Lots 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Doyle Place

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared by Sean Smith of Environmental and Landscape ManagementEmail: seanic@iinet.net.au

Mob. 0437 806 119

FEBRUARY 2017

Environmental & Landscape Management

1 Table of Contents

1 Table of Contents.................................................................................................22 Introduction..........................................................................................................4

2.1 Scope of report.............................................................................................43 Background..........................................................................................................4

3.1 Wastewater disposal.....................................................................................44 The Study Area....................................................................................................5

4.1 Tenure and vesting.......................................................................................54.2 Historical land use........................................................................................54.3 Adjacent land use.........................................................................................5

5 The Natural Environment.....................................................................................65.1 The physical environment.............................................................................6

5.1.1 Landform.................................................................................................65.1.2 Local soils/geology.................................................................................65.1.3 Hydrology................................................................................................75.1.4 Climate....................................................................................................8

6 Site assessment...................................................................................................86.1 Methodology.................................................................................................8

7 Results.................................................................................................................97.1 Soil Profiles...................................................................................................9

7.1.1 Test Pit 1.................................................................................................97.1.2 Test Pit 2.................................................................................................97.1.3 Test Pit 3.................................................................................................97.1.4 Test Pit 4.................................................................................................97.1.5 Test Pit 5.................................................................................................97.1.6 Test Pit 6...............................................................................................107.1.7 Test Pit 7...............................................................................................107.1.8 Test Pit 8...............................................................................................107.1.9 Test Pit 9...............................................................................................107.1.10 Soil infiltration.....................................................................................107.1.11 Depth to groundwater.........................................................................117.1.12 Phosphate Retention Index................................................................11

8 Discussion..........................................................................................................128.1 Soil and site factors....................................................................................12

8.1.1 Depth to water table.............................................................................128.1.2 Phosphate Retention Index..................................................................128.1.3 Proximity to streams/waterbodies........................................................128.1.4 Position relative to flood hazard area...................................................138.1.5 Permeability..........................................................................................138.1.6 Slope.....................................................................................................138.1.7 Stone content........................................................................................138.1.8 Dispersible clays...................................................................................148.1.9 Depth to rock........................................................................................14

8.2 Overall assessment....................................................................................14

2

8.2.1 Wastewater recommendations.............................................................159 References.........................................................................................................1710 APPENDIX 1: SOIL TEST PIT DESCRIPTION AND CALCULATION FORMULA.............................................................................................................1911 APPENDIX 2: PIT LOCATIONS.......................................................................2112 APPENDIX 3: LABORATORY RESULTS........................................................2213 APPENDIX 4: PIT PHOTOGRAPHS...............................................................24

Copyright: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of SJ Smith andAssociates Environmental and Landscape Management. Use or copying of this document in whole or inpart without the written permission of SJ Smith and Associates Environmental and Landscape Managementconstitutes an infringement of copyright.

Disclaimer: All attempts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the material presented in this report.However, some information may be inaccurate due to changes to database information or government policyor legislation. Seasonal variation and the ephemeral nature of native vegetation also present limitations onthe overall accuracy of the information in this report.

DOCUMENT STATUSSTATUS DATE ISSUEDOriginal 12 February 2017 SJS

3

2 Introduction

A number of landowners along Doyle Place, Margaret River are pursuing asubdivision proposal. The lots have been assessed for effluent disposalcapability. The lots are each around 3 hectares in size and are zoned RuralResidential.

Figure 1: Site context (image courtesy of the Shire of Augusta-Margaret RiverIntramaps).

The purpose of the Rural Residential zoning is: ‘To provide and recogniseestablished rural-residential lifestyle development opportunities in strategicrural locations but to confine any further such development to land wheresuch activities are consistent both with the provisions of the LNRSPP, theconservation of the significant landscape values and environmental attributesof the land and with appropriate fire management.’

2.1 Scope of report

The consultant was asked to provide an assessment of the wastewaterdisposal capability of the soils of the site. The soil assessment is to determinethe suitability of the site for disposal of wastewater using either a conventionalseptic tank system or Alternative/Aerobic Treatment Unit.

3 Background

3.1 Wastewater disposal

A number of options are available for wastewater disposal depending on thesuitability of the site. The easiest and cheapest option to install consists of aseptic tank with leach drains. Another option includes the use of anAerobic/Alternative Treatment Unit (ATU). Both of these options are

controlled under Regulations or Code of Practice overseen by the HealthDepartment of WA.

