Original source · versioned page text
SBSMR 20004 Revision D - Response to RFI
Suite 14, Clayfield Courtyard
699A Sandgate Road, Clayfield Qld 4011
Ph: 07 3862 1886 Fx: 07 3862 1397
E: [email protected]
Site Based Stormwater
Management Plan
Project Reference: Q20004 Revision D
Prepared for: Deluca Development & Construction
Prepared by:: J. N. McKenzie {B.E. (Civil). M.I.E. Aust.}
RPEQ 2097 NPER 3
Dated:: November 19, 2021
Site Address: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads
Project Reference: Q20004
Prepared for: Deluca Development & Construction
Prepared by: J. N. McKenzie {B.E. (Civil). M.I.E. Aust.}
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 32 pages
Page 2
CONTENTS
SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................3
2. SITE CHARACTARISTICS ..............................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Topography ......................................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................................4
2.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................4
2.5 Environmental Values ......................................................................................................................................4
3. SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL ..............................................................................................................................5
3.1 Erosion Potential..............................................................................................................................................5
4. SITE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................5
4.1 Design Rainfall Intensities ................................................................................................................................5
4.2 Performance Requirements .............................................................................................................................5
4.3 Concept Stormwater Management Layout .....................................................................................................6
5. WATER QUANTITY .....................................................................................................................................................7
5.1 Piped Drainage System – Pre-Development ....................................................................................................8
5.2 Piped Drainage System – Post Development...................................................................................................9
6. WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................................................10
6.1 Stormwater Quality Objectives ......................................................................................................................10
6.2 Stormwater Quality Modelling ......................................................................................................................11
6.3 Treatment Systems Required ........................................................................................................................11
6.4 Results............................................................................................................................................................12
10. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................13
12. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................................13
10.APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................... i
Page 3
SUMMARY The following Site Based Stormwater Management Plan addresses the stormwater drainage issues associated with the development of Lot 1 on RP 226728 known as 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads The proposed development is summarized as an SDA Accommodation Development for Youngcare. The site falls approximately 7.5% to the south west corner. From an environmental perspective, there are no clear environmental values associated with the site as there are no waterways and vegetation is non-remnant. The site measures 3105m2. The existing stormwater drainage will be improved on by the stormwater management proposed herein. Erosion control measures will comply with best management practices. There will be an increase in impervious surface area due to the development but the increase in peak flow and runoff volume are mitigated by a stormwater management strategy that reduces the impact compared with existing drainage conditions. Achieving the water quality objectives is an important aspect of the proposal. The design is based on design standards as described in State Planning Policy 2017 Appendix 2, and Queensland Urban Drainage Manual which in turn references Water Sensitive Urban Design for South East Queensland. Noosa Council Planning Scheme Policy PSP6 and Water by Design MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (Version 1) 2010. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 1
Page 4
The specific stormwater quality management objectives are met when comparing the mitigated
and unmitigated post-development site.
Developed Developed Load Reduction Required Load
Pollutant Type
Unmitigated Mitigated (%) Reduction (%)
TSS (kg/year) 352 40.3 88.5 80
TP (kg/year) 0.889 0.235 73.6 60
TN(kg/year) 6.97 3.27 53.2 45
Gross Pollutants
61 0 100 90
(kg/year)
All relevant stormwater requirements have been addressed and support the development
application of the site.
With regard to the Approved Development MCU20/0128 please find certification herein as
required by Condition 33.b If the works are carried out in accordance with the design plans the
development of the site will not create a stormwater worsening on the adjoining downstream
properties.
This report also confirms Conditions:
47.1 all runoff can be filtered via vegetated areas prior to discharge from the site.
47.2 pollutant reduction predicted for the stormwater quality treatment train is designed in
accordance with the Water by Design MUSIC modelling guidelines (Version 1) 2010.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 2
Page 5
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND This report has been prepared as an important component of the Development and Operational Works Applications. The primary focus is describing the impact of the proposed development on the local and regional stormwater drainage system, particularly from a quality and quantity perspective. 1.2 EXISTING SITE The existing site covers Lot 59 on SP 280852 and will be developed. A Locality Plan indicating the proposed development site is shown below. (Figure 1) NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 3
Page 6
