilling (HDD) drilling muds

· poor quality overland flow entering open trenches

· loss, damage or inaccessibility of registered groundwater bores during construction

· groundwater quality impacts due to the installation of pilings beneath land side portion of the GasImport Jetty Works (at Crib Point Receiving Facility).

The groundwater impact assessment found limited potential for impacts on groundwater levels andflow during the operational phase of the Project. The risk of permanently reduced groundwater levelsdue to the drainage effects of preferential flow paths within the trench was considered.

Overall, construction and operation of the Pipeline Works and the Gas Import Jetty Works presentlimited risks to groundwater due to the shallow depth of trenching and horizontal boring, short durationdewatering activities (where groundwater is intersected) and clay and silt dominated nature of thematerials likely to be encountered. Where dewatering is required, the reductions in groundwater levelsare estimated to be of limited magnitude, lateral extent and duration.

The residual risk of potential impacts on groundwater were identified as being low or very low and itwas concluded that the Project is consistent with the scoping requirements and the draft evaluationobjective with respect to potential impacts on groundwater levels, quality and flow from constructionand operational activities with appropriate mitigation measures in place.

Recommended mitigation measuresThe following mitigation measures are recommended for the Project.

Mitigationmeasure ID Recommended mitigation measures Works area Stage

MM-HG01 Dewatering activities should be limited to twodays or less in trenched sections and HDD tie-inbell holes, and 10 days or less at thrust boresections and thrust bore bell holes, whereverpracticable.

Pipeline Works Construction

MM-HG02 Drilling muds used in horizontal directionaldrilling should be biodegradable and non-toxic,where geotechnical conditions allow.




iiiAECOM


MM-HG03 Contractor(s) suitably qualified and experiencedin trenchless installation techniques and pilinginstallation should be used.

Pipeline Worksand Gas ImportJetty Works

Construction

MM-HG04 The duration that trench sections and bell holesare open should be minimised to reduce thepotential for poor quality runoff impactinggroundwater.


MM-HG05 Sourcing of groundwater for construction supply(if required) should be in accordance withSection 50 Licence to take and use water of theWater Act 1989.


MM-HG06 Through liaison with landholders the location,condition and functionality of potentially affectedbores (due to damage, destruction or loss ofaccess) should be visually confirmed prior toconstruction commencing, and make-goodarrangements should be agreed if required.


MM-HG07 Compaction of backfill using excavated material,where practicable, should be carried out toreduce the potential for preferential lateral flowalong the trench

Pipeline Works Operation

MM-HG08 Trench blocks (such as trench/sack breakers)should be installed adjacent to watercourses,wetlands and steep slopes as shown in thestandard drawing (CPT.2373-DWG-L-0106).




ivAECOM

AbbreviationsAbbreviation DefinitionAGL AGL Wholesale Gas Limited

APA APA Transmission Pty Limited

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

EE Act Environment Effects Act 1978

EES Environment Effects Statement

EOLSS End of Line Scraper Station

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

FSRU Floating storage and regasification unit

GDE Groundwater dependent ecosystem

GDE Atlas Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas

GIS Geographic information system

HDD Horizontal directional drilling

KP Kilometre point

KWR WSPA Koo Wee Rup Water Supply Protection Area

LNG Liquefied natural gas

mAHD Metres Australian Height Datum

mbgs Metres below ground surface

mbtoc Metres below top of casing

m/day Metres per day

MLV Mainline valves

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

PoHDA Port of Hastings Development Authority

QA Quaternary Aquifer

ROW Right of way

SEPP State Environment Protection Policy

SRW Southern Rural Water

UTAF Upper Tertiary Aquifer - Fluvial

UMTA Upper Mid Tertiary Aquifer

VTS Victorian Transmission System



iAECOM

Glossary of termsTerm DefinitionGaining stream A stream that receives groundwater, which adds to its overall flow.

Groundwater dependentecosystem (GDE)

A terrestrial or aquatic ecosystem that requires access to groundwater tomeet all or some of their requirements.

Groundwater users GDEs and users of existing registered bores

Hydraulic conductivity The ease with which a fluid (usually water) can move through porespaces or fractures.

Preferential flowpath The uneven and often rapid movement of water and solutes throughporous media.

Saline intrusion The movement of saline water into a freshwater aquifer, which can leadto contamination of drinking water sources and other consequences.

Subsidence The process by which an area of land sinks to a lower level than the landsurrounding it.

Watertable The surface where the water pressure head is equal to the atmosphericpressure.



1AECOM

1.0 IntroductionThis report assesses the potential groundwater impacts associated with the construction and operationThe Project would provide an additional supply of natural gas into the south-eastern Australian gasmarket for industrial, commercial and residential customers.

The Australian Energy Market Operator has predicted potential supply gaps in Victoria’s gas marketfrom 2024 (AEMO, 2019). The Project would improve energy security for industrial, commercial anddomestic customers and would increase competition in the market.

The joint proponents of the Project are AGL Wholesale Gas Limited (AGL) and APA Transmission PtyLimited (APA).

The Project would establish a gas import jetty and pipeline comprising:

· a floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) at Crib Point Jetty – the Gas Import Jetty Works

· a gas pipeline between Crib Point and Pakenham to connect to the Victorian TransmissionSystem (VTS) east of Pakenham – the Pipeline Works.

The Project was referred by AGL and APA to the Victorian Government under the Environment EffectsAct 1978 (Vic) on 13 September 2018 as two separate projects consisting of the Gas Import JettyWorks and Pipeline Works.

On 8 October 2018 the Minister for Planning issued a decision determining that an EnvironmentEffects Statement (EES) was required for the Project due to the potential for a range of significantenvironmental effects.

The Gas Import Jetty Works and the Pipeline Works were also referred to the CommonwealthGovernment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) asseparate projects.

Each project was designated as a controlled action requiring impact assessment under the EPBC Act.The EES process is the accredited environmental assessment for the controlled action decisionsunder the EPBC Act in accordance with the bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth andVictorian governments.

1.1 PurposeThis report provides a groundwater impact assessment for the EES and sets out mitigation measuresfor potential impacts of the Project. This report will inform the development of an EnvironmentalManagement Framework (EMF) for the Project. The mitigation measures listed in the EMF would beimplemented in the approvals and management plans for the Project.

1.1.1 Why understanding groundwater is importantShallow groundwater is anticipated to be intersected along some sections of the Project duringconstruction activities required for the installation of the pipeline, which could potentially impactgroundwater levels, flow and quality.

It is important to assess whether these activities could impact the beneficial uses of groundwater or,groundwater users in the Project Area. Groundwater users include those people who pump water fromexisting registered groundwater bores, and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). GDEs arethose ecosystems that require access to groundwater to meet all or some of their water requirementsto maintain the communities of plants and animals and ecological processes they support, andecosystem services they provide1. These can include streams or lakes that groundwater flows into,vegetation with roots that access groundwater or biota living in cave systems.

1 Definition from Ministerial Guidelines for Groundwater Licensing and the Protection of High Value Groundwater DependentEcosystems, dated 13 April 2015.



2AECOM

This report documents the area of potential groundwater level and groundwater quality impacts thatmay arise from the Project and documents potential risks to groundwater users (including GDEs) andbeneficial uses.

Potential impacts to groundwater quality from the Project are also considered in EES Technical ReportE: Contamination and acid sulfate soils impact assessment.

1.2 Project descriptionThe Project comprises two sets of works: the Gas Import Jetty Works and the Pipeline Works.

AGL would undertake the Gas Import Jetty Works. APA would undertake the Pipeline Works.

1.2.1 Gas Import Jetty WorksThe Gas Import Jetty Works would consist of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility comprising:

· continuous mooring of an FSRU at Berth 2 of the existing Crib Point Jetty to store LNG andregasify LNG into natural gas

· Jetty Infrastructure on the Crib Point Jetty including marine loading arms (MLAs) and gas pipingto transfer the gas from the FSRU to the Crib Point Receiving Facility

· Crib Point Receiving Facility, including metering, odorant injection and nitrogen injection, whichwould be located on land adjacent to the Crib Point Jetty.

The FSRU vessel for the Project would be approximately 300 metres long and 50 metres wide. Itwould have capacity to store 170,000 cubic metres (m3) of LNG. Visiting vessels carrying LNG (LNGcarriers) would berth alongside the FSRU to transfer their LNG to the FSRU, which could take up to 36hours.

The FSRU would store the LNG as a liquid and when required, return LNG back into a gaseous stateby heating the LNG using either seawater or gas-fired boilers (a process known as regasification).

Following regasification, the natural gas would be transferred through gas piping along the jetty fromthe FSRU to the Crib Point Receiving Facility.

The Crib Point Receiving Facility would include treatment facilities to inject odorant and nitrogen (asrequired) into the natural gas to meet VTS gas quality specifications.

1.2.2 Pipeline WorksThe Pipeline Works would comprise a bi-directional gas transmission pipeline to transport gas from theCrib Point Receiving Facility to the VTS east of Pakenham.

The pipeline would be approximately 57 kilometres long with a nominal diameter of 600 millimetres.The pipeline would be buried at a depth of generally 1.2 metres below ground (to the top of the pipe).

The Pipeline Works would also comprise the following facilities:

· the pigging facility at the Crib Point Receiving Facility to enable in-line inspections of the pipelinewith a pipeline inspection gauge (pig)

· the above-ground Pakenham Delivery Facility situated adjacent to the Pakenham East rail depotto monitor and regulate the gas

· the below-ground End of Line Scraper Station (EOLSS) located at the connection point to theVTS, north of the Princes Highway in Pakenham

· two above-ground mainline valves (MLVs) located at different points along the pipeline alignmentto enable isolation of the pipeline in an emergency.

1.2.3 ConstructionThe key construction activities for the Gas Import Jetty Works would include:

· establishment of construction sites including laydown areas



3AECOM

· installation of Jetty Infrastructure on the Crib Point Jetty, including MLAs, gas piping mounted tothe jetty, electrical and instrumentation equipment and a firefighting system

· construction of the Crib Point Receiving Facility.

Construction for the Gas Import Jetty Works would take approximately 18 to 27 months, depending onweather conditions.

The key construction activities for the Pipeline Works would include:

· establishment of laydown areas

· construction of the pigging facility at Crib Point Receiving Facility, Pakenham Delivery Facility,two MLVs and the EOLSS

· pipeline construction using construction techniques such as trenching, horizontal directionaldrilling (HDD) or boring, typically within a 30-metre-wide pipeline construction right of way (ROW).

Construction for the Pipeline Works would take approximately 18 to 124 months, depending onweather conditions.

Subject to the staging of the works outlined above, construction for the entire Project is expected totake approximately 18 to 27 months.

1.2.4 Operation and maintenanceWhen commissioned, the FSRU would be operated by an experienced third-party operator. The CribPoint Receiving Facility and associated Jetty Infrastructure would be owned and operated by AGL oran experienced third-party operator. The Pipeline Works would be owned and operated by APA.

The FSRU may leave Western Port during the Project lifetime for activities such as scheduledmaintenance and extreme weather events.

The gas import jetty would initially receive approximately 12 LNG carriers per year with capacity toincrease to approximately 40 LNG carriers per year. The number and frequency of LNG carriersarriving each year would depend on their storage capacity and gas demand.

The Crib Point Receiving Facility is designed to be automated and may be operated unmanned undernormal operating conditions.

An operational easement of generally 15 metres wide would apply to the pipeline alignment. Thepipeline easement would be routinely inspected for any operational or maintenance issues inaccordance with APA procedures.

The pipeline would also be designed and constructed so that pigging could be undertaken to inspectthe integrity of the pipeline as required. Pigging would be undertaken around 10 years afterconstruction and then at a frequency determined by the first inspection.

The Pakenham Delivery Facility is also designed to be automated and operate unmanned undernormal operating conditions.

The EOLSS would be buried with valves contained within concrete pits. The connection to the VTSwould operate unmanned. Excavation of the site to access the EOLSS would be required for thepigging activities.

1.2.5 DecommissioningThe FSRU is proposed to operate for 20 years, although this may be shortened or extended toaddress security and stability of gas supply to south-eastern Australia. When the Project was nolonger required, the FSRU would leave Western Port.

The Jetty Infrastructure installed on the Crib Point Jetty and the Crib Point Receiving Facility would bedecommissioned and removed when no longer required. The Crib Point Jetty would remain as anoperational jetty under the management of the Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA).

The pipeline would have a design life of 60 years. If the Pipeline Works were no longer required, theywould be decommissioned in accordance with Australian Standard AS2885 Pipelines – gas and liquidpetroleum and relevant legislative and approval requirements at the time of decommissioning.



4AECOM

1.2.6 Groundwater considerations in the pipeline designThe proposed pipeline alignment is shown in blue in Figure 1-1 below. Alternative alignment optionsare shown in orange in the same figure.

Figure 1-1 Project Area



5AECOM

ConstructionPipeline installation is expected to occur primarily during summer, wherever practicable, whenephemeral streams are less likely to be flowing and any surface water runoff into open trenches wouldbe reduced. Groundwater levels would typically be at their lowest at this time.

The pipeline would be installed using three techniques: trenching, horizontal directional drilling (HDD),and horizontal boring. These are discussed below.

Trenching:

Trenching is the principal construction method, with 47.43 kilometres of the total 57.76 kilometres (84per cent) of pipeline designed to be installed with this method. In a number of areas with potentiallysensitive features, or for logistical reasons, HDD and boring installation techniques would be used.

The trenching process would involve excavating an open cut trench that would typically be two metresdeep and a minimum of 900 millimetres wide (600 millimetres pipe diameter plus 150 millimetres eachside). The trench width is increased to 1,800 millimetres (600 millimetres pipe diameter plus 600millimetres each side) where in situ concrete slab protection is required above the pipe. Where thetrench crosses unsealed roads, the depth may increase to 2.6 to three metres.

Typically, the time the trench is open (i.e. time between excavation and backfilling) would beminimised, however it is possible that at times the pipeline trench could remain open in the order ofseveral weeks.

Immediately prior to the pipe being installed, the trench would be dewatered to remove the majoritywater, which has collected during the time it has been open. This water may be groundwater,incidental rainwater or a combination of both. It is anticipated that pumping from the trench andinstallation of the pipe would be completed on the same day. However, for the purposes of this impactassessment, a maximum pumping period of two days (48 hours) has been assumed.

Disposal of groundwater pumped out of the trench is discussed in EES Technical Report E:Contamination and acid sulphate soils impact assessment. Wherever possible, the trench would bebackfilled with native material (that is, material removed during trench excavation) following grading toremove rocks and other deleterious material that could damage pipe coating. Packing sands would beused to backfill the trench beneath roads.

Figure 1-2 Construction right of way trenching layout

Horizontal directional drilling (HDD):

HDD would typically be used to install the pipeline beneath major roads, major watercourses and othersensitive features. The construction design involves approximately eight kilometres of the total57 kilometre pipeline length (14 per cent) using HDD methods.

HDD would involve drilling at an angle to a low point in the middle and then back up to an exit point onthe other side of the sensitive feature (road, waterway, vegetation). Entry and exit pits are typically



6AECOM

constructed (approximately five metres long, three metres wide and two metres deep) and used asmud pits, therefore not dewatered.

No trenches need to be excavated for this installation method and no dewatering is necessary duringdrilling and pipe installation. After drilling and installation of the pipe along the HDD section, bell holeswould be constructed at the entry and exit points to facilitate joining of the pipe (known as tying-in).These HDD tie-in bell holes would be approximately five metres long, five metres wide, and two andhalf metres deep. These may require short term dewatering if groundwater is intersected. It isanticipated that pumping from the bell hole and tying-in of the pipe would be completed on the sameday. Potential impact on groundwater quality from drilling fluids has been considered.



7AECOM

Figure 1-3 Typical HDD process



8AECOM

Horizontal boring:

Horizontal thrust boring (also known as micro tunnelling) or mini-HDD would be used to install thepipeline at identified road, rail and water crossings. The preference is typically to utilise mini-HDDtechniques at these locations, with horizontal thrust boring used where mini-HDD is deemed to beunsuitable. The drilling methodology would be determined by the contractor.

Thrust boring would involve excavating an entry bell hole approximately 10 metres long, four metreswide, and up to four metres deep. The exit bell hole would typically be seven metres long, four metreswide and up to four metres deep. The boring machine drills horizontally from the entry bell holebeneath the sensitive feature until it reaches the bell hole at the end of the boring section. Thrust borebell holes would need to be dewatered prior to drilling if groundwater has seeped in. It isconservatively assumed that a depth of up to 3.5 metres of water would be present in the bell holesand would require dewatering for up to ten days. The entry and exit bell holes associated with themini-HDD technique are approximately five metres long, five metres wide and two and half metresdeep, with the duration of dewatering activities being less than that of the thrust boring technique.

The impact assessment has assumed that all horizontal boring would be by the thrust boringtechnique. This is a conservative approach given that potential drawdown impacts from dewateringwould be greater for thrust bore bell holes due to the greater footprint, depth and duration of pumpingcompared to mini-HDD.

The construction design involves approximately 1.35 kilometres of the total 57.76 kilometres pipelinelength (two per cent) using horizontal boring or mini-HDD methods.

Figure 1-4 Typical thrust bore site set up

End of line scraper station (EOLSS):

The EOLSS is where the pipeline connects to the VTS, via the Longford Dandenong Pipeline (LDP)and LDP loop line. These works would include hot tap works involving the excavation of large holestypically six metres wide, 10 metres long and up to 3.5 metres deep to allow for welding onto the



9AECOM

existing pipeline and drilling into it. Additional excavations would be required to install the buriedpipework, concrete retaining wall, concrete foundations and the large concrete valve pits that enablethe EOLSS to remain buried under normal operation by allowing operation of the valves to beaccessible from the surface. It is unlikely that groundwater would be intersected based on the site’selevation and regional data.

Design/operationTrench breakers:

The design of the pipeline includes the installation of ‘trench breakers’ (also known as trench blocks)across the space between the pipeline and the trench (that is, the annulus). These prevent scour ofthe trench by impeding lateral water flow along the trench annulus, and are installed at intervals insloping terrain and where overbends are required to increase or decrease the elevation of the pipelineover a short distance (such as at MLVs and watercourses).

Trench breakers are installed in a number of ways within the trench void around the pipe which mayinclude sandbags containing sand and dry mix cement compacted under and around the pipe or sandand dry mix cement placed in-situ around the pipe.

Figure 1-5 Typical trench breaker details (see APA drawing CPT.23737-DWG-L-0106 in Appendix A)

Backfill:

Rocks and other deleterious material that could affect the pipe coating are removed to allow re-use ofexcavated material. The fines are used for bedding and padding around the pipe in trenches and bellholes and the remaining material compacted in layers on top of the fines as cover above the pipe.

Hydrostatic testing:

The pipeline would be tested for leaks following installation. This is termed hydrostatic testing andinvolves filling a section of the pipeline with water and then pressurising it. Approximately 15megalitres of water would be used during hydrostatic testing. Following testing, subject to confirmationof the water quality, the water would be released onto adjoining land with appropriate slope, soil andgroundcover characteristics. Water release occurs through a dewatering structure designed to slowthe flow of water.

1.2.7 Groundwater considerations at the Crib Point Receiving FacilityMost construction activities and infrastructure installed at the Gas Import Jetty Works would be aboveground and are not considered as part of the groundwater study.



10AECOM

Sections of below ground pipeline, including the bored section beneath The Esplanade that starts atthe Crib Point Receiving Facility, are considered part of the pipeline alignment in this groundwaterassessment.

Piling:

The installation of concrete flight auger (CFA) piles beneath the nitrogen tank is proposed at the CribPoint Receiving Facility. The technique involves boring a vertical hole to the required depth usingaugers. Concrete slurry is then pumped through the centre of the augers as they are removed from thehole, thereby backfilling the bored hole with concrete and reducing the potential for hole collapse.

Up to 100 piles, but more likely in the order of 70 piles, are proposed beneath the nitrogen tankmeasuring 25 metres in diameter. The piles would be terminated in competent rock (‘bedrock’) at up to20 metres below ground surface and have a minimum centre-to centre spacing of 2.4 metres(conservatively assuming 100 pile design).

The need for additional piles under the retaining wall or equipment slabs is considered unlikely and notconsidered further.

1.3 Project AreaThe Project Area is situated between Crib Point and Pakenham East in Victoria within the localgovernment areas of Mornington Peninsula Shire, the City of Casey and Cardinia Shire.

The Project Area includes the construction and operation footprints for the Gas Import Jetty Works andthe Pipeline Works. The Project Area also includes the locations of previous pipeline alignment optionsthat were assessed over the course of the EES which are no longer being considered.

The Project Area is detailed in EES Attachment VII Map book. An overview of the Project showing theproposed pipeline alignment and current options is shown in Figure 1-1.

The Gas Import Jetty Works would be located within Western Port at the existing Crib Point Jetty andon land immediately adjacent. The Crib Point Jetty is located within the Port of Hastings and within anarea designated as a wetland of international significance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlandsof International Importance (the Western Port Ramsar site).

The Pipeline Works would be located on land between the Crib Point Receiving Facility and aconnection point to the VTS east of Pakenham.

The pipeline alignment was selected to minimise impacts on sensitive land uses and where possiblefollows existing pipeline easements.

The pipeline would be located on land used for various purposes including rural residential living, roadcorridors, industry, conservation reserves, hobby farming, horse studs and agriculture. The pipelinewould generally follow the Stony Point rail reserve through Hastings.

Towards Pakenham, the pipeline would cross the Gippsland rail line before reaching the proposedPakenham Delivery Facility adjacent to the Pakenham East rail depot and connecting to the VTS northof the Princes Highway.

1.3.1 Study areaThis groundwater impact assessment includes any intrusive works in the Project Area that mayintersect groundwater, as well as surrounding areas where groundwater levels or groundwater qualitycould be impacted. The groundwater study area includes the pipeline alignment, its options and abuffer area of 200 metres either side of the pipeline, considered sufficient to encompass potentialgroundwater impacts from the Project. The groundwater study area also includes the Crib PointReceiving Facility portion of the Gas Import Jetty Works, where a section of trenching and piling tosupport the facility’s nitrogen storage tank are proposed. The study area is shown in Figure 1-6 below.



11AECOM

Figure 1-6 Study area



12AECOM

2.0 Scoping requirementsThe EES scoping requirements for the Project were issued by the Victorian Minister for Planning inFebruary 2019, and augment the key matters listed in the Minister's decision to require an EES. Thescoping requirements set out the specific matters to be investigated and documented in the EES in thecontext of the Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the EnvironmentEffects Act 1978. The EES is an accredited assessment process for the purposes of the assessmentof the Project under the EPBC Act, and the EES scoping requirements also include matters to beassessed under the EPBC Act.

2.1 EES evaluation objectivesThe following draft evaluation objective is relevant to groundwater and identifies the desired outcomesin the context of potential Project effects. The draft evaluation objectives, as set out in the final scopingrequirements, provide a framework to guide integrated assessment of the environmental effects of theProject. These draft evaluation objectives are to be used in the context of the relevant legislativerequirements set out in Section 3.0.

Draft evaluation objective for groundwater

Water and catchment values – To minimise adverse effects on water (including groundwater,waterway, wetland, estuarine, intertidal and marine) quality and movement particularly as theymight affect the ecological character of the Western Port Ramsar site.

2.2 Assessment of specific environmental effectsThe following extracts from the scoping requirements, issued by the Minister for Planning, are relevantto the draft evaluation objective listed above.Table 2-1 Scoping requirements for the groundwater impact assessment

Aspect Scoping requirement ReferKey issues The potential for adverse effects on the

functions, values and beneficial uses ofgroundwater due to the Project, ongroundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs)and the ecological character of the WesternPort Ramsar site due to changes ingroundwater levels, behaviour or quality.

The potential for adverse effects on nearbyand downstream water environments due tochanged flow regimes, floodplain storage, run-off rates, water quality changes, or otherwaterway conditions during construction andoperation, in the context of relevant climatechange projections.

Section 7.0 (Impactassessment)

EES Technical Report C:Surface water impactassessment

EES Technical Report E:Contamination and acid sulfatesoils impact assessment

EES Technical Report B:Terrestrial and freshwaterbiodiversity impact assessment

EES Technical Report A: Marinebiodiversity impact assessment

Priorities forcharacterisingthe existingenvironment

Describe marine, estuarine, intertidal andfreshwater waters that could be affected, withrespect to water quality, water behaviour andbeneficial uses.

Characterise the local groundwater quality andbehaviour, including the protected beneficialuses and values and identifying any GDEs thatmight be affected by the Project.

Section 5.0 (Existing conditions)

EES Technical Report C:Surface water impactassessment

Technical Report E:Contamination and, acid sulfatesoils impact assessment



13AECOM

Aspect Scoping requirement ReferCharacterise the interaction between surfacewater and groundwater within the Project andbroader area.

Detail and evaluate the hydrological/hydro-geological modelling techniques utilised.

Technical Report B: Terrestrialand freshwater biodiversityimpact assessment

Technical Report A: Marinebiodiversity impact assessment

Design andmitigationmeasures

Identify and evaluate aspects of project worksand operations, and proposed designrefinement options or measures, that couldavoid or minimise significant effects on water,waterway or wetland environments.

Describe further potential and proposed designoptions and measures that could avoid orminimise significant effects on beneficial usesof surface water, groundwater anddownstream water environments during theproject’s construction and operation, includingresponse measures for environmentalincidents.

Section 6.0 (Risk assessment)Section 7.0 (Impactassessment)Section 8.0 (Mitigationmeasures)

Technical Report C: Surfacewater impact assessment

Technical Report E:Contamination and acid sulfatesoil impact assessment

Assessment oflikely effects

Identify and evaluate effects of the project andalternatives on groundwater, surface water,waterways and wetlands near the projectworks, including the likely extent, magnitudeand duration (short and long term) of changesto water quality, water level, temperature orflow paths during construction and operation,considering appropriate climate changescenarios and possible cumulative effectsresulting in combination with other existing orproposed projects of actions.

Section 7.0 (Impactassessment)


Technical Report E:Contamination and acid sulfatesoils impact assessment

Approach tomanageperformance

Describe any further methods that areproposed to manage risks of effects ongroundwater and surface water and catchmentvalues, as well as water quality, to form part ofthe Environmental Management Framework.

Describe any further methods that areproposed to manage risks of effects as a resultof nearby projects impacting on water inflow towater environments and catchment values, aswell as water quality.

Describe and evaluate the approach tomonitoring and the proposed contingencymeasures to be implemented in the event ofadverse residual effects on water quality andcatchment values requiring furthermanagement.

Describe and evaluate the approach tomonitoring and the proposed ongoingmanagement measures to be implemented toavoid adverse residual effects on the WesternPort Ramsar site.

Section 8.0 (Mitigationmeasures)


Technical Report E:Contamination and acid sulfatesoils impact assessment

Technical Report B: Terrestrialand freshwater biodiversityimpact assessment

Technical Report A: Marinebiodiversity impact assessment



14AECOM

In the context of this report, ‘effects’ includes all potential direct, indirect, on-site and off-siteenvironmental impacts resulting from the Project. The description and assessment of effects is notconfined to the immediate area of the Project but also considers the potential of the Project to impacton adjacent or other areas that could be affected, in the context of a systems-based approach.

3.0 Legislation, policy and guidelinesTable 3-1 summarises the relevant legislation that applies to the Project in the context of thisgroundwater impact assessment as well as the implications and required approvals.Table 3-1 Primary environmental legislation and associated information on groundwater

Document Description Implications for the Project Works AreaStateLegislation

EnvironmentEffects Act1978(EnvironmentEffects Act)

The Environment Effects Actprovides a regime whereprojects with potentiallysignificant environmentalimpacts may require thepreparation of an EES forassessment by the Minister forPlanning. An EES may berequired for declared ’publicworks’ or works determined bythe Minister for Planning torequire an EES followingreferral. Where an EES isrequired, the Minister forPlanning will issue scopingrequirements to guidepreparation of the EES.Once the EES is prepared it isplaced on exhibition for publiccomment (typically for 20 to 30days).The Minister for Planning mayappoint an inquiry to assess theimpacts of the project, takinginto account the EES studiesand any public submissions.This can involve a formalhearing.The Minister for Planningsubsequently provides anassessment (typically within 25business days of the inquiryreport being received), havingconsidered the proponent’sresponse, public submissions,EES documents and the inquiryreport. The relevant statutorydecision-makers must considerthe Minister for Planning’sAssessment when decidingwhether to approve the projectand, if so, on what conditions.