The local government generally requires that a number of issues areaddressed in such assessments to determine if the development proposalsites are suitable for septic tank disposal of wastewater. These issuesinclude:

1. Depth to highest ground water from ground level;2. Depth to bedrock or impervious clay;3. Depth of free draining soil;4. Set back from water bodies;5. Soil structure and profile to a depth of 2 metres;6. Phosphate Retention Index to 1 metre;7. Infiltration rate of the soil (L/m2/day).

The Department of Agriculture has published a Technical Report that sets outfive land capability classes for on-site septic tank effluent disposal (Wells,2001). The five classes vary from non to very slight limitation to severelimitation. The parameters that determine the land capability classes aresimilar to those stipulated by the local government. These parameters will bediscussed in relation to the overall suitability of the site for on-site septic tankeffluent disposal.

4 The Study Area

4.1 Tenure and vesting

The lots studied are zoned Rural Residential under the Shire AugustaMargaret River Town Planning Scheme and are owned freehold.

4.2 Historical land use

The lots are located along Doyle Place, west of the main town site of MargaretRiver. Historically the land has been used for grazing and other agriculturalpursuits.

4.3 Adjacent land use

The site is surrounded by other lifestyle lots, farmland and Reserve land forthe Margaret River.

5 The Natural Environment

5.1 The physical environment

5.1.1 Landform

The site is located on the edge of the Leeuwin Block, a narrow area along thecoast between Cape Naturaliste and Cape Leeuwin, which is dominated by agently undulating lateritic plateau (Department of Agriculture, 2003). Theplateau is dissected by a series of valley systems and has formed onlateritized granitic and gneissic basement rock (Tille and Lantzke, 1990).

5.1.2 Local soils/geology

The soils across all of the lots in question are classified as the Wilyabrupundifferentiated hillslopes phase (WLh) (Department of Agriculture, 2017).These soils occur on gentle to moderate valley slopes on colluvium andweathered mantle over granite. Soils consist of loamy gravels, duplex sandygravels, brown deep loamy duplexes and friable red/brown and brown loamyearths. Typical vegetation includes marri-jarrah forest and woodland. Around5 per cent of the soils in this classification have a very high risk of watererosion. Five per cent of the soils within this classification have a very highrisk of phosphorous loss.

Figure 2: Delineation of soil classifications across the overall site (Department ofAgriculture, 2017).

Figure 3: Acid sulphate soils risk in the local area (image courtesy of ASRIS, 2017).

There is a high probability with low confidence of acid sulphate soils (seeFigure 3) occurring across the site (ASRIS, 2017). No testing for thepresence of Acid Sulphate Soils was undertaken during the field assessment.

5.1.3 Hydrology

The overall site has a very slight slope and is approximately 34 to 65 metresabove sea level. The lots adjoin the Margaret River shoreline reserve (seeFigure 4).

Figure 4: Contour map for the site (image courtesy of Department of Agriculture, 2017)

Figure 5: Relative flood risk for the overall site (image courtesy of Department ofAgriculture, 2017)

The flood risk for the overall site varies from minimal, with 0-2% considered tohave a moderate to high risk away from the Margaret River and 30-49% of theland associated with river reserve prone to flooding (see Figure 5).

5.1.4 Climate

The southwest region of Western Australia experiences a Mediterraneanclimate with warm dry summers and cool wet winters. The closest weathermonitoring station is based at Witchcliffe. The average annual rainfallrecorded at the station is 947.4mm, with most of the rain falling between Apriland October (Bureau of Meteorology, 2017). The average daily temperatureis between 10.7 and 21.4 degrees.

6 Site assessment

6.1 Methodology

The site evaluation was undertaken in late December 2016 The test pits forthe soil assessment were excavated within proximity to the proposed newbuilding envelopes to a depth of 2 metres and composite samples were takenfrom each of the sample pits to determine the Phosphate Retention Index(PRI). The sample was analysed by Vintessential Laboratories inDunsborough. The soil horizons and groundwater depth were examined forthe test pits. Samples were taken for determining soil texture. An infiltrometerwas used to determine the rate at which water infiltrates the soil at a soil depthof 500mm. Soils were pre-wet prior to testing.