2. SITE CHARACTARISTICS 2.1 TOPOGRAPHY A detailed survey of the site has been completed (by Project Urban Pty Ltd) and shows slope with a maximum site level of 78 AHD. 2.3 SOILS No specific soil testing has been completed on site at this time. Soil investigations on file for the area indicate fine to medium grained sand 2.4 VEGETATION The site falls to the south west with the highest point of the site being midway along the eastern boundary at an RL of 78m approximately. The lowest elevation in the south west corner is RL 72m. Average slope gradient is 7.5%. The site is vegetated with non-remnant trees and grasses. 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES There are no waterways or significant vegetation within the site. Environmental values of the site appear to be negligible. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 4
Page 7
3. SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL 3.1 EROSION POTENTIAL Based on the completed Noosa Council Erosion Hazard Assessment Form, the proposal is classified as a “low risk” development for erosion potential see Appendix A for a copy of the completed form. Erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures will be required to be established and maintained in accordance with IECA’s standards of best practice. Preparation of a detailed ESC plan will be completed as part of the operational works submission. 4. SITE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION 4.1 DESIGN RAINFALL INTENSITIES Rainfall intensities were obtained from the Bureau of Meterology’s Rainfall Intensity Duration Data (RIFD) for Noosa Heads, Queensland. 4.2 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS The performance requirements for the stormwater system include: • Development to be generally in accordance with QUDM (2016); • Major Design Storm is 100 year ARI event (1%AEP); • Minor Design Storm is 10 year ARI event; and (10%AEP) These requirements will be complied with throughout the detailed design stage. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 5
Page 8
4.3 CONCEPT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LAYOUT Runoff from the buildings is collected via a piped drainage system. This piped system will be connected into the new stormwater infrastructure. A detention tank will be installed to reduce peak runoff to below pre-construction runoff. The lawful point of discharge for the site has been undertaken as follows: Areas of the landscaping which are well below the ability of the stormwater infrastructure to collect will be allowed to flow as overland flow to the rear south-western corner of the property into a soakage pit. We have estimated that the area of landscaped site discharging to this location will be 450m2. An existing grated inlet exists at the lower corner of 28 Viewland Drive to pick up this flow. Most of the pre-development flow would have discharged to this point. We are, therefore, substantially reducing discharge to this location. The areas of the site which can be picked up by the development’s stormwater infrastructure will be discharged by a new piped stormwater network running down viewland drive and connected into the existing stormwater gully at the corner of Viewland Drive and The Quarterdeck. The area discharging to this gully will be 2655m2. Runoff will be limited to below pre-development flows by the installation of a detention tank with orifice plate. Neil McKenzie & Associates Drawings No. 20-004- C01 Issue 4 Stormwater Layout C01.1 Issue 5 Stormwater Long Sections C01.2 Issue 2 Stormwater Catchment Plan C02 Issue 2 Stormwater Long Sections NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 6
Page 9
5. WATER QUANTITY
Stormwater from this site has been calculated using the Rational Method as described in the
Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM) except as amended. The Rational Method is the
most commonly used method for drainage design in Queensland and uses the Rational
Formula:
Qy = Cy . tIy . A /360
where
Qy = peak flow rate (m3/s) for average recurrence interval (ARI) of ‘y’ years
Cy = coefficient of discharge (dimensionless) for ARI of ‘y’ years
A = area of catchment (ha)
tI = average rainfall intensity (mm/h) for a design duration of ‘t’ hours
y
and an ARI of ‘y’ years.
The ARI is defined as the average or expected values of the period between exceedances of a
given discharge. The ARI for the design storm for both the major and minor system depends on
the current and potential land use, convenience and safety for pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
When designing the stormwater drainage system the following points have been considered:
• Stormwater treatment shall be designed for a 3 month storm event
• Stormwater reticulation is to cater for Q10 (.11% EY) and Q100 (1%EY) events
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 7
Page 10
5.1 PIPED DRAINAGE SYSTEM – PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Total Catchment is 3105m2
Coefficient of Runoff
The coefficient of runoff for the existing site has been determined using light cover bush with a
high soil permeability (sand) for zero fraction impervious, giving a C10 value of 0.53.
Time of Concentration
Slope of catchment: Length 55m, fall 4m.
Therefore Slope = 4/55 x 100 = 7.3%
For average grassed surface n = 0.045
Using Friend’s Equation:
t = 107nL0.333/S0. 2
= 107 x 0.045 x 55.333/7.30.2 = 12.3 minutes
However, adopt a time of 10 minutes.
EY % ARI 10 min Rainfall Intensity
1 1 102
0.2 5 155
0.11 10 181
0.05 20 205
0.02 50 236
0.01 100 259
Table 1 – 10min Rainfall Intensity
Using these values the pre-development flows are as follows
EY % ARI Pre Development Flows m3/s
1 1 0.037
0.2 5 0.067
0.11 10 0.083
0.05 20 0.098
0.02 50 0.124
0.01 100 0.142
Table 2 - Site Pre-Development
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 8
Page 11
5.2 PIPED DRAINAGE SYSTEM – POST DEVELOPMENT
Post development areas adopted are as follows:
Total Catchment as before of 3105m2
It is proposed to use detention tank totaling 48m3 with a 160mm orifice overflow outlet for the
development. Additional detention will be provided by the construction of the bio-basin but
has not been included in the below calculations which will be conservative. The design of the
piped infrastructure and detention system was undertaken using Drains program has been used
with Extended Rational Method.
Drains Output:
EY ARI Post Development Flows m3/s
1 1 0.038
0.2 5 0.054
.11 10 0.061
.05 20 0.067
.02 50 0.075
.01 100 0.082
Table 3 - Site Post-Development
Comparing the results pre and post development:
AEP ARI Pre Development Flows m3/s Post Development Flows m3/s
0.632 1 0.037 0.038
0.181 5 0.067 0.054
0.095 10 0.083 0.061
0.049 20 0.098 0.067
0.02 50 0.124 0.075
0.01 100 0.142 0.082
Table 4 - Pre & Post Development Comparison
Flows discharging from the site will be adequately mitigated.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 9
Page 12
6. WATER QUALITY
6.1 STORMWATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Noosa Council recommends using design standards as described in State Planning Policy 2017
Appendix 2.
The specific stormwater quality management objectives that will apply to the operational phase
of the proposed development have been taken, as advised in the above documents, from SEQ
Regional Plan 2009-2031 Water Sensitive Urban Design: Design Objectives for Urban
Stormwater Management (DERM). These load reduction targets will be used when comparing
the mitigated and unmitigated post-development site.