On 8 October 2018, theVictorian Minister for Planningdetermined that an EES wasrequired for the Gas ImportJetty Works and Pipeline Works(as a single joint project). InFebruary 2019, the Minister forPlanning issued the scopingrequirements for the Project.The EES has been prepared inaccordance with these scopingrequirements, which require theassessment of a range ofspecific environmental effects.The EES would be placed onpublic exhibition and an inquirywould be appointed to considerthe environmental effects of theprojects. At the conclusion ofthe EES assessment processthe Minister for Planning’sAssessment Report would beprovided to the relevantstatutory decision-makers toinform their decisions whetherto grant approvals for theprojects.

Gas ImportJetty Worksand PipelineWorks



15AECOM


Water Act1989(Water Act)

The Water Act provides thelegal framework for theintegrated management ofVictoria’s water resources. Themain purpose of the Act is topromote the efficient andequitable use of waterresources and ensure waterresources are conserved andappropriately managed forsustainable use. The Water Actprovides a formal means ofprotecting and enhancingwaterway flow, water qualityand catchment conditions. TheAct applies to the managementof groundwater and imposeslicensing requirements inrelation to the dewatering ofgroundwater.For groundwater in southernVictoria, DELWP has delegatedthis responsibility to SouthernRural Water (includinglicensing).

Bore construction licences wereobtained from Southern RuralWater for the installation ofmonitoring wells as part of theEES assessment process.Preliminary discussionsbetween APA and SouthernRural Water have indicated thatrequirement for an extractionlicence is not anticipated fordewatering works.

PipelineWorks

EnvironmentProtection Act1970(EnvironmentProtectionAct)

The Environment Protection Actprovides a legal framework toprotect the environment inVictoria, including theprotection of air, land and waterfrom pollution. The Act isoutcome oriented, with a basicphilosophy of preventingpollution and environmentaldamage by settingenvironmental qualityobjectives and establishingprograms to meet them.The Environment Protection Actestablishes the EPA Victoria toadminister the Act and anyregulations and orders madeunder the Act, including ordersdeclaring SEPPs.

The Act regulates the dischargeto surface water or groundwaterby a system of licences andWorks Approvals. Anydischarge into a waterway orgroundwater during theconstruction or operation of theProject must be in accordancewith the requirements of theEnvironment Protection Act,including relevant SEPPs


Pipelines Act2005(PipelinesAct)

The Pipelines Act is the primaryAct governing the constructionand operation of pipelines inVictoria. The Pipelines Actcovers ‘high transmission’pipelines for the conveyance ofgas, oil and other substances.

The Project requires a PipelineLicence under the Pipelines Actfor the construction andoperation of the PipelineWorks.Mitigation measures tominimise impacts from pipeline

PipelineWorks



16AECOM


DELWP and Energy SafeVictoria are responsible foradministering the Act and thePipelines Regulations 2017.

construction on groundwaterwould be incorporated in thePipeline Works ConstructionEnvironment Management Plan(CEMP).

Policy / guidelines / standards

SEPP(Waters)(2018)

SEPPs are subordinate to theEnvironment Protection Act.SEPP (Waters) provides aframework for the protectionand management of waterresources in Victoria, coveringsurface waters, estuarine andmarine waters and groundwateracross the State.SEPP (Waters) aims to protectthe beneficial uses of waterresources, set water qualityindicators and objectives, andestablish rules and obligationsto achieve these objectives..

The EP Act requires that anydischarge to waters must beconsistent with SEPP (Waters).The Project would minimise thepotential impacts ongroundwater quality during theconstruction of the PipelineWorks to ensure that existingbeneficial uses are protectedthrough the Pipeline WorksCEMP. There would be noongoing impacts onceconstruction of the PipelineWorks is completed. TheEnvironmental ManagementPlan (EMP) included in theIncorporated Document in thePlanning Scheme Amendmentrequired for the Gas ImportJetty Works (including theFSRU) would also incorporatemeasures to protect beneficialuses of groundwater.




17AECOM

4.0 MethodologyA systematic risk-based approach has been applied to understand the existing environment, potentialimpacts of the Project and how to avoid, minimise or manage the risk of impact.

The following sections outline the method for the groundwater impact assessment.

4.1 Existing conditions assessmentThe purpose of defining existing conditions is to inform the assessment of potential impacts from theProject. The existing conditions are described using both publicly available data and data collectedduring a field program conducted in December 2018 and January 2019. This is described furtherbelow.

4.1.1 Desktop assessmentThe publicly available data sources used in the preparation of this report are summarised in Table 4-1.Table 4-1 Publicly available data sources

Data Source

Hydrology Melbourne Water:https://www.melbournewater.com.au/water/health-and-monitoring/river-health-and-monitoring/westernport-catchmentWaterway Crossing Assessment prepared by Alluvium ConsultingAustralia (Coffey, 2018)

Aquifer units SRW Port Phillip and Western Port Atlas (SRW, 2014)Victorian Aquifer Framework2:https://www.water.vic.gov.au/groundwater/victorias-groundwater-resources/victorian-aquifer-framework

Groundwater levels DELWP Water Management Information System:http://data.water.vic.gov.au/monitoring.htmCrib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Project Desktop Geotechnical andHydrology Study (Coffey, 2018)Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)database

Groundwater management SRW Koo Wee Rup WSPA (SRW, 2010)

Groundwater salinity Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)database

Groundwater users DELWP Water Management Information System:http://data.water.vic.gov.au/monitoring.htm

GDEs Bureau of Meteorology: GDE Atlas:http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/map.shtml

Groundwater - surfacewater interactions

Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric Surface HydrologyCatchments datasethttps://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/groundwater-surface-water-interaction

4.1.2 Field programThe purpose of the field program was to determine if any shallow aquifers are present along theproposed pipeline alignment and, if so, characterise the groundwater quality, depth to groundwaterand hydraulic conductivity of those aquifers.

2 Victorian Aquifer Framework - developed by DSE (now DELWP). May 2012



18AECOM

To achieve this, 26 shallow groundwater monitoring bores were installed along the pipeline alignmentin December 2018 and January 2019, with all bores developed and gauged. The monitoring networkwas based on:

· targeted bores:

- in low lying parts of the landscape, typically near surface water courses, where shallowgroundwater associated with alluvial sediments might be expected to be encountered

- at sites with the potential to contaminate groundwater (discussed in EES Technical Report EContamination and acid sulfate soils impact assessment)

- based on the various mapped surface geology

· infill bores:

- located along the alignment between targeted bores above to provide coverage along thelength of the proposed pipeline.

A selection of wells with enough water column for sampling and aquifer testing were chosen to providespatial coverage along the alignment, and coverage of the differing lithology encountered (i.e. clay,silty clays, sand etc.).

A summary of the groundwater investigation activities completed in the study area is presented inTable 4-2 below.Table 4-2 Field program summary table

Bore ID CPT ID DateDrilled

DateDeveloped

DateAquiferTested

DateSampled

Date Gauged/Surveyed

GW02 CPT000_GW02 10/01/19 16/01/19 - - 30/01/19

GW03 CPT000_GW03 10/01/19 16/01/19 - - 30/01/19

GW04 CPT040_B_GW04 8/01/19 15/01/19 22/01/19 23/1/419 30/01/19

GW05 CPT045_GW05 8/01/19 15/01/19 22/01/19 23/01/19 30/01/19

MW01 CPT006_MW01 6/12/18 12/12/18 21/01/19 25/01/19 30/01/19

MW02 CPT012_MW02 5/12/18 8/12/18 21/01/19 23/01/19 30/01/19

MW03 CPT012_MW03 5/12/18 8/12/18 21/01/19 23/01/19 30/01/19

MW04 CPT015_MW04 5/12/18 8/12/18 - - 30/01/19

MW05 CPT022_MW05 4/12/18 12/12/18 21/01/19 25/01/19 30/01/19

MW06 CPT027_MW06 8/01/19 15/01/19 - - 30/01/19

MW07 CPT040_B_MW07 18/12/18 19/12/18 22/01/19 24/01/19 30/01/19

MW08 CPT000_MW08 10/01/19 16/01/19 22/01/19 - 30/01/19

MW09 CPT051_MW09 17/12/18 19/12/18 22/01/19 23/01/19 30/01/19

MW10 CPT055_MW10 3/12/18 8/12/18 23/01/19 23/01/19 30/01/19

MW11 CPT000_MW11 9/01/19 15/01/19 21/01/19 23/01/19 30/01/19

MW12 CPT064_MW12 7/12/18 12/12/18 - - 30/01/19

MW13 CPT068_MW13 7/12/18 12/12/18 - - 30/01/19

MW14 CPT037_B_MW14 3/12/18 8/12/18 23/01/19 24/01/19 30/01/19

MW15 CPT000_MW15 9/01/19 16/01/19 24/01/19 22/01/19 30/01/19

MW16 CPT000_MW16 9/01/19 15/01/19 - - 30/01/19

MW17 CPT099_MW17 11/01/19 15/01/19 - - 30/01/19



19AECOM

Bore ID CPT ID DateDrilled

DateDeveloped

DateAquiferTested

DateSampled

Date Gauged/Surveyed

MW18 CPT107_MW18 4/12/18 8/12/18 - - 30/01/19

MW19 CPT114_MW19 4/12/18 8/12/18 - - 30/01/19

MW21 CPT129_MW21 17/12/18 19/12/18 24/01/19 30/01/19 30/01/19

MW22 CPT134_MW22 6/12/18 8/12/18 24/01/19 30/01/19 30/01/19

MW23 CPT036_C_MW23 18/12/18 19/12/18 - - 30/01/19

Bore locations are included in Figure A1 (Appendix A). Additional details on well construction areprovided in Table B1 (Appendix B) and further information on the field program are provided inAppendix C. Results of the field program have been used to describe existing conditions (see Section5.0).

4.2 Risk assessment methodThe EES scoping requirements for the Project require that a risk-based approach be adopted forassessment of the potential impacts of the Project. A risk assessment was carried out using anapproach that is consistent with Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018 RiskManagement Process.

The risk assessment process provides a method for:

· facilitating a consistent approach to risk assessment across the various specialist studies in theEES

· identifying key Project risks to inform where detailed investigations are required

· ensuring the level of investigation is proportionate to the relative environmental risk

· assessing the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures and whether additional measuresmay be required.

Risk can be defined as a combination of:

· the magnitude of potential consequences of an event

· the likelihood of the event occurring.

The risk assessment process developed for the Project involved the assignment of consequence andlikelihood ratings which combined to give an overall risk level for each identified risk.

The initial findings of the impact assessment were used to identify and describe cause-and-effectpathways for the Project to determine links between Project activities and their subsequentenvironmental consequences (known as risk pathways). These risk pathways were identifiedconsidering the assets, values and uses requiring protection identified during the existing conditionsassessment.

Assigning consequence of risksIn this risk assessment, the consequences of a risk occurring were assigned using a consequenceguide. Specific consequence categories were developed considering existing conditions in the studyarea. The consequence rating criteria used in the risk assessment specifically for risks relating togroundwater is shown in Table 4-3.



20AECOM

Table 4-3 Groundwater consequence rating criteria

Level Qualitative description

Negligible Change to groundwater levels, flows or quality that does not result in either:· loss of one or more beneficial uses of groundwater, or· impact to groundwater users.1

Minor Changes to groundwater levels, flows or quality results in either of the following in alocal area (i.e. within the study area):· temporary loss of one or more beneficial uses of groundwater, or· temporary impact to groundwater users.

Moderate Changes to groundwater levels, flows or quality results in either of the following in alocal area (i.e. within the study area):· long-term loss of one or more beneficial uses of groundwater, or· long-term impact to groundwater users.

Major Changes to groundwater levels, flows or quality results in either of the following over awidespread area (i.e. beyond the study area):· long-term loss of one or more beneficial uses of groundwater, or· long-term impact to groundwater users.

Severe Changes to groundwater levels, flows or quality results in either of the following over awidespread area (i.e. beyond the study area):· permanent loss of one or more beneficial uses of groundwater, or· permanent impact to groundwater users.

Note: 1 – Groundwater users refers to GDEs and users of existing registered bores.

Assigning likelihood of risksA likelihood rating for each identified risk pathway was assigned using the guide in Table 4-4 below.The likelihood criteria in the risk assessment range across a scale from ‘almost certain’ where ‘theevent is expected to occur in most circumstances or is planned to occur’ to ‘rare’ where ‘the event mayoccur only in exceptional circumstances.’Table 4-4 Likelihood guide

Level Description

Rare The event may occur only in exceptional circumstances

Unlikely The event could occur but is not expected

Possible The event could occur

Likely The event will probably occur in most circumstances

Almost certain The event is expected to occur in most circumstances or is planned to occur

Risk assessment matrix and risk ratingThe consequence and likelihood were combined to arrive at a risk rating, using the risk assessmentmatrix shown in Table 4-5.



21AECOM

Table 4-5 Risk assessment matrix

Consequence ratingsNegligible Minor Moderate Major Severe

Likelihoodrating

Rare Very Low Very Low Low Medium Medium

Unlikely Very Low Low Low Medium High

Possible Low Low Medium High High

Likely Low Medium Medium High Very High

Almostcertain Low Medium High Very High Very High

Further information about the risk assessment process and the full risk register for the Project isdetailed in EES Attachment III Environmental risk report.

Application of mitigation measuresAn initial set of mitigation measures have been developed as part of this impact assessment. Thesemitigation measures are based on compliance with legislation and standard requirements that aretypically incorporated into the delivery of infrastructure projects of similar type, scale and complexity.

As the Pipeline Works design, construction methodology and operation strategies were wellprogressed at the commencement of this impact assessment, mitigating measures that were alreadyincorporated in the Pipeline Works design were included as initial mitigation measures.

Initial risk ratings were applied to each identified risk pathway assuming that these initial mitigationmeasures were in place.

Additional mitigation measures were developed where the initial risk ratings were categorised asmedium or higher.

The initial and additional mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project description anddesign (where relevant) by AGL and APA and included in the EMF to effectively manage theenvironmental performance of the Project during construction and operation. See Chapter 25Environmental Management Framework for further detail on how the mitigation measures areproposed to be implemented.

The risk and impact assessment process is iterative. Potential impacts were reassessed after the riskassessment and after mitigation measures were refined. The level of residual risk was reassessedusing the same methodology to confirm the mitigation measure is effective in mitigating or managingpotential impacts, so the Project is able to satisfy the draft evaluation objectives set out in the EESscoping requirements.

4.3 Impact assessment methodPotential impacts to groundwater (quantity and quality) that could arise from the Project have beenidentified for the Pipeline Works and for piling works at the Crib Point Receiving Facility, both in termsof construction and a design life of approximately 60 years for the Pipeline Works and 20 years for theGas Import Jetty Works.

The impact assessment included consideration of drawdown on the watertable from dewatering oftrenched sections and bell holes associated with horizontal boring, the potential for the pipeline to altergroundwater flows in the long term, and the potential for the installation of piles at the Crib PointReceiving Facility to alter groundwater levels, flow and quality.



22AECOM

The method for these estimates is discussed in more detail below and potential groundwater risks areprovided in Table 6-1.

4.3.1 Dewatering drawdown estimatesIf groundwater is intersected by sections of open trench and/or thrust bore bell holes, short-termdewatering (i.e. removal of groundwater) may be required prior to pipeline installation. Drawdown ofgroundwater from dewatering the smaller tie-in bell holes for entry and exit points of mini-HDD andHDD has conservatively been assumed to be the same as that of the thrust bore bell holes whichmeans that the highest level of potential impact is being assessed.

Potential groundwater impacts associated with the EOLSS facility are considered in Section 7.0,however, the depth to groundwater is anticipated to be between five and 10 metres (from VisualisingVictoria’s Groundwater (VVG) website3) and not likely to be intersected.

The Theis (1935) analytical solution was used to conservatively estimate the extent of drawdown (i.e.magnitude of groundwater level decline) induced by the short-term dewatering based on twoscenarios:

i. 100 metres section of open cut trench

ii. thrust bore bell hole and HDD tie-in bell holes.

For the 100 metres open cut trench scenario, a line of pumping bores was used to simulate adrawdown of approximately two metres within the trench. This was achieved by varying the pumpingrate of an individual well and the spacing of wells along the trench section. The cumulative drawdownfrom all wells was then considered at varying distances from the trench after two days of pumping. It isnoted that increasing the length of dewatered trench does not affect the estimated maximumdrawdown distances.

A similar approach was used for the thrust bore bell hole scenario. In this case however, a line ofpumping bores was used along both long edges of the bell hole to simulate a drawdown ofapproximately 3.5 metres within a 10 metre (long) by four metre (wide) by four metre (deep) bell hole.Again, individual pumping rates and well spacing were varied and the cumulative drawdowns atvarying distances from the bell hole were considered after ten days of pumping.

The drawdown estimates, and potential impacts associated with drawdown are discussed inSection 7.0.

4.3.2 Modification of groundwater flow regimeThe potential issue of groundwater flow being restricted by the Pipeline Works during operation(resulting in watertable mounding on the up hydraulic gradient side of the pipeline and watertablereduction on the down hydraulic gradient side of the pipeline) was considered. However, this issuewas not considered further in the risk and impact assessments, as it was not considered to be amaterial impact for the following reasons:

· The trench would be approximately two metres deep along much of the pipeline alignment andonly intersect groundwater along some sections.

· Although the 600 millimetres diameter pipe would impede flow, the surrounding trench is to bebackfilled with the excavated material or bedding sand and, as such, shallow groundwater flowcan be expected to continue across the trench without any material effect on groundwaterlevels.

The potential for piles beneath the nitrogen tank at the Crib Point Receiving Facility to cause changesto groundwater levels, flow and quality was considered and is discussed in Section 7.2.2.

The potential for preferential flow along the pipeline (via higher permeability backfill in the trench)causing a permanent reduction in groundwater levels around the pipeline was also considered and isdiscussed in Section 7.2.1.

3 https://www.vvg.org.au/



23AECOM

4.4 Assumptions and limitationsAssumptions and limitations relating to this groundwater impact assessment are provided below:

· the construction methodology would be as outlined in Section 1.2.

· the initial mitigation measures outlined in Section 8.0 would be employed as described.

4.5 Stakeholder engagementA program of stakeholder and community engagement has been undertaken to assist with Projectdevelopment (see EES Chapter 26 Stakeholder engagement).

Specific stakeholder engagement undertaken as part of this impact assessment is summarised inTable 4-6.Table 4-6 Groundwater stakeholder engagement

Activity When Key issues discussed Engagement outcomeMeeting with SouthernRural Water(Ringwood Office)

12 Oct 2018 Whether there was arequirement for permits orlicensing to extract waterfrom trenches duringpipeline construction.

Permit to extract water notrequired.

CommunityInformation Sessions(Round 1)

Feb - Mar 2019 Community membersraised concerns aboutimpacts to groundwater inagricultural areas in thenorth section of thealignment.

Potential risks andimpacts to groundwaterfor the entire alignmenthave been considered inSections 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0of this report, and EESTechnical Report E:Contamination and acidsulfate soils impactassessment.


Aug – Sep 2019 Concerns about themaintained pressure ofHDD and pipelineinstallation and its effectson the subsoil.

The risks and potentialimpacts from HDDoperations (includinguncontrolled drilling mudloss) are considered inSections 6.0, 7.1.3 and8.0.


Aug – Sep 2019 Questions on how APAhandles the ground watertable during HDD.

A description of the HDDtechnique is provided inSection 1.2.6, andpotential risks andimpacts from HDD drillingare considered inSections 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0of this report.



24AECOM

4.6 Linkage to other technical reportsThe groundwater impact assessment should be read in conjunction with other relevant technicalreports forming part of the EES. Other potential impacts relating to biodiversity, surface water andcontamination have been considered in detail in other technical reports.

The outcomes of the groundwater impact assessment were used as inputs to:

· EES Technical Report B: Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity impact assessment

· EES Technical Report C: Surface impact assessment

· EES Technical Report E Contamination and acid sulfate soils impact assessment

· EES Technical Report O: Agriculture impact assessment.

This report also considered the findings of:

· EES Technical Report A: Marine biodiversity impact assessment

· EES Technical Report B: Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity impact assessment

· EES Technical Report C: Surface water impact assessment

· EES Technical Report E: Contamination and acid sulfate soils impact assessment

Where relevant to groundwater, other technical reports are considered and referenced.



25AECOM

5.0 Existing conditionsExisting conditions within the study area are discussed below where they are relevant tounderstanding potential impacts to groundwater as a result of the proposed Project.

5.1 Topography and surface waterThe study area is solely located in the Western Port catchment.

The Western Port catchment varies from the hilly regions near the Bunyip State Park and StrzeleckiRanges to the low lying, flat to undulating terrain of the former Koo Wee Rup swamp with surfacewater draining from these topographic highs to Western Port.

The catchment has an area of around 3,700 square kilometres and contains over 2,200 kilometres ofrivers and creeks. Seventeen waterways enter Western Port including major rivers and creeks such asBunyip, Tarago, Cardinia, Yallock, Lang Lang and Bass River networks, all of which discharge directlyinto the Western Port Ramsar site.

Much of the catchment has been modified to support rural and green wedge land use. Historically, theKoo Wee Rup swamp covered large areas in the Western Port hinterland but was drained fordevelopment and has resulted in a number of watercourses in the lower catchment becomingchannelised drains. Although the area contains a mix of land uses, the predominant land use isagriculture consisting of dairying, grazing and horticulture.

The study area includes coastal floodplains in the lower reaches of the catchment where the relief ismostly low lying and generally flat to gently undulating. The ground surface elevation ranges fromapproximately one to two metres above sea level in the southern portion to 10-25 metres above sealevel over the northern portion, where the gently sloping topography grades up to the north.

5.2 GeologyThe site is located within the Western Port Basin (the Basin) which is a relatively shallow, structurallycontrolled sedimentary basin consisting of sediments and volcanic flows. The western side of theBasin coincides with the Clyde Monocline-Tyabb Fault System and the eastern extent is controlled bythe Heath Hill Fault. Basin sediments pinch out to the north against uplifted basement (SRW, 2010),and extend offshore to the south.

The sediments and volcanic flows of the basin form a multilayered aquifer system which is dominatedby a Tertiary Age sedimentary sequence that thickens to approximately 200 metres in the Koo WeeRup area, and pinches out along Basin margins.

The Tertiary Age sediments are overlain by a relatively thin veneer of Quaternary sediments, includingcoastal and inland dune deposits, swamp and lake deposits and alluvial deposits; although thesesediments thicken to between 10 and 50 metres in the Koo Wee Rup area.

The outcropping units in the study area are shown on Figure A1 (Appendix A) and summarised inTable 5-1 below.

The maximum depth of trench excavations along the pipeline alignment would be three metres (atroad crossings), but more typically would be two metres deep. Where thrust boring is required themaximum depth of entry and exit pit bell holes would be up to four metres deep. The geologyencountered to this depth during the field program is all unconsolidated and includes clay, silt andsand with occasional gravels. Fill overlies this sediment in places. The bore logs are presented inAppendix D.

Gas

Impo

rt Je

tty a

nd P

ipel

ine

Proj

ect E

nviro

nmen

t Effe

cts

Stat

emen

tTe

chni

cal R

epor

t D: G

roun

dwat

er im

pact

ass

essm

ent

Prep

ared

for –

AG

L W

hole

sale

Gas

Lim

ited

and

APA

Tra

nsm

issi

on P

ty L

imite

d –

6059

2634

26A

ECO

M

Tabl

e 5-

1 W

este

rn P

ort g

eolo

gica

l and

hyd

roge

olog

ical

sum

mar

y

Geo

logi

cal

Uni

tM

ain

Occ

urre

nce

Dep

th to

Aqu

ifer U

nit

Thic

knes

sLi

thol

ogy

Aqu

ifer

Laye

rH

ydro

geol

ogic

alLa

yers

Hyd

roge

olog

ical

Uni

tD

une

Dep

osits

Smal

loc

curre

nces

;C

ranb

ourn

ean

d La

ng L

ang

area

s

Out

crop

ping

Thin

,m

ostly

less

than

6m

Sand

, med

ium

to c

oars

e qu

artz

Upp

erQ

A Q

uate

rnar

yU

ndiff

eren

tiate

dre

cent

sed

imen

ts

Allu

vial

Dep

osits

Long

war

ry to

Dal

mor

eO

utcr

oppi

ngLe

ss th

an7

mC

lay,

san

d an

dgr

avel

Wes

tern

Port

Gro

upTh

roug

hout

Out

crop

tosu

bcro

p fo

r mos

tof

eas

t are

a. U

pto

75

m c

lay

cove

r in

wes

t

20 to

175

mSa

nd, g

rave

l,lim

esto

ne, c

lay,

silt

and

ligni

te

Mid

dle

UTA

F U

pper

Terti

ary

Aqui

fer

(Flu

vial

)

Baxt

er S

ands

tone

(Red

Blu

ffSa

ndst

one)

UM

TA U

pper

Mid

Terti

ary

Aqui

fer

Sher

woo

d &

Yallo

ck F

orm

atio

nO

lder

Volc

anic

sTh

roug

hout

Out

crop

inC

ranb

ourn

e an

dal

ong

Hea

th H

illFa

ult.

Up

to 2

50m

cov

er in

cent

ral B

asin

.

10 to

75

mBa

salt,

bas

altic

clay

Low

erLT

B Lo

wer

Terti

ary

Basa

ltsO

lder

Vol

cani

cs

Chi

lder

sFo

rmat

ion

Mai

noc

curre

nce:

Yallo

ck-

Yann

atha

n-La

ng L

ang

area

10 to

75

m5

to 5

0 m

Sand

and

gra

vel

with

lign

ite b

eds

LTA

Low

erTe

rtiar

y Aq

uife

rC

hild

ers

Form

atio

n

Base

men

tTh

roug

hout

Out

crop

at B

asin

mar

gins

. >40

0 m

in c

entra

l Bas

in

-Si

ltsto

ne,

sand

ston

e,cl

ayst

one

and

gran

ite.

BSE

Mes

ozoi

can

d Pa

laeo

zoic

bedr

ock

Perm

ian

glac

ial

sedi

men

ts, a

llPa

laeo

zoic

base

men

t roc

kN

ote:

hig

hlig

hted

row

s in

dica

te k

ey g

eolo

gica

l uni

ts c

onsi

dere

d re

leva

nt to

the

Pro

ject

.

27Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Environment Effects StatementTechnical Report D: Groundwater impact assessment


5.3 HydrogeologyIn the southern portion of the Pipeline Works area, the outcropping geology is predominantlyQuaternary coastal and inland dune deposits, Quaternary alluvial sediments and outcropping UpperTertiary Red Bluff sandstone where the Quaternary sediments are absent. Groundwater is likely to belimited in lateral and vertical extent within the Quaternary sediments. Where Quaternary sedimentsbecome thinner, the watertable aquifer would be formed by the outcropping to sub-cropping weatheredRed Bluff sandstone.

Further north (from approximately kilometric point KP30), the pipeline turns inland towards Pakenhamand the Pipeline Works area is underlain by a thicker sequence of Quaternary swamp and lakesediments associated with floodplains in the Koo Wee Rup area. Here, sediments are likely to be 10 to50 metres thick and include silty clay, silts and clay lenses. Where saturated, they are likely to be lowyielding and have higher salinity groundwater (SRW, 2014).

