Original source · versioned page text
Appendix E - Stormwater Management Plan
Attached to the e-mail Multiple Housing – Type 3 Retirement & Special Needs (10 units) - MCU17/0551.
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (13.7 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Plans and drawings
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawnCooroy Retirement Community, Trading Post Road, Cooroy
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP)
Prepared by Calibre Consulting
Prepared for Palm Lake Resorts
January 2017
16-001014-01B
Original
Water & Environment
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
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 83 pages
Page 2
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE All intellectual property rights, including copyright, in Calibre Consulting designs developed and documents created by Calibre Ground Floor, 545 Queen Street Consulting (Qid) Pty Ltd remain the property of this BRISBANE QLD 4000 company. Any use made of such design or document without the prior written approval of Calibre Consulting (Qld) Pty Ltd will constitute an infringement of the rights of Ph: (07) 3895 3444 the company which reserves all legal rights and remedies © 2016 in respect of any such infringement. The information, including any intellectual property, contained in this proposal is confidential and proprietary to the Company. It may only be used by the person to whom itis provided for the stated purpose for which it is provided and must not be imparted to any third person without the prior written approval of the Company. The Company reserves all legal rights and remedies in relation to any infringement of its rights in respect of its confidential information. DOCUMENT CONTROL 16-001014-01B EET Peo RES eens Author | Checked | Approved | | A 12/09/16 For Council Approval | cM | MS (RPEQ 9485) | AMcP (RPEQ 6921) 78 3/01/17 | For Council Approval | MS (RPEQ 9485) -
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope of this report ................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Previous Documentation ......................................................................................... 2
1.3 Response to Approval Conditions ........................................................................... 3
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Location................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Topography and Site Drainage ............................................................................... 6
2.3 Site Discharge locations.......................................................................................... 6
3 PEAK FLOW INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................... 7
3.1 Existing Scenario .................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Catchment Characteristics ........................................................................ 7
3.1.2 Infiltration Loss & Lag Parameters ............................................................ 8
3.1.3 Channel Routing ........................................................................................ 8
3.1.4 Rainfall Data .............................................................................................. 8
3.1.5 Existing Peaks Flow .................................................................................. 8
3.1.6 Model Verification Check - Rational Method ............................................. 9
3.2 Developed Mitigated Scenario ................................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Catchment Characteristics ........................................................................ 9
3.2.2 Infiltration Loss & Lag Parameters .......................................................... 10
3.2.3 Channel Routing ...................................................................................... 10
3.2.4 Rainfall Data ............................................................................................ 10
3.2.5 Proposed Mitigation Strategy .................................................................. 10
3.2.6 Developed Mitigated Peaks Flow Results ............................................... 12
3.2.7 Extreme Event Sensitivity Check ............................................................. 13
3.2.8 Internal Drainage Strategy ....................................................................... 14
4 STORMWATER QUALITY .............................................................................................. 15
4.1 Pollutants of Concern ............................................................................................ 15
4.2 Water Quality Objectives....................................................................................... 15
4.3 Stormwater Quality Management Strategy ........................................................... 15
4.3.1 Utilised Treatment Systems ..................................................................... 16
4.3.2 Proposed End-of-Line Systems ............................................................... 16
4.4 MUSIC Modelling .................................................................................................. 17
4.4.1 Meteorological Data ................................................................................. 18
4.4.2 Source Nodes .......................................................................................... 18
4.4.3 Primary and Secondary Drainage Links .................................................. 18
4.4.4 Treatment Nodes ..................................................................................... 19
4.5 MUSIC Modelling Results ..................................................................................... 21
5 WATERWAY STABILITY MANAGEMENT ...................................................................... 22
6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23
7 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 23
8 DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................... 24