7 Results

7.1 Soil Profiles

The soil test pits were excavated within proximity of the proposed buildingenvelopes. A full description of the soil test pits can be found in Appendix 1.The approximate location of the test pits can be found in Appendix 2.Photographs of the pits are shown in Appendix 4.

7.1.1 Test Pit 1

The soil is characterised as a light brown organic layer from the soil surface toa depth of 10cm. From 10cm down to 150cm the soil is brown/red coarsesand/grit. From 150cm to 200cm depth the soil is brown, red and whiteclay/grit. No groundwater or rocks were found in the full depth of the test pit.

7.1.2 Test Pit 2

The soil is characterised as a dark brown organic layer from the soil surface toa depth of 20cm. From 20cm down to 160cm the soil is brown sand. From160cm down the soil is white, orange and red clay. No groundwater or rockswere found in the full depth of the test pit.

7.1.3 Test Pit 3

The soil is characterised as a light brown organic layer from the soil surface toa depth of 10cm. From 10cm down to 120cm the soil is orange sandy gravelwith lateritic nodules. From 120cm down the soil consists of orange, red andwhite gritty clay. No rocks or groundwater were found in the full depth of thetest pit.

7.1.4 Test Pit 4

The soil is characterised as a light brown sandy organic layer from the soilsurface to a depth of 10cm. From 10cm down to 50cm the soil is orangesandy gravel. From 50cm down to the full depth of the test pit, the soil ischaracterised as white, red and orange gritty clay. No rocks or groundwaterwere found in the full depth of the test pit.

7.1.5 Test Pit 5

The soil is characterised as a light brown organic layer from the soil surface toa depth of 10cm. From 10cm down to 100cm the soil is orange sandy gravel.

From 100cm to 200cm the soil is white and orange clay. No rocks orgroundwater were found in the full depth of the test pit.

7.1.6 Test Pit 6

The soil is characterised as a light brown organic layer from the soil surface toa depth of 20cm. From 20cm down to 100cm the soil is light brown rockysand. From 100cm to 200cm depth the soil is red, orange, white and pinkclay. No rocks or groundwater were found in the full depth of the test pit.Rocky outcrops were observed nearby to the test pit.

7.1.7 Test Pit 7

The soil is characterised as a dark brown organic layer from the soil surface toa depth of 20cm. From 20cm down to 120cm the soil is orange sandy lateriticgravel. From 120cm down to 160cm the soil is white rocky grit with someclay. From 160cm down to the full depth of the test pit the soil is white andorange clay. Rocks up to 350mm diameter were observed within the soilprofile. No groundwater was found in the full depth of the test pit.

7.1.8 Test Pit 8

From the soil surface to a depth of 10cm the soil is characterised as a darkbrown organic layer. From 10cm to 60cm the soil is orange and brown sandygravel. From 60 to 200cm the soil is orange, white and yellow clay. No rocksor groundwater were observed in the full depth of the test pit.

7.1.9 Test Pit 9

From 0 to 10cm depth the soil is characterised as a dark brown organic layer.From 10cm to 120cm the soil is red/orange gravel. From 120cm to the fulldepth of the test pit the soil is white, yellow and orange gritty clay. No rocks orgroundwater were observed in the full depth of the test pit.

7.1.10 Soil infiltration

The Infiltration rate was determined by measuring the infiltration of a fixedvolume of water (2 litres) through a fixed diameter infiltrometer that wasplaced at the base of a 500mm deep pit and hammered 15cm below grade toretain the test water. The infiltrometer test was carried out in close proximityto the test pits. The following infiltration rates were determined for the testpits.

Table 1: Infiltration time and rate for the area.

Test pit location Infiltration time Infiltration rate (L/m2/h)

Infiltration rate (L/ m2/day)

Pit 1 2 min 32 seconds 627 (2L) 15063LPit 2 2 min 25 sec 658 (2L) 15790LPit 3 1 min 45 sec 908(2L) 21805LPit 4 1 min 30 sec 1060(2L) 25440LPit 5 3 min 56 sec 404(2L) 9702LPit 6 1 min 5 sec 1468(2L) 35224LPit 7 3 min 5 sec 515 (2L) 12376LPit 8 4 min 34 sec 348(2L) 8356LPit 9 1 min 50 sec 867(2L 20814L

The infiltration time was based on the infiltration of 2 litres of water in a 31cmdiameter infiltrometer.