The final two kilometres or thereabouts of the pipeline (from KP55.0) is inferred to be underlain byoutcropping basalts of the Older Volcanics Lower Tertiary Basalts aquifer. Groundwater levels areinferred to be from 10 to greater than 20 metres below ground surface (mbgs) in this area. Nomonitoring wells were installed in the basalt.

The key hydrogeological units in the study area are summarised in Table 5-1 above.

Regional groundwater flow is from the Basin margins towards Western Port. The presence of shallowaquitards, surface water features and groundwater extraction locally affect depths to groundwater.

Previous environmental investigations carried out at the Crib Point Receiving Facility have includedthe installation of monitoring wells, with groundwater levels encountered between 6.8 and 7.5 mbgs in1997 (CMPS&F, 1997 – as referenced in Jacobs, 2017). Groundwater level gauging, carried out at fivemonitoring bores in March 2017, encountered groundwater at between 6.11 and 8.35 metres belowtop of casing (mbtoc) in the western portion of the Crib Point Facility. Proposed trenching at thislocation and horizontal boring beneath Woolleys Road and The Esplanade are therefore notanticipated to intersect groundwater.

Depth to water was measured in January 2019 at all 26 monitoring wells installed as part of the EESgroundwater investigations. At four of the 26 wells the water level was below the base of the well andthe wells were recorded as being dry. That is, water levels were at least four metres below ground(MW04, MW23, MW17, MW19). Seven of the 26 wells had water levels shallower than two metresbelow ground, which is the typical base of open cut trenched sections. These wells are GW05, MW02,MW05, MW09, MW10, MW21, and MW22. A further five wells had water levels between two and threemetres below ground (GW04, MW07, MW13, MW14, MW15).

See Table B2 (Appendix B) and Figure A1 (Appendix A) for depths to groundwater.

There are no long-term water level data available from the bores installed and therefore, the seasonalwater level fluctuations have not been measured. However, it is typical in shallow, near shore aquifersto have seasonal fluctuations typically in the order of 0.5 metres, but in some instances up to twometres. Water levels tend to be shallowest in late winter and spring and deepest in late summer.Longer term fluctuations also occur due to changes in climate (e.g. drought periods).

The implications of the hydrogeological conditions described above are discussed in Section 7.0.

5.4 Hydraulic conductivityHydraulic conductivity is a measure of how quickly groundwater can flow through the sub-surface. It ishigher in a porous aquifer like sands and lower in fine-grained, clay dominant aquifers. If hydraulicconductivity is very low, the unit is often referred to as an aquitard rather than an aquifer.

Aquifer testing was undertaken in selected bores along the pipeline alignment in order to estimate thehydraulic conductivity, as described in Section 4.1.2. The results are summarised in Table 5-2 below,the slug testing methodology is described in Appendix C, and outputs provided in Appendix E.



The results show the hydraulic conductivity ranged from 2.6x10-4 to 3.2x10-1 metres per day with ageometric mean of 7.2x10-3 metres per day (8 x10-6 centimetres per second). This broadly classifiesthe aquifer tested and to be intersected by the pipeline as a clay or silty clay (Fetter, 2000).

The implications of the hydraulic conductivity described above are discussed in Section 7.0.Table 5-2 Summary of hydraulic conductivity estimates

Well ID Date Geology at screen Hydraulic conductivity (m/day)

GW04 22/01/2019 SAND 9.7E-03

GW05 22/01/2019 Clayey SAND 1.6E-02

MW05 21/01/2019 CLAY and SILT 1.4E-02

MW07 22/01/2019 CLAY/Sandy CLAY/Gravelly CLAY 2.6E-04

MW08 22/01/2019 Sandy CLAY 2.5E-03

MW09 22/01/2019Sandy CLAY/Clayey SAND

6.6E-02

MW09 22/01/2019 8.9E-02

MW10 23/01/2019Sandy CLAY

2.6E-01**

MW10 23/01/2019 3.2E-01

MW11 21/01/2019 CLAY 1.8E-03

MW14 23/01/2019 CLAY 2.8E-03

MW15 24/01/2019 CLAY 3.7E-03

MW21 24/01/2019 CLAY 2.0E-03

MW22 24/01/2019 CLAY 7.1E-03

Minimum 2.6E-04Maximum 3.2E-01Geometric Mean 7.2E-03Notes:** - Falling head test resultTests were completed on MW01, MW02 and MW03 but no results were determined due to insufficient displacement.The Butler method was used to select appropriate time period for all wells except MW15 (see Appendix C).

5.5 Groundwater managementThe central and northern portion of the proposed pipeline alignment falls within the Koo Wee RupWater Supply Protection Area (KWR WSPA), as shown in Figure A1 (Appendix A). The remainder islocated within the general Unincorporated Area.

The KWR WSPA consists of seven sub-zones and includes a Coastal Buffer area. Although no verticallimit has been placed on the depth of the KWR WSPA, it is predominantly applied to the groundwaterresource in the Western Port Group which would not be intersected during construction of the pipeline.

The KWR WSPA is managed via a Groundwater Management Plan (SRW, 2010), which documentsall local management rules including rules on trade, metering, groundwater monitoring, licenses andconsultation. A Permissible Consumptive Volume of 12,915 megalitres per year currently applies tothe KWR WSPA. While no restrictions are placed on current licence holders, no new licences wouldbe issued except for those specified in prescription of the Groundwater Management Plan.

The Unincorporated Area has no groundwater management plans or local restrictions.

It is anticipated that a permit to extract groundwater for trench dewatering during pipeline constructionwould not be required based on discussions between APA and SRW (see Table 4-6).



Water would likely be required for the pipeline construction, including for dust suppression andhydrostatic testing of the pipeline. If this water is sourced from groundwater within the KWR WSPA,then a temporary entitlement may need to be purchased from an existing licence holder as the KWRWSPA is fully allocated.

5.6 Groundwater quality and beneficial usesThe aquifer yield (a reflection of its permeability) and salinity (usually measured as total dissolvedsolids in milligrams per litre) of groundwater in the Quaternary sediments of the Upper Aquifer isknown to be highly variable, which reflects the heterogeneity of the soil type (clay, clayey silts/sands),aquifer thickness, and depth to groundwater.

Groundwater salinity was measured in 14 monitoring wells along the pipeline alignment, as describedin Section 4.1.2. The salinity, measured as total dissolved solids (TDS), ranged from 1,253 milligramsper litre at MW07 to 16,414 milligrams per litre at MW11 with an average of 6,334 milligrams per litre.

Previous environmental investigations carried out at the Crib Point Receiving Facility (part of the GasImport Jetty Works area) have indicated a TDS range of 302 to 3,760 mg/L; with an average TDS of1,621.5 mg/L (Jacobs, 2017). This is broadly consistent with regional mapping that indicates a TDSrange of 1,000 and 3,000 mg/L beneath the Crib Point Receiving Facility.

Regional TDS mapping and monitoring well data are presented on Figure A2 (Appendix A) and inTable B3 (Appendix B).

The State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Waters), provides a framework to ‘protect andimprove the quality of Victoria’s waters having regard to the principles of environment protection setout in the Environment Protection Act 1970’. Groundwater segments are classified based onbackground total dissolved solids. Protected beneficial uses are provided for each segment, andgroundwater quality indicators and objectives are established to protect each beneficial use.

Groundwater across the Pipeline and Gas Import Jetty Works area is assumed as Segment B (1,201-3,100 milligrams per litre) based on salinity monitoring well data and regional mapping. The SegmentB beneficial uses to be protected include:

· water dependent ecosystems and species

· agriculture and irrigation (irrigation)

· agriculture and irrigation (stock watering)

· industrial and commercial

· water-based recreation (primary contact recreation)

· traditional owner cultural values

· cultural and spiritual values

· buildings and structures

· geothermal properties.

The implications of the groundwater quality and beneficial uses described above are discussed inSection 7.

5.7 Groundwater useThere are 69 registered groundwater bores in the study area, that is, within 200 metres of the pipelinealignment and options4 (not including the 26 monitoring wells installed as part of the EES groundwaterinvestigations). This includes eight bores designated with a status of ‘not used’. The total depth of the69 registered bores ranges from 5.4 metres below ground to 114.3 metres below ground.

4 Bore search undertaken on 10 January 2019, using the Water Measurement Information System maintained by theDepartment of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.



There is no information available on the aquifer screened by these bores. However, based on thedepths, most are likely screening the Quaternary (QA), Upper Tertiary (UTAF), and Upper Mid Tertiary(UMTA) Aquifers, as highlighted in Table 5-1.

Overall, 48 bores have been identified as being for consumptive purposes, which includes domestic,stock, irrigation, and unknown purposes. The number of bores in each category is summarised inTable 5-3 below.

Table 5-3 Registered groundwater bores in the study area

UseBores within 200 m ofthe pipeline alignmentand alternative options

Monitoring/observation usesObservation 5

Observation, groundwater investigation 1

Observation, State Observation Network 2

Groundwater investigation 10

Observation, State Observation Network, groundwater investigation 3

TOTAL – monitoring/observation 21Consumptive usesDomestic (including one bore with status ‘not used’) 3

Stock and domestic 18

Irrigation (including one bore with status ‘not used’) 3

Stock 15

Stock, domestic, irrigation 1

Unknown (including six bores with status ‘not used’) 8

TOTAL - consumptive uses 48

Potential impacts on consumptive use bores are discussed in Section 7.1.2.

5.7.1 Groundwater dependent ecosystemsThe Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Atlas (GDE Atlas) was developed as a national dataset ofAustralian GDEs (http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/map.shtml).

The Atlas contains information about:

· aquatic ecosystems that rely on the groundwater that discharges to the surface, including rivers,springs and wetlands

· terrestrial ecosystems that rely on the subsurface presence of groundwater, including vegetation

· subterranean ecosystems that live in caves and underground aquifers5.

The mapping is from two broad sources:

· national assessment: national scale assessment based on available geographic informationsystem (GIS) data and a set of rules that describe the potential for groundwater and ecosystemsto interact

5 The GDE Atlas does not contain information regarding subterranean GDESs for Victoria but is not considered relevant to thisstudy based on the geological formations intersected by the Project’s shallow construction activities.



· regional studies: more detailed assessment by state and/or regional agencies using field work,satellite imagery or application of conceptual models.

It is important to note that the identification of potential GDEs in the Atlas does not confirm that aparticular ecosystem is groundwater dependent.

Aquatic GDEsThe pipeline alignment intersects 11 watercourses designated as high potential GDEs through nationalassessment: Warringine Creek, Olivers Creek, Kings Creek, Watson Creek, Langwarrin Creek,Rutherford Creek, Western Outfall Creek, Cardinia Creek, Lower Gum Scrub Creek, Deep Creek andToomuc Creek. It is noted that the Western Port Ramsar site encompasses the last kilometre or so ofWatson Creek where it discharges into Western Port.

Between Crib Point (KP01) and the Pearcedale area (KP30), coastal wetlands described as semi-permanent saline and salt meadow wetlands that are classified as known GDEs (regional study) arewithin one to two kilometres of the pipeline alignment. Between KP19 and KP20, these GDEs fallwithin the study area (approximately 200 metres from the pipeline alignment). A number of high tomoderate potential aquatic GDEs (regional study) described as coastal wetlands/saltmarsh are alsowithin the study area. Between the Crib Point Receiving Facility and Hastings, some coastal saltmarsh(identified as potential aquatic GDEs from the GDE Atlas) are located within the Western Port Ramsarsite.

North of the Pearcedale area, the pipeline alignment turns northeast away from coastal GDEs andtowards Pakenham.

The location of potential GDEs is presented in Figure A3 (Appendix A).

Possible impacts to potential aquatic GDEs are discussed in Section 7.0.

Terrestrial GDEsThere are numerous moderate to high potential terrestrial GDEs (national assessment) that arecrossed by the pipeline alignment, particularly in the southern portion of the Pipeline Works areabetween Crib Point and the Pearcedale area. High potential terrestrial GDEs (national Assessment)are also mapped as being adjacent to the Crib Point Receiving Facility (part of the Gas Import Jettyworks). The potential GDEs include woodland, coastal saltmarsh, swamp scrub and salt meadows.Between the Crib Point Receiving Facility and Hastings, some coastal saltmarsh (identified aspotential terrestrial GDEs from the GDE Atlas) are located within the Western Port Ramsar site.

The location of potential GDEs is presented in Figure A3 (Appendix A).

Possible impacts to potential terrestrial GDEs are discussed in Section 7.0.

5.8 Groundwater - surface water interactionsSome watercourses and waterbodies receive groundwater discharge (termed ‘gaining’). A gainingwatercourse is typically perennial meaning that it flows even during low rainfall periods. However, anephemeral watercourse can also be gaining for short periods following a rainfall event and then dry up.Some watercourse and waterbodies act as recharge sources to groundwater (termed ‘losing’).Watercourses can change from gaining to losing over time and over short distances.

Where a watercourse is identified in the GDE Atlas as a potential GDE, this means that it is potentiallya gaining watercourse, that is, relying on groundwater to some extent. This includes the followingwatercourses that cross the pipeline alignment: Warringine Creek, Olivers Creek, Kings Creek,Watson Creek, Langwarrin Creek, Rutherford Creek, Western Outfall Creek, Cardinia Creek, LowerGum Scrub Creek, Deep Creek, and Toomuc Creek.

National mapping of major streams is available through the Australian Hydrological Geospatial FabricSurface Hydrology Catchments dataset. The available data is presented in Figure A3 (Appendix A)and shows that Toomuc Creek, which crosses the pipeline at approximately KP41, is a gainingwatercourse. This is consistent with the GDE Atlas mapping described above.



5.9 Summary: hydrogeological conceptual modelThe watertable in the study area is generally shallow (less than four metres below ground) and liesmostly within Quaternary sediments and Tertiary Red Bluff Sandstone. The water levels in mostmonitoring wells installed along the pipeline alignment are deeper than the depth of the pipeline trench(typically two metres). There is no Project specific monitoring data available on seasonal groundwaterlevel fluctuations. However, fluctuations of up to 0.5 to two metres are typical in comparable shallowgroundwater environments. Water levels tend to be shallowest in late winter and spring and deepest inlate summer. It is noted that the impact assessment conservatively assumes that the watertable iswithin 0.5 metres of ground surface during construction (Section 7.0).

Drilling along the pipeline alignment shows the shallow geology is mostly fine grained (clay andclay/silt) with occasional sands and gravelly sands. The hydraulic conductivity measured in shallowmonitoring wells is generally low (geometric mean of 0.007 metres per day) but up to 0.3 metres perday.

There are numerous potential aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems that may rely on groundwater,particularly in the southern portion of the study area. Groundwater may also discharge into streams.

There are 43 bores registered for consumptive uses (including irrigation, stock and domestic) withinthe study area (that is, within 200 metres of the pipeline).

The implications of the hydrogeological data presented in this section are discussed in Section 7.0,addressing potential impacts of the Project on groundwater.



6.0 Risk assessmentAn assessment of hydrogeology risks posed by the Project was undertaken in accordance with themethod described in Section 4.2. The initial and residual groundwater risks associated with the Projectare summarised in Table 6-1.

The initial risk ratings presented below consider an initial set of mitigation measures (where relevant),which are based on compliance with legislation and standard requirements that are typicallyincorporated into the delivery of infrastructure projects of similar type, scale and complexity. Riskratings were applied to each of the identified risk pathways assuming that these mitigation measureswere in place.

Except for the potential for damage or loss of registered bores during construction which was identifiedas a medium risk, all other initial risk ratings relating to groundwater were determined to be very low orlow with initial mitigation measures in place. With the inclusion of a number of additional mitigationmeasures, the subsequent residual risk ratings were determined to be low or very low.

34G

as Im

port

Jetty

and

Pip

elin

e Pr

ojec

t Env

ironm

ent E

ffect

s St

atem

ent

Tech

nica

l Rep

ort D

: Gro

undw

ater

impa

ct a

sses

smen

t

Prep

ared

for –

AG

L W

hole

sale

Gas

Lim

ited

and

APA

Tra

nsm

issi

on P

ty L

imite

d –

6059

2634

Tabl

e 6-

1 H

ydro

geol

ogy

risks

Ris

kID

Wor

ksar

eaR

isk

nam

eR

isk

path

way

Initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

Initi

al ri

skA

dditi

onal

miti

gatio

n m

easu

reR

esid

ual r

isk

CL

Ris

kC

LR

isk

Con

stru

ctio

nH

G1

Pipe

line

Wor

ksG

roun

dwat

erus

ers

Dew

ater

ing

redu

ces

grou

ndw

ater

leve

ls a

tre

gist

ered

grou

ndw

ater

bor

es.

No

initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s id

entif

ied.

Minor

Possible

Low

MM

–HG

01D

ewat

erin

g ac

tiviti

essh

ould

be

limite

d in

dura

tion

Negligible

Unlikely

Very low

HG

2Pi

pelin

eW

orks

Pote

ntia

l GD

Es

Dew

ater

ing

redu

ces

grou

ndw

ater

leve

ls a

tpo

tent

ial G

DEs

and

/or

wat

erco

urse

s.

No

initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s id

entif

ied.

Minor

Possible

Low

MM

-HG

01D

ewat

erin

g ac

tiviti

essh

ould

be

limite

d in

dura

tion

Minor

Unlikely

Low

HG

3Pi

pelin

eW

orks

Salin

e in

trusi

on

Dew

ater

ing

redu

ces

grou

ndw

ater

leve

lsca

usin

g sa

line

intru

sion

.

No

initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s id

entif

ied.

Minor

Unlikely

Low

MM

-HG

01D

ewat

erin

g ac

tiviti

essh

ould

be

limite

d in

dura

tion

Minor

Rare

Very low

HG

4Pi

pelin

eW

orks

Dril

ling

mud

Unc

ontro

lled

loss

of

drilli

ng m

uds

durin

gtre

nchl

ess

inst

alla

tion,

whi

ch a

ffect

sgr

ound

wat

er q

ualit

y.

MM

-HG

03U

se c

ontra

ctor

(s)

suita

bly

qual

ified

and

expe

rienc

ed.

Minor

Unlikely

Low

MM

- HG

02D

rillin

g m

uds

used

inho

rizon

tal d

irect

iona

ldr

illing

sho

uld

bebi

odeg

rada

ble

and

non-

toxi

c, w

here

geot

echn

ical

cond

ition

s al

low

Minor

Rare

Very low

35G

as Im

port

Jetty

and

Pip

elin

e Pr

ojec

t Env

ironm

ent E

ffect

s St

atem

ent

Tech

nica

l Rep

ort D

: Gro

undw

ater

impa

ct a

sses

smen

t

Prep

ared

for –

AG

L W

hole

sale

Gas

Lim

ited

and

APA

Tra

nsm

issi

on P

ty L

imite

d –

6059

2634

Ris

kID

Wor

ksar

eaR

isk

nam

eR

isk

path

way

Initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

Initi

al ri

skA

dditi

onal

miti

gatio

n m

easu

reR

esid

ual r

isk

CL

Ris

kC

LR

isk

HG

5Pi

pelin

eW

orks

Ove

rland

flow

togr

ound

wat

erPo

or q

ualit

y ov

erla

ndflo

w e

nter

ing

grou

ndw

ater

via

tren

chor

bel

l hol

es.

No

initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s id

entif

ied.

Minor

Possible

Low

Tren

ched

wat

erco

urse

cros

sing

s sh

ould

be

cons

truct

ed d

urin

g no

or lo

w fl

ow c

ondi

tions

as p

er E

ES T

echn

ical

Rep

ort C

:Sur

face

wat

er im

pact

asse

ssm

ent.

MM

-HG

04M

inim

ise

the

time

that

trenc

h se

ctio

ns a

ndbe

ll ho

les

are

open

Minor

Rare

Very low

HG

6Pi

pelin

eW

orks

Wat

er s

uppl

yIf

grou

ndw

ater

use

dfo

r con

stru

ctio

n ph

ase

- dra

wdo

wn

from

wat

ersu

pply

redu

ces

grou

ndw

ater

leve

ls a

tgr

ound

wat

er u

sers

(incl

. pot

entia

l GD

Esan

d re

gist

ered

bor

es).

MM

-HG

05So

urci

ng o

f gro

undw

ater

for c

onst

ruct

ion

supp

ly (i

fre

quire

d) s

houl

d be

inac

cord

ance

with

rele

vant

legi

slat

ion.

Negligible

Rare

Very low

No

addi

tiona

lm

itiga

tion

mea

sure

sid

entif

ied.

Negligible

Rare

Very low

HG

7Pi

pelin

eW

orks

Loss

of

regi

ster

ed b

ores

Reg

iste

red

bore

sbe

com

e da

mag

ed, l

ost

(des

troye

d) o

rin

acce

ssib

le th

ereb

yim

pact

ing

bore

use

r.

No

initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s id

entif

ied.

Moderate

Likely

Medium

MM

-HG

06Vi

sual

con

firm

atio

n of

loca

tion

of p

oten

tially

impa

cted

bor

es p

rior t

oco

nstru

ctio

n an

dm

ake-

good

arra

ngem

ents

.

Minor

Rare

Very low

36G

as Im

port

Jetty

and

Pip

elin

e Pr

ojec

t Env

ironm

ent E

ffect

s St

atem

ent

Tech

nica

l Rep

ort D

: Gro

undw

ater

impa

ct a

sses

smen

t

Prep

ared

for –

AG

L W

hole

sale

Gas

Lim

ited

and

APA

Tra

nsm

issi

on P

ty L

imite

d –

6059

2634

Ris

kID

Wor

ksar

eaR

isk

nam

eR

isk

path

way

Initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

Initi

al ri

skA

dditi

onal

miti

gatio

n m

easu

reR

esid

ual r

isk

CL

Ris

kC

LR

isk

HG

8G

asIm

port

Jetty

Wor

ks

Aqui

fer

inte

rcon

nect

ion

Aqui

fers

inte

rcon

nect

ed d

urin

gau

gerin

g fo

r pilin

gin

stal

latio

n th

atad

vers

ely

impa

cts

grou

ndw

ater

qua

lity

inon

e or

mor

e aq

uife

rs.

MM

-HG

03U

se c

ontra

ctor

(s)

suita

bly

qual

ified

and

expe

rienc

ed

Minor

Unlikely

Low

No

addi

tiona

lm

itiga

tion

mea

sure

sid

entif

ied.

Minor

Unlikely

Low

Ope

ratio

nH

G9

Pipe

line

Wor

ksPr

efer

entia

l flo

wpa

ths

Tren

ched

sec

tions

of

pipe

line

crea

te a

pref

eren

tial f

low

path

resu

lting

in c

hang

edgr

ound

wat

er fl

owpa

ttern

s an

d/or

leve

lsan

d co

ntam

inan

tm

igra

tion.

MM

-HG

07C

ompa

ctio

n of

bac

kfill

usin

g ex

cava

ted

mat

eria

lM

M-H

G08

Use

of t

renc

h bl

ocks

adja

cent

tow

ater

cour

ses,

wet

land

san

d st

eepe

r ter

rain

Moderate

Unlikely

Low

No

addi

tiona

lm

itiga

tion

mea

sure

sid

entif

ied.

Moderate

Unlikely

Low

HG

10

Gas

Impo

rtJe

ttyW

orks

Pile

sPi

les

inst

alle

d be

neat

hni

troge

n ta

nk im

pedi

nggr

ound

wat

er fl

ow th

atad

vers

ely

effe

cts

grou

ndw

ater

use

rs.

No

initi

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s id

entif

ied.

Negligible

Unlikely

Very low

No

addi

tiona

lm

itiga

tion

mea

sure

sid

entif

ied.

Negligible

Unlikely

Very low



7.0 Impact assessmentThis section of the report provides more detail on the potential groundwater impacts that wereidentified in the risk assessment outlined in Section 6.0. The groundwater impacts are associated withthe construction and operation of the Project, and draw on data presented in Section 5.0, dealing withexisting conditions. Impacts associated with contamination and acid sulfate soils are discussed in EESTechnical Report E: Contamination and acid sulfate soils impact assessment.

Section 8.0 provides details on the mitigation measures outlined in the risk assessment that wouldmanage potential impacts.

7.1 ConstructionThe potential groundwater impacts during the construction and installation phases of the PipelineWorks and the Gas Import Jetty Works are listed below and assessed in the following sections:

· reduction of groundwater levels (drawdown) from dewatering activities that:

- impact water levels in nearby bores

- affect groundwater availability to GDEs

- affect creek/river base flow

- cause subsidence

- cause saline intrusion.

· overland flow impacting groundwater quality, via trenches that are open

· change in groundwater quality from use of HDD drilling fluids

· water supply for dust suppression and hydrostatic (pressure) testing of the pipeline

· loss, damage or inaccessibility of registered bores during construction

· interconnection of aquifers with different groundwater quality and protected beneficial uses duringpiling installation at the Crib Point Receiving Facility.

7.1.1 Drawdown estimates from dewatering (relevant to Risk IDs HG1, HG2, HG3)The impact assessment is based on the estimated maximum drawdown that may occur because ofconstruction dewatering if shallow groundwater was encountered during construction. The method toestimate this drawdown is described in Section 4.3.1, which is a Theis analytical solution using anumber of conservative input assumptions.

A summary of the estimates of drawdown on the watertable are provided in Table 7-1 and furtherdetails are included in Appendix F.Table 7-1 Summary of drawdown estimates

ScenarioMaximum Drawdown (m)

at 10 m fromexcavation



Open trench intersecting 2 metres ofwater

0.79 0.09 -

Thrust bore bell hole or HDD tie-in bellhole intersecting 3.5 metres of water

1.81 0.78 0.10

The approach is considered a reasonable estimate of the maximum drawdown for the followingreasons:



· The assumption of a one per cent storage coefficient used in the unconfined aquifer scenario,which is considered a highly conservative value for the type of clayey dominant materials to beencountered. A higher value of storage coefficient would result in lesser drawdown impacts.

· The assumption of 0.3 metres per day (m/day) hydraulic conductivity, which is the upper end ofthe values estimated from site-specific rising head tests (discussed in Section 5.4).

· The assumed depths of water in the trench scenario (two metres) and bell hole (3.5 metres) are aconservative estimate of anticipated conditions, based on measured groundwater levels along thealignment (measured at end-January 2019).

· As part of the construction schedule, the duration of dewatering is anticipated to be less than twodays at trenched sections and HDD tie-in bell holes, and less than 10 days at thrust bore bellholes. Typically, the volume of water in the open trench or bell hole would be removed and thepipeline installed within one day and before additional dewatering is required.

The potential implications of these drawdown estimates on registered bore users, potential GDEs andsaline intrusion are discussed in the following sections.

7.1.2 Impacts on groundwater levelsRegistered groundwater bore users (Risk ID HG1)Dewatering of the trench and bell holes (thrust bore and HDD tie-in locations) has the potential totemporarily reduce groundwater levels and reduce the available drawdown in nearby groundwaterbores.

Typically, dewatering of excavations is avoided or minimised as much as practicable to reduce the riskof destabilising the trench and bell holes, and to reduce the volume of discharged water to bemanaged. Impacts to groundwater levels and flow would therefore likely be temporary and limited inmagnitude and extent; based on the predominantly low permeability soils (silts and clays), shallowdepth of excavations and short-term dewatering activities.

A reasonable worst case scenario of a high watertable, with dewatering limited to two days (fortrenching) and ten days (thrust bore and HDD bell holes) provided an estimate for the extent andmagnitude of water level reduction away from the excavation (sometimes called the cone ofdepression). The maximum extent of drawdown has been estimated following the method described inSection 4.1.2. The results are attached as Appendix H. The results suggest that drawdown wouldextend up to 30 metres from the trenched pipeline sections and around 60 metres from bell holes(thrust bore and HDD tie-in locations), even under the ‘worst case’6 scenario.

There are four bores within 30 metres of trenched sections of the pipeline alignment that areregistered for consumptive use. Location and construction information for these four bores issummarised in Table 7-2. The locations of these bores are shown in Figure A3 (Appendix A).