WSUD for SEQ - Water Quality Objectives
Indicator Required Reduction in Average
Annual Pollutant Load
Suspended Solids (TSS) 80 %
Total Phosphorus (TP) 60 %
Total Nitrogen (TN) 45 %
Gross Pollutants 90 %
These load reduction values are based on the developed unmitigated scenario compared to the
developed scenario with stormwater quality improvement devices.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 10
Page 13
6.2 STORMWATER QUALITY MODELLING The modelling for the subject catchment with and without the proposed treatment system has been carried out using Model for Urban Stormwater Conceptualisation (MUSIC) software. The catchment was modelled in music in accordance with the following guidelines & parameters: • Music Verions 6.3 • “MUSIC Modeling & Guidelines Version 1.0 – 2010”, Water by Design (2010) • Rainfall Station 40059 Cooroy, 6 minute time step from 1980 to 1989 • No drainage routing between nodes. 6.3 TREATMENT SYSTEMS REQUIRED A schematic plan of the stormwater treatment train form MUSIC is show below. Our proposed treatment train includes Gross Pollutant Traps to mitigate litter which are approved for use in conjunction with Bio-retention. High-flow bypass rates are as advised by the supplier. Our modelling does not rely on these GPT’s to meet water quality objectives, however, we believe it would be remiss not to screen Gross Pollutants prior to water entering the bio-filtration system. Figure 2 - SW Treatment Train NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 11
Page 14
6.4 RESULTS
The outcome from the MUSIC modelling for the developed mitigated and developed
unmitigated scenarios are shown in the following tables.
Developed Developed Load Reduction Required Load
Pollutant Type
Unmitigated Mitigated (%) Reduction (%)
TSS (kg/year) 749 59.6 92.5 80
TP (kg/year) 1.48 0.225 84.8 60
TN(kg/year) 7.51 3.15 58 45
Gross Pollutants
67.5 0 100 90
(kg/year)
Table 5 - Pollutant Load Reduction Results –Bio Retention Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of 200
Developed Developed Load Reduction Required Load
Pollutant Type
Unmitigated Mitigated (%) Reduction (%)
TSS (kg/year) 749 88 88.9 80
TP (kg/year) 1.48 0.324 78.1 60
TN(kg/year) 7.51 3.95 47.4 45
Gross Pollutants
67.5 0 100 90
(kg/year)
Table 6 - Pollutant Load Reduction Results –Bio Retention Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of 50
The load reduction achieved meets the minimum load reductions from the Guidelines. Given
the proposed development will meet the water quality and quantity objectives it is considered
that the development complies with Noosa Council’s stormwater requirements.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 12
Page 15
10. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Aspects relating to stormwater management across the proposed development have been described. Erosion potential is only considered a relevant issue during the construction phase. The grade across the site is minimal, minimizing the potential for onsite erosion. Best management practices will be applied to erosion control on the site. Stormwater quality modelling was completed and the outcome from MUSIC indicated the water quality objectives would be achieved. Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices are on private land and will remain a private asset. All relevant stormwater requirements in accordance with MCU20/0128 have been addressed. 12. REFERENCES Noosa Council City Plan 2020 State Planning Policy 2017 Appendix 2 Water Sensitive Urban Design – Technical Design Guidelines for Southeast Queensland Queensland Urban Drainage Manual – 2015 MUSIC Modeling & Guidelines Version 1.0 – 2010, Water by Design (2010) Water by Design Bio-retention Technical Design guidelines (Version 1.1) October 2014. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 13
Page 16
10.APPENDICES Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment Appendix B – Neil McKenzie & Associates Drawings Appendix C – Product information, including Maintenance Procedures for Enviropod200 GPT Appendix D – Bioretention Assessment Checklist Appendix E – Guide to the Cost and Maintenance of Bioretention Systems (Version 1) 2015, by Water by Design
Page 17
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEME NT REPORT APPENDIX A: EROSION HAZARD ASSESSMENT [OCR of page images] Neil McKenzie & Associates Oy Ratu aa ie Otel ica ta Co ed Suite 14 /699A Sandgate Road CLAYFIELD QED 4011 P:-07 3862-1886. F:-07 3862-1397 [email protected] SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX A: EROSION HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Page 18
SCHEDULE 2—EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Including amendments to 8 June 2018
ASSESSMENT
The Noosa Plan
Preamble
Erosion and sediment control on building sites
Builders must not pollute the environment. The Environmental Protection Act provides for
penalties for persons or entities causing environmental harm.
Soil erosion on building sites can be a major source of sediment pollution (environmental
harm) in our watercourses. A single building site can lose up to four truckloads of soil in one
storm. Washed from the sites into stormwater drains, this sediment can cause flooding and
also affects the water quality and the fish stocks in our creeks, lakes and the Noosa River
system.
Preventing sediment run-off from building sites is one of a number of ways that Council and
industry are improving our watercourses.
Effective on-site erosion and sediment control provides the following benefits—
A better looking, more marketable site;
Improved wet weather working conditions;
Reduced stockpile losses;
Less mud and dust problems;
Reduced clean-up costs;
Fewer public complaints;
Better public image;
Cleaner watercourses; and
Better fishing and swimming in our nearby watercourses.
1. Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Controlling Factors Points Score Checking
Predominant slope1 of the whole site, prior to
building works:
0 - 3% slope 0
>3% - 5% slope 1
2
>5% - 10% slope 2
>10% - 15% slope 4
> 15% slope 5
Soil type: (see 1 below)
Sandy soil/gravel 0 0
Sandy loam 1
Clay loam 2
1
The term ‘predominant slope’ is defined in Part 2 Section 2.12.