9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 24
Page 4
TABLES
Table 1-1: Approved Bioretention Basin Sizing ........................................................................ 1
Table 1-2: Summary of Responses to Approval Conditions Relating to Stormwater
Management ........................................................................................................ 3
Table 3-1: Existing Scenario Catchment Details ................................................................... 7
Table 3-2: XP-RAFTS Calibration Parameter Summary ....................................................... 8
Table 3-3: Existing Peak Flow Results .................................................................................. 8
Table 3-4: Existing Peak Flow Comparison at Discharge Location B ................................... 9
Table 3-5: Developed Mitigated Scenario Catchment Details ............................................... 9
Table 3-6: Stormwater Detention Basin Concept Details .................................................... 11
Table 3-7: Northern Basin Stage Storage Discharge Relationship ..................................... 11
Table 3-8: Central Basin Stage Storage Discharge Relationship ........................................ 12
Table 3-9: Developed Mitigated Scenario Peak Flow Comparison ..................................... 12
Table 3-10: Developed Mitigated Scenario Basin Water Surface Levels .............................. 13
Table 3-11: Extreme Storm Event Weir Assessment ............................................................ 13
Table 4-1: Load Reduction Water Quality Objectives .......................................................... 15
Table 4-2: Bioretention Basin Modelled Parameters ........................................................... 19
Table 4-3: Generic Node Treatment Removal Efficiency (Aged Care Facility) ................... 20
Table 4-4: Pond Node Configuration ................................................................................... 20
Table 4-5: 20th Percentile Hydraulic Residence Time Results (Simplistic Approach).......... 21
Table 4-6: MUSIC Modelling Results .................................................................................. 21
FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Approximate Location of Site (Source: UBD 2006) .............................................. 5
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CONCEPT MASTERPLAN LAYOUT
APPENDIX B RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION
APPENDIX C DETENTION BASIN CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX D XP-RAFTS LAYOUT SUMMARY
APPENDIX E STORMWATER DESIGN CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX F MUSIC MODELLING DETAILS
APPENDIX G CONCEPT DRAWINGS
APPENDIX H OPERATIONAL WORKS DRAWINGS
APPENDIX I COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE
Page 5
1 INTRODUCTION
Calibre Consulting (QLD) Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Palm Lake Resort to prepare a Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP) to support the Operational Works Approval for Stage 2 and subsequent stages of the Palm Lakes
Retirement Community. The development is located on 2 & 4 Lamonts Road and 19 & 20 Trading Post Road Cooroy,
within the Noosa Shire Council (NSC) Local Government Area. This submission follows the Stage 2 Operational Works
Approval (OPW16/0203) for the site.
This project has an extensive history, involving an interim reduced site layout (excludes property on 20 Trading Post
Road/Lot 4 on RP215922), numerous submissions to and correspondence with Council to achieve approval of the
stormwater management strategy.
Issue A of this report was provided to Council in September 2016 to support the Operational Works Approval for Stage 2
and subsequent stages of the overall site layout. This was in accordance with Framework Letter Report
(No. B14158.W.07L dated 8 October 2015) and addressed Council’s Decision Notice MCU approval conditions.
The current issue (B) of this report, has been undertaken to address the stormwater items of the Stage 2 Operational
Works Approval Conditions (Application No. OPW16/0203 dated 9 January 2017). Since the previous issue, liaison has
been undertaken with Council Officer Cherie O’Sullivan to update the stormwater quality management strategy to treat
external catchments. A revised strategy was developed alongside Council as per Table 1-1 and was subsequently
approved. As per Stage 2 Operational Works Approval Condition 41(a), the stormwater strategy is to reflect the MUSIC
model with reference SC2G Palm Lakes provided to Noosa Council on 12 December 2016. Details from this approved
MUSIC model have been incorporated into this updated report. Also refer to the email correspondence between Council
provided in Appendix I for details.
Table 1-1: Approved Bioretention Basin Sizing
Location of Stormwater Functional Filter Media Area
Quality Treatment Size
Northern Basin 525m2
Central Basin 650m2
Southern Basin 305m2
Biopod D3 75m2
Biopod D2 75m2
C2 SW Treatment Device/s to meet
90/60/45 %Reduction
Since there was only a minor update to stormwater strategy the only changes to this updated Issue B report other than
this introduction include the following:
• Section 3.2.5 – While the peak flow mitigation strategy has remained the same, modifications to the central basin has
changed the stage-storage-discharge relationship, which has been updated in XP-RAFTS modelling.
• Section 3.2.6 – Updated hydrological results indicate that the same outcome has been achieved (i.e. no adverse
impact and no increase of peak flows from existing conditions discharging from the site).
• Section 3.2.7 – Updated hydrological results indicate that the top of the embankment is not overtopped during
extreme storm events as per the previous report.
• Section 4.3 – The stormwater quality management strategy has been updated to incorporate Table 1-1.
• Section 4.4.4 – Treatment Node for bioretention basins/pods have been updated accordingly.
• Section 4.5 – MUSIC modelling results were updated and demonstrate compliance with WQO’s.