7.1.11 Depth to groundwater

The depth to groundwater was greater than 2 metres for all of the test pits atthe time of the site visit. The site visit was at the end of a late winter season,with little recent rainfall. Therefore it is not considered to be the wettest timeof the year.

Groundwater monitoring will be undertaken for the test pits through thecoming winter period and peak water levels will be supplied as an addendumto this report.

7.1.12 Phosphate Retention Index

The Phosphate Retention Index for the test pits was determined byVintessential Laboratories in Dunsborough. The laboratory results areattached as Appendix 3.

Table 2: Phosphate Retention Index

Test pit location PRITest pit 1 9.6Test pit 2 6.0Test pit 3 14Test pit 4 430Test pit 5 28Test pit 6 >500Test pit 7 25Test pit 8 >500Test pit 9 >500

The results shown in Table 2 demonstrate a moderate to high capacity of thesoils to bind phosphorous for the test pits respectively.

8 Discussion

8.1 Soil and site factors

8.1.1 Depth to water table

According to Wells (2001) the majority of the test pits are likely to present ahigh level of purification ability, over the full depth of the test pits for the soiltype. While no groundwater was observed in the test pits, the field work wasnot undertaken during the wettest time of the year. The groundwater levelswill be monitored throughout the winter period and peak water levels will beprovided as an addendum to this report.

8.1.2 Phosphate Retention Index

The Phosphate Retention Index indicates the ability of a soil to bindphosphorous from effluent and prevent nutrient flow into groundwater orsurface waters. The State Government has allocated four risk categoriesbased on soil type, PRI and nutrient loadings (DEP, 2002). Clay/loam soilswith a PRI greater than 10 have the highest capacity for nutrient loads, withthe risk of eutrophication of receiving waters the main factor for determiningmaximum loads and risk category. The Margaret River is generallyconsidered to be a relatively natural river (Pen, 1997). This combined with themoderate to high PRI levels for the soils means that the site would fit into thehighest load category (Category D).

8.1.3 Proximity to streams/waterbodies

The Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste)Regulations 1974 requires that leach drains are to be constructed so thateffluent or liquid wastes will not be discharged into the ground at a distanceless than 30 m from any well stream or underground source of water intendedfor consumption by humans and not be constructed within 6 m of any subsoildrainage system or open drainage channel. The Department of Water (2010)recommends a buffer distance of 100 metres from sensitive water resourcesfor conventional wastewater systems for soils with a PRI up to 5. A distanceof only 30 metres from waterways is recommended for soils with a PRI greaterthan 5. The Draft Structure Plan sets out a 100m setback line for theproposed new building envelopes.

8.1.4 Position relative to flood hazard area

The Department of Agriculture (2016) mapping indicates a low percentage riskof flooding for most of the overall site.

8.1.5 Permeability

Infiltration testing was carried out in accordance with Schedule 8 of the Health(Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste) Regulations1974. The results have been expressed in terms of Litres per metre squareper day. The test site had a generally high infiltration capacity.

Table 3: Extract from Schedule 8 of the Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974

The Health Department regulations classify infiltration rate by the time it takesfor water levels to fall 25mm. The minimum of two litres volume used in theinfiltrometer testing equates to a depth of 26.5mm. Using the times shown inTable 3, the majority of the test results equate to a fall time of 1 to 5 minutes.Based on this, the soils are suitable for a Loading Infiltration Rate (LIR) of 30litres per m2 for alternating systems and 15 litres per m2 for non-alternatingsystems.

8.1.6 Slope

Across the overall site the slope is around 5%, which is well below the 10%maximum suggested by Wells (2001). Some sites will have greater slope andmay require additional measures to address issues arising from this.

8.1.7 Stone content

The test pits had minimal rock material through the profile. A suitably sizedexcavator would easily deal with the amount of rock material encounteredduring the testing in some of the test pits. There are not likely to be any

significant problems with excavation or insurmountable effects on theperformance of a septic system due to the stone content of the soils.

8.1.8 Dispersible clays

There is no evidence of salinity affecting the properties and creatingconditions for dispersible clays.

8.1.9 Depth to rock

Bedrock was not encountered in the full depth of the test pits. Wells (2001)recommends a depth of greater than 1 metre above bedrock to ensure anadequate soil capacity for effluent purification.

8.2 Overall assessment

An overall assessment may be made based on all of the factors that havebeen considered. Wells (2001) provides a framework for deriving a landcapability class to assist in deciding if a site is suitable for on-site septic tankeffluent disposal. Table 4 below sets out the parameters discussed above andprovides a rating scale.