S2.1
Page 19
Controlling Factors Points Score Checking
Clay soil
Including amendments to 8 June 2018
2
The Noosa Plan
Anticipated duration of site disturbance: (see 2 below)
Duration < 2 weeks 0
2 weeks Duration < 3 months 2 4
3 months Duration < 6 months 4
Duration > 6 months 5
Month that works are undertaken: (see 3 below)
August, September 0
April, May, June, July, November, October 1 1
March December 2
January February 3
Offsite sediment control (i.e. down slope of the soil
disturbance):
Score 1 point if there is no purpose built, operational 1 0
and well maintained sediment traps (eg. sediment
basin, gross pollutant trap or purpose built wetland)
to catch sediment before it enters a water body with
environmental values (eg. creek, natural wetland,
river or bay) (see 4 below)
Run-off entering the site:
Score 1 point if stormwater run off entering the site is 1 0
not diverted away from the soil disturbance
Extent of site disturbance:
Score 2 points if building work requires reshaping of
the ground surface (eg. ‘cut and fill’ works) (see 5 2
5
below)
Score 5 points if the area to be disturbed is greater 5
than 600m²
Works within environmentally sensitive areas:
Score 11 points if the disturbance is within the banks
of a watercourse (see 6 below) 11 0
Score 5 points if the disturbance is within 50m of the
top of bank of a watercourse 5
Score 2 points if the disturbance is between 50m
and 100m of the top of bank of a watercourse 2
12
TOTAL SCORE (See 7 & 8 below)
Notes:
1. Where there is more than one type of soil on the site, select the category with the highest point value.
2. The time, from when the building site will first become vulnerable to erosion, to the time the soil will
be fully stabilised (eg. grassing).
3. If this time span covers more than one category, select the category with the highest point value.
Note that if there is no grass/vegetation cover on the site before building work has started, the time
span starts from the time this form is completed.
4. If you are not sure, score 1 point.
5. For the purpose of this form, ‘cut and fill’ works are those that will result in a steep batter or retaining
wall above and/or below the building slab, greater than 1 metre in height. If the building slab has
already been fully cut and stabilised (eg. grassed) during the subdivision stage, score 0 points.
6. Watercourse means any clearly identifiable creek, stream or river, whether flowing permanently or
intermittently.
7. For a high risk site, the total score is 14 points.
8. For a low risk site, the total score is < 14 points.
S2.2
Page 20
Including amendments to 8 June 2018
2. Erosion and Sediment Control Methods
The Noosa Plan
Element Solution
Minimise disturbance when excavating Retain as much grassed area as possible on the
site.
These areas not only improve the appearance
of the site they also filter much of the sediment
from stormwater run-off before it reaches the
drainage system.
Catch drains and perimeter banks Allow for diversion of up slope stormwater
around the work site and other disturbed
surfaces.
Install a sediment barrier Install sediment barriers down slope of the
building site to filter coarse sediment before it
can wash into gutters, drains and watercourses.
Purpose designed geotextile sediment
fabric (i.e. not shade cloth) attached to
posts with the geotextile buried in an
upstream trench; or
Place turf of a minimum 600mm width along
kerb line; or
Straw bales, staked in a 100mm (min) deep
trench.
Single gravelled entry-exit Restrict vehicle access to one entry-exit point.
Gravelling the access point will allow all
weather access, will reduce the amount of
soil carried off the site by vehicles, and will
provide a permanent base for the driveway.
Early stormwater drainage connection Connect a temporary or permanent downpipe/s
to the stormwater system before laying the roof
or slow and spread the flow from downpipe/s to
avoid localised erosion. Downpipe/s may be
temporarily removed during wall construction.
All stormwater must discharge in a manner that
does not cause soil erosion.
Concrete waste and washing Waste concrete and household paint must not
be allowed to wash into the gutters or the street.
Sand and soil stockpiles Stockpiles must be placed wholly on the
construction site and behind a sediment barrier.
S2.3
Page 21
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX B: STORMWATER DRAWINGS [OCR of page images] Neil McKenzie & Associates Oy Ratu aa ie Otel ica ta Co ed Suite 14 /699A Sandgate Road CLAYFIELD QED 4011 P:-07 3862-1886. F:-07 3862-1397 [email protected] SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX B: STORMWATER DRAWINGS
Page 22
SW
[OCR of page images]
SF |
aS S = 2
Ce © 2 OF dle ||
a o z|||2 E g 2\\ |
jf LY 4 LZ ee ee oe _ z VEWLAND DRIVE
Wt 4 225 UPVC PIPE i re " :
VY : JIL 7 > A |
aw yl 1500 UPVC PIPE ; | x |
4 * \ | —— _ TF nn A —_ —__ | >
AV CATCHM a |
FALL TO a | Ya 4 |
= |! SCATCHMENT 8 CATCHMENT 11 | LOCALITY PLAN
s ! FALL 10 PIT FALL 70 PIT 7 | SCALE 1:5000
Qi! | | ~
Lu! LL | ie
a | |
S CATCHMEN A na
FALL 70 PIT 1 Py |
L | |
PYC bs ~ fal P|
S PIPE a plo
Ss | |
|
= | b
= Jl No NS | |
| § a
| = 1 |
| aN / Ss
Hi eS — CATCHMENT 9 3 | CATCHMENT 9 |
le] ; oe FALE 10 PIT | 3 FALL DIRECT To BIO BASIN MENT 12. ot
an hy | bom ( 3 > _ |
dat || CATCHMENT 2 | 3008 UPVC PIPE. | RECT TO BIO BASIN pO
fii) | |] {FALL T0 GRATED DRAIN SNL STORMWATER PIPES —
|| 1 x ie —
Vt qn ez a VN poe
| | : : ; XV | BO 'RETENTION BASIN? | |
vale CATCHMENT 3 | | | P|
ve yyy t FALL 10 PIT i | | \ \ |
ys ENP A Seq |
! | CATCHMENT 6 | | eye RY : |
! FALL 10 PIT : | 7 CoG _ s
| -
. — 4-
| | 4 Le Deo
| | ; CATCHMENT 10 Po
i | <— FALL DIRECT 10 BIO BASN | 1 |
! & VIA. STORMWATER PIPES : 1 |
—__- | |
|
| oS ee So i Aon ee eae _| | |
Me ed OBO Yo 11,
/ 7
- 8 ANOSCAPE ZONE ef pr
|
S S S |
© we 7 S
STORMWATER DETENTION TANK —— 510 RETENTION BASIN | vw
&D PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE ° EXISTING POWER POLE EX PROPOSED 600 x 600 FIELD INLET
HRSIING TESIRA UNE cb EXISTING TELSTRA PIT PROPOSED 900 x 900 OUTLET PIT
‘ \ \ WITH GROSS POLLUTANT TRAP
HASTING WATER: MAIN E PROPOSED 600 x 600 SPEL FILTER BASKET
“ig -------_----~~_. EXISTING CONTOUR LINE (1.0m INTERVALS) GPT AS PER MANUF. SPEC.