There are no bores registered for consumptive use within 60 metres of thrust bore bell holes or HDDtie-in bell holes. It is noted that bore WRK992476 is located in the north western portion of the CribPoint Receiving Facility, approximately 55 metres from the proposed entry and exit bell holes of thethrust bore proposed beneath The Esplanade roadway. The WMIS database status of the bore is ‘notused’ and its purpose/use is stated as unknown. Given the ‘not used’ status and likely intended use asa monitoring bore, this it is not considered a ‘consumptive bore’ for the purposes of the riskassessment.

6 Assuming the highest hydraulic conductivity value measured (0.3 metres per day), and two days of dewatering to the base ofthe trench (2 metres deep) or ten days of dewatering to the base of thrust bore pits (four metres deep). See Appendix H forfurther details.



Table 7-2 Consumptive use bores that could be impacted by dewatering

Bore ID Use Easting NorthingBoredepth

(mbgs)

Distancefrom

pipeline(m)

Distancefrom

options(m)

ClosestKP

WRK070589 Stock anddomestic 362119 5775733 26 33 20 KP 38.8

91465 Stock 355463.2 5772286 15.2 145 23 KP 30.5

121049 Irrigation 345413.2 5765624 47.8 0 NA KP 16.7

142356 Irrigation 345413.2 5765324 42.6 6 NA KP 16.4

The closest groundwater monitoring wells to bore WRK070589 are MW17 (965 m to the southwest)and MW18 (1.8 km to the northeast). Monitoring well MW17 was recorded as being dry (that is, thedepth to water was greater than four metres below ground), and the depth to water was measured as3.92 metres below ground surface (mbgs) at MW18. Therefore, the trench is unlikely to intersectgroundwater in this area during construction, and there should be no need to dewater near boreWRK070589. Based on this, no adverse impact on groundwater availability is anticipated for this user.

The closest monitoring well to bore 91465 is MW15 (300 m to the northeast), where a water level of2.24 mbgs was measured. Based on the pipeline trench depth of two metres, it is anticipated thatconstruction dewatering would not be required in that location, and no adverse impact on groundwateravailability is anticipated for this groundwater user. If groundwater levels are higher duringconstruction, and are intersected by open trenching, the conservative estimate of a 30 metredrawdown extent (based on two metres of water in the trench) means that adverse impacts ongroundwater availability for this user would still not be anticipated.

Bore 121049 (at 47.8 metres deep) and bore 142356 (at 42.6 metres deep) are both relatively deepbores and unlikely to be impacted by dewatering of shallow trench sections (if it were required). Theclosest monitoring well to these bores is MW08, located 135 m northeast of bore 121049 and 430metres northeast of bore 142356. The depth to water at MW08 was measured at 3.5 mbgs. Groundelevations at bores 112049 and 142356 are approximately 2.5 metres higher than at MW08, andtherefore groundwater levels at these locations are anticipated to be several metres below the base oftrench – generally assumed to be two mbgs. The need for dewatering is unlikely, and adverse impactson groundwater availability are not anticipated for this groundwater user. The potential for loss,damage or lack of access to these bores during construction is considered in Section 7.1.5.

Overall, the risk of adversely impacting registered bores due to dewatering of trenched sections, thrustbore bell holes and HDD tie-in bell holes is considered to be very low. Limiting the dewatering durationwhere practicable to do so would limit the cone of depression and the potential for effects ongroundwater to significantly impact on groundwater users (including at groundwater bores).

Depth to groundwater beneath the EOLSS facility is estimated to be five to 10 metres on VisualisingVictoria’s Groundwater (VVG) website7. Groundwater is not anticipated to be intersected given thatEOLSS excavations would be up to 3.5 metres deep only. The nearest registered groundwater bore(ID 84052) is approximately 200 metres southwest of the facility, where the ground surface elevation(approximately 41 mAHD) is below the base of the proposed EOLSS excavation (estimated to be47 mAHD). Therefore, any reduction in groundwater levels from dewatering of the EOLSS (if required)would not impact on the groundwater availability from the bore.

Groundwater dependent ecosystems and watercourses (Risk ID HG2)Dewatering of the trench, HDD tie-in bell holes and thrust bore pits has the potential to temporarilyreduce water levels beneath terrestrial GDEs that transpire groundwater, or to temporarily reducegroundwater inflows into gaining streams.

Typically, dewatering of excavations is avoided or minimised as much as practicable to reduce the riskof destabilising the trench and bell holes, and to reduce the volume of discharged water to be

7 https://www.vvg.org.au/



managed. Impacts to groundwater levels and flow would therefore likely be temporary and limited inmagnitude and extent; based on the predominantly low permeability soils (silts and clays), shallowdepth of excavations and short-term dewatering activities.

A reasonable worst case scenario of a high watertable, with dewatering limited to two days (fortrenching) and ten days (thrust bore and HDD bell holes) provided an estimate for the extent andmagnitude of water level reduction away from the excavation (sometimes called the cone ofdepression). The drawdown due to dewatering would only extend up to around 30 metres fromtrenched pipeline sections and up to around 60 metres from thrust bore bell holes and HDD tie-in bellholes, even under the ‘reasonable worst case’ scenario described in Section 4.3.1.

Eleven watercourses that cross the pipeline alignment have been identified as high potential aquaticGDEs from national assessment (that is, gaining streams). Information collected on these streams issummarised in Table 7-3, based on Table 5-1 in EES Technical Report C: Surface water impactassessment.

Of the potentially gaining streams listed in Table 7-3, trenching is only proposed at Olivers Creek andWestern Outfall Creek, neither of which have been identified as having intact vegetation. Anyreduction in groundwater levels from trench dewatering would be temporary in nature (less than aweek) and limited in extent (less than 0.8 metres at ten metres from the trench - conservativelyassuming two metres drawdown at the trench). HDD is proposed at all potentially gaining streams withintact vegetation identified. For HDD the potential for drawdown effects are associated with dewateringat HDD tie-in bell-holes. Any reduction in groundwater levels from dewatering would be temporary innature (less than 2 days) and limited in extent (less than 0.1 metres at 25 metres - conservativelyassuming two metres of drawdown at the HDD tie-in bell hole).Table 7-3 Watercourse assessment summary for gaining streams

Watercourse name Crossing ID Natural orConstructed Vegetation Pipeline installation

methodWarringine Creek 2 Natural Intact HDD

Kings Creek 3 Natural Intact HDD

Olivers Creek 6 Natural Cleared Trench

Watson Creek 10 Natural Intact HDD

Langwarrin Creek 12 Natural Intact HDD

Rutherford Creek 28 Constructed Cleared HDD

Western Outfall Creek 29 Constructed Cleared Trench

Cardinia Creek 46 Constructed Cleared HDD

Lower Gum ScrubCreek

49 Constructed Cleared HDD

Toomuc Creek 50 Constructed Cleared HDD

Deep Creek 51 Constructed Cleared HDD

There are other potential terrestrial GDEs within the estimated extents of drawdown associated withtrenching and bell holes (including within the construction ROW) where groundwater levels may bereduced due to short-term dewatering activities (see Figure A3, Appendix A). It is noted that thepotential aquatic and terrestrial GDEs that fall within the Western Port Ramsar site, between the CribPoint Receiving Facility and Hastings, are beyond the potential dewatering impact zone estimated inSection 7.1.1.

The BOM GDE Atlas also identifies low to moderate potential terrestrial GDEs (swampy woodland)more than 200 metres east and west of the EOLSS. As discussed above, groundwater is notanticipated to be intersected by EOLSS excavations, and further, the base of the EOLSS excavation(estimated to be 47 mAHD) is above the ground surface of these potential GDEs. Therefore, they



would not be impacted by any reduction in groundwater levels from dewatering of the EOLSS (ifrequired).

Potential impacts on aquatic and/or terrestrial GDEs from reduced groundwater levels (if any) wouldbe temporary in nature and of limited lateral extent, and the potential risk to GDEs is considered to below. Limiting the dewatering duration, where practicable to do so, would limit the cone of depressionand the potential for effects on groundwater to significantly impact on groundwater users (includingGDEs).

Potential impacts on GDEs are also discussed in EES Technical Report B: Terrestrial and freshwaterbiodiversity impact assessment.

Saline intrusion (Risk ID HG3)In coastal areas, fresher (less saline) groundwater, sometimes known as the ‘freshwater lens’, sits ontop of saline groundwater. This saline groundwater is in connection with seawater and is sometimescalled the salt wedge.

Pumping significant volumes of groundwater in coastal areas can produce long-term reductions ingroundwater levels in the fresher water, such that upward flow from the underlying salt wedge occurs.This can then increase salinity within the freshwater lens and may impact on groundwater boresand/or GDEs.

The pipeline alignment is within around 150 metres of Western Port (at MW10) in some places andtherefore the potential for saline intrusion has been considered.

As a rule of thumb, for every metre of freshwater lens thickness above sea level (or metres AustralianHeight Datum (mAHD)), the freshwater lens extends 40 metres below sea level - due to the density offreshwater compared to that of seawater8. Along the pipeline closest to the coast this would equate toa freshwater lens approximately 30 metres thick (based on groundwater elevations of 0.89 mAHD atMW10 and 0.69 mAHD at MW11). As discussed in Section 7.1.1, construction dewatering activities fortrench sections and bell holes would lead to localised, small scale (up to 0.1 metres at 60 metres fromexcavation) and temporary reductions in groundwater levels due to the shallow depth of dewatering(typically less than three metres) and short-term duration of dewatering events (up to ten days).Therefore, adverse impacts to groundwater users due to induced lateral flow from the coast (at least150 metres away) or upward flow from the underlying salt wedge (at a depth of approximately 30metres) are not anticipated. The overall risk is considered to be very low.

7.1.3 Impacts on groundwater qualityDrilling muds (Risk ID HG4)Drilling mud would be used to install the pipeline where HDD is used. If the drilling mud containscontaminants, this could potentially impact groundwater quality and beneficial uses surrounding HDDlocations.

The uncontrolled loss event of drilling muds is considered unlikely, and any impacts would bemanaged and localised, when a suitably qualified and experienced HDD contractor is used. Thepotential effects on groundwater quality could be further reduced if non-toxic and biodegradable drillingmuds are used where possible. The primary clay used for drilling mud is bentonite (sodiummontmorillonite), a non-toxic, naturally occurring mineral clay, which is added to fresh water toproduce a ‘mud’

Therefore, drilling muds to be used in the Pipeline Works should be biodegradable and non-toxicwhere geotechnically practicable, and a suitably qualified and experienced contractor would supervisethe HDD sections. Therefore, the risk of drilling muds impacting groundwater quality is considered tobe very low.

8 Based on the Ghyben-Herzberg relation.



Overland flow to groundwater (Risk ID HG5)If there is a significant rainfall event while trench sections or bell holes are open (prior to backfilling)runoff could flow into the excavation. This runoff water could be of low quality (such as having elevatednutrient concentrations) and potentially infiltrate into groundwater near the trench. The highestpotential for this to occur is at or near trench crossing of waterways where greater surface water flowwould be expected due to drainage patterns, and there is potential for higher hydraulic conductivitysediments associated with the waterway.

Trenched water crossings should be installed during no flow or low flow conditions wherever possible,when there is typically less overland flow anticipated. If overland flow enters the trench, impacts ongroundwater quality would be limited. This is due to the predominantly clay dominant soils in thePipeline Works area, and therefore limited ability for runoff via the trench to move laterally into thesurrounding groundwater prior to the trench being dewatered following such an event.

The potential to impact groundwater quality from this already low risk event can be further reduced byminimising the duration for which excavations remain open. Overall, the risk is considered to be verylow.

Interconnection of aquifers during piling (Risk ID HG8)During augering of the piling hole, and prior to the placement of concrete slurry for piling as part of theGas Import Jetty Works, there is the potential to interconnect aquifers with different water qualityleading to the loss of beneficial uses or effecting groundwater users in one or more aquifers.

Regional geology indicates that the Crib Point Receiving Facility is underlain by Baxter Sandstone ofthe upper tertiary aquifer, which is typically greater than 20 metres thick (see Table 5-1). Overlyingalluvial sediments (if present) would be thin and of limited saturated thickness. The potential formultiple aquifers being intersected across the 20-metre depth of piling is considered unlikely, and thevariability of groundwater quality is not anticipated to be material in terms of beneficial uses. Further,the interconnection of aquifers (if any) would be of short duration - being limited to the time taken todrill up to 20-metres deep and pump in concrete slurry.

Overall, the risk of interconnecting aquifers and impacting groundwater quality such that beneficialuses and/or groundwater users are affected in one or more aquifers is considered to be low.

7.1.4 Water supply (Risk ID HG6)Water would likely be required during the pipeline construction phase, including for dust suppressionand hydrostatic (pressure) testing of the pipeline. If this water is sourced from groundwater within theKWR WSPA, then a temporary entitlement may need to be purchased from an existing licence holderas the WSPA is fully allocated.

All relevant legislation and policy requirements regarding sourcing of water for construction supplywould be adhered to. The risk of a groundwater supply for the Project adversely impactinggroundwater users is considered very low.

7.1.5 Loss of registered bores (Risk ID HG7)Registered bores within, or near, the construction footprints of the alignment or alignment options havethe potential to be damaged, lost (i.e. destroyed), or to become inaccessible during construction. Asummary of registered bores within thirty metres of the alignment or alignment options is provided inTable 7-4. Access to other registered bores outside the ROW may also be temporarily affected duringconstruction if access is prevented or made more difficult.

Table 7-4 Registered bores within ROW (based on mapped locations)

Bore ID Use Easting NorthingDistance from

pipeline(m)

Distancefrom

options (m)Closest KP

WRK070589 Stock anddomestic 362119 5775733 33 20 KP 38.8

91465 Stock 355463.2 5772286 145 23 KP 30.5



Bore ID Use Easting NorthingDistance from

pipeline(m)

Distancefrom

options (m)Closest KP

109673 Groundwaterinvestigation 353883.2 5771474 2 297 KP28.7

112085 Groundwaterinvestigation 343493.2 5754464 22 NA KP 1.0

112086 Groundwaterinvestigation 343833.2 5754444 29 NA KP 0.6

121049 Irrigation 345413.2 5765624 0 NA KP 16.7

142356 Irrigation 345413.2 5765324 6 NA KP 16.4

Following detailed design, the location of registered bores relative to the ROW could be visuallyconfirmed on site. Prior to construction, the potential for impacts to existing bores (for exampledamage or loss of access) could then be confirmed in consultation with the landowner.

In instances where a landholder bore is deemed to be impacted by the Project, consultation canfacilitate agreement between AGL and APA and landholder.

7.2 OperationThe risk assessment presented in Section 6.0 identified one potential operational risk pathway fromthe Project, being a change in groundwater flow from intersection of backfill material. This potentialimpact is discussed in the following section.

7.2.1 Preferential flow paths (Risk ID HG9)If the hydraulic conductivity (a property of soils and rocks that describes the ease with which a fluidcan move through pore spaces or fractures) of backfill material surrounding the pipe is higher than thesurrounding undisturbed soils, this could create a preferential flow path (where groundwater flowsfaster through the backfill material than in surrounding material). There is a risk that this could create adrainage-like feature that may result in a permanent reduction in groundwater level along the pipelinealignment, most significantly where the trench intersects alluvial sediments at water crossings therebyallowing preferential flow along the trench to discharge into the potentially higher conductivity alluvialchannel sediments.

The consequence of this occurring is that there may be a permanent reduction in groundwater levelsthat could impact groundwater dependent ecosystems close to the pipeline alignment and/or reducegroundwater discharge to gaining streams crossing the pipeline. It could also provide a pathway forcontaminant migration, which is discussed in EES Technical Report E: Contamination and acid sulfatesoils impact assessment. A preferential pathway becomes more significant where the trench backfill iscoarse grained as water is more readily able to move through this medium, or where the fall of thetrench is steep and there is a point of discharge out of the trench - for example where the trenchintersects alluvial sediments beneath a watercourse.

The preferred construction methodology for the pipeline trench is to backfill with the excavated nativematerial after being screened to keep rocks and other deleterious material away from the pipe coatingto avoid defects which would lead to corrosion. The fines are used for bedding and padding and theremainder is backfilled on top of the fines and compacted in layers. This could result in a change inhydraulic conductivity immediately surrounding the pipe. Packing sands, which would have a higherhydraulic conductivity, would only be used to backfill short sections of the trench, for example beneathroads. Backfill, whether excavated or imported, should be placed and compacted such that thepermeability is similar to the unexcavated material (as per AS/NZS 2885.19).

To manage the potential impact of a preferential flow path being established along the pipeline trench,trench breakers (that is, lower permeability material backfilled around the pipeline) should be installed

9 Australian Standards/New Zealand Standards 2885.1:2018. Pipelines – Gas and Liquid Petroleum. Ddesign and Construction.



in sections of trench where the pipe has a steeper fall and at overbends – which includes at trenchedwatercourse crossings.

The use of native material to backfill the trench in most locations and the shallow fall of the trenchalong much of the alignment would reduce the likelihood of a significantly higher hydraulic conductivitysurrounding the pipeline. The use of trench breakers at trenched waterway crossings would alsoreduce preferential flow by impeding preferential flow out of the trench at these locations and reducethe likelihood of impact to gaining streams that cross the pipeline alignment.

7.2.2 Impeded groundwater flow paths due to piles (Risk ID HG10)Groundwater flow could be impeded by the presence of piles at the Crib Point Receiving Facilityleading to changes in groundwater levels and groundwater flow direction. This could potentially resultin impacts such as the reduction of groundwater flow to GDEs, exposure of acid sulfate soils downhydraulic gradient of piles (due to groundwater level decreases) and raising saline/brackishgroundwater into the soil zone.

The magnitude of changes to the groundwater regime depends on several factors, including the extentto which the aquifer perpendicular to groundwater flow has been impeded by the piles. If it isconservatively assumed that 100 piles are required beneath the nitrogen tank, the centre-to-centrespacing of the 600 mm diameter piles would be 2.4 metres. This would equate to approximately 40 percent (or 10 metres) of the 25-metre wide section of aquifer beneath the nitrogen tank being impededby piles. If the width of aquifer perpendicular to groundwater flow is considered for the Crib PointReceiving Facility (i.e. approximately 120 metres) the piles would block the equivalent of nine per centof the aquifer through which groundwater flow is occurring (from west to east). It is thereforeanticipated that groundwater would flow around the piled section and/or through the spacing betweenthe piles with negligible effect on groundwater levels and flow.

Overall, the risk of piling beneath the nitrogen tank adversely impacting groundwater levels, flow orquality is considered to be very low.



8.0 Recommended mitigation measuresThis section outlines the recommended mitigation measures for groundwater identified as a result ofthe risk and impact assessment.

The recommended mitigation measures listed in Table 8-1 combine the initial and additional mitigationmeasures applied during the risk assessment to arrive at recommended mitigation measures for thedesign, construction and operation of the Gas Import Jetty Works and the Pipeline Works.

In the course of finalising this technical report, consultation was undertaken with AGL and APA andother members of the team (designers, contractors and other specialists) so that the recommendedmitigation measures would be achievable and compatible with those proposed by other specialists.

The recommended mitigation measures have been refined as a result of these discussions and shouldbe incorporated into the EMF, which would be implemented as described in Chapter 25 EnvironmentalManagement Framework through the Project approvals to effectively manage the environmentalperformance of the Project.

In addition to the groundwater mitigation measures recommended in Table 8-1, mitigation measures toavoid, minimise and mitigate impacts to groundwater are also recommended as per:

· EES Technical Report C: Surface water impact assessment (MM-SW03).Table 8-1 Recommended mitigation measures


MM-HG01 Dewatering activities should be limited to two daysor less in trenched sections and HDD tie-in bellholes, and 10 days or less at thrust bore sectionsand thrust bore bell holes, wherever practicable.


MM-HG02 Drilling muds used in horizontal directional drillingshould be biodegradable and non-toxic, wheregeotechnical conditions allow.


MM-HG03 Contractor(s) suitably qualified and experienced intrenchless installation techniques and pilinginstallation should be used.

Pipeline Worksand Gas ImportJetty Works

Construction

MM-HG04 The duration that trench sections and bell holesare open should be minimised to reduce thepotential for poor quality runoff impactinggroundwater.


MM-HG05 Sourcing of groundwater for construction supply (ifrequired) should be in accordance with Section 50Licence to take and use water of the Water Act1989.


MM-HG06 Through liaison with landholders, the location,condition and functionality of potentially affectedbores (due to damage, destruction or loss ofaccess) should be visually confirmed prior toconstruction commencing and make-goodarrangements should be agreed if required.


MM-HG07 Compaction of backfill using excavated material,where practicable, should be carried out to reducethe potential for preferential lateral flow along thetrench.


MM-HG08 Trench blocks (such as trench/sack breakers)should be installed adjacent to watercourses,wetlands and steep slopes as shown in thestandard drawing (CPT.2373-DWG-L-0106).




9.0 ConclusionThis groundwater impact assessment has been undertaken to determine the potential impacts of theProject on groundwater levels, flow and quality, and to identify recommended management andmitigation options where appropriate in order to reduce risks of the Project.

Potential impacts on groundwater quality from the Project are considered in EES Technical Report E:Contamination and acid sulfate soils impact assessment.

9.1 Impact assessment summaryPotential impacts on groundwater levels, flow and quality within the groundwater study area wereidentified for construction and operational phases. The potential for loss, damage or inaccessibility ofregistered bores during construction of the pipeline was also considered.

For the Pipeline Works several potential construction impacts were related to the reduction ingroundwater levels if dewatering activities are required with the subsequent potential to affectregistered bore users, GDEs and induce saline intrusion. The other potential groundwater impactswere related to potential groundwater quality impacts from HDD drilling muds, poor quality overlandflow entering open trenches. For the Gas Import Jetty Works the potential interconnection of aquifersduring auger drilling for piling was considered.

The groundwater impact assessment found limited potential for impacts on groundwater levels andflow during the operational phase of the Project. For the Pipeline Works the risk of permanentlyreduced groundwater levels due to the drainage effects of preferential flow paths within the trench wasconsidered. For the Gas Import Jetty Works the potential changes in groundwater levels and flow dueto the installation of piles at the Crib Point Receiving Facility were considered.

Overall, construction and operation of the Pipeline Works present limited risks to groundwater due tothe shallow depth of trenching and horizontal boring, the short duration of dewatering activities (wheregroundwater is intersected) and clay and silt dominated nature of the materials likely to beencountered. Where dewatering is required the reductions in groundwater levels are estimated to beof limited magnitude, lateral extent and duration.

Risks to groundwater from piling as part of the Gas Import Jetty Works (at the Crib Point ReceivingFacility) were also considered to be low to very low due to the relatively small piling footprint, spacingof pilings and short duration auger drilling.

9.2 Residual riskThe risk of potential impacts on groundwater were identified as being low or very low, and it wasconcluded that the Project is consistent with the scoping requirements and the draft evaluationobjective with respect to potential impacts on groundwater levels, quality and flow from constructionand operational activities with mitigation measures that are commonly applied and have proveneffective in major construction projects in place. Additional mitigation measures were applied to anumber of risks to further reduce the already moderate to low initial risk ratings.



10.0 ReferencesAEMO (2019). Gas Statement of Opportunities: For eastern and south-eastern Australia, March 2019.

Alluvium Consulting Australia (2018). Hydrology and Scour Study Report. Appendix B of: CoffeyServices Australia Pty Ltd (2018) Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Project Desktop Geotechnical andHydrology Study. Report for APA Group. 6 April 2018.

CMPS&F (1997). Environmental Site Assessment Works Port of Hastings. CMPS&F Pty Ltd,Melbourne.

Coffey Services Australia Pty Ltd (2018). Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Project DesktopGeotechnical and Hydrology Study. Report for APA Group. 6 April 2018.

Jacobs (2017). Factual Report: Baseline Environmental Contamination Investigation. Prepared for Portof Hastings Authority. 1 June 2017.

Fetter, C.W. (2000). Applied Hydrogeology. 4th Ed. Pearson, November 26, 2000.

Southern Rural Water (SRW) (2010). Groundwater Management Plan Koo Wee Rup Water SupplyProtection Area. 4 August 2010.

Southern Rural Water (SRW) (2014). Port Phillip and Western Port Groundwater Atlas. July 2014.

State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Waters) (2018) October 2018.