Any changes to the report other than this introduction and conclusion have been indicated in indented italicised text.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |1
Page 6
The following documents have also been provided to Council together with this submission and must be read in
conjunction with this report:
• Response to Stage 2 Operational Works Approval Conditions Letter (No. 16-001014.02L.ms.cm.docx dated
January 2017) – provides a summary of responses to Council’s Stage 2 Operational Works Approval Conditions
regarding stormwater management.
• Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Report (No. 16-001014-01B dated January 2017) – provides updated details
of the stormwater management strategy, with corresponding analysis and investigations.
The design, management and maintenance procedures for stormwater management devices detailed in these
documents, also address previous concerns from Council and are in accordance with past approvals.
This report provides details on peak flow, stormwater quality and water stability management to demonstrate compliance
with the relevant local and state guidelines and Council’s requirements. The site development layout is generally in
accordance with the approved layout and the stormwater management strategies remains consistent with previously
approved documentation.
1.1 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
The scope of this report includes the following:
• Peak flow (or hydrological) analysis using XP-RAFTS software to determine existing peak flows and developed
mitigated peak flows from the site, to ensure no adverse impact as a result of the development;
• Stormwater quality analysis using MUSIC software to determine the adequacy of the proposed SQIDs to meet the
Water Quality Objectives (WQO’s) required under the State Planning Policy (SPP, 2014); and
• Management of Waterway Stability required under SPP (2014).
While a flood investigation has not been undertaken in this report, it is noted that flood information was previously
provided to Council in Letter No. B14158.W.10LA.AMcP.ms.docx dated 21 April 2016. This document demonstrated no
loss of regional floodplain storage and therefore no increase in the severity of flooding or interference with the existing
watercourse. The peak flow investigation and internal drainage strategy detailed in Section 3.2 demonstrates no
worsening in peak flows discharging from the site, also demonstrating that the development will not adversely impact
flood conditions downstream. Since the site strategy is generally in accordance with concept designs previously provided
to Council (i.e. earthworks, drainage and stormwater management solutions) the above outcomes are maintained.
1.2 PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION
The following documentation has been previously prepared by Calibre Consulting (Qld) for the Cooroy Retirement
Community development:
Reduced Site Layout - MCU Development Application
• Concept Stormwater Management Report (No. B07056.W-02A dated June 2008) – in support of the DA;
• Concept Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) Report (No. B14158.W-01A dated December 2014) in
support of the permissible change application;
Reduced Site Layout – Bulk Earthworks Approval
• Stormwater Management Construction and Maintenance Plan (SMCMP) Report (No. B14158.W-04A dated
September 2015) – in support of the Operational Works - Bulk Earthworks Application; and
• Framework Letter Report (No. B14158.W.07L dated 8 October 2015) – Addressing Council’s Change to Existing
Approval Condition Item 72 (dated 2 March 2015).
Reduced Site Layout - Stage 1A Operational Works Application
• Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Report (No. B14158.W-05B dated 2015);
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |2
Page 7
• Stormwater Management Construction and Maintenance Plan (SMCMP) Report (No. B14158.W-06A dated
November 2015);
• Response to Information Request Letter No. B14158.W-11A dated 22 April 2016; and
• Queries Clarification Letter (No. B14158.W.14 RFI.AMcP.lms Response to RFI.docx dated 6 June 2016) –
Addressing Council Officer Cherie O’Sullivan’s further queries in email dated 27 May 2016.
Overall Site Layout - MCU Development Application
• Concept Stormwater Management Plan Report (No. B14158.W-03A dated November 2015);
• Concept Stormwater Management Construction and Maintenance Plan (Concept SMCMP) Report (No. B14158.W-
09A dated January 2016)
• Response to Information Request Letter No. B14158.W.10A-Response to RFI.docx dated 5 February 2016.
• Outstanding Information Request Response Letter No. B14158.W.10LA.AMcP.ms.docx dated 21 April 2016.
Overall Site Layout – Stage 2 Operational Works Application
• Response to Stormwater Management Approval Conditions Letter (No. 16-001014.01L.ms.cm.docx dated 12
September 2016) – provides a summary of responses to Council’s Approval Conditions regarding stormwater
management.
• Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Report (No. 16-001014-01A dated September 2016) – provides details of
the stormwater management strategy, detailed response to Council’s Approval Conditions, with corresponding
analysis and investigations.
• Stormwater Management Construction & Maintenance Plan (SMCMP) Report (No. 16-001014-02A dated September
2016) – provides design checklists, construction management and operation maintenance procedures for proposed
stormwater devices.
The above reports have been considered in the latest analysis.