APPROVED SCALE 1:125 JOB DESCRIPTION DRAWING TITLE
07.12.21
dl
NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD.
DRAWN
a
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
CHECKED
NM
29.11.21
dL
MLE AUST, RP.£Q. 2097, NP.ER 3
No.
REVISION
DATE
DWN
THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF
NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES (C) Copyright
14/699a SANDGATE ROAD
CLAYFIELD, QLD 4011
PHONE: (07) 3862 1886
FAX: (07) 3862 1397
DESIGNED
NM
APPROVED
NOOSA YOUNGCARE
32 VIEWLAND DRIVE
STORMWATER CATCHMENT PLAN
NM
DATE
NOV. 21
NOOSA HEADS
CENT DELUCA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION
DRAWING
NUMBER
Q20-004-CO01.2
REVISION
NUMBER
2
Page 23
STORMWATER 900 x 900 CONCRETE STORMWATER 900 x 900 900 x 900 CONCRETE
INSPECTION PIT OUTLET PIT HEADWALL PIT 18 PIT 1A INSPECTION PIT OUTLET PIT OUTLET PIT — HEADWALL PIT 24
5006 UPVC J DETENTION J 3008 UPVC PIPE 300¢ UPVC PIPE [2250 UPVC PIPE 5006 UPVC | DETENTION 300¢ UPVC PIPE 3008 UPVC PIPE 3000 UPVC PIPE
TANK TANK
BASIN 1 BASIN 1 BASIN 2
1600 ORIFICE 1600 ORIFICE
PLATE \ PLATE \
ee ILA =I
ro ro 4
|
DATUM RL 70.00 DATUM RL 70.00
26 = = 2 e 2 2. = = 2 2 2
3a = = = 3 = = Ba = = = 3 = =
eds s s Z g 3 s Sade s s g g g 28
saan a a “i 6 nS + San a a a 6 + ~
2a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
= 7000 18500 22100 14150 = 7000 18500 14100 16700
3 mK Ss aK
SCALE : 1 IN 250 HORIZONTALLY SCALE : 1 IN 250 HORIZONTALLY
1 IN 125 VERTICALLY 1 IN 125 VERTICALLY
900 x 900 OVERFLOW PIT ovERe.ow PI
"ABOVE-DESIGN’ FLOWS SPILL EXTENDED DETENTION
INTO FIELD ENTRY PIT. DESIGN FLOWS POND IN EXTENDED FUNCTIONAL VEGETATION SUPPORT NUTRIENT
DETENTION ZONE INCREASING REMOVAL AND MAINTAINS POROSITY OF SOIL.
FENCE. ————____—_> VOLUME OF STORMWATER THAT IS CONCRETE HEADWALL CARPARK SLAB 74.80 (VARIES)
STONE CLADDING TO CAPTURED AND TREATED. 7
BLOCK WALL WHERE EXPOSED — \ yp
— JOP OF WALL RL 74.2000 900 SERIES BLOCK WORK —— DRIVEWAY SLAB
RETAINING WALL AS PER DETAILS
NATURAL GROUND SURFACE RL 73.60 ‘| | / | / | BOD SUP PPE NE
nnn. onoa smc re 8) Ty fa WL
NET VERT RL 7320 PW Wi} _ [hy 5 =~ INLET INVERT RL_73.20_
TREATED FLOWS AND T See Se eas $ =t g
_ OUTLET PIT L726 _ OVERFLOWS TO = <7 > 7 -*Remesrie fi > 0 DR YE 7 5 TOP OF WALL RL 74.2 200 SERIES BLOCKWORK
RECEIVING WATERS. ne BASE [email protected]% TOWARDS PIT . s STONE CLADDING TO FULLY GROUTED CORES
: UNDER-DRAINS re CIEANOUT RISER R = ay cee cones BLOCK WALL WHERE EXPOSED
FLTER CLOTH UNER DRAINAGE LAYER (FINE. AGGREGATE) ease UNSLOTIED STANDPIPE FOR fle
TRANSITION LAYER (COARSE SAND) “ DRAINAGE PIPE CLEANOUT. as ; BIO RETENTION BIO RETENTION
ge NI6 @ 200 VERTICALLY FILTER MEDIA FILTER MEDIA N16 @ 200 VERTICALLY
FILTER MEDIA (SANDY LOAM) 3|S mr00 wax
ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONTENT < 60mg/kg 3ls N16 @ 400 HORIZONTALLY. —ESat_ " @ N16 @ 400 HORIZONTALLY
=[5 MINIMUM GROUND LEVEL
BIO RETENTION BASIN 1 DETAIL wane Bo ea IE |
SCALE 1:50 <4
NI6 @ 200 STARTERS i NI6 @ 200 STARTERS
600 LAP WW Vey Vy TV Vy ZI 800 LAP
900 x 900 OVERFLOW PIT PUN IONAL an —
x FUNCTIONAL VEGETATION SUPPORT NUTRIENT pee prey
"ABOVE-DESIGN’ FLOWS SPILL REMOVAL AND MAINTAINS POROSITY OF SOIL.