Groundwater impact assessment


AECOM

AAppendix AFigures

! <! <

! <

! <

! <

! <! <! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Qm1

Qd1

Qd1Qd

1Qd

1

Qd1

Ox

Qd1

Qd1

Nbr

SmSm

Sm

Nb

Qy

Nbr

Nbr

Qdl1

Nb

Qb

Qdl1

Qd1

Nbr

Sm

Qd1

Qd1

SmOc

Nuo

Nbr

Qc1

Qdl1

G264

Qc1

-Put

Qm1

Qm1

Qg

Ksw

Qm1

Qm1

Qa1

Sm

Sm

-Put

Qc1

Qd1

Qb

Qg

Qb

-PumQdl1

Qdl1

Qdl1

Nbr

Qb

Sm

Qb

Sm

Qd1

Qd1

Nbr

Sm

Nbr

Qdl1

Nb

SmSm

Nuo

Qm1

Qd1

Qg

Nbr

Qd1

Qg

Qa1

Qa1

Qd1

Qg

-Put

Qa1

Qm1

Qm1

Sm

Nbr

G239

G239

Qd1

Sm

Nb

Nb

Nb

G239

G239

Qg

Ox

Qd1

Qd1

Qb

Qg

Qb

Qd1

Qg

Nbr

Nuo

Nuo

Qm1

Qm1

Qdl1Qm

1

G239

Qc1

Qb

-Put

Nb

Qd1

Qdl1

Nbr

Nbr

Nbr

Qd1

QbQd

l1

Ox Ox

Qd1

Qd1

Qd1

Qd1

Qa1

Nbr

Nbr

Nb

Sm Qg

G239

Qd1

Qd1

Sm

Qa1

Qd1

Sm

Qd1

Qd1

Qdl1

Qd1

Qd1

Sxa

Qd1

Qg

Qd1

Qd1

Qa2

Nuo

Nb

Sm

Qa2

Sm

Sm

Qa1

Qdl1

Nbr

Qd1

Qg

Qb

Qd1

Sm

Qa1

Qa1

Qdl1

Nbr

Nbr

Nbr

Nuo

Qdl1

Oc

Qm1

G239

Qm1

Qm1

Qd1

Sm

Qc1

Sm

Nbr

-Put

Sm Sm

Nb

Qa1

Qd1

Qm1

Oc Ox

Qd1

Qd1

Qd1

Qb

Sm

Qd1

Qd1

Sm

Nuo

Qd1

-Put

Nbr

Qa2

QbSm

Nbr

Nbr

Nbr

Sm

Qb

Qb

GW02

(3.78

)GW

03(3

.29)

GW04

(2.45

)

GW05

(1.74

)

MW01

(3.80

)MW

02(1

.52)

MW03

(3.54

)

MW04

(DRY

)

MW05

(1.41

)

MW06

(3.31

)

MW07

(2.60

)MW08

(3.53

)MW

09(1

.62)

MW10

(1.99

)

MW11

(3.05

)

MW12

(3.23

)MW

13(2

.22)

MW14

(2.23

)MW15

(2.24

)

MW16

(4.00

)

MW17

(DRY

)

MW18

(3.92

)

MW19

(DRY

)

MW21

(1.15

)

MW22

(1.09

)

MW23

(DRY

)

KP56

KP54

KP50

KP46

KP45

KP41

KP49

KP38KP

40KP

37

KP52

KP44

KP42

KP36KP

39

KP34

KP33

KP29

KP53

KP24

KP23

KP21

KP17

KP27

KP51

KP16

KP30

KP14

KP55

KP13

KP12

KP19

KP11

KP9

KP8

KP7KP

6

KP25

KP10

KP5

KP31

KP43

KP15

KP18

KP4

KP22

KP26

KP47

KP3

KP28

KP32

KP1

KP2

KP20

KP48

KP35

MLV 2

-La

nd ar

ea

Crib

Point

Rece

iving F

acilit

y

MLV 1

Pake

nham

Eas

tDe

livery

Facil

ity

MLV 2

EOLS

S

02,0

004,0

006,0

00me

tres´

1:125

,000

(whe

n prin

ted at

A3)

A3 si

ze

AECOM does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. AECOM shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.

www.

aeco

m.co

m

PROJ

ECT I

D

LAST

MODIF

IEDCR

EATE

D BY

605828

11 sa

m.schr

oder

sam.s

chrode

r 22 M

AY 20

20

LEGE

ND!(

Kilom

etre P

oint (K

P)Pip

eline

Align

ment

Optio

ns! <

Grou

ndwa

ter w

ells (

water

leve

l in m

bgs,

30Ja

nuary

2019

)Ko

oWee

Rup W

ater S

upply

Prote

ction

Area

Brigh

ton G

roup(

Nb): g

eneri

cMu

rrindin

di Su

pergr

oup(

Sm): g

eneri

cMu

rrindin

di Su

pergr

oup(

Sm): h

ornfel

sRe

d Bluf

f San

dston

e (Nb

r): ge

neric

Thorp

dale

Volca

nic G

roup (

-Put)

: Gen

eric

alluv

ium an

d coll

uvium

( Qb):

gene

ricall

uvium

( Qa1

): gen

eric

coas

tal du

ne de

posit

s (Qd

l1): g

eneri

cco

astal

lago

on de

posit

s (Qg

): gen

eric

collu

vium(

Qc1

): gen

eric

inlan

d dun

e dep

osits

(Qd1

): gen

eric

swam

p and

lake

depo

sits (

Qm1):

gene

ric

Coord

inate S

ystem

: GDA

1994

MGA Z

one 55

Grou

ndwa

ter Im

pact

Asse

ssme

ntGa

s Imp

ort Je

tty an

d Pipe

line P

rojec

tEn

viron

ment

Effec

ts St

ateme

nt

Map D

ocume

nt: (\\a

umel1

fp001\

Projec

ts\605X

\60592

634\90

0_CAD

_GIS\

920_G

IS\02_

Maps\

GIS_M

XDs\M

XD_T

ECH_

SINGL

E\Grou

ndwate

r\FA1

_Geol

ogy_t.m

xd)

A1Figur

eAG

L/APL

Geolo

gy, g

roun

dwate

r well

s, an

dwa

ter le

vels

Wes

tern

Por

t

! <

! <

! <

! <! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

! <

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

DEVO

NME

ADOW

SFIVEW

AYS

CLYD

E NOR

THCR

ANBO

URNE

CRIB

POIN

T

DALM

ORE E

AST

CALD

ERME

ADE

CANN

ONS C

REEK

CHEL

SEA

HEIG

HTS

BITTE

RN

BEAC

ONSF

IELD

BANG

HOLM

E

BAXT

ER

FREN

CH IS

LAND

CRAN

BOUR

NENO

RTH

SOME

RVILL

E

TOOR

ADIN

TYAB

B

PATT

ERSO

NLA

KES

HAST

INGS

JAM

JERR

UP

LANG

WARR

IN

CARD

INIA

DALM

ORE

OFFIC

ER SO

UTH

BOTA

NIC

RIDG

E

LANG

WARR

INSO

UTH

SAND

HURS

T

CRAN

BOUR

NEEA

ST

CRAN

BOUR

NESO

UTH

CRAN

BOUR

NE W

EST

CARR

UM D

OWNS

NAR

NAR

GOON

PEAR

CEDA

LE

YALL

OCK

BLIN

DBIG

HT

WARN

EET

SKYE

RYTH

DALE

NARR

EWA

RREN

SOUT

H

PAKE

NHAM

PAKE

NHAM

SOUT

H

MONO

MEITH

LYND

HURS

T

KOO

WEE R

UP

KOO

WEE

RUP N

ORTH

LANG

LANG

KARI

NGAL

BAYL

ES

FRAN

KSTO

NNO

RTH

SOUTH

GIPPS

LAND

HIGHWAY

PRINC

ESHI

GHWA

Y

SOUT

HGIPP

SLAN

DHI

GHWA

Y

MOOROODUC HIGHWAY

SOUTH GIPP

SLAND HIGH

WAY

PRIN

CES H

IGHW

AY

SOUTH GIPPSLAND HIGHWAY

DANDENONG-HASTINGSROAD

BASS HIGHWAY

DANDENONG-HASTINGS ROAD

BASSHIGHWAYSOUTH GIPPSLAND HIGHWAY

DANDENONG-HASTINGS ROAD

CLYDE-FIVEWAYSROAD

SEAFO

R DRO

AD

CLYDE ROAD

THOM

PSON

S ROA

D

CRAN

BOUR

NE-FR

ANKS

TONRO

AD

BAXT

ER-TO

ORAD

INR O

A D

KOO WEE RUP ROAD

STONY POINT ROAD

COOLART ROAD

BALL

ARTO

ROA

DCR

ANBO

URNE

ROAD

THOM

PSON

ROA

D Stony Point Line

Morin

gton

Tourist

Railw

ay

Bairn

sdale

Line

Leongatha Line

Franks

ton Lin

e

Dand

enon

g-Leo

ngath

a

GW04

5591GW

0554

99

MW01

5922

MW02

2613

MW03

2864

MW05

5577

MW07

1253

MW09

1273

6MW

1036

90

MW11

1641

4

MW14

5207

MW15

4885

MW21

5473

MW22

1095

3

KP56

KP54

KP50

KP46

KP45

KP41

KP49

KP38

KP40

KP37

KP52

KP44

KP42

KP36KP

39KP

34KP

33

KP29

KP53

KP24 KP

23KP

21

KP17

KP27

KP51

KP16

KP30

KP14

KP55

KP13

KP12

KP19

KP11

KP9

KP8

KP7

KP6

KP25

KP10

KP5

KP31

KP43

KP15

KP18

KP4

KP22

KP26

KP47

KP3

KP28

KP32

KP1KP

2

KP20

KP48

KP35

MLV 2

-La

nd ar

ea

Crib

Point

Rece

iving F

acilit

y

MLV 1

Pake

nham

Eas

tDe

livery

Facil

ity

MLV 2

EOLS

S

02,0

004,0

006,0

00me

tres´

1:125

,000

(whe

n prin

ted at

A3)

A3 si

ze


www.

aeco

m.co

m

PROJ

ECT I

D

LAST

MODIF

IEDCR

EATE

D BY

605828

11 sa

m.schr

oder

sam.s

chrode

r 22 M

AY 20

20

LEGE

ND!(

Kilom

etre P

oint (K

P)Pip

eline

Align

ment

Optio

ns! <

Samp

led gr

ound

water

well

sGr

ound

water

Salin

ity< 1

000 m

g/L TD

S10

00-30

00 m

g/L TD

S30

00-70

00 m

g/L TD

S

Coord

inate S

ystem

: GDA

1994

MGA Z

one 55

Map D

ocume

nt: (\\a

umel1

fp001\

Projec

ts\605X

\60592

634\90

0_CAD

_GIS\

920_G

IS\02_

Maps\

GIS_M

XDs\M

XD_T

ECH_

SINGL

E\Grou

ndwate

r\FA2

_Salin

ity_t.m

xd)

A2Figur

e

Grou

ndwa

ter Sa

linity

Wes

tern

Por

t

Grou

ndwa

ter Im

pact

Asse

ssme

ntGa

s Imp

ort Je

tty an

d Pipe

line P

rojec

tEn

viron

ment

Effec

ts St

ateme

nt

AGL/A

PL

1420

Total

Diss

olved

Solid

s (mg

/L)

! >

! >! >

! >

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

WRK0

7058

9

1423

5612

1049

9146

5

KP56

KP54 KP

50

KP46

KP45

KP41

KP49

KP38

KP40

KP37

KP52

KP44

KP42

KP36KP

39KP

34KP

33

KP29

KP53

KP24

KP23

KP21

KP17

KP27

KP51

KP16

KP30

KP14

KP55

KP13

KP12

KP19

KP11

KP9

KP8

KP7

KP6

KP25

KP10

KP5

KP31

KP43

KP15

KP18

KP4

KP22

KP26

KP47

KP3

KP28KP

32

KP1

KP2

KP20

KP48

KP35

01,0

002,0

003,0

004,0

005,0

00me

tres´

1:125

,000

(whe

n prin

ted at

A3)

A3 si

ze


www.

aeco

m.co

m

PROJ

ECT I

D

LAST

MODIF

IEDCR

EATE

D BY

605828

11 sa

m.schr

oder

sam.s

chrode

r 22 M

AY 20

20

LEGE

ND!(

Kilom

etre P

oint (K

P)! >

Cons

umpti

ve us

e bore

s with

in 30

m of

pipe

line

Grou

ndwa

ter - s

urfac

e wate

rint

eracti

ons

Gaini

ngNe

utral/

Losin

gUn

class

ified

Aqua

tic G

DEs

Know

n GDE

(regio

nal s

tudies

)Hig

h pote

ntial

GDE (

region

al stu

dies)

Mode

rate p

otenti

al GD

E (reg

ional

studie

s)Un

class

ified p

otenti

al GD

E (reg

ional

studie

s)Hig

h pote

ntial

GDE (

natio

nal a

sses

smen

t)Mo

derat

e pote

ntial

GDE (

natio

nal

asse

ssme

nt)Te

rrestr

ial G

DEs

High p

otenti

al GD

E (na

tiona

l ass

essm

ent)

Mode

rate p

otenti

al GD

E (na

tiona

las

sess

ment)

Low

poten

tial G

DE (n

ation

al as

sess

ment)

Pipeli

neAli

gnme

nt Op

tions

Align

ment

and o

ption

s 200

m bu

ffer

Coord

inate S

ystem

: GDA

1994

MGA Z

one 55

Grou

ndwa

ter Im

pact

Asse

ssme

ntGa

s Imp

ort Je

tty an

d Pipe

line P

rojec

tEn

viron

ment

Effec

ts St

ateme

ntMa

p Docu

ment:

(\\aum

el1fp0

01\Pro

jects\6

05X\60

592634

\900_C

AD_G

IS\920

_GIS\

02_Ma

ps\GIS

_MXD

s\MXD

_TEC

H_SIN

GLE\G

roundw

ater\F

A3_U

sers_v

10_001

.mxd)

A3Figur

eAG

L/APL

Grou

ndwa

ter us

ers

Wes

tern

Por

t

Data

sourc

e: Gr

ound

water

Dep

ende

nt Ec

osys

tems A

tlas

http:/

/www

.bom.

gov.a

u/wate

r/grou

ndwa

ter/gd

e/map

.shtm

l



AECOM

BAppendix BTables

Clie

nt N

ame:

AG

L W

hole

sale

Gas

Ltd

and

APA

Tra

nsm

issi

on P

ty L

tdPr

ojec

t Nam

e: G

IJPP

EES

Gro

undw

ater

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t

Tabl

e B

1. W

ell C

onst

ruct

ion

and

Dev

elop

men

t Rec

ord

CPT

IDBo

re ID

Dat

e D

rille

dEa

stin

gN

orth

ing

TOC

(mAH

D)

Gro

und

Surfa

ceEl

evat

ion

(mAH

D)

Hol

eD

iam

eter

(mm

)

Dril

led

Dep

th(m

bgs)

Scre

enIn

terv

al(m

bgs)

Scre

ened

Inte

rval

Form

atio

n

Dat

eD

evel

oped

SWL

(mbt

oc)

Volu

me

Rem

ove

d (L

)

Tem

pera

ture

(ºC

)

Dis

solv

edO

xyge

n(m

g/L)

Elec

trica

lC

ondu

ctiv

ity(µ

S/cm

)pH

Red

oxFi

eld

(mV)

Tota

lD

isso

lved

Solid

s(T

DS)

¹ ²

Red

oxPo

tent

ial

(Eh)

³C

omm

ent

CPT

006_

MW

01M

W01

6/12

/18

3433

40.8

5257

5452

6.40

97.

375

6.59

413

04.

11

- 4SI

LT12

/12/

184.

113

418

.06.

263

576.

296.

941

3221

8.5

Hig

h Tu

rbid

ity, B

row

n, N

ood

our

CPT

012_

MW

02M

W02

5/12

/18

3414

35.8

4357

5641

2.40

35.

231

5.34

813

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

8/12

/18

1.25

518

16.6

5.7

3830

6.62

28.7

2490

241.

3H

igh

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn,

No

odou

r

CPT

012_

MW

03M

W03

5/12

/18

3414

13.1

5057

5702

1.94

73.

408

3.52

213

04.

11

- 4SI

LT8/

12/1

83.

655

1.3

16.7

7.1

3214

7.26

16.0

2089

228.

6H

igh

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn,

No

odou

rC

PT01

5_M

W04

MW

045/

12/1

834

1436

.683

5757

533.

111

7.99

28.

135

130

4.2

1 - 4

CLA

Y8/

12/1

8D

ry-

--

--

--

-D

ry, N

o od

our

CPT

000_

GW

02G

W02

10/0

1/19

3413

06.1

4757

5902

6.38

513

.574

13.6

7413

04.

01

- 4C

LAY

16/0

1/19

3.85

0-

--

--

--

-N

ot e

noug

h w

ater

to d

evel

op,

No

odou

r

CPT

000_

GW

03G

W03

10/0

1/19

3411

96.4

7057

5936

1.41

07.

636

7.75

313

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

16/0

1/19

3.65

01

18.7

3.2

5920

6.88

67.6

3848

278.

7M

oder

ate

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn,

No

odou

r

CPT

022_

MW

05M

W05

4/12

/18

3411

86.2

2057

5981

5.64

26.

791

6.89

913

04.

41

- 4C

LAY

12/1

2/18

0.82

924

16.2

5.5

7500

6.64

-15.

248

7519

7.7

Hig

h Tu

rbid

ity, L

ight

bro

wn-

Gre

y, N

o od

our

CPT

027_

MW

06M

W06

8/01

/19

3415

90.5

8157

6114

4.67

16.

772

6.01

613

04.

71

- 4C

LAY

15/0

1/19

4.60

50.

319

.16.

446

466.

9295

.030

2030

5.8

Low

Tur

bidi

ty, B

row

n, N

ood

our

CPT

036_

C_M

W23

MW

2318

/12/

1837

2239

.934

5784

161.

856

Tabl

e14

.860

130

4.0

1 - 4

Silty

SAN

D19

/12/

18D

ry-

--

--

--

-D

ry, N

o od

our

CPT

040_

B_M

W07

MW

0718

/12/

1834

3971

.134

5763

584.

910

11.5

7510

.974

130

4.1

1 - 4

CLA

Y19

/12/

184.

012

316

.57.

519

367.

6132

.612

5824

5.3

Hig

h tu

rbid

ity, b

row

n, n

ood

our

CPT

040_

B_G

W04

GW

048/

01/1

934

4249

.838

5763

633.

725

10.8

1210

.122

130

4.1

1 - 4

SAN

D15

/01/

193.

052

1218

.42.

884

036.

4470

.454

6228

1.7

Low

Tur

bidi

ty, B

row

n, N

ood

our

CPT

045_

GW

05G

W05

8/01

/19

3446

42.4

7957

6391

7.06

28.

601

7.86

713

04.

11

- 4C

laye

y SA

ND

15/0

1/19

2.29

515

17.4

3.1

8290

6.49

43.2

5389

255.

2Lo

w T

urbi

dity

, Lig

ht G

rey,

No

odou

r

CPT

000_

MW

08M

W08

10/0

1/19

3454

37.2

0657

6575

6.09

18.

382

8.50

913

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

16/0

1/19

3.21

24

17.8

4.2

2184

6.74

43.3

1420

255.

0M

oder

ate

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn,

No

odou

r

CPT

051_

MW

09M

W09

17/1

2/18

3461

59.7

5357

6625

2.23

93.

203

3.34

113

04.

11

- 4Sa

ndy

CLA

Y19

/12/

181.

458

1916

.65.

319

333

6.54

-4.6

1256

620

8.0

Hig

h Tu

rbid

ity, B

row

n/gr

ey,

No

odou

r

CPT

055_

MW

10M

W10

3/12

/18

3465

55.6

0557

6738

7.90

52.

708

2.80

913

04.

11

- 4Sa

ndy

CLA

Y8/

12/1

81.

529

2516

.02.

658

377.

00-5

3.0

3794

160.

1H

igh

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn,

No

odou

r

CPT

000_

MW

11M

W11

9/01

/19

3469

24.7

1857

6888

7.44

63.

530

3.64

513

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

15/0

1/19

2.89

74.

517

.44.

721

438

6.71

91.3

1393

530

3.3

Low

Tur

bidi

ty, B

row

n, N

ood

our

CPT

064_

MW

12M

W12

7/12

/18

3499

88.2

8957

7018

7.54

44.

367

3.60

713

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

12/1

2/18

4.38

51.

515

.36.

158

066.

8144

.837

7425

8.4

Hig

h Tu

rbid

ity, B

row

n, N

ood

our

CPT

068_

MW

13M

W13

7/12

/18

3520

28.0

1757

7084

6.48

85.

323

4.62

213

04.

11

- 4SI

LT12

/12/

182.

978

916

.17.

713

598

6.73

42.6

8839

255.

6H

igh

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn

- gre

y,N

o od

our

CPT

037_

B_M

W14

MW

143/

12/1

834

3397

.460

5762

421.

683

4.87

64.

116

130

4.2

1 - 4

CLA

Y8/

12/1

82.

616

1116

.56.

574

286.

8461

.548

2827

4.2

Hig

h Tu

rbid

ity, B

row

n, N

ood

our

CPT

000_

MW

15M

W15

9/01

/19

3541

66.7

5757

7153

3.62

13.

578

3.67

513

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

16/0

1/19

1.97

512

16.8

2.0

6698

6.63

36.1

4354

248.

6H

igh

Turb

idity

, Lig

ht B

row

n,N

o od

our

CPT

000_

MW

16M

W16

9/01

/19

3552

09.9

9157

7212

7.11

23.

805

3.94

813

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

15/0

1/19

Dry

--

--

--

--

Dry

, No

odou

rC

PT09

9_M

W17

MW

1711

/01/

1935

7520

.644

5774

095.

463

2.89

52.

941

130

4.1

1 - 4

CLA

Y15

/01/

19D

ry-

--

--

--

-D

ry, N

o od

our

CPT

107_

MW

18M

W18

4/12

/18

3611

97.4

4657

7544

8.92

63.

925

3.00

913

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

8/12

/18

4.62

80.

517

.06.

112

747.

6028

.782

824

1.0

Hig

h Tu

rbid

ity, B

row

n, N

ood

our

CPT

114_

MW

19M

W19

4/12

/18

3638

62.3

2857

7600

3.26

54.

911

4.16

213

06.

01

- 4C

LAY

8/12

/18

4.47

01

17.8

6.5

1337

7.74

13.7

869

225.

4H

igh

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn,

No

odou

r

CPT

129_

MW

21M

W21

17/1

2/18

3661

61.1

4357

7784

3.27

617

.626

17.7

1613

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

19/1

2/18

0.50

119

16.2

7.6

8179

7.14

42.2

5316

255.

1H

igh

Turb

idity

, Bro

wn/

grey

,N

o od

our

CPT

134_

MW

22M

W22

6/12

/18

3707

81.2

3657

8268

3.12

123

.902

24.0

0113

04.

11

- 4C

LAY

8/12

/18

0.41

321

16.5

6.4

1565

66.

5252

.310

176

265.

0Lo

w T

urbi

dity

, Bro

wn

incr

easi

ng to

hig

h tu

rbid

ity,

brow

n, n

o od

our.

Not

esm

AHD

= m

etre

s ab

ove

Aust

ralia

n H

eigh

t Dat

umm

bgs

= m

etre

s be

low

gro

und

surfa

ceTO

C =

Top

of C

asin

gm

m =

milli

met

res

* All w

ells

cons

truct

ed w

ith 5

0 m

m N

D u

PVC

cas

ing

and

scre

enL

= Li

tres

ppm

= p

arts

per

milli

onuS

/cm

= m

icro

siem

ens

per c

entim

etre

mg/

L =

milli

gram

s pe

r litr

em

V =

milli

volts

oC =

deg

rees

Cel

sius

(1) T

DS

= To

tal D

issol

ved

Solid

s(2

) TD

S ap

prox

imat

ed a

s El

ectri

cal C

ondu

ctivi

ty x

0.6

5(3

) Cor

rect

ed R

edox

Pot

entia

l = F

ield

Red

ox P

oten

tial +

(224

.98

- 0.7

443*

Tem

pera

ture

) (R

edox

pot

entia

l con

verte

d fro

m A

g/Ag

Cl e

lect

rode

to H

2 el

ectro

de)

Bor

e D

evel

opm

ent

Bor

e C

onst

ruct

ion

Rev

isio

n 01

10

Jan

uary

201

9P:

\605

X\60

5926

34\4

00_T

ECH

\435

_Gro

undw

ater

\Tab

les\

Tabl

es 1

- 3

GIJ

PP G

roun

dwat

er_1

.xls

xPa

ge 1

of 1

Prin

t Dat

e: 1

1/06

/202

0

Cli

ent

Nam

e:

AG

L W

ho

lesa

le G

as L

td a

nd

AP

A T

ran

smis

sio

n P

ty L

tdP

roje

ct N

ame:

G

IJP

P E

ES

Gro

un

dw

ater

Tec

hn

ical

Rep

ort

Tab

le B

2. G

rou

nd

wat

er G

aug

ing

CP

T ID

Wel

l ID

Dat

eT

op o

f C

asin

g E

leva

tion

(mA

HD

)

Tot

al D

epth

(m

bTO

C)

Tot

al D

epth

(m

bgs)

Dep

th to

Wat

er

(mbT

OC

)D

epth

to W

ater

(m

bgs)

Gro

undw

ater

E

leva

tion

(mA

HD

)

PID

(ppm

)C

omm

ents

CP

T0

06_M

W01

MW

0130

/01/

197.

375

4.8

74.

14.

58

3.8

02.

800.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, stic

k up

CP

T0

12_M

W02

MW

0230

/01/

195.

231

3.8

84.

01.

41

1.5

23.

830.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, flu

sh g

atic

CP

T0

12_M

W03

MW

0330

/01/

193.

408

3.8

74.

03.

43

3.5

4-0

.02

0.0

Go

od C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, f

lush

ga

ticC

PT

015

_MW

04M

W04

30/0

1/19

7.99

24

.02

4.2

DR

Y (

>4.

02)

--

0.0

Dry

, Go

od C

ondi

tion

, 1 m

etre

insi

de fe

nce

, stic

k up

CP

T0

00_G

W02

GW

0230

/01/

1913

.57

44.

04.

13.

68

3.7

89.

890.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, flu

sh g

atic

CP

T0

00_G

W03

GW

0330

/01/

197.

636

3.9

4.1

3.1

73.

29

4.46

0.0

Go

od C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, f

lush

ga

ticC

PT

022

_MW

05M

W05

30/0

1/19

6.79

14

.00

4.1

1.3

01.

41

5.49

0.0

Go

od C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, f

lush

ga

ticC

PT

027

_MW

06M

W06

30/0

1/19

6.77

24

.82

4.1

4.0

63.

31

2.71

0.0

Go

od C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, s

tick

upC

PT

036

_C_

MW

23M

W23

30/0

1/19

15.4

63

4.8

64.

3D

RY

(>

4.6

8)-

-0

.0D

ry, G

ood

Con

ditio

n, s

tick

up

CP

T0

40_B

_MW

07M

W07

30/0

1/19

11.5

75

4.7

04.

13.

20

2.6

08.

380.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, stic

k up

CP

T0

40_B

_GW

04G

W04

30/0

1/19

10.8

12

4.8

74.

23.

14

2.4

57.

680.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, stic

k up

CP

T0

45_G

W05

GW

0530

/01/

198.

601

4.8

14.

12.

48

1.7

46.

120.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, stic

k up

CP

T0

00_M

W08

MW

0830

/01/

198.

382

3.9

04.

03.

40

3.5

34.

980.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, flu

sh g

atic

CP

T0

51_M

W09

MW

0930

/01/

193.

203

3.9

64.

11.

48

1.6

21.

720.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, flu

sh g

atic

CP

T0

55_M

W10

MW

1030

/01/

192.

708

3.9

84.

11.

89

1.9

90.

820.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, flu

sh g

atic

CP

T0

00_M

W11

MW

1130

/01/

193.

530

4.0

04.

12.

94

3.0

50.

590.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, flu

sh g

atic

CP

T0

64_M

W12

MW

1230

/01/

194.

367

4.8

54.

13.

99

3.2

30.

380.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, stic

k up

CP

T0

68_M

W13

MW

1330

/01/

195.

323

4.7

44.

02.

92

2.2

22.

400.

0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, stic

k up

CP

T0

37_B

_MW

14M

W14

30/0

1/19

4.87

64

.81

4.1

2.9

92.

23

1.89

0.0

Go

od C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, s

tick

upC

PT

000

_MW

15M

W15

30/0

1/19

3.57

84

.00

4.1

2.1

42.

24

1.44

0.0

Go

od C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, f

lush

ga

ticC

PT

000

_MW

16M

W16

30/0

1/19

3.80

54

.00

4.1

3.8

54.

00

-0.0

50

.0G

ood

Con

ditio

n, n

o o

dour

, flu

sh g

atic

CP

T0

99_M

W17

MW

1730

/01/

192.

895

3.9

64.

0D

RY

(>

3.9

6)-

-0

.0D

ry, G

ood

Con

ditio

n, f

lush

ga

ticC

PT

107

_MW

18M

W18

30/0

1/19

3.92

54

.88

4.0

4.8

33.

92

-0.9

10

.0N

o w

ell c

ap, s

tick

up w

obb

ly d

ue

to c

ows

rubb

ing

aga

inst

.C

PT

114

_MW

19M

W19

30/0

1/19

4.91

14

.78

4.0

DR

Y (

>4.

78)

--

0.0

Dry

, Go

od C

ondi

tion

, stic

k u

pC

PT

129

_MW

21M

W21

30/0

1/19

17.6

26

3.7

83.

91.

06

1.1

516

.57

0.0

Goo

d C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, f

lush

ga

ticC

PT

134

_MW

22M

W22

30/0

1/19

23.9

02

3.9

74.

11.

00

1.0

922

.91

0.0

Goo

d C

ondi

tion

, no

odo

ur, f

lush

ga

tic

No

tes

mA

HD

= m

etre

s a

bove

Au

stra

lian

He

igh

t Dat

um

mb

gs =

me

tres

bel

ow g

rou

nd s

urf

ace

mb

TO

C =

met

res

bel

ow

Top

of C

asin

gT

OC

= T

op o

f Cas

ing

L =

Litr

espp

m =

pa

rts

per

mill

ion

uS/c

m =

mic

rosi

em

ens

pe

r ce

ntim

etr

em

g/L

= m

illig

ram

s p

er li

tre

mV

= m

illiv

olts

oC =

de

gre

es C

els

ius

"-"

- no

t cal

cula

ted

Loca

tion

whe

re w

ater

tabl

e at

or

abov

e ba

se o

f 2

m tr

ench

Rev

isio

n 01

1

0 Ja

nuar

y 20

19

P:\

605X

\605

9263

4\40

0_T

EC

H\4

35_G

roun

dwat

er\T

able

s\T

able

s 1

- 3

GIJ

PP

Gro

und

wat

er_1

.xls

xP

age

1 o

f 1

Pri

nt D

ate:

14

/10

/201

9

Clie

nt N

ame:

AG

L W

hole

sale

Gas

Ltd

and

APA

Tra

nsm

issi

on P

ty L

tdPr

ojec

t Nam

e: G

IJPP

EES

Gro

undw

ater

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t

Tabl

e B

3. G

roun

dwat

er S

ampl

ing

Fiel

d Pa

ram

eter

s

CPT

IDBo

re ID

Dat

eVo

lum

eR

emov

ed (L

)Te

mpe

ratu

re(º

C)

Dis

solv

edO

xyge

n (m

g/L)

Elec

trica

lC

ondu

ctiv

ity(µ

S/cm

)pH

Red

ox F

ield

(mV)

Tota

l Dis

solv

edSo

lids

(TD

S) ¹

²R

edox

Pot

entia

l(E

h) ³

Com

men

ts

CPT

006_

MW

01M

W01

25/0

1/19

1.0

18.2

000.