1.3 RESPONSE TO APPROVAL CONDITIONS
A summary of the responses to Council’s Approval Conditions relating to stormwater management are provided in
Table 1-1 below. Some responses have been addressed in other submissions, such as the SMCMP Report
(No. 16-001014-02B dated January 2017).
Table 1-2: Summary of Responses to Approval Conditions Relating to Stormwater Management
Item Brief Summary of Item Response to Item
59 Adequate flood immunity maintained Design of roadworks and drainage network throughout the site ensures
during local and regional events. adequate management of local flows. Refer to Roadworks and
Drainage Plans. Section 3.2.6 in this report indicates basin water
surface levels provide adequate freeboard to allotment levels.
Section 1.1 in this report provides details of regional flood levels below
developed lots.
60 Site earthworks does not adversely Section 1.1 in this report provides details of regional flood levels
impact flood conditions on adjacent or and site filling well outside of regional flood extents.
downstream properties Furthermore, Section 3.2.6 indicates a reduction of peak flows back to
or below existing levels discharging from the site, which demonstrates
no adverse impact to flooding downstream.
61 Design of stormwater drainage and Stormwater drainage and basin detailed design drawings have been
management devices to be certified by certified by RPEQ. Refer to Drawing No. 16-001014-400 series for
RPEQ specialising in hydraulics. details.
62 Minor Drainage System Capacity – 10% Stage 2 Operational Works drainage has been designed accordingly.
AEP storm, Major Drainage System Refer to Stage 2 Operational Works Design Package for details. Future
Capacity – 1% AEP storm stages will also be designed accordingly. Details are also provided in
Section 3.2.8 of this report.
63 No adverse impact to downstream peak Section 3.2.6 in this report demonstrates that proposed detention
flows up to and including the 1% AEP basins are adequate in reducing peak flows to meet this requirement.
Storm
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |3
Page 8
Item Brief Summary of Item Response to Item
64 Demonstrate the Stormwater Quality Section 4 in this report provides stormwater quality analysis, outlining
Management Strategy meets Water the proposed Stormwater Quality Management Strategy, which
Quality Objectives as per the SPP, 2014. demonstrates compliance with WQO’s for the site. Discussion of the
treatment of external catchment runoff and modelling methodology is
provided in Section 4.
65.1 Letter from Water By Design or eWater In the proposed modelling (refer to Section 4 in this report), there has
where MUSIC modelling deviates from been no deviation from specifications provided in the MUSIC Modelling
MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010). Guidelines (2010). Therefore, a letter is not required. As per previous
correspondence with Council, the pond node has not been modelled in
MUSIC. This is a conservative assumption considering that the pond
will capture suspended solids through a process of sedimentation and
provide some reduction of nutrients.
65.2 Contingency plan with costs to be A contingency plan has been provided in Appendix A of the SMCMP
provided to Council. Stormwater runoff Report. Stormwater runoff is to receive primary treatment from
from roads and car parking areas to be proprietary GPT’s that can remove grease and oil, and tertiary
pre-treated for grease and oil. treatment from Bioretention Basins before discharge into the Pond.
Note that all areas likely to generate significant amounts of grease and
oil will be pre-treated by GPT’s. Since the catchment to the Northern
Bioretention Basin is smaller than 5ha and does not contain significant
areas of car parking or road, a sediment forebay is proposed.
66 Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices to Bioretention Basins and the Pond have been designed accordingly.
be designed in accordance with Healthy Details are provided in Section 2.1 and Section 3.1 of the SMCMP
Waterway and Water By Design Report.
guidelines.
67 Stormwater design and maintenance The criteria and framework for design, construction and operational
strategy in accordance with Council’s maintenance for stormwater devices is in accordance with the
approved Framework Letter Report (No. Framework Letter Report approved by Council. Refer to the SMCMP
B14158.W.07L dated 8 October 2015) Report for details.
68 The SMCMP Report to be in accordance The SMCMP Report has been written in accordance with this approved
with Council’s approved Framework document.
Letter Report (No. B14158.W.07L dated
8 October 2015)
69 Owner responsibility for construction, This condition is stipulated in this report.
maintenance and repair costs of
stormwater management devices.
70 Calculations to demonstrate runoff to Energy dissipaters (i.e. rock scour protection) have been provided at
northern swale within the site will not drainage outlets into the northern site swale. Energy Dissipation
cause scour. Calculations and Manning’s Sections (comparing existing and
developed conditions of the swale) are provided in Appendix A of the
SMCMP Report.