INTO FIELD ENTRY PIT. EXTENDED DETENTION | | | |
DESIGN FLOWS POND IN EXTENDED CONCRETE HEADWALL ©=——, STONE CLADDING T0 | |
DETENTION ZONE INCREASING BLOCK WALL WHERE EXPOSED 900 900
FENCE VOLUME OF STORMWATER THAT IS | je Loo TOP BT | fef-__ too TP a eT
CAPTURED AND TREATED. R6 LIGS @ 1000 CRS. R6 LIGS @ 1000 CRS.
WALKWAY SLAB — CARPARK SLAB 74.80 (VARIES) | | | |
200 SERIES BLOCKWORK VA ss -T [\ Be
RETAINING WALL AS PER 7 3008 SW UPVC PIPE
DETAILS |__| INLET INVERT RL 74.20 ©
LN g 450
TREATED FLOWS AND Ey a a ep oa =~s
_ OUTLET PIT IL 73.60 _ __ ovERFLOWS 10 _§ S77 ~~ TARE) Fest eed tel TEST el ee deel el deel Vel, Teele] to
RECEIVING WATERS. BASE [email protected]% TOWARDS PIT S -
oe-ans A ean a g SECTION OF WALL AT BIO BASIN BIO RETENTION BASIN RETAINING WALL DETAIL
FILTER CLOTH LINER DRAINAGE LAYER (FINE AGGREGATE) OO e ee PIPE ‘ UNSLOTTED STANDPIPE FOR
5% SLOPE. DRAINAGE PIPE CLEANOUT.
TRANSITION LAYER (COARSE SAND)
FILTER MEDIA (SANDY LOAM)
ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONTENT < 60mg/kg
SCALE 1:50
5 07221] dL APPROVED SCALE AS SHOWN | JOB DESCRIPTION DRAWING TITLE
TaN ena tan} NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. RAW a NOOSA YOUNGCARE STORMWATER DRAINAGE
3 noa2t | dl. CONSULTING ENGINEERS CHECKED NN 32 VIEWLAND DRIVE LINE 1 & LINE 2 LONG SECTION
2 ee VIE AIL RPEQ 2097, NPER 3 14/699a SANDGATE ROAD DESIGNED tN NOOSA HEADS
1 te0921 | ae CLAYFIELD, QLD 4011 APPROVED wu cE Suwa
THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF PHONE: (07) 3862 1886 AW REVISION
arson ET bw | NEIL MCRENGIE. dr agsocatES CO) Copyroht Pa yy Seon 1587 OnE ART DELUCA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION | uwaer Q20-004-C01.1 NUMER
Page 24
SW
[OCR of page images]
SF |
aS S = 2
Ce © 2 OF dle ||
a o z|||2 E g 2\\ |
jf LY 4 LZ ee ee oe _ z VEWLAND DRIVE
Wt 4 225 UPVC PIPE i re " :
VY : JIL 7 > A |
aw yl 1500 UPVC PIPE ; | x |
4 * \ | —— _ TF nn A —_ —__ | >
AV CATCHM a |
FALL TO a | Ya 4 |
= |! SCATCHMENT 8 CATCHMENT 11 | LOCALITY PLAN
s ! FALL 10 PIT FALL 70 PIT 7 | SCALE 1:5000
Qi! | | ~
Lu! LL | ie
a | |
S CATCHMEN A na
FALL 70 PIT 1 Py |
L | |
PYC bs ~ fal P|
S PIPE a plo
Ss | |
|
= | b
= Jl No NS | |
| § a
| = 1 |
| aN / Ss
Hi eS — CATCHMENT 9 3 | CATCHMENT 9 |
le] ; oe FALE 10 PIT | 3 FALL DIRECT To BIO BASIN MENT 12. ot
an hy | bom ( 3 > _ |
dat || CATCHMENT 2 | 3008 UPVC PIPE. | RECT TO BIO BASIN pO
fii) | |] {FALL T0 GRATED DRAIN SNL STORMWATER PIPES —
|| 1 x ie —
Vt qn ez a VN poe
| | : : ; XV | BO 'RETENTION BASIN? | |
vale CATCHMENT 3 | | | P|
ve yyy t FALL 10 PIT i | | \ \ |
ys ENP A Seq |
! | CATCHMENT 6 | | eye RY : |
! FALL 10 PIT : | 7 CoG _ s
| -
. — 4-
| | 4 Le Deo
| | ; CATCHMENT 10 Po
i | <— FALL DIRECT 10 BIO BASN | 1 |
! & VIA. STORMWATER PIPES : 1 |
—__- | |
|
| oS ee So i Aon ee eae _| | |
Me ed OBO Yo 11,
/ 7
- 8 ANOSCAPE ZONE ef pr
|
S S S |
© we 7 S
STORMWATER DETENTION TANK —— 510 RETENTION BASIN | vw
&D PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE ° EXISTING POWER POLE EX PROPOSED 600 x 600 FIELD INLET
HRSIING TESIRA UNE cb EXISTING TELSTRA PIT PROPOSED 900 x 900 OUTLET PIT
‘ \ \ WITH GROSS POLLUTANT TRAP
HASTING WATER: MAIN E PROPOSED 600 x 600 SPEL FILTER BASKET
“ig -------_----~~_. EXISTING CONTOUR LINE (1.0m INTERVALS) GPT AS PER MANUF. SPEC.
APPROVED SCALE 1:125 JOB DESCRIPTION DRAWING TITLE
07.12.21
dl
NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD.
DRAWN
a
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
CHECKED
NM
29.11.21
dL
MLE AUST, RP.£Q. 2097, NP.ER 3
No.