Table 4: Land qualities and subsequent capability classes for on-site effluent disposal taken from Wells (2001)

For the test pits, an assessment has been made of all of the land qualities inTable 5.

Table 5: Assessment of land capability for test pits using the criteria established by Wells (2001)

La

nd

qu

alit

ies

So

il p

uri

fic

ati

on

(p

)

Wa

ter

po

lluti

on

ris

k

- B

y o

ve

rla

nd

flo

w (

o)

- B

y s

ub

-su

rfa

ce

leac

hin

g (

s)

Eas

e o

f e

xca

va

tio

n

(x)

So

il a

bs

orp

tio

n

ab

ility

(a

)

Flo

od

ha

zard

(f)

Ov

era

ll

Test Pit 1

High Very low

Low High High Low I

Test Pit 2

High Very Low

Low High High Low I

Test Pit 3

High Very low

Low High High Low I

Test Pit 4

Mod Very low

Low High High Low II

Test Pit 5

High Very low

Low High High Low I

Test Pit 6

High Very low

Low High High Low I

Test Pit 7

High Very low

Low High High Low I

Test Pit 8

Mod Very low

Low High High Low II

Test Pit 9

High Very low

Low High High Low I

Based on the above assessment, the overall site has a non to very slightlimitation for on-site effluent disposal for the test pits respectively.

8.2.1 Wastewater recommendations

Wells (2001) suggests different levels of response to the degree of limitation.All Class I sites have none to very slight limitation for on-site effluent disposalusing a septic system. These sites have a very high capacity with fewphysical limitations present which are easily overcome. Risk of landdegradation is negligible. Class II sites have a high capability and limitationscan be overcome with careful planning. Based on the assessment methodof Wells (2001), the following recommendations are made with regard to theeffluent disposal for the overall site.

Recommendation 1:

That septic tank effluent disposal systems are approved for all of the new lots.

Recommendation 2:

That septic tank effluent disposal systems with inverted leach drains areutilised on all sites where local slope is greater than 10 per cent.

Recommendation 3:

A suitable soil amendment is added to the disposal fields to increase thephosphorous binding capacity of the soils (to increase the PRI above 20),where the soil PRI is lower (test pits 1, 2 and 3).

Recommendation 4:

That suitable salt tolerant native vegetation is planted around the location ofproposed disposal field to improve evapotranspiration. Local native coastalspecies are ideal for this purpose.

9 References

ASRIS (2017), Australian Soil Resource Information System, http://www.asris.csiro.au/index_ie.html.

Beard J.S. (1990)Plant Life of Western Australia. Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, New South Wales.

Bureau of Meteorology (2017), Climate Averages for specific sites. Publicly available data prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology, Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/ca_wa_names.shtml

Department of Agriculture (2003), Land Profiler, Shires of Capel, Busselton and Augusta-Margaret River, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Agriculture and Food (2017), Natural Resource Management, Shared Land Information Platform, http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2002), West Australian Guidelines for the Direct Land Application of Biosolids and Biosolids Products.Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Health (2001), Code of Practice for the Design, Manufacture, Installation and Operation of Aerobic Treatment Units (ATU’s). November 2001. Department of Health, Perth.

Department of Health (2002), Movement of Nutrients from Onsite Wastewater Systems in Soils. Department of Health, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Health (2003), Draft Country Sewerage Policy. Department of Health, Perth, September 2003.

Department of Water (2006b), WQPN 22, Water Quality Protection Note: Irrigation with Nutrient Rich Wastewater (July 2006). Department of Water, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Water (2006c), WQPN 28, Water Quality Protection Note: Mechanical Servicing and Workshops (September 2006). Department of Water, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Water (2006d), WQPN 79, Water Quality Protection Note: Rural restaurants, cafes and taverns near sensitive water resources (May 2006). Department of Water, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Water (2006e), WQPN 6, Water Quality Protection Note: Vegetation buffers to sensitive water resources (February 2006). Department of Water, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Water (2009), WQPN 93, Water Quality Protection Note: Light industry near sensitive waters (September 2009). Department of Water, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Water (2010), WQPN 70, Water Quality Protection Note:Wastewater Treatment and Disposal – domestic systems (June 2010).Department of Water, Perth, Western Australia.

Government of Western Australia (2005), Health (Treatment of Sewerage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974. October 2005.