6391

116.

2842

.259

2225

3.6

Gra

b sa

mpl

e; o

nly

enou

gh w

ater

for T

DS

- Bai

ler;

nood

our,

brow

n, h

igh

turb

idity

, no

shee

n.C

PT01

2_M

W02

MW

0223

/01/

196.

318

.500

0.36

4020

6.09

84.7

2613

295.

9C

lear

, no

odou

r, no

turb

idity

or s

heen

.C

PT01

2_M

W03

MW

0323

/01/

193.

916

.800

0.38

4406

6.67

58.1

2864

270.

6Li

ght b

row

n, n

o od

our,

low

turb

idity

, no

shee

n.C

PT02

2_M

W05

MW

0525

/01/

1913

.717

.800

0.52

8580

6.13

53.5

5577

265.

2C

lear

, no

odou

r.C

PT04

0_B_

MW

07M

W07

24/0

1/19

10.1

17.3

000.

5119

277.

3426

.412

5323

8.5

Ligh

t bro

wn,

no

odou

r, cl

ear.

CPT

040_

B_G

W04

GW

0423

/1/4

199.

018

.300

1.30

8601

6.04

123.

955

9133

5.3

Cle

ar, n

o od

our.

CPT

045_

GW

05G

W05

23/0

1/19

5.8

17.4

001.

3684

606.

1917

0.1

5499

382.

1Li

ght b

row

nish

whi

te, n

o od

our,

low

turb

idity

.C

PT05

1_M

W09

MW

0923

/01/

1921

.517

.700

0.27

1959

46.

3818

.512

736

230.

3Li

ght b

row

n, n

o od

our,

clea

r.C

PT05

5_M

W10

MW

1023

/01/

192.

418

.900

0.25

5677

6.82

-17

3690

193.

9C

lear

, no

odou

r.

CPT

000_

MW

11M

W11

23/0

1/19

3.0

17.1

002.

0325

252

--

1641

4-

pH n

ot s

ampl

ing/

redo

x ch

angi

ng, L

ight

bro

wn,

no

odou

r,cl

ear.

CPT

037_

B_M

W14

MW

1424

/01/

194.

117

.900

0.23

8010

5.96

6952

0728

0.7

Ligh

t bro

wn,

no

turb

idity

, no

odou

r.C

PT00

0_M

W15

MW

1522

/01/

197.

217

.000

2.89

7515

--

4885

-pH

not

sam

plin

g/re

dox

chan

ging

, cle

ar, n

o od

our.

CPT

129_

MW

21M

W21

30/0

1/19

5.2

17.8

003.

1484

206.

811

2.6

5473

324.

3Li

ght b

row

n, lo

w tu

rbid

ity, n

o od

our.

CPT

134_

MW

22M

W22

30/0

1/19

6.9

19.3

001.

9216

850

6.2

118.

110

953

328.

7Li

ght b

row

n, n

o od

our,

clea

r, no

she

en.

Not

es(1

) TD

S =

Tota

l Dis

solv

ed S

olid

s(2

) TD

S ap

prox

imat

ed a

s El

ectri

cal C

ondu

ctiv

ity x

0.6

5(3

) Cor

rect

ed R

edox

Pot

entia

l = F

ield

Red

ox P

oten

tial +

(224

.98

- 0.7

443*

Tem

pera

ture

) (R

edox

pot

entia

l con

verte

d fro

m A

g/Ag

Cl e

lect

rode

to H

2 el

ectro

de)

L =

Litre

spp

m =

par

ts p

er m

illion

uS/c

m =

mic

rosi

emen

s pe

r cen

timet

rem

g/L

= m

illigr

ams

per l

itre

mV

= m

illivo

ltsoC

= d

egre

es C

elsi

usTO

C =

Top

of C

asin

g"-

" - n

ot m

easu

red

due

to in

cons

itenc

ies

in th

e th

e m

easu

rem

ent d

evic

e

Rev

isio

n 01

10

Jan

uary

201

9P:

\605

X\60

5926

34\4

00_T

ECH

\435

_Gro

undw

ater

\Tab

les\

Tabl

es 1

- 3

GIJ

PP G

roun

dwat

er_1

.xls

xPa

ge 1

of 1

Prin

t Dat

e: 2

8/02

/201

9

Table B4Groundwater Analytical ResultsGIJPPAGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty Limited - Crib Point to Pakenham

MW01 MW02 MW03 MW07 GW04 MW09 MW10 MW11 MW14 MW15 MW21 MW22CPT006_MW01 CPT012_MW02 CPT012_MW03 CPT022W_MW05CPT022W_MW05CPT022W_MW05CPT040B_MW07CPT040B_MW04 CPT045_MW05 CPT045_MW05 CPT045_MW05 CPT051_MW09 CPT055_MW10 CPT000_MW11 CPT037B_MW14 CPT000_MW15 CPT129_MW21 CPT134_MW2225/01/2019 23/01/2019 23/01/2019 25/01/2019 25/01/2019 25/01/2019 24/01/2019 24/01/2019 23/01/2019 23/01/2019 23/01/2019 23/01/2019 23/01/2019 23/01/2019 24/01/2019 23/01/2019 30/01/2019 30/01/2019Primary Primary Primary Primary Duplicate Triplicate Primary Primary Primary Duplicate Triplicate Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary PrimaryEM1901029 EM1900976 EM1900976 EM1901029 EM1901029 637748 EM1900976 EM1900976 EM1900976 EM1900976 637750 EM1900976 EM1900976 EM1900976 EM1900976 EM1900976 EM1901225 EM1901225

Analyte Unit LORCalculated TDS (from Electrica

Total Dissolved Solids (Calc.) mg/L 1 4730 2670 2850 5100 5320 - 884 5560 5280 5280 - 13,800 4090 18,700 4600 4500 5210 10,800EW_LEED_MA_1523

Perfluoro-n-hexadecanoic acid µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - - - - - - - -Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Subst

Perfluorobutanoic acid µg/L 0.01 - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.008 - - - - - - -Sum of PFAS µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.11 0.115 0.13 - - - - - - -Sum of PFAS (WA DER List) µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.101 0.106 0.124 - - - - - - -10:2 FTS µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 - - - - - - -MeFOSAA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.005 - - - - - - -EtFOSAA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.005 - - - - - - -

Perfluoroalkane Sulfonic Acids (PFSA)PFBS µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.035 0.033 0.029#1 - - - - - - -PFPeS µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.009 0.009 0.006#1 - - - - - - -PFHpS µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 - - - - - - -PFHxS µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.025 0.024 0.037#1 - - - - - - -PFOS µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.002#1 - - - - - - -

Perfluoroalkyl Sulfonic Acids (PFSA)Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid (PFDS) µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 - - - - - - -

PFASN-MeFOSE (24448-09-7) ug/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - - - - - - -

Physio-Chemical ParametersTotal Dissolved Solids mg/L 10 4000 2000 5000 - 2410 2640 - - 6300 1120 5620 5050 5140 5900 14,300 3780 21,400 4750 4870 - -pH (Lab) pH Units 0.01 6-8.5 6-8.5 6.5-8.5 7.38 6.67 7.06 7.11 7.19 - 7.42 6.31 6.5 6.48 7.9 6.56 6.92 6.67 6.86 6.54 7.31 7.08

Total Petroleum HydrocarbonsC6-C9 fraction µg/L 20 - <20 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20C10-C14 fraction µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50C15-C28 fraction µg/L 100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100C29-C36 fraction µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 <50 <50 <100 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50C10-C36 fraction (sum) µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 - - <50 <50 <50 <100 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Total Recoverable HydrocarbonsC6-C10 fraction µg/L 20 - <20 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20C6-C10 fraction (minus BTEX)(F1) µg/L 20 - <20 <20 <20 <20 - - <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20>C10-C16 fraction µg/L 100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 <100 <100 <50 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100>C10-C16 (minus Naphthalene)(F2) µg/L 100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 <100 <100 <50 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100>C16-C34 fraction µg/L 100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100>C34-C40 fraction µg/L 100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100>C10-C40 fraction (sum) µg/L 100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 - - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100

Monocyclic Aromatic HydrocarbonsBenzene µg/L 1 1 1 1 500 10#2 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Toluene µg/L 2 800 800 800 8000#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Ethylbenzene µg/L 2 300 300 300 3000#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2m&p-Xylene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2o-Xylene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Total Xylenes µg/L 2 600 600 600 6000#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 - <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Styrene µg/L 5 30 30 30 300#2 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Isopropylbenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5n-butylbenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5n-propylbenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5p-isopropyltoluene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5sec-butylbenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5tert-butylbenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,2,4-trimethylbenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,3,5-trimethylbenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Total MAH µg/L 3 - - - - - <3 - - - - <3 - - - - - - -Total BTEX µg/L 1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 - - <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

NaphthaleneNaphthalene (VOC) µg/L 5 50 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - - <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Polynuclear Aromatic HydrocarbonsNaphthalene µg/L 2 50 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22-Methylnaphthalene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21-Chloronaphthalene µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -2-Chloronaphthalene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Acenaphthylene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Acenaphthene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Anthracene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Fluorene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Phenanthrene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Fluoranthene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Benz(a)anthracene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L 1 - - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - - - -Benzo(b&j)fluoranthene µg/L 1 - - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - - - -Benzo(b+j) & Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4N-2-Fluorenyl Acetamide µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <27,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L 2 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Chrysene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Pyrene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <23-Methylcholanthrene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dibenz(a,j)acridine µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -Sum of PAHs µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Phenolic CompoundsPhenol µg/L 2 270 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22-Chlorophenol µg/L 2 300 300 300 3000#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22-Methylphenol (o-Cresol) µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <23&4-Methylphenol (m&p-Cresol) µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <6 <4 <4 <4 <4 <6 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <42-Nitrophenol µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22,4-Dichlorophenol µg/L 2 200 200 200 2000#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22,4-Dimethylphenol µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22,6-Dichlorophenol µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <3 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <24-Chloro-3-methylphenol µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22,4,6-Trichlorophenol µg/L 2 20 20 20 200#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22,4,5-Trichlorophenol µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <10 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <24,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol µg/L 30 - - - - - <30 - - - - <30 - - - - - - -Pentachlorophenol µg/L 4 10 10 10 11 100#2 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <10 <4 <4 <4 <4 <10 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <42,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol µg/L 10 - - - - - <10 - - - - <10 - - - - - - -2,4-Dinitrophenol µg/L 30 - - - - - <30 - - - - <30 - - - - - - -4-Nitrophenol µg/L 30 - - - - - <30 - - - - <30 - - - - - - -

MetalsAluminium (Filtered) mg/L 0.01 5 20 5 5 5 - 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.08 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.01Arsenic (Filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.1 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1#2 - 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.007 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.012 0.011 0.003 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.001Cadmium (Filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0007 0.02#2 - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0009 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Chromium (Filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.1 1 1 1 1 0.5#2 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.009 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Chromium (hexavalent) ug/L 10 50 50 50 0.14 500#2 - - - <10 <10 <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - <10 <10Chromium (hexavalent) (Filtered) ug/L 10 50 50 50 0.14 500#2 - <10 <10 - - - <10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - -Copper (Filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.2 5 1 0.4 0.4 0.0003 20#2 - <0.001 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 <0.001 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.006 0.001Iron (Filtered) mg/L 0.05 0.2 10 - 1 0.33 1.7 1.95 1.9 0.07 1.02 <0.05 <0.05 0.05 3.59 3.02 0.26 0.74 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Lead (Filtered) mg/L 0.001 2 5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0022 0.1#2 - <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001Mercury (Filtered) mg/L 0.0001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.0001 0.01#2 - <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001Nickel (Filtered) mg/L 0.001 0.2 2 1 1 1 0.007 0.2#2 - 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.013 0.002 0.019 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.008 0.004 0.009 0.004 0.012 0.003 0.004Selenium (Filtered) ug/L 10 20 50 20 20 20 100#2 - <10 <10 <10 <10 9 <10 <10 <10 <10 4 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10Zinc (Filtered) mg/L 0.005 2 5 20 20 20 0.007 - 0.061 0.179 0.042 0.047 0.051 0.014 0.114 0.036 0.042 0.042 0.054 0.029 0.072 0.044 0.093 0.164 0.021

MW05 GW05LocationCPT LocationSample DateSample Type

Lab Report No.ANZECC 2000 -LivestockWatering(Sheep)

NHMRC 2008 -Guidelines forManaging Risksin RecreationalWaters

StandardsAustralia -AS2159 2009Buildings andStructures

ANZECC 2000 -Irrigation LTV

ANZECC 2000 -Irrigation STV

ANZECC 2000 -LivestockWatering (Beefcattle)

ANZECC 2000 -LivestockWatering(poultry)

ANZECC 2000 -Maintenance ofEcosystemsMarine Water99%

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Page 1 of 3 P:\605X\60592634\400_TECH\435_Groundwater\Tables\Table B4 Groundwater Analytical Results_criteria_Marine Only_20190228.xlsm , 28/02/2019



Analyte Unit LOR










Halogenated Aromatic CompoundsBenzyl chloride µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -Bromobenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Chlorobenzene µg/L 5 300 300 300 3000#2 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <52-Chlorotoluene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <54-Chlorotoluene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 2 1500 1500 1500 15000#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/L 2 40 40 40 400#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <1 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -1,2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 2 20 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21,3,5-Trichlorobenzene µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -

Halogenated Aliphatic CompoundsBromochloromethane µg/L 1 - - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - - - -Allyl chloride µg/L 1 - - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - - - -Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon 12) µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Chloromethane µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Vinyl chloride µg/L 50 0.3 0.3 0.3 3#2 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Bromomethane µg/L 50 1#3 1#3 10#2 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Chloroethane µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <501,1-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 30 30 30 300#2 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Iodomethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,1-Dichloroethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5cis-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5trans-1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,1-Dichloropropene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Carbon Tetrachloride µg/L 5 3 3 3 30#2 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,2-Dichloroethane µg/L 5 3 3 3 30#2 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Trichloroethene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Dibromomethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L 5 140 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,3-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Tetrachloroethene µg/L 5 50 50 50 500#2 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,2,3-Trichloropropane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Dichloromethane µg/L 1 4 4 4 40#2 - - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - - - -Pentachloroethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 7#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Fumigants1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) µg/L 5 1#3 1#3 10#2 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <51,2-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <52,2-Dichloropropane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

TrihalomethanesBromodichloromethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Bromoform µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Chloroform µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5Dibromochloromethane µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Physico-Chemical ParametersElectrical conductivity (lab) µS/cm 1 7280 4110 4380 7850 8190 - 1360 8550 8130 8120 8300 21,300 6290 28,800 7080 6930 8010 16,600

AlkalinityBicarbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 264 267 312 292 292 300 318 156 240 240 260 217 442 596 355 212 321 307Carbonate Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Hydroxide Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L 1 264 267 312 292 292 300 318 156 240 240 260 217 442 596 355 212 321 307Hardness as CaCO3 mg/L 5 - - - - - 1200 - - - - 1000 - - - - - - -Hardness as CaCO3 (Filtered) mg/L 1 804 470 530 1140 1130 - 65 754 957 1140 - 4530 143 6500 633 1360 1040 2240

NutrientsAmmonia (as N) mg/L 0.01 0.5 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.5 0.1 0.31 0.17 0.05 0.13 0.2Nitrate (as N) mg/L 0.01 90.3 90.3 90.3 0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.05 0.06 <0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.08Nitrite (as N) mg/L 0.01 9.12 9.12 9.12 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 <0.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.3 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.3Total Nitrogen (as N) mg/L 0.1 5 25-125 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 <0.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.3 1 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.4Reactive Phosphorus (as P) mg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01Total Phosphate (as P) mg/L 0.01 - - - - - 0.02 - - - - <0.01 - - - - - - -Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.01 0.05 0.8-12 0.48 0.12 0.19 0.07 0.09 - 0.45 0.4 0.26 0.26 - 0.33 0.09 0.39 0.11 0.17 0.41 0.09

Major IonsChloride mg/L 1 6000 2960 1190 1270 2950 2890 2600 280 3070 2800 3100 2700 7590 1670 10,300 2640 2300 2830 6120Calcium mg/L 1 1000 1000 1000 134 81 72 133 129 170 16 68 98 128 120 809 11 1270 72 199 83 146Fluoride mg/L 0.1 1 2 2 2 2 15#2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 - 0.7 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.5 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2Sodium Adsorption Ratio (Filtered) - 0.01 23 12.2 12.2 15.3 15.2 - 14.4 22.5 17.7 16 - 19.4 43.7 21.5 22.1 10.8 16.2 23.7Magnesium mg/L 1 114 65 85 197 197 190 6 142 173 200 170 610 28 809 110 211 202 456Potassium mg/L 1 <1 <1 4 <1 <1 <5 <1 <1 <1 3 <5 <2#2 41 <2#2 <1 <1 4 2Sodium mg/L 1 1500 609 645 1190 1180 1200 266 1420 1260 1240 1200 3000 1200 3990 1280 917 1200 2580Sulphate (as SO4-) mg/L 5 1000 1000 1000 5000 1000 - - - - - 130 - - - - 130 - - - - - - -Total Anions meq/L 0.01 97.2 41.4 44.3 91.7 90 - 16.1 94.8 86.4 94.9 - 244 65.4 327 85.6 80.6 89.1 186Total Cations meq/L 0.01 81.3 35.9 38.7 74.6 74 - 12.9 76.8 73.9 76.9 - 221 56.1 304 68.3 67.2 73.1 157Sulfate as SO4 - Turbidimetric (Filtered) mg/L 1 1000 1000 1000 5000 1000 404 122 106 128 129 - 88 244 124 126 - 1220 452 1170 193 554 139 333Ionic Balance % 0.01 8.89 7.19 6.65 10.3 9.79 - 11.1 10.4 7.75 10.5 - 4.9 7.62 3.7 11.2 9.11 9.91 8.35

Oxygenated Compounds2-Propanone (Acetone) µg/L 1 - - - - - <1 - - - - <1 - - - - - - -Vinyl acetate µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <502-Butanone (MEK) µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <502-hexanone (MBK) µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <504-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) µg/L 50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <1 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

Sulfonated CompoundsCarbon disulfide µg/L 5 - <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <1 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5

Phthalate EstersButyl benzyl phthalate µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Diethyl phthalate µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dimethyl phthalate µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Di-n-butyl phthalate µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Di-n-octyl phthalate µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/L 10 10 10 10 100#2 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10

NitrosaminesDiphenylamine µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -Methapyrilene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2N-Nitrosodibutylamine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2N-Nitrosodiethylamine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2N-Nitrosodiphenyl & Diphenylamine µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4N-Nitrosodipropylamine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2N-Nitrosomethylethylamine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2N-Nitrosomorpholine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2N-Nitrosopiperidine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2N-Nitrosopyrrolidine µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4




Analyte Unit LOR










Nitroaromatics and Ketones1,3,5-Trinitrobenzene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <21-Naphthylamine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <22,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <42,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <42-Naphthylamine µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -2-Picoline µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <24-Aminobiphenyl µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <24-Nitroquinoline-N-oxide µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <25-Nitro-o-toluidine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Acetophenone µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Azobenzene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Chlorobenzilate µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dimethylaminoazobenzene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Isophorone µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Nitrobenzene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <50 <2 <2 <2 <2 <50 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Pentachloronitrobenzene µg/L 2 30#3 30#3 300#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Phenacetin µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Pronamide µg/L 2 70#3 70#3 700#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Haloethers4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <24-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Chlorinated HydrocarbonsHexachlorocyclopentadiene µg/L 10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10Hexachloroethane µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Hexachloropropene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Pentachlorobenzene µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Chlorinated hydrocarbons (sum) µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -Other chlorinated hydrocarbons (sum) µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -

Organochlorine Pesticides (OC)Aldrin µg/L 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dieldrin µg/L 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Aldrin + Dieldrin µg/L 4 0.3#3 0.3#3 3#2 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4a-BHC µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2b-BHC µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2d-BHC µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2g-BHC (Lindane) µg/L 2 20 20 20 100#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2DDD µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2DDE µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2DDT µg/L 4 20 20 20 90#2 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4DDT+DDE+DDD µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4Endosulfan 1 µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Endosulfan 2 µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Endosulfan sulfate µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Endrin µg/L 2 0.004 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Endrin aldehyde µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -Endrin ketone µg/L 5 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -Heptachlor µg/L 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 3#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Heptachlor epoxide µg/L 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4Methoxychlor µg/L 5 300 300 300 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -

Organophosphorus Pesticides (OP)Chlorfenvinphos µg/L 2 5 5 5 20#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Chlorpyrifos µg/L 2 10 10 10 0.0005 100#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Chlorpyrifos-methyl µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Diazinon µg/L 2 3 3 3 40#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dichlorvos µg/L 2 1 1 1 50#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dimethoate µg/L 2 50 50 50 70#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Ethion µg/L 2 3 3 3 40#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Fenthion µg/L 2 7#3 7#3 70#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Malathion µg/L 2 70#3 70#3 700#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Pirimphos-ethyl µg/L 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 5#2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Prothiofos µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Benzidine3,3-Dichlorobenzidine µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2

Surfactants6:2 FTS µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - - - - - - -PFOA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.008 0.007 0.008#1 - - - - - - -

Anilines2-Nitroaniline µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <5 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <43-Nitroaniline µg/L 4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 - <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <4 <44-Chloroaniline µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <24-Nitroaniline µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Aniline µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Carbazole µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Dibenzofuran µg/L 2 - <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <5 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2 <2Trifluralin µg/L 5 50 50 50 900#2 - - - - - <5 - - - - <5 - - - - - - -

FieldpH (Field) pH Units 6-8.5 6-8.5 6.5-8.5 6.28 6.09 6.67 6.13 - - 7.34 6.04 6.19 - - 6.38 6.82 - 5.96 - 6.8 6.2Temperature °C 18.2 18.5 16.8 17.8 - - 17.3 18.3 17.4 - - 17.7 18.9 17.1 17.9 17 17.8 19.3Electrical conductivity (field) µS/cm 9111 4020 4406 8580 - - 1927 8601 8460 - - 19,594 5677 25,252 8010 7515 8420 16,850TDS (Field) mg/L 5922 2613 2864 5577 - - 1253 5591 5499 - - 12,736 3690 16,414 5207 4885 5473 10953DO mg/L 0.63 0.36 0.38 0.52 - - 0.51 1.3 1.36 - - 0.27 0.25 2.03 0.23 2.89 3.14 1.92Redox Potential (Field) mV 42.2 84.7 58.1 53.5 - - 26.4 123.9 170.1 - - 18.5 -17 - 69 - 112.6 118.1Redox Potential (Corrected) mV 254 296 271 265 - - 239 335 382 - - 230 194 - 281 - 324 329

Organic4:2 FTS ug/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 - - - - - - -PFPeA ug/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.007 0.011 0.01#1 - - - - - - -Sum (PFHxS + PFOS) ug/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.025 0.024 0.039 - - - - - - -Sum of enHealth PFAS (PFHxS + PFOS + PFOA)* ug/L 0.001 - - - - - - - - - - 0.047 - - - - - - -Sum of US EPA PFAS (PFOS + PFOA)* ug/L 0.001 - - - - - - - - - - 0.01 - - - - - - -

Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs)8:2 FTS µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 - - - - - - -N-Me-FOSA µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - - - - - - -FOSA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.005 - - - - - - -PFTeDA µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.001 - - - - - - -PFTrDA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 - - - - - - -N-Et-FOSA µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - - - - - - -PFDcA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 - - - - - - -PFHpA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.008 0.008 0.006#1 - - - - - - -PFHxA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 0.018 0.023 0.024#1 - - - - - - -N-Et-FOSE µg/L 0.005 - - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - - - - - - -PFDoA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 - - - - - - -PFNA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 - - - - - - -PFUnA µg/L 0.002 - - - - - - - <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 - - - - - - -

Env Stds Comments

Data Comments

#1:Interim Guideline#2:ADWG x10 (March 2015)#3:NHMRC 2011 Health

#1 Quantification of linear and branched isomers has been conducted as a single total response using the relative response factor for the corresponding linear/branched standard.#2 Reported Analyte LOR is higher than Requested Analyte LOR




AECOM

CAppendix CField programmethodology

1

Field Program and Data Analysis Methodology

Groundwater monitoring well installation The groundwater monitoring well installation methodology is summarised in Table 1 below. The locations of the groundwater monitoring wells are shown on Figure A1 (Appendix A). Table 1 Groundwater monitoring well installation methodology

Activity Details Service location Service location was undertaken by the following contractors:

• QEST Environmental between 29 November 2018 and 4 December 2018 • JULS Projects from between 8 January 2019 and 10 January 2019.

Drilling method All locations were cleared and drilled by Southwestern Drilling between 3 December 2018 and 11 January 2019. The monitoring well locations were cleared using non-destructive drilling to a minimum of 1.5 meters below ground level, and drilling was then advanced using solid stem augers to the target depth.

Soil logging Bore logs and monitoring well construction is presented in Appendix C. Monitoring Bore construction

All monitoring bores were drilled to a depth of 4 meters below ground level. Wells were installed using nominal 50 millimetre diameter Class 18 PVC casing and were screened with machine-slotted (0.5 millimetre slot) PVC across the water table between 1 and 4 meters below ground level. A sand filter pack (8/16 inch washed quartz sand) was installed in the bore annulus across the screen and at least 0.1 meters above the top of the screen. Above this, a bentonite seal was installed and hydrated to 0.1 meter below the surface. The annulus was then grouted to surface level and either a flush gatic (14 in total) or stick-up monument (12 in total) was installed.

Well development Post installation, the groundwater monitoring wells were developed by purging three bore volumes or until dry with a dedicated disposable bailer. All wells were developed within one week of installation.

Well survey All monitoring bores were surveyed on 30 January 2019. Survey data is presented in Table B1 (Appendix B).

Groundwater gauging and sampling The groundwater gauging and sampling methodology is summarised in Table 2 below. Table 2 Groundwater gauging and sampling methodology

Activity Details Groundwater gauging

All groundwater wells (26 locations) were gauged using an oil-water interface meter for depth to groundwater and total depth on 30 January 2019. The groundwater gauging data is presented in Table B2 (Appendix B).

Groundwater sampling dates

A total of 14 wells were sampled between 23 January 2019 and 30 January 2019. Groundwater sampling was conducted in wells GW04, GW05, MW01-MW03, MW05, MW07, MW09-MW11, MW14, MW15, MW21, and MW22. The remaining wells did not have sufficient water column to collect a sample.

Groundwater sampling method

Groundwater samples were collected using the following methods: • at well MW10: low flow sampling following the standard procedure (less

than 10 centimetre drawdown in the water column) • at wells MW02, MW03, MW05, MW07, GW04, GW05, MW09, MW11,

MW14, MW15, MW21 and MW22: recharge was too low for low flow

2

Activity Details sampling, so 50% of the well volume was purged with the low flow pump and samples were collected the following day (within 24 hours1) using low flow sampling techniques

• at well MW01: the water column was insufficient to use low flow sampling, so a grab sample was collected using a disposable bailer.