REVISION
DATE
DWN
THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF
NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES (C) Copyright
14/699a SANDGATE ROAD
CLAYFIELD, QLD 4011
PHONE: (07) 3862 1886
FAX: (07) 3862 1397
DESIGNED
NM
APPROVED
NOOSA YOUNGCARE
32 VIEWLAND DRIVE
STORMWATER CATCHMENT PLAN
NM
DATE
NOV. 21
NOOSA HEADS
CENT DELUCA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION
DRAWING
NUMBER
Q20-004-CO01.2
REVISION
NUMBER
2
Page 25
RECONSTRUCTION GULLY PIT NEW 1050¢ MANHOLE WITH NEW 1050¢ MANHOLE WITH NEW 1050¢ MANHOLE WITH WITH KERB ENTRY 10 ROADWAY MANHOLE COVER ROADWAY MANHOLE COVER ROADWAY MANHOLE COVER NOOSA SHIRE COUNCILS CLASS D CLASS D CLASS D DRAWING No. 9223-2 STORMWATER INSPECTION PIT EXISTING GULLY PIT — eH 2 =| S| UPGRADE EXISTING 3008 3756 CONCRETE CLASS 4 STORMWATER PIPE L 3750 CONCRETE CLASS 4 STORMWATER PIPE o 3750 CONCRETE CLASS 4 STORMWATER PIPE STORMWATER LINE T0 3756 WITH RUBBER RING JOINT DATUM RL 95.00 WITH RUBBER RING JOINT WITH RUBBER RING JOINT — (zis 122 I/s L 122 I/s 122 I/s 55 I/s zs 5.0% B.AI% 3.78% 5.0% 0.6% 2 . = 1.52 m/s 2.81 m/s 2.19 m/s 0.85 m/s ZeG e |e 88 Be aj § 2 g e s 2 s 3 8 s s S = |g 8 2 = E 3 LONGITUDINAL SECTION SCALE : 1 IN 250 HORIZONTALLY 1 IN 125 VERTICALLY 2 GENERAL 29.11.21 dl SCALE JOB DESCRIPTION DRAWING TITLE APPROVED AS SHOWN i wan [a | NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. DRANN a NOOSA YOUNGCARE STORMWATER DRAINAGE LONG SECTION C 11.03.21 dl CONSULTING ENGINEERS CHECKED NM 32 VIEWLAND DRIVE B 28.01.21 | 14/699a SANDGATE ROAD DESIGNED NN NOOSA HEADS r an i WIE AUST, RPEQ. 2097, NPER. 3 otnee ee, OLD 4011 —— se = — — THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF : | REVGIN ET Dm | NEIL MCRENGIE. ar agsocatES CO) Copyroht Pan yy Soon ser OnE aT DELUCA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION | uwaer Q20-004-C02 NMR = 2
Page 26
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEME NT REPORT APPENDIX C: ENVIROPOD 200 PRODUCT INFORMATION [OCR of page images] Neil McKenzie & Associates Oy Ratu aa ie Otel ica ta Co ed Suite 14 /699A Sandgate Road CLAYFIELD QED 4011 P:-07 3862-1886. F:-07 3862-1397 [email protected] SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX C: ENVIROPOD 200 PRODUCT INFORMATION
Page 27
EnviroPod200™ ENVIROPOD.COM
MEETING The Enviropod200 is the leading stormwater gullypit basket
REGULATORY in Australia, with over 20,000 installs nationwide.
REQUIREMENTS
IN AUSTRALIA Improvements over the last two decades have made the design easier for
the contractor while still providing the same level of pollutant removal.
SINCE 1998
» EASY to source, ship and handle » HAND MAINTENANCE
The Enviropod200 can be
USED AND » EASY INSTALLATION with fewer
maintained quickly and easily
APPROVED BY parts and a lighter frame, the
by hand or by vaccum truck
CITY COUNCILS installation process is quicker
and saves you time » LIGHTWEIGHT & DURABLE
ACROSS
The lightweight yet durable design
AUSTRALIA » FLEXIBILITY The flexible
of the Enviropod200 is a safer and
design allows the system to be
a longer lasting product than the
easily adjusted to fit any gullypit
alternatives
configuration
» WARRANTY The Enviropod200
has an eight year limited warranty
8
YEAR
WARRANTY ON
STATIC PARTS
Our technical guide is available for more
detail on hydraulic performance, head
loss, treatment and scour testing and
access to the MUSIC model node are all
available from www.enviropod.com
Page 28
ENVIROPOD.COM
EASY MAINTENANCE INSTALLATION
Maintenance is a simple process that requires no confined space entry. Quick and easy installation.
Maintenance can be quickly undertaken using a vacuum truck or it can be
maintained manually by hand.
Scan QR code
to download
installation manual
www.enviropod.com/resources/installation
1 Lift 2 Tip
Lift the Enviropod200 out of the gullypit Tip the contents out of Enviropod200
using the LIFT handles into suitable receptacle for contents
3 Rinse 4 Reuse
Rinse the liner bag to prevent clogging Reuse the Enviropod200 by placing
securely back into the surrounding frame
and seal, and close grate.
ENVIROPOD200 MODELS AND SPECIFICATION
Catch basin size (mm) Standard manhole size1 (mm) Enviropod200 model Min basin size (mm) Max basin size (mm)
Length Width Length Width
450x450 DN600, DN750 EP4545-200 435 377 470 470
600x600 DN1050 EP6060-200 570 512 620 620
900x600 – EP9060-200 872 447 920 620
900x900 – EP9060-2002 872 447 920 620
1200x1200 – 2 x EP9060-200 3
872 447 1230 1230
1
Manhole adaptor bracket and seal kit included. 2 With 900x900 seal kit adaptor kit. 3 With 1200x1200 seal kit adaptor kit.