Pen, L.J. (1997), A Systematic Overview of Environmental Values on the Wetlands, Rivers and Estuaries of the Busselton-Walpole Region, Water and Rivers Commission Report WRAP 7.

Penn, L.J. (1999), Managing Our Rivers: A guide to the nature and management of streams of south-west Western Australia. Water and Rivers Commission, Perth, Western Australia.

Tille, P. J. and Lantzke, N. C. (1990) Busselton – Margaret River – Augusta: Land Capability Study. Land Resources Series No. 5. Western Australian Department of Agriculture.

Wells, M. (2001), Assessment of Land Capability for On-Site Septic Tank Effluent Disposal. Agriculture WA, Perth, Western Australia.

10 APPENDIX 1: SOIL TEST PIT DESCRIPTION AND CALCULATION FORMULA

Test pit soil horizon descriptionsPIT LOCATION DEPTH

(cm)DESCRIPTION TEXTURE

1 Lot 107 WP777

0-10 Light brown organic layer

5% silt/clay, 95% brown/red sand

10-150 Brown/red coarse sand/grit

5% fine silt/clay, 95% light brown sand

150- Brown, red and white clay grit

5% silt, 5% clay, 90% cream/white gritty sand

2 Lot 110WP778

0-20 Dark brown organic layer

5% dark organic matter, 5% silt/clay, 90% fine dark brown sand

20-160 Brown sand 5% fine silt/clay, 95% dark brown sand

160- White, orange and red clay

2% fine silt, 5% clay, 93%cream/white gritty sand

3 Lot 109WP779

0-10 Light brown organic layer

5% fine silt/clay, 95% brown sand

10-120 Orange sandy gravel with lateritic nodules

5% orange clay, 95% orange sand with lateritic nodules

120- Orange, red and white gritty clay

5% fine silt, 5% clay, 90%cream/white gritty sand

4 Lot 113WP780

0-10 Light brown organic sand layer

5% black organic matter, 5% silt/clay, 85% brown sand, 5% 1cm diameter rocks

10-50 Orange sandy gravel 5% orange silt/clay, 95% brown/white gritty sand

50- White, red and orange gritty clay

5% silt, 5% clay, 90% light brown sand

5 Lot 112WP781

0-10 Light brown organic layer

5% silt/clay, 95% dark brown sand

10-100 Orange sandy gravel 5% silt/clay, 95% light brown gritty sand

100-200 White and orange clay 2% silt, 5% clay, 93% cream gritty sand

6 Lot 114WP782

0-20 Light brown organic layer

5% dark organic matter, 5% clay, 90% red/brown sand

20-100 Light brown rocky sand 5% silt/clay, 95% light brown sand

100- Red, orange, pink and white clay

5% silt, 5% cream clay, 90% white and cream sand

7 Lot 101WP783

0-20 Dark brown organic layer

5% dark organic matter, 5% clay, 90% dark brownsand

20 - 120 Orange sandy lateritic gravel

5% silt, 5% clay, 60% brown sand, 30% 1cm diameter rocks

120-160 White rocky grit with some clay

5% silt, 20% clay, 75% brown sand

160- White and orange clay 5% silt, 20% clay, 75% white sand

8 Lot 103WP784

0-10 Dark brown organic layer

10% dark organic matter, 5% silt/clay, 85% dark brown sand

10-60 Orange and brown sandy gravel

5% silt/clay, 95% coarse brown sand

60- Orange, white and yellow clay

5% silt/clay, 95% coarse cream sand/grit

9 Lot 106WP785

0-10 Dark brown organic layer

5% dark organic matter, 5% silt/clay, 90% dark brown sand

10 - 120 Red/ orange gravel 5% silt/clay, 95% brown sand

120 - 200

White, yellow and orange gritty clay

5% silt, 5% clay, 85% light brown sand, 5% 1cmdiameter rocks

Infiltration rate calculations:Infiltration rate = volume of water (L) X (3600/time (s)) X. 13.25 (1/area of infiltrometer (m2) (0.0755m2) X 24

11 APPENDIX 2: PIT LOCATIONS

12 APPENDIX 3: LABORATORY RESULTS

13 APPENDIX 4: PIT PHOTOGRAPHS

Pit 1

Pit 2

Pit 3

Pit 4

Pit 5

Pit 6

Pit 7

Pit 8

Pit 9