Ex-situ measurements of groundwater field chemistry (pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, and temperature) were collected during low-flow purging. Where samples were collected the following day, in-situ measurements of groundwater field chemistry were collected prior to sampling. Field quality parameters collected during sampling are presented in Table B3 (Appendix B).

Sample preservation

All samples were collected into the appropriately preserved bottles as provided by the laboratory. Samples were stored on ice in a cooler box while on site and in transit to the laboratory for analysis. Samples for dissolved metals were field filtered with a single-use Stericup 0.45 micrometre filter to remove suspended solids and colloids and collected in laboratory-provided sample collection bottles containing acid for stabilisation/preservation.

Sample analysis All primary samples were submitted to Australian Laboratory Services for the following analysis: • dissolved metals • major ions • total dissolved solids • nutrients (nitrate, ammonia, and total phosphorus) • chromium (IV) • total recoverable hydrocarbons • benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes and naphthalene • volatile organic compounds and semivolatile organic compounds • per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances – low level suite (28 analytes) (GW04

and GW05 only). Quality control The following samples were submitted for quality control purposes:

• two duplicate samples, five equipment rinsate blanks, and five trip blanks to Australian Laboratory Services; and

• two inter-laboratory samples (field triplicate) to Eurofins Environment Testing Australia.

Decontamination procedure

The interface probe and low flow pump were washed in Liquinox solution and rinsed with potable water and deionised water between wells. Low flow bladders, low flow tubing and bailers were dedicated for each well.

Disposal of purged groundwater

Purged groundwater collected during sampling was discharged to ground given the minor volumes purged during sampling.

Equipment calibration

The water quality meter used to collect groundwater parameters was calibrated daily prior to sampling.

1 Except at MW21 and MW22 where samples were collected 6 days after purging due to weather constraints on sampling.

3

Aquifer testing The aquifer testing methodology is summarised in Table 3 below. Table 3 Aquifer testing methodology

Activity Details Dates of aquifer testing

Aquifer hydraulic testing (rising head slug tests) was conducted between 21 January 2019 and 25 January 2019. The tests were conducted in groundwater wells MW01-MW03, MW05, MW07, GW04, GW05, MW09-MW11, MW14, MW15, MW21, and MW22, where sufficient water column was available.

Aquifer testing methodology

The slug testing methodology is summarised below: • Depth to groundwater from the top of casing reference point was

measured prior to any disturbance within each of the wells. • An electronic pressure transducer was lowered into the well to monitor

groundwater pressure head at intervals of 10 seconds during testing. • A 35 millimetre diameter bailer of known volume (0.975 litres) was then

lowered into the well, completely submerged where the water column was sufficient and then removed, displacing the water level by approximately 0.5 metres. Where a full bailer was not removed, the bailer volume removed was measured on site and noted.

• Water levels were monitored manually (as well as by transducer) until 90% recovery had occurred (that is, the water level recovered to within 10% of the static water level prior to displacement). Where levels did not recover sufficiently due to site access and timing constraints, pressure transducers were removed after greater than four hours.

• Data from the electronic transducers was compared to manual measurements as part of the data quality assessment.

Tidal influence methodology

Pressure transducers were installed in MW01-MW03 for approximately seven days to determine whether there was potential for tidal influence in the southern portion of the alignment. Tidal influence was not observed in the monitoring wells.

Aquifer testing data analysis

Raw data from the slug tests are presented in Appendix G. The data shows oscillations of the water level during removal of the bailer volume and is considered to exhibit a slight under-damped response. This is reasonable when considering a test well of small diameter within a sandy aquifer. Data was cleaned and processed using AQTESOLV Pro version 4.50, an industry standard program. The Bouwer and Rice Method slug-test analysis method was adopted due to its applicability on partially penetrating, unconfined aquifer systems. The Bower and Rice equation is:

𝐾 =𝑟𝑐

2 ln 𝑅𝑒 𝑅⁄

2𝐿𝑒

1

𝑡ln

𝐻0

𝐻𝑡

(𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 5.91 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐹𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑟, 2001)

Where: K is hydraulic conductivity rc is the radius of the well casing R is the radius of the gravel envelope Re is the effective radial distance over which the head is dissipated Le is the saturated length of the screen or open section of the well H0 is the drawdown at time t=0 Ht is the drawdown at time t-t T is the time since H-H0 The following assumptions were made: • the geology at all locations was considered a single aquifer unit across the

screened interval of the aquifer

4

Activity Details

• the aquifer thickness was estimated to be the total depth of the monitoring well at each location

• the ratio of vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity was 0.1. AQTESOLV output results are provided in Appendix G.

Data Quality The data quality assessment methodology is summarised in Table 4 below. The data validation report is presented in Appendix F. Table 4 Data quality assessment methodology

Activity/Item Details Data quality analysis

Quality assurance and control measures were incorporated into the sampling and analysis work so that the data quality objectives could be achieved and to demonstrate accuracy, precision, comparability, representativeness, and completeness with regard to the data generated.

Data quality indicators

The data quality indicators adopted are based upon data validation guidance documents published by Standards Australia and the National Environment Protection Council. These include the Guide to the Investigation and Sampling of Sites with Potentially Contaminated Soil (AS 4482.1-2005), Schedule B2 Site Characterisation (NEPC 1999, amended 2013) and Schedule B3 Laboratory Analysis of Potentially Contaminated Soils (NEPC 1999, amended 2013). The process involves the checking of analytical procedure compliance and an assessment of the accuracy and precision of analytical data from a range of quality control measurements, generated from both the field sampling and analytical programs. Specific elements that have been checked and assessed for this project include: • preservation and storage of samples upon collection and during transport

to the laboratory • sample holding times • use of appropriate analytical and field sampling procedures • required limits of reporting • frequency of conducting quality control measurements • rinsate, field, and trip blank results • laboratory blank results • field duplicate and triplicate results • laboratory duplicate results • matrix spike results • surrogates spike results • the occurrence of apparently unusual or anomalous results, for example,

laboratory results that appear to be inconsistent with field observations or measurements.



AECOM

DAppendix DBorelogs

0.30

2.80

4.00

CL

CL

CH

CLAY; Light brown, low plasticity, trace rootlets,no odour or staining.

CLAY; Grey with red and orange mottling, low tomedium plasticity, no odour or staining.

From 1.5m no orange mottling.

CLAY; Grey with red mottling, high plasticity,trace medium grained sub-rounded gravel(ironstone), no odour or staining.

Wet from 3.9m.

Borehole terminated at 4.0 mTarget depth reachedTotal Depth: 4.00 m

Gatic CoverCement Grout

Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

1.4

1.2

2.4

2.3

3.3

1.9

2.9

3.0

5.9

CPT000_MW02_100119_0.2

CPT000_MW02_100119_0.5

CPT000_MW02_100119_1.0

CPT000_MW02_100119_1.5

CPT000_MW02_100119_2.0

CPT000_MW02_100119_2.5

CPT000_MW02_100119_3.0

CPT000_MW02_100119_3.5

CPT000_MW02_100119_4.0

13.674 m AHD13.574 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS

TOP OF CASING (TOC)SURFACE ELEVATION

0.0 - 1.0341306

Push Tube followed by Solid Stem Auger

LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5

GRAVEL PACKSCREENBLANK

STABILISED WATER LEVELSANITARY SEAL/BENTONITE

SAMPLING METHODDRILLING METHOD

EASTING5759026

0.5 - 4.0

3.583 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S

LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BOREHOLE LOG

DATE

Crib Point to PakenhamGIJPP Groundwater Study

PROJECT NUMBER 10 Jan 19

GW02

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

LOCATIONPROJECT NAME

PAGE 1 OF 1

AECOM Australia Pty Ltd

Level 11, Tower 2, 727 Collins Street

Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.40

0.90

2.00

4.10

FILL

ML

CL

CH

FILL; Gravelly SAND; Brown, fine to mediumgrained sand, poorly sorted, medium to coarsegrained, sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel(construction concrete), trace roots, trace shellfragments, no odour or staining.

SILT; Brown, low plasticity, trace rootlets, noodour or staining.

CLAY; Brown to grey with orange mottling,medium plasticity, trace rootlets, no odour orstaining.

CLAY; Grey with light orange mottling, highplasticity, no odour or staining.

From 2.3m no mottling.

From 3.4m to 3.6m some orange mottling andsome fine to medium grained, sub-angular tosub-rounded red gravel (ironstone).

Wet from 3.9m.

Borehole terminated at 4.1m, target depthreached.Total Depth: 4.10 m


Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

8.6

7.9

5.4

6.7

2.7

5.9

5.1

6.5

3.8

CPT000_MW03_100119_0.2

CPT000_MW03_100119_0.5

CPT000_MW03_100119_1.0

CPT000_MW03_100119_1.5

CPT000_MW03_100119_2.0

CPT000_MW03_100119_2.5

CPT000_MW03_100119_3.0

CPT000_MW03_100119_3.5

CPT000_MW03_100119_4.0

7.753 m AHD7.636 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0341196


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5759361

0.5 - 4.1

3.056 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BOREHOLE LOG

DATE



GW03

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.50

1.50

4.10

SW

CLS

SP

SAND; Light brown, fine grained, well sorted,trace rootlets, no odour or staining.

Sandy, Gravelly CLAY; Orange, low plasticity,30% fine to medium grained sand, poorly sorted,20% fine to medium grained gravel (ironstone),no odour or staining.

SAND; Orange with red mottling, fine to mediumgrained sand, poorly sorted, no odour orstaining.

From 2.6m becomes grey to light brown withorange and red mottling.

Wet from 3.0m.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

7.9

106.7

1.0

1.2

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.4

CPT040_MW04_080119_0.2

CPT040_MW04_080119_0.5

CPT040_MW04_080119_1.0

CPT040_MW04_080119_1.5

CPT040_MW04_080119_2.0

CPT040_MW04_080119_2.5

CPT040_MW04_080119_3.0

CPT040_MW04_080119_3.5

CPT040_MW04_080119_4.0

10.122 m AHD10.812 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0344249


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5763633

0.5 - 4.1

2.445 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BOREHOLE LOG

DATE



GW04

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.70

1.30

2.60

3.40

3.60

4.10

SP

CLS

SC

SW

CL

SP

SAND; Brown, fine to medium grained, poorlysorted, trace silt, trace rootlets, no odour orstaining.

Sandy CLAY; Grey with brown mottling, lowplasticity, 40% fine to medium grained sand,poorly sorted, no odour or staining.

Clayey SAND; Grey with brown mottling, fine tomedium grained, poorly sorted, 20% clay, noodour or staining.

Wet from 1.7m.

SAND; Grey, medium grained, well sorted, 5 -10% clay, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Grey, medium plasticity, trace finegrained sand, no odour or staining.

SAND; Grey, medium to coarse grained, poorlysorted, 5-10% clay, no odour or staining.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0.1

0

0.1

0.8

1.2

0.8

0.4

0.6

CPT000_MW05_080119_0.2

CPT000_MW05_080119_0.5

CPT000_MW05_080119_1.0

CPT000_MW05_080119_1.5

CPT000_MW05_080119_2.0

CPT000_MW05_080119_2.5

CPT000_MW05_080119_3.0

CPT000_MW05_080119_3.5

CPT000_MW05_080119_4.0

7.867 m AHD8.601 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0344642


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5763917

0.5 - 4.1

1.744 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

BOREHOLE LOG

DATE



GW05

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.30

1.10

3.50

4.10

MLG

MLG

MLG

MLS

Gravelly SILT; Light brown, low plasticity, withfine to medium grained gravel, sub-angular tosub-rounded (ironstone) and 10% fine tomedium grained sand, no odour or staining.

Gravelly SILT; Brown, medium plasticity, withfine to medium grained gravel (ironstone),sub-angular to sub-rounded, no odour orstaining.

Gravelly SILT; Grey with red mottling, mediumplasticity, with fine to medium grained gravel(ironstone), sub-angular to sub-rounded, tracefine grained sand, no odour or staining.

Sandy SILT; Grey with some red mottling,medium plasticity, with 30% medium to coarsegrained quartz sand, no odour or staining.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW01_061218_0.2

CPT_MW01_061218_0.5

CPT_MW01_061218_1.0

CPT_MW01_061218_2.0

CPT_MW01_061218_3.0

CPT_MW01_061218_4.0

6.594 m AHD7.375 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0343340


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5754526

0.5 - 4.1

3.799 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE


PROJECT NUMBER 6 Dec 18

MW01

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.50

0.90

2.00

4.10

CLS

CL

CH

CH

Sandy CLAY; Dark brown, low plasticity, with30% fine to medium grained sand, trace finegrained gravel, trace organic matter, tracerootlets, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Grey, low plasticity, with 10% fine tomedium grained sand, poorly sorted, no odouror staining.

CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, high plasticity,trace fine to medium grained sand, tracerootlets, no odour or staining.

From 1.4m orange mottling reducing.

CLAY; Grey, high plasticity, with 15% fine tomedium grained sand, poorly sorted, no odouror staining.Wet from 2.1m.

From 3.0m sand content increased to 25%



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0.1

0

0

CPT_MW02_051218_0.2

CPT_MW02_051218_0.5

CPT_MW02_051218_1.0

CPT_MW02_051218_2.0

CPT_MW02_051218_3.0

CPT_MW02_051218_4.0

5.348 m AHD5.231 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0341435


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5756412

0.5 - 4.1

1.288 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW02

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.90

2.00

3.50

3.60

4.10

ML

CL-ML

ML

GPS

ML

SILT; Brown, low plasticity, with rootlets, traceorganic matter, trace fine grained sand, noodour or staining.

Clayey SILT; Grey, with brown mottling, mediumplasticity, trace fine grained sand, no odour orstaining.

Wet from 1.9m.

SILT; Grey, medium plasticity, with 10% fine tomedium grained sand, no odour or staining.

From 2.7m Grey with orange mottling.

From 3.2m to 3.4m root system present.

Sandy Gravelly lens; Fine to medium grainedgravel (igneous origin), Sub-rounded torounded, with fine to medium grained sand, siltmatrix, no odour or staining.

SILT; Grey, medium plasticity, with 10% fine tomedium grained sand, no odour or staining.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0.1

CPT_MW03_051218_0.2

CPT_MW03_051218_0.5

CPT_MW03_051218_1.0

CPT_MW03_051218_2.0

CPT_MW03_051218_3.0

CPT_MW03_051218_4.0

3.522 m AHD3.408 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0341413


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5757021

0.5 - 4.1

3.311 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW03

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

2.40

4.10

ML

CH

SILT; Brown, low plasticity, no odour or staining.

From 0.9m brown with orange mottling.

From 1.6m orange.

At 2.0 trace fine grained sandstone gravel.From 2.0m to 2.4m highly weathered.At 2.2 trace fine grained sandstone gravel.

CLAY; Grey, high plasticity, no odour or staining.From 2.5m grey with increasing red and orangemottling.

From 3.8m grey.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW04_051218_0.2

CPT_MW04_051218_0.5

CPT_MW04_051218_1.0

CPT_MW04_051218_2.0

CPT_MW04_051218_3.0

CPT_MW04_051218_4.0

8.135 m AHD7.992 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0341436


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5


SANITARY SEAL/BENTONITE


EASTING5757532

0.5 - 4.1

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW04

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.80

3.00

4.40

TOPSOIL

CH

TOPSOIL: Sandy SILT; Brown, mediumplasticity, with 20% fine to medium grainedsand, trace rootlets, trace organic fines, noodour or staining.

From 0.5m sand reducing and silt increasing.

CLAY; Grey with some orange mottling, highplasticity, trace fine grained sand, trace rootlets,trace organic fines, no odour or staining.

Wet from 1.5m and increased mottling.

From 1.7m no mottling.

SILT; Grey, medium plasticity, trace fine grainedsands, no odour or staining.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0.1

0.1

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW05_041218_0.2

CPT_MW05_041218_0.5

CPT_MW05_041218_1.0

CPT_MW05_041218_2.0

CPT_MW05_041218_3.0

CPT_MW05_041218_4.0

6.899 m AHD6.791 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0341186


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5759815

0.5 - 4.4

1.190 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW05

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.20

2.80

4.70

FILL

CL

CH

FILL; Gravelly SAND; Light grey, fine to mediumgrained, poorly sorted, fine to medium grained,sub-angular to sub-rounded igneous gravel, noodour or staining.

CLAY; Dark grey with minor orange mottling,medium plasticity, trace rootlets, no odour orstaining.

From 1.5m increased mottling.

CLAY; Grey, high plasticity, trace fine to mediumgrained sand, trace rootlets, no odour orstaining.

At 3.7m becomes wet.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.2

CPT_MW06_080119_0.2

CPT_MW06_080119_0.5

CPT_MW06_080119_1.0

CPT_MW06_080119_2.0

CPT_MW06_080119_3.0

CPT_MW06_080119_4.0

6.016 m AHD6.772 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0341590


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5761144

0.5 - 4.7

3.308 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW06

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.30

0.70

1.50

2.70

3.40

3.80

4.10

CLS

SC

CLS

SC

CH

CLG

GPS

Sandy CLAY; Brown, low plasticity, 30% fine tomedium grained sand, no odour or staining.

Clayey SAND; Light brown, fine to mediumgrained sand, low plasticity clay, trace finegrained, sub-rounded to rounded gravel(igneous), no odour or staining.

Sandy CLAY, Grey with red and orange mottling,medium plasticity, 30% fine to medium grainedsand, poorly sorted, no odour or staining.

Clayey SAND; Orange with red and greymottling, fine to medium grained sand, 20 - 30%low plasticity clay, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Grey, high plasticity, 10% fine to mediumgrained poorly sorted sand, no odour or staining.

Gravelly CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, lowplasticity, fine to medium grained, sub-angular toangular gravel (ironstone) lenses at 3.4 - 3.6 mand 3.7 - 3.8 m, no odour or staining.

Wet from 3.8m.

Sandy CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, highplasticity, 20% fine to medium grained, poorlysorted sand, no odour or staining.Borehole terminated at 4.1m, target depthreached.Total Depth: 4.10 m


Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW07_181218_0.2

CPT_MW07_181218_0.5

CPT_MW07_181218_1.0

CPT_MW07_181218_2.0

CPT_MW07_181218_3.4

CPT_MW07_181218_4.0

10.974 m AHD11.575 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0343971


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5763584

0.5 - 4.1

2.599 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW07

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.20

0.80

1.30

3.00

4.10

FILL

FILL

FILL

CL

CLS

FILL; Gravelly SAND; Dark Brown, fine tomedium grained sand, poorly sorted, fine tomedium grained sub-angular to angular gravel(igneous), trace roots, trace organic matter, noodour or staining.

FILL; SAND; Grey, fine to medium grained sand,poorly sorted, no odour or staining.

FILL; SAND; Light brown to brown, fine tomedium grained sand, poorly sorted, no odouror staining.

At 1.3m broken concrete at base of fill.

CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, 10-15% fine tomedium grained sand, no odour or staining.

Wet from 3.0m.Sandy CLAY; Grey, medium plasticity, 30% fineto coarse grained sand, poorly sorted, trace verycoarse sand, no odour or staining.

At 3.3 - 3.35m red with orange mottling.From 3.4m increases to coarse grained sand.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

5

6.8

9.5

4.4

12.9

13.9

CPT_MW08_100119_0.2

CPT_MW08_100119_0.5

CPT_MW08_100119_1.0

CPT_MW08_100119_2.0

CPT_MW08_100119_3.0

CPT_MW08_100119_4.0

8.509 m AHD8.382 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0345437


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5765756

0.5 - 4.1

3.275 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW08

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.20

1.90

2.40

3.40

4.10

MLS

CH

CLS

SC

SC

Sandy SILT; Black, low plasticity, 30% fine tomedium grained, poorly sorted sand, tracerootlets, trace organic matter, no odour orstaining.

CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, highplasticity, 10% medium to coarse grained sand,no odour or staining.

Wet from 1.9m.

Sandy CLAY, Grey with orange mottling,medium plasticity, 30 - 40% coarse grainedsand, well sorted, no odour or staining.

Sandy CLAY, Grey, medium plasticity, 30 - 40%fine grained sand, well sorted, no odour orstaining.From 2.5 - 3.0m black, high plasticity withvertical dry streak.

From 3.1 - 3.15m coarse sand.

Clayey SAND; grey, coarse grained, well sorted,20% clay, no odour or staining.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW09_171218_0.2

CPT_MW09_171218_0.5

CPT_MW09_171218_1.0

CPT_MW09_171218_2.0

CPT_MW09_171218_3.0

CPT_MW09_171218_4.0

3.341 m AHD3.203 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0346159


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5766252

0.5 - 4.1

1.346 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW09

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.50

2.50

2.80

4.10

SM

CLS

SP-SC

CLS

Silty SAND; Brown, fine to medium grained sandwith 30-40% silt, trace rootlets, no odour orstaining.

Sandy CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, highplasticity with 20% medium grained sand, noodour or staining.

Wet from 1.6m and sand increases to 30%.

From 2.0m sand reduced back to 20%.

Clayey SAND; Grey, fine to medium grained,poorly sorted, with 30% medium plasticity clay,no odour or staining.

Sandy CLAY; Grey, high plasticity, with 10-20%fine to medium grained sand, no odour orstaining.

From 3.5m red mottling present.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

00

0

0

BH10_031218_0.2

BH10_031218_0.5

BH10_031218_1.0

BH10_031218_2.5

QC100_031218

BH10_031218_3.0

BH10_031218_4.0

2.809 m AHD2.708 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0346555


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5767387

0.5 - 4.1

1.790 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW10

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.20

0.90

4.10

CL

CL

CH

CLAY; Light brown, low plasticity, trace rootlets,no odour or staining.

CLAY; Brown with orange mottling, mediumplasticity, trace rootlets, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, high plasticity,15% fine to medium grained sand, trace verycoarse grained quartz grains, no odours orstaining.

Wet from 2.1 m.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

CPT_MW11_090119_0.2QC101

CPT_MW11_090119_0.5

CPT_MW11_090119_1.0

CPT_MW11_090119_2.0

CPT_MW11_090119_3.0

CPT_MW11_090119_4.0

3.645 m AHD3.530 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0346924


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5768887

0.5 - 4.1

2.823 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW11

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.90

2.40

4.10

ML

ML

CL-CH

SILT; Brown, low plasticity, with 10% fine tomedium grained sand, trace rootlets, traceorganic matter, trace fine grained roundedgravel, no odour or staining.

SILT; Grey with orange and red mottling,medium plasticity, with trace fine to mediumgrained sand, trace fine grained, rounded gravel(ironstone), no odour or staining.

CLAY; Orange with red mottling, some blackclay throughout, medium plasticity, with 10-15%fine grained sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel(ironstone), no odour or staining.

From 3.0m to 3.2m grey with orange mottling.

From 3.3m to 3.35m medium grained ironstonegravel.

Wet from 3.6m.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW12_071218_0.2

CPT_MW12_071218_0.5

CPT_MW12_071218_1.0

CPT_MW12_071218_2.0

CPT_MW12_071218_3.0

CPT_MW12_071218_4.0

3.607 m AHD4.367 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0349988


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5770187

0.5 - 4.1

3.225 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW12

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

1.00

1.90

4.10

ML

MLS

ML

SILT; Light brown, low plasticity, trace rootlets,trace organic matter, no odour or staining.

From 0.9m orange mottling.

Sandy SILT; Grey with orange mottling, mediumplasticity, with 40% medium to coarse grainedsand, poorly sorted, no odour or staining.

SILT; Light grey with orange mottling, highplasticity, trace fine to medium grained sand, noodour or staining.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW13_061218_0.2

CPT_MW13_061218_0.5

CPT_MW13_061218_1.0

CPT_MW13_061218_2.0

CPT_MW13_061218_3.0

CPT_MW13_061218_4.0

4.622 m AHD5.323 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0352027


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5770846

0.5 - 4.1

2.222 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW13

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.80

4.20

CL-CH

CH

CLAY; Dark Grey, medium plasticity, tracerootlets near the surface, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Dark grey with orange mottling, mediumplasticity, no odour or staining.

Wet from 1.4m.

From 1.7m and fine to medium grained sandlens (30mm), orange, 30-40% silt.From 1.8m dark grey with orange mottling.

From 3.0m dark grey, no mottling.

From 3.3m dark grey with orange mottling.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

CPT_BH14_031218_0.2

CPT_BH14_031218_0.5

CPT_BH14_031218_1.0

CPT_BH14_031218_1.5

CPT_BH14_031218_2.0

CPT_BH14_031218_2.5

CPT_BH14_031218_3.0

CPT_BH14_031218_3.5

CPT_BH14_031218_4.0

4.116 m AHD4.876 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0354166


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5771533

0.5 - 4.2

2.130 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW14

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.20

0.90

3.70

4.10

CLS

CH

CH

CLS

Sandy CLAY; Dark brown, low plasticity, 30%fine to medium grained sand, poorly sorted,trace rootlets, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Black, high plasticity, 10% fine tomedium grained sand, poorly sorted, tracerootlets, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, high plasticity,10% fine to medium grained sand, poorly sorted,trace rootlets, no odour or staining.

From 2.0m sand content increases to 15 -20%.

From 2.2m to 3.2m some black clay.

Wet from 2.5m.

Sandy CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, 30%fine to medium grained sand, poorly sorted, noodour or staining.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

CPT_MW15_090119_0.2

CPT_MW15_090119_0.5QC201

CPT_MW15_090119_1.0

CPT_MW15_090119_2.0

CPT_MW15_090119_3.0

CPT_MW15_090119_4.0

3.675 m AHD3.578 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0355209


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5772126

0.5 - 4.1

2.046 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW15

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.20

0.90

4.10

CL

CL

CH

CLAY; Brown, low plasticity, with roots androotlets, trace fine sand, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Black, medium plasticity, trace finegrained sand, trace rootlets, no odour orstaining.

CLAY; Black, high plasticity, trace fine grainedsand, no odour or staining.

From 2.0m dark grey with orange mottling.

Wet from 2.5m.

From 3.45m to 3.65m some black mottling.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.2

CPT_MW16_090119_0.2

CPT_MW16_090119_0.5

CPT_MW16_090119_1.0

CPT_MW16_090119_2.0

CPT_MW16_090119_3.0

CPT_MW16_090119_4.0

3.948 m AHD3.805 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0357520


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5774095

0.5 - 4.1

3.710 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW16

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

1.30

4.10

CL

CH

CLAY; Black, low plasticity, trace rootlets, traceorganic matter, no odour or staining.

From 0.2m medium plasticity.

CLAY; Dark grey with brown and light brownmottling, high plasticity, trace rootlets, tracemedium grained sand, no odour or staining.

From 3.8 m increase in brown mottling.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

6.4

10.4

9.6

4.3

7.0

12.7

CPT_MW17_110119_0.2

CPT_MW17_110119_0.5

CPT_MW17_110119_1.0

CPT_MW17_110119_2.0

CPT_MW17_110119_3.0

CPT_MW17_110119_4.0

2.941 m AHD2.895 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0361197


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5775448

0.5 - 4.1

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW17

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

4.10

CH CLAY; Black, high plasticity, with 20% roots andorganic matter, no odour or staining.

From 0.5 roots and organic matter reduced to5%.

From 1.3m becoming dark grey with blackmottling.

Wet from 1.8m.

From 2.8m brown.

From 3.3m light grey with black mottling.

From 3.5m light grey with brown mottling.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0.2

0.1

0.3

CPT_MW18_041218_0.2

CPT_MW18_041218_0.5

CPT_MW18_041218_1.0

CPT_MW18_041218_2.0

CPT_MW18_041218_3.0

CPT_MW18_041218_4.0CPT_QC200_041218

3.009 m AHD3.925 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0363862


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5776003

0.5 - 4.1

3.918 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW18

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.50

1.00

6.00

ML

CH

CH

SILT; Black, medium plasticity, trace finegrained sub-rounded gravel, trace fine grainedsand, trace organic matter, trace rootlets, noodour or staining.

CLAY; Black, high plasticity, trace fine tomedium grained sand, trace rootlets, no odouror staining.