1589 AU 04/21
CALL 1800 032 566 OR VISIT REECE.COM.AU
FOR YOUR NEAREST REECE STORE
Page 29
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEME NT REPORT APPENDIX D: BIORETENTION ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST [OCR of page images] Neil McKenzie & Associates Oy Ratu aa ie Otel ica ta Co ed Suite 14 /699A Sandgate Road CLAYFIELD QED 4011 P:-07 3862-1886. F:-07 3862-1397 [email protected] SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX D: BIORETENTION ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
Page 30
TABLE D.? BIORETENTION AND BIORETENTION SWALE NODES ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST (REFER TO SECTION 4.5)
BIORETENTION AND BIORETENTION SWALE
FILTER COMPONENTS (CHECK REPORTING COMMENTS/ISSUES TO FOLLOW UP.
TABLE C8 AND TABLE C9)
Has the filter surface area been calculated appropriately?
Is the extended detention depth consistent with the depth
shown on the development plans and between 0-0.4 m2
Is the filter media area consistent with the area shown on
the development plans?
Has an appropriate unlined filter media perimeter been
set?
Has an appropricte saturated hydraulic conductivity
been set? This should be modelled once at 50 mm/hr,
once at 200 mm/hr and both scenarios reported.
Is the fitter media depth modelled equivalent to the
depth of media shown on the plans? This depth should
not include the intermediate layer, drainage layers, or
submerged zone.
Is the TN content in the filter media set to either 400 mg/
kg or another suitably justified value?
Is the orthophosphate content in the filter medio set to 30
mg/kg or another suitably justified value?
Is the base lined?
Has the system been modelled to reflect the nutrient
removal properties of the plants to be used on site?
Is the overflow weir width appropriate?
a ee
Is the exfiliration rate set to zero?
If an exfiltration rate has been used, has Ihe secondary
drainage link been used to return the exfiltrated flows to
the model? (Section 4.1}
\f exfilfration rate has been used, is the exfiltration rate
justified?
Has the system been modelled with underdrains present? 5 ff .
ls a submerged zone with carbon present? J
|s the depth of submerged zone consistent with olans? Jf
If bioretention systems are modelled in series, is there a
low-flow bypass modelled in the downstream bioretention
system/s? (Note: separate drainage systems are required
if a low-flow bypass is modelled)
Have K and C* been retained as default values? (Y/N) JS
BIORETENTION SWALE COMPONENT ONLY {CHECK TABLE C8)
Has an extended detention depth cf Om been used? (Y/N}
Has the low flow bypass been calculated? The calculation of
should be provided by the applicant separately.
MUSIC MODELLING GUIDELINES Version 3.0 - 2018
Page 31
TABLE D.10 BUFFER NODE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST (REFER TO SECTION 4.7) BUFFERS (CHECK REPORTING TABLE C10) COMMENTS/ISSUES TO FOLLOW UP. Does the treatment nade reflect the vegetated area receiving sheet flow only? Is the percentage of upstream area buffered consistent with catchment plans? Does the buffer area accurately reflect the percentage impervious area as shown on the development plans? “1. % |e) S Is the exfiltration rate set to zero? If an exfiltration rate has been used, has the secondary drainage link been used to return the exfiltrated flows to the model? (Section 4.1) TABLE D.11 PROPRIETARY & CUSTOM PRODUCTS (INC GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS) NODE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST (REFER TO SECTION 4.8) PROPRIETARY & CUSTOM PRODUCTS COMMENTS/ISSUES TO FOLLOW UP (CHECK REPORTING TABLE C11) Are the proposed pollutant reduction efficiencies independently verified using a method suited to local conditions (Section 4.8)? Does the data provided include performance results under dry weather flows (to account for J potential pollutant leeching)? (Y/N). Is the assumed high-flow bypass rate consistent J with manufacturer specifications? (Y/N) UNLESS “YES” HAS BEEN ANSWERED TO ALL THREE QUESTIONS ABOVE THE PROPOSED POLLUTANT REDUCTION RATES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS BEING REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIT'S PERFORMANCE. ls the storage volume modelled consistent with the proposed unit? Is the expected maintenance frequency a Vv reasonable assumption? ls the storage volume large enough to contain all V sediments and gross pollutants received by unit during inter-maintenance periods? MUSIC MODELLING GUIDELINES Version 3.0 - 2018
Page 32
TABLE D.15 MEDIA FILTRATION NODE ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST (REFER TO SECTION 4.8.3) MEDIA FILTRATION SYSTEM (CHECK REPORTING TABLE C15) COMMENTS/ISSUES TO FOLLOW UP Is the extended detention depth consistent with plans? ls the surface area consistent with plans? Is the exfiltration rate set to zero? If an exfiltration rate has been used, has the secondary drainage link been used to return the exfiltrated flows to the model? (Section 4.1) |s the filter area consistent with plans? \s the filter depth consistent with plans? Is the filter media particle diameter consistent with manufacturer information? Is the saturated hydraulic conductivity consistent with manufacturer information? Is the depth below underdrain consistent with plans? Have the K and C* values been retained as default values or otherwise justified? TABLE D.16 OVERALL APPROVAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST aad ets COMMENTS/ISSUES TO FOLLOW UP (CHECK REPORTING TABLE C16) Have all water quality objectives been met? ls the MUSIC model approved? J MUSIC MODELLING GUIDELINES Version’ 3.0 - 2018
Page 33
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEME NT REPORT APPENDIX E: BIORETENTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE https://hlw.org.au/download/guide-to-the-cost-of-maintaining-bioretention-systems/ This document is downloadable but not editable so cannot be included in full here