71 Any waters captured to be plumbed and The capture of all water for external uses was not proposed as part
used for external or non-potable uses. of the previously approved MCU submission. The capture of all
water on site is not required for the site to meet both Stormwater
Quality and Quantity Objectives to be achieved and is therefore not
proposed or required.
72 Developed peak flows from the site As per response to Condition 63, Section 3.2.6 of this report
during the 63% AEP storm event to be demonstrates that proposed detention basins are adequate in reducing
reduced back to or below existing levels. peak flows to meet this condition.
73 Performance bond to be provided to Monitoring and maintenance costs are detailed in Appendix A of the
Council equivalent to 150% of the value SMCMP Report. A performance bond will be provided to Council for the
of monitoring and maintenance of the first 5 years of full operation of the pond.
water bodies.
Since the MCU Approval Conditions, Council have issued Stage 2 Operational Works Approval Conditions.
Responses to this latest approval are summarised in Letter Report No. 16-001014.02L.ms.cm.docx dated
January 2017
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |4
Page 9
2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 LOCATION
The 15.83ha development site is located on four existing properties in the NSC local government area. The site is
bounded by Trading Post Road and rural zoned area (Noosa Plan, 2013) to the east, rural zoned area to the north,
Pearson’s Rd to the south and Cooroy Connection Road (Elm Street) to the west. The property description are:
• 1/RP215922 - 19 Trading Post Road;
• 4/RP215922 - 20 Trading Post Road;
• 2/RP165418 - 4 Lamonts Road, Cooroy; and
• 1/RP165418 - 2 Lamonts Road, Cooroy.
Figure 2.1 below indicates the approximate location of the site.
SITE
COOROY CONNECTION ROAD
Figure 2-1: Approximate Location of Site (Source: UBD 2006)
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |5
Page 10
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE DRAINAGE
The majority of the site falls from its western boundary (Cooroy Connection Road) to the eastern boundary (Trading Post
Road). There are two existing gullies traversing the site which discharge to two separate existing dams (central and
southern). These two dams then join to a larger “combined” dam downstream on property Lot 4RP215922. The
“combined” dam then discharges to an existing swale along the north-eastern boundary of the Lot before discharging to
the lawful point of discharge (Central Discharge Point B). There are two external catchments discharging to the site from
Cooroy Connection Road via two existing box culverts below the road.
To the north of the site a smaller catchment discharges to the existing northern dam before discharging downstream
(Northern Discharge Point A).
The highest point on the site is near the intersection of Cooroy Connection Road and Pearsons Road at RL 111 m AHD.
The lowest point at the eastern corner of the site at the base of an existing swale is approximately at RL 97 m AHD
adjacent to Central Discharge Point B. The average grade of the central gully is approximately 2% and the southern gully
is approximately 4%, as measured from the western boundary to the eastern boundary.
Refer to Drawing No. B14158.W-SK100 in Appendix G for existing stormwater catchments, existing gullies and dam
locations.
2.3 SITE DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
The site has two main discharge locations as detailed below:
• Northern Discharge Point A – A small portion of the site to the north and external catchment (approximately 2.4ha)
is directed towards the northern boundary.
• Central Discharge Point B – A large portion of the site and external catchment (approximately 16.2ha) is directed to
the west via an existing swale located within the site.
Refer to Drawing No. B14158.W-SK100 in Appendix G for discharge locations.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |6
Page 11
3 PEAK FLOW INVESTIGATION
Hydrological analysis using XP-RAFTS was undertaken to demonstrate that the development of the site with mitigation
measures would not result in adverse impact downstream. The methodology undertaken in this analysis is consistent with
the past approvals. The following scenarios were undertaken in this analysis.
• Existing Scenario represents the hydrology for the catchment under existing conditions. Catchment parameters (i.e.
infiltration loss and lag parameter values) were adopted as per Water Technology’s Cooroy Flood Study (Report No.
J2835-01_R02v01 dated 26 July 2013) which is the adopted hydrological modelling for the area and was prepared
specifically for the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. The report and corresponding models were supplied by Noosa
Shire Council.
Peak flow results determined in this scenario were compared with developed peak flow results to assess the change
in peak flows at site discharge locations.
• Developed Mitigated Scenario represents the hydrology for the catchment under proposed development conditions
with mitigation. This scenario was undertaken to determine the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures to
reduce peak flows back to or below existing conditions, therefore demonstrate no adverse impact.