Wet from 0.9m

CLAY; Grey with some brown mottling, highplasticity, no odour or staining.

From 3.0m brown mottling increasing.

From 3.5m trace coarse grained sands.

Borehole terminated at 6.0m, target depthexceeded.

Total Depth: 6.00 m


Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0.9

0.1

0

0

0

CPT_MW19_041218_0.2

CPT_MW19_041218_0.5

CPT_MW19_041218_1.0

CPT_MW19_041218_2.0

CPT_MW19_041218_3.0

CPT_MW19_041218_4.0

4.162 m AHD4.911 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0366161.07


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5777843.05

0.5 - 6.0

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW19

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

Gravel Packand fallback

WakemanM

Arrow

WakemanM

Arrow

WakemanM

Arrow

WakemanM

Arrow

0.30

4.10

CL

CH

CLAY; Dark brown, low to medium plasticity,10-20% rootlets and organic matter, no odour orstaining.

CLAY; grey with brown mottling, high plasticity,trace rootlets to 0.5m, no odour or staining.

Wet from 1.2m.

From 2.2m some light green staining.

From 3.1m grey.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW21_171218_0.2

CPT_MW21_171218_0.5

CPT_MW21_171218_1.0

CPT_MW21_171218_2.0

CPT_MW21_171218_3.0

CPT_MW21_171218_4.0

17.716 m AHD17.626 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0370781


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5782683

0.5 - 4.1

0.968 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW21

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.30

0.90

2.80

3.40

4.10

ML

CH

CH

CH

CLG

SILT; Dark brown, low plasticity with 20%organic matter and rootlets, trace fine grainedsand, no odour or staining.

CLAY; Brown, high plasticity, trace organicmatter, trace coarse grained sand, no odour orstaining.

CLAY; Grey with orange mottling, high plasticity,trace coarse grained sand, no odour or staining.

Wet from 1.5m.

From 2.6m to 2.65m - medium to coarse grainedsand, highly weathered.

CLAY; Grey, high plasticity with trace coarsegrained sand, no odour or staining.

At 3.06 small medium to coarse grained sandlens.

Gravelly CLAY; Grey with orange mottling,medium plasticity, with 30% fine to mediumgrained gravel (ironstone), rounded.From 3.6-3.65 highly weathered coarse grainedgravel (ironstone).At 3.78 highly weathered coarse grained gravel.At 3.9 highly weathered coarse grained gravel.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW20_061218_0.2

CPT_MW20_061218_0.5

CPT_MW20_061218_1.0

CPT_MW20_061218_2.0

CPT_MW20_061218_3.0

CPT_MW20_061218_4.0

24.001 m AHD23.902 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0372239


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5784161

0.5 - 4.1

0.896 m BGL

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW22

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9

0.20

0.80

1.40

2.10

2.20

3.90

4.10

SP

SPG

SPG

ML

GW

SM

SP

SAND; Brown, fine to medium grained sand,trace silt, trace organic matter, trace rootlets, noodour or staining.

Gravelly SAND; Grey, fine to medium grained,20% sub-angular to sub-rounded sandstone, noodour or staining.

Gravelly SAND; Brown, fine to medium grained,40% medium to coarse grained, sub-angular tosub-rounded weathered sandstone, no odour orstaining.

SILT; Grey with orange mottling, low plasticitywith trace fine grained, sub-angular tosub-rounded ironstone gravel (ironstone), tracefine to medium grained sand, trace rootlets, noodour or staining.

GRAVEL; Brown, fine to medium grained,sub-angular to sub-rounded gravel (ironstone),trace silt, no odour or staining.

Silty SAND; Grey with orange mottling, fine tomedium grained sand, 30% silt, no odour orstaining.

From 3.2m grey with no mottling.

From 3.9m trace silt.



Bentonite

Stand Pipe

Gravel Pack

2mm SlottedScreen

0

0

0

0

0

0

CPT_MW23_181218_0.2

CPT_MW23_181218_0.5

CPT_MW23_181218_1.0

CPT_MW23_181218_2.0

CPT_MW23_181218_3.0

CPT_MW23_181218_4.0

14.860 m AHD15.463 m AHD

NORTHING

1.0 - 4.0Grab

COMMENTS


0.0 - 1.0343397


LOGGED BY0.0 - 0.5




EASTING5762421

0.5 - 4.1

CO

NT

AC

TD

EP

TH

WELL DIAGRAM

RE

CO

VE

RY

PID

(p

pm

)

AN

AL

YS

ED

DE

PT

H(m

BG

L)

US

CS

CL

AS

S


SA

MP

LE

NU

MB

ER

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

MONITORING WELL LOG

DATE



MW23

60592634

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0


PAGE 1 OF 1



Docklands, VIC 3008

GIJ

PP

BO

RE

LO

GS

.GP

J 8

/2/1

9



AECOM

EAppendix ERising head tests

Clie

nt N

ame:

AG

L W

hole

sale

Gas

Ltd

and

APA

Tra

nsm

issi

on P

ty L

tdPr

ojec

t Nam

e: G

IJPP

EES

Gro

undw

ater

Tec

hnic

al R

epor

t

Tabl

e E1

. Hyd

raul

ic C

ondu

ctiv

ity S

umm

ary

Tabl

e

CPT

IDW

ell I

DD

ate

Scre

ened

Lith

olog

y Te

sted

Tota

lD

epth

(mbT

OC

)

SWL

(mbT

OC

)

Hei

ght o

f Wat

erC

olum

n(m

)

K - m

id ti

me

(m/d

ay)

K - l

ate

time

(m/d

ay)

K - B

utle

r*(m

/day

)K

- mid

tim

e(m

/sec

)K

- lat

e tim

e(m

/sec

)K

- But

ler*

(m/s

ec)

CPT

022_

MW

05M

W05

21/0

1/20

19C

LAY

and

SILT

4.00

1.14

52.

855

1.4E

-02

3.7E

-03

1.4E

-02

1.7E

-07

4.3E

-08

1.7E

-07

CPT

040_

B_M

W07

MW

0722

/01/

2019

CLA

Y/Sa

ndy

CLA

Y/G

rave

lly C

LAY

4.70

3.08

01.

620

5.8E

-04

2.6E

-04

2.6E

-04

6.7E

-09

3.0E

-09

6.7E

-09

CPT

040_

B__G

W04

GW

0422

/01/

2019

SAN

D4.

873.

114

1.75

69.

7E-0

34.

0E-0

39.

7E-0

31.

1E-0

74.

6E-0

81.

1E-0

7C

PT04

5_G

W05

GW

0522

/01/

2019

Cla

yey

SAN

D4.

812.

415

2.39

51.

6E-0

26.

8E-0

31.

6E-0

21.

9E-0

77.

8E-0

81.

9E-0

7C

PT00

0_M

W08

MW

0822

/01/

2019

Sand

y C

LAY

3.90

3.29

90.

601

2.5E

-03

-2.

5E-0

32.

9E-0

82.

9E-0

8C

PT05

1_M

W09

MW

0922

/01/

2019

3.96

1.37

62.

584

6.6E

-02

3.1E

-02

6.6E

-02

7.6E

-07

3.5E

-07

7.6E

-07

CPT

051_

MW

09M

W09

22/0

1/20

193.

961.

383

2.57

78.

9E-0

27.

5E-0

28.

9E-0

21.

0E-0

68.

7E-0

71.

0E-0

6C

PT05

5_M

W10

MW

10**

23/0

1/20

193.

981.

820

2.16

02.

6E-0

11.

0E-0

12.

6E-0

13.

0E-0

61.

2E-0

63.

0E-0

6C

PT05

5_M

W10

MW

1023

/01/

2019

3.98

1.82

22.

158

3.2E

-01

2.5E

-01

3.2E

-01

3.7E

-06

2.9E

-06

3.7E

-06

CPT

000_

MW

11M

W11

21/0

1/20

19C

LAY

4.00

2.88

01.

120

1.4E

-03

1.8E

-03

1.8E

-03

1.6E

-08

2.1E

-08

CPT

037_

B_M

W14

MW

1423

/01/

2019

CLA

Y4.

812.

922

1.88

82.

8E-0

3-

2.8E

-03

3.3E

-08

3.3E

-08

CPT

000_

MW

15M

W15

24/0

1/20

19C

LAY

4.00

2.11

21.

888

3.7E

-03

2.6E

-03

-4.

3E-0

8-

CPT

129_

MW

21M

W21

24/0

1/20

19C

LAY

3.78

1.05

52.

725

4.6E

-03

2.0E

-03

2.0E

-03

5.4E

-08

2.4E

-08

2.4E

-08

CPT

134_

MW

22M

W22

24/0

1/20

19C

LAY

3.97

0.93

03.

040

7.1E

-03

1.4E

-03

7.1E

-03

8.3E

-08

1.6E

-08

8.3E

-08

Stat

istic

sM

inim

um5.

8E-0

42.

6E-0

42.

6E-0

46.

7E-0

93.

0E-0

96.

7E-0

9M

axim

um3.

2E-0

12.

5E-0

13.

2E-0

13.

7E-0

62.

9E-0

63.

7E-0

6G

eom

etric

Mea

n7.

6E-0

34.

4E-0

37.

2E-0

38.

8E-0

86.

1E-0

89.

0E-0

8Bu

tler*

- K

est

imat

ed a

cros

s Bu

tler's

reco

mm

ende

d he

ad ra

nge

** -

Ris

ing

head

test

s ex

cept

firs

t MW

10 re

sult

bein

g fa

lling

hea

d te

stAn

alys

is -

Bou

wer

-Ric

e U

ncon

fined

NB:

Tes

ts w

ere

com

plet

ed o

n M

W01

, MW

02 a

nd M

W03

- no

resu

lts d

eter

min

ed d

ue to

insu

ffici

ent w

ater

leve

l dis

plac

emen

t for

test

Sand

y C

LAY/

Cla

yey

SAN

D

Sand

y C

LAY

Rev

isio

n 01

10

Jan

uary

201

9P:

\605

X\60

5926

34\6

. Dra

ft D

ocs\

6.1

Rep

orts

\6.1

.2_T

echn

ical

repo

rts\A

pp X

X_G

roun

dwat

er\A

pp G

- R

isin

g H

ead

Test

s C

OM

PLET

E - C

HAN

GE

TO N

EW A

pp E

\Tab

le G

1 G

IJPP

RH

T Su

mm

ary_

v2.x

lsx

Page

1 o

f 1Pr

int D

ate:

26/

04/2

019

0. 2.4E+3 4.8E+3 7.2E+3 9.6E+3 1.2E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)

MW05 RISING HEAD TEST

Data Set: C:\Users\ .AU\Documents\Crib Point\slug tests\Aqtesolv\MW05 v2.aqtDate: 02/24/19 Time: 07:09:01

PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: AECOM Australia Pty LtdClient: APA GroupProject: 60592634Location: Western PortTest Well: MW05Test Date: 21/01/19

AQUIFER DATA

Saturated Thickness: 2.855 m Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1

WELL DATA (MW05)

Initial Displacement: 0.49 m Static Water Column Height: 2.855 mTotal Well Penetration Depth: 2.855 m Screen Length: 2.855 mCasing Radius: 0.025 m Well Radius: 0.075 m

Gravel Pack Porosity: 0.3

SOLUTION

Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice

K = 0.003707 m/day y0 = 0.1061 m

0. 2.4E+3 4.8E+3 7.2E+3 9.6E+3 1.2E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW05)



SOLUTION


K = 0.01433 m/day y0 = 0.1646 m

0. 2.0E+4 4.0E+4 6.0E+4 8.0E+4 1.0E+50.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW07)



SOLUTION


K = 0.0002552 m/day y0 = 0.1576 m

0. 2.0E+4 4.0E+4 6.0E+4 8.0E+4 1.0E+50.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW07)



SOLUTION


K = 0.0005831 m/day y0 = 0.1737 m

0. 2.0E+3 4.0E+3 6.0E+3 8.0E+3 1.0E+40.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)

GW04 RISING HEAD TEST

Data Set: C:\Users\ .AU\Documents\Crib Point\slug tests\Aqtesolv\GW04 v2.aqtDate: 02/24/19 Time: 12:25:16

PROJECT INFORMATION

Company: AECOM Australia Pty LtdClient: APA GroupProject: 60592634Location: Western PortTest Well: GW04Test Date: 22/01/19

AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (GW04)



SOLUTION


K = 0.004005 m/day y0 = 0.1106 m

0. 1.2E+3 2.4E+3 3.6E+3 4.8E+3 6.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (GW04)



SOLUTION


K = 0.009695 m/day y0 = 0.1559 m

0. 2.4E+3 4.8E+3 7.2E+3 9.6E+3 1.2E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (GW05)



SOLUTION


K = 0.006755 m/day y0 = 0.1175 m

0. 1.6E+3 3.2E+3 4.8E+3 6.4E+3 8.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (GW05)



SOLUTION


K = 0.01647 m/day y0 = 0.1628 m

0. 1.2E+4 2.4E+4 3.6E+4 4.8E+4 6.0E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW08)



SOLUTION


K = 0.002502 m/day y0 = 0.08958 m

0. 1000. 2.0E+3 3.0E+3 4.0E+3 5.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)

MW09 RISING HEAD TEST 1

Data Set: C:\Users\ .AU\Documents\Crib Point\slug tests\Aqtesolv\MW09_1 v2.aqtDate: 02/24/19 Time: 11:43:46

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW09)



SOLUTION


K = 0.03057 m/day y0 = 0.1117 m

0. 1000. 2.0E+3 3.0E+3 4.0E+3 5.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW09)



SOLUTION


K = 0.06564 m/day y0 = 0.1654 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW09)



SOLUTION


K = 0.07516 m/day y0 = 0.1434 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)


Data Set: C:\Users .AU\Documents\Crib Point\slug tests\Aqtesolv\MW09_2 v2.aqtDate: 02/24/19 Time: 11:46:40

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW09)



SOLUTION


K = 0.08889 m/day y0 = 0.1709 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.001

0.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)

MW10 FALLING HEAD TEST 1


PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW10)



SOLUTION


K = 0.1022 m/day y0 = 0.05146 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.001

0.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW10)



SOLUTION


K = 0.2626 m/day y0 = 0.1337 m

0. 400. 800. 1.2E+3 1.6E+3 2.0E+31.0E-4

0.001

0.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)


Data Set: C:\Users .AU\Documents\Crib Point\slug tests\Aqtesolv\MW10_2 v2.aqtDate: 02/24/19 Time: 11:58:11

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW10)



SOLUTION


K = 0.2495 m/day y0 = 0.1033 m

0. 400. 800. 1.2E+3 1.6E+3 2.0E+31.0E-4

0.001

0.01

0.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)


Data Set: P:\...\ 10_2 v2.aqtDate: 04/26/19 Time: 12:24:41

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW10)



SOLUTION


K = 0.3173 m/day y0 = 0.1417 m

0. 1.4E+4 2.8E+4 4.2E+4 5.6E+4 7.0E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW11)



SOLUTION


K = 0.001847 m/day y0 = 0.1476 m

0. 600. 1.2E+3 1.8E+3 2.4E+3 3.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)


Data Set: C:\Users\ .AU\Documents\Crib Point\slug tests\Aqtesolv\MW11 v2 manual.aqtDate: 02/24/19 Time: 12:52:41

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW11)



SOLUTION


K = 0.004118 m/day y0 = 0.1124 m

0. 1.6E+4 3.2E+4 4.8E+4 6.4E+4 8.0E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW11)



SOLUTION


K = 0.001399 m/day y0 = 0.1272 m

0. 600. 1.2E+3 1.8E+3 2.4E+3 3.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)

MW14 RISING HEAD TEST - MANUAL DATA

Data Set: C:\Users\ .AU\Documents\Crib Point\slug tests\Aqtesolv\MW14 manual v2.aqtDate: 02/24/19 Time: 12:04:46

PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW14)



SOLUTION


K = 0.002823 m/day y0 = 0.1465 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW15)



SOLUTION


K = 0.002606 m/day y0 = 0.1925 m

0. 800. 1.6E+3 2.4E+3 3.2E+3 4.0E+30.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW15)



SOLUTION


K = 0.003729 m/day y0 = 0.1949 m

0. 3.2E+3 6.4E+3 9.6E+3 1.28E+4 1.6E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW21)



SOLUTION


K = 0.002045 m/day y0 = 0.1662 m

0. 3.2E+3 6.4E+3 9.6E+3 1.28E+4 1.6E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW21)



SOLUTION


K = 0.004633 m/day y0 = 0.1823 m

0. 3.2E+3 6.4E+3 9.6E+3 1.28E+4 1.6E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW22)



SOLUTION


K = 0.001393 m/day y0 = 0.111 m

0. 3.2E+3 6.4E+3 9.6E+3 1.28E+4 1.6E+40.1

1.

Time (sec)

Nor

mal

ized

Hea

d (m

/m)



PROJECT INFORMATION


AQUIFER DATA


WELL DATA (MW22)



SOLUTION


K = 0.007139 m/day y0 = 0.1609 m



AECOM

FAppendix FDewatering drawdown

estimates

Clie

nt :

APA

Loca

tion

:W

este

rn P

ort

Proj

ect :

GIJ

PP E

ES -

Gro

undw

ater

Stu

dy33

.3bo

res

Cal

cula

te D

raw

dow

n (s

) for

kno

wn

Dis

char

ge (Q

)TH

EIS

Ana

lytic

al S

olut

ion

(The

is, 1

935)

0.6

flow

rate

per

bor

e (L

/sec

)20

.0m

3/da

y (to

tal)

INPU

TSN

OTE

1: E

stim

atin

g 'T

' fro

m s

peci

fic c

apac

ity d

ata

use:

Pum

ping

rate

of w

ell (

m3/

day)

:0.

6[ l

og t

= -2

.31

+0.8

1 lo

g (s

pec

cap)

]0.

23L/

sec

14.

124.

12C

orre

spon

ding

pum

ping

rate

(L/

s):

0.

0069

NO

TE 2

: If u

sing

'T',

divi

de b

y sa

tura

ted

thic

knes

s to

giv

e

Stor

age

coef

ficie

nt (s

) of a

quife

r:0.

01 h

ydra

ulic

con

duct

ivity

(T=k

B)

aqui

fer t

hick

ness

2

Tran

smis

sivi

ty (m

2/da

y):

0.6

NO

TE 3

: Est

imat

es o

f S (c

onse

rvat

ive)

: Unc

onfin

ed=0

.05,

hydr

aulic

con

duct

ivity

0.3

m/d

ay

Tim

e si

nce

pum

ping

sta

rted

(day

s):

2 S

emi=

0.00

5, C

onfin

ed=0

.000

05T

0.6

m2/

day

time

(hrs

)48

.0N

OTE

4: T

o co

nver

t Gal

lons

/min

ute

to li

tres/

sec,

div

ide

by 1

3.2

Volu

me

prod

uced

dur

ing

Test

(KL)

:1.

20N

OTE

5: T

o co

nver

t litr

es/s

ec to

cub

ic m

etre

s/da

y, m

ultip

ly b

y 86

.4

(m3/

hr)

0.03

Spac

ing

3m

Tren

ch le

ngth

100

mN

o. B

ores

per

100

m33

.3

Dis

tanc

e(m

)u

W(u

)D

raw

dow

n(m

)

0.10

2.08

E-05

1.02

E+01

0.81

11

22

33

44

55

66

77

88

99

no. o

f spa

cing

s fro

m c

entre

poi

nt0.

505.

21E-

046.

98E+

000.

563

36

69

912

1215

1518

1821

2124

2427

27di

stan

ce fr

om c

entre

poi

nt (m

)1.

002.

08E-

035.

60E+

000.

45 D

dn1.

03.

23.

26.

16.

19.

19.

112

.012

.015

.015

.018

.018

.021

.021

.024

.024

.027

.027

.02.

008.

33E-

034.

22E+

000.

34D

ista

nce

from

tren

ch c

entre

(m)

11.

90m

0.45

0.26

0.26

0.16

0.16

0.11

0.11

0.07

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

3.00

1.88

E-02

3.42

E+00

0.27

4.00

3.33

E-02

2.86

E+00

0.23

11

22

33

44

55

66

77

88

99

no. o

f spa

cing

s fro

m c

entre

poi

nt5.

005.

21E-

022.

43E+

000.

193

36

69

912

1215

1518

1821

2124

2427

27di

stan

ce fr

om c

entre

poi

nt (m

)6.

007.

50E-

022.

09E+

000.

17 D

dn10

.010

.410

.411

.711

.713

.513

.515

.615

.618

.018

.020

.620

.623

.323

.326

.026

.028

.828

.87.

001.

02E-

011.

80E+

000.

14D

ista

nce

from

tren

ch c

entre

(m)

100.

79m

0.09

0.09

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.06

0.06

0.04

0.04

0.03

0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

8.00

1.33

E-01

1.57

E+00

0.12

9.00

1.69

E-01

1.36

E+00

0.11

11

22

33

44

55

66

77

88

99

no. o

f spa

cing

s fro

m c

entre

poi

nt10

.00

2.08

E-01

1.19

E+00

0.09

33

66

99

1212

1515

1818

2121

2424

2727

dist

ance

from

cen

tre p

oint

(m)

12.0

03.

00E-

019.

06E-

010.

07 D

dn25

.025

.225

.225

.725

.726

.626

.627

.727

.729

.229

.230

.830

.832

.632

.634

.734

.736

.836

.814

.00

4.08

E-01

6.89

E-01

0.05

Dis

tanc

e fro

m tr

ench

cen

tre (m

)25

0.09

m0.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

000.

0016

.00

5.33

E-01

5.21

E-01

0.04

18.0

06.

75E-

013.

92E-

010.

0320

.00

8.33

E-01

2.93

E-01

0.02

11

22

33

44

55

66

77

88

99

no. o

f spa

cing

s fro

m c

entre

poi

nt25

.00

1.30

E+00

1.35

E-01

0.01

Ddn

0.1

33

66

99

1212

1515

1818

2121

2424

2727

dist

ance

from

cen

tre p

oint

(m)

In tr

ench

2.29

m0.

810.

270.

270.

170.

170.

110.

110.

070.

070.

050.

050.

030.

030.

020.

020.

010.

010.

010.

01

0.1

2.29

Dis

tanc

e dr

awdo

wn

estim

ates

0

0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

4.5 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Drawdown (m)

Dis

tanc

e (m

)D

ista

nce

vs d

raw

dow

n

AE

CO

M A

ustr

alia

Pty

Ltd

26

/03/

2019

GIJ

PP T

renc

h Th

eis

Dew

ater

ing_

0.3

mpd

.xls

(2 d

ays)

Clie

nt :

APA

Loca

tion

:W

este

rn P

ort

Proj

ect :

GIJ

PP E

ES -

Gro

undw

ater

Stu

dy10

.0bo

res

Cal

cula

te D

raw

dow

n (s

) for

kno

wn

Dis

char

ge (Q

)TH

EIS

Ana

lytic

al S

olut

ion

(The

is, 1

935)

0.5

flow

rate

per

bor

e (c

u.m

/day

)5.

0m

3/da

y (to

tal)

INPU

TSN

OTE

1: E

stim

atin

g 'T

' fro

m s

peci

fic c

apac

ity d

ata

use:

Pum

ping

rate

of w

ell (

m3/

day)

:0.

5[ l

og t

= -2

.31

+0.8

1 lo

g (s

pec

cap)

]0.

06L/

sec

Cor

resp

ondi

ng p

umpi

ng ra

te (

L/s)

:

0.00

58N

OTE

2: I

f usi

ng 'T

', di

vide

by

satu

rate

d th

ickn

ess

to g

ive

Stor

age

coef

ficie

nt (s

) of a

quife

r:0.

01 h

ydra

ulic

con

duct

ivity

(T=k

B)

aqui

fer t

hick

ness

2.5

Tran

smis

sivi

ty (m

2/da

y):

0.75

NO

TE 3

: Est

imat

es o

f S (c

onse

rvat

ive)

: Unc

onfin

ed=0

.05,

hydr

aulic

con

duct

ivity

0.3

m/d

ay

Tim

e si

nce

pum

ping

sta

rted

(day

s):

10 S

emi=

0.00

5, C

onfin

ed=0

.000

05T

0.75

m2/

day

time

(hrs

)24

0.0

NO

TE 4

: To

conv

ert G

allo

ns/m

inut

e to

litre

s/se

c, d

ivid

e by

13.

2

Volu

me

prod

uced

dur

ing

Test

(KL)

:5.

00N

OTE

5: T

o co

nver

t litr

es/s

ec to

cub

ic m

etre

s/da

y, m

ultip

ly b

y 86

.4

(m3/

hr)

0.02

Spac

ing

2m

Tren

ch le

ngth

10m

Tren

ch w

idth

4m

No.

Bor

es p

er 1

00 m

5.0

Dis

tanc

e(m

)u

W(u

)D

raw

dow

n(m

)

0.10

3.33

E-06

1.20

E+01

0.64

11

22

33

11

22

33

no. o

f spa

cing

s fro

m c

entre

poi

nt0.

508.

33E-

058.

82E+

000.

472

24

46

62

24

46

6di

stan

ce fr

om c

entre

poi

nt (m

)1.

003.

33E-

047.

43E+

000.

39D

dn10

.010

.210

.210

.810

.811

.711

.714

.014

.114

.114

.614

.615

.215

.22.

001.

33E-

036.

04E+

000.

32D

ista

nce

from

pit

edge

(m

)10

1.81

m0.

150.

150.

150.

140.

140.

140.

140.

120.

120.

120.

110.

110.

110.

113.

003.

00E-

035.

23E+

000.

284.

005.

33E-

034.

66E+

000.

251

12

23

31

12

23

3no

. of s

paci

ngs

from

cen

tre p

oint

5.00

8.33

E-03

4.22

E+00

0.22

22

44

66

22

44

66

dist

ance

from

cen

tre p

oint

(m)

6.00

1.20

E-02

3.86

E+00

0.20

25.0

25.1

25.1

25.3

25.3

25.7

25.7

29.0

29.1

29.1

29.3

29.3

29.6

29.6

7.00

1.63

E-02

3.55

E+00

0.19

Dis

tanc

e fr

om p

it ed

ge (

m)

250.10

m0.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

010.

018.

002.

13E-

023.

29E+

000.

179.

002.

70E-

023.

06E+

000.

161

12

23

3no

. of s

paci

ngs

from

cen

tre p

oint

10.0

03.

33E-

022.

86E+

000.

152

24

46

6di

stan

ce fr

om c

entre

poi

nt (m

)15

.00

7.50

E-02

2.09

E+00

0.11

2.0

2.8

2.8

4.5

4.5

6.3

6.3

20.0

01.

33E-

011.

57E+

000.

08C

entr

e of

pit

23.52

m0.

320.

280.

280.

240.

240.

200.

2025

.00

2.08

E-01

1.19

E+00

0.06

30.0

03.

00E-

019.

06E-

010.

051

12

23

31

12

23

335

.00

4.08

E-01

6.89

E-01

0.04

22

44

66

22

44

66

60.0

01.

20E+

001.

58E-

010.

010.

12.

02.

04.

04.

06.

06.

04.

04.

54.

55.

75.

77.

27.

2A

t eac

h w

ell

3.69

m0.

640.

320.

320.

250.

250.

200.

200.

250.

240.

240.

210.

210.

190.

19

0.1

3.52

Dis

tanc

e dr

awdo

wn

estim

ates

0

0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

4.5 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Drawdown (m)

Dis

tanc

e (m

)D

ista

nce

vs d

raw

dow

n

AE

CO

M A

ustr

alia

Pty

Ltd

27

/05/

2019

GIJ

PP T

hrus

t bor

e pi

t The

is D

ewat

erin

g_0.

3 m

pd -

10 d

ays.

xls

(10

days

hig

h)

www.gasimportprojectvictoria.com.au

General and Gas Import Jetty enquiries1800 039 [email protected] Pipeline enquiries1800 531 [email protected]