The Existing and Developed Mitigated Scenario were modelled using the computer package XP-RAFTS. XP-RAFTS
analysis enables the hydrological modelling of the site for numerous design storm events and land uses. The subsequent
sections indicates the various assumptions and procedures used in developing each XP-RAFTS model.
3.1 EXISTING SCENARIO
The Existing Scenario was undertaken to determine peak flows discharging from the site under existing conditions.
3.1.1 CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Existing Catchments were delineated based on existing survey and aerial information. Existing catchments provided are
in accordance with the Concept SWMP Report (No. B14158.W-03A dated November 2015), only the Fraction impervious
value for Catchment D1 (Trading Post Road) has been updated to reflect the latest survey information. Catchments were
also split into various sub-catchments for modelling purposes. Fraction impervious values have been determined using
detailed survey and aerial information. Vectored slope has also been measured from the survey.
A summary of the existing catchment details are provided in Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1: Existing Scenario Catchment Details
Downstream Sub-
Overall Sub- Fraction
Sub- Catchment Vectored Slope (%)
Catchment catchment Impervious
Catchment Area (ha)
Northern A1 A2 0.78 0.12 0.7%
A2 A_OUTLET 1.62 0.10 2.9%
Central B1 B2 1.38 0.23 1.7%
B2 B3 3.66 0.01 2.5%
B3 B4 2.32 0.03 7.1%
B4 D2 0.55 0.25 4.0%
South C1 C2 0.93 0.32 0.8%
C2 C3 5.14 0.02 2.6%
C3 D 0.64 0.00 6.0%
Central & South D1 D2 0.35 0.44 4.4%
D2 D_OUTLET 1.20 0.09 4.0%
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |7
Page 12
3.1.2 INFILTRATION LOSS & LAG PARAMETERS
Infiltration Loss and Lag Parameter values were adopted as per Water Technology’s Cooroy Flood Study (Report No.
J2835-01_R02v01 dated 26 July 2013), which covers the Cooroy region and site area. A parameter summary is provide
in Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2: XP-RAFTS Calibration Parameter Summary
XP-RAFTS Model Parameter Value From Cooroy Flood Study
Storage multiplication co-efficient Bx 1
Pervious Initial Rainfall Loss (mm) 10
Pervious Continuing Rainfall Loss (mm/hr) 2.5
Impervious Initial and Continuing Loss values were conservatively assumed as 0mm.
3.1.3 CHANNEL ROUTING
Channel Routing (XP-RAFTS Link Routing) was modelled as per Water Technology Cooroy Flood Study (2013). The ‘k’
lag values were determined directly based on flowpath length and average channel velocity of 0.9m/s for natural overland
flowpaths and 2.0m/s for runoff conveyed through drainage or road network. A constant ‘x’ coefficient of 0.2 was adopted
as per the Cooroy Flood Study (2013).
3.1.4 RAINFALL DATA
Rainfall data was generated based on rainfall IFD parameters provided by Water Technology’s Cooroy Flood Study
(Report No. J2835-01_R02v01 dated 26 July 2013) for the Cooroy Region.
3.1.5 EXISTING PEAKS FLOW
Modelling was undertaken for the all recurrence interval storm events up to and including the 100-year ARI storm event
with storm durations ranging from 30 to 120 minutes (these were considered the critical durations). Peak flow results for
the Existing Scenario have been provided in Table 3-3 below at the site discharge locations (i.e. Discharge Location A
and B as discussed in Section 2.3).
Table 3-3: Existing Peak Flow Results
Peak Flow at Discharge Peak Flow at Discharge
AEP
Location A North (m3/s) Location B Central (m3/s)
63% 0.17 1.14
39% 0.26 1.71
18% 0.36 2.54
10% 0.43 3.02
5% 0.55 3.69
2% 0.66 4.28
1% 0.77 4.95
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |8
Page 13
3.1.6 MODEL VERIFICATION CHECK - RATIONAL METHOD
A verification check of the XP-RAFTS model was undertaken by comparing model generated peak flows with Rational
Method calculations. A Rational Method calculation was undertaken for the overall catchment to Discharge Location B.
Refer to Appendix B for Rational Method details. A comparison is provided in Table 3-4 below.
Table 3-4: Existing Peak Flow Comparison at Discharge Location B
Rational Method XP-RAFTS Peak Difference
AEP
Peak Flow (m3/s) Flow (m3/s) (%)
63% 1.32 1.14 -14%
39% 1.80 1.71 -5%
18% 2.55 2.54 0%
10% 2.96 3.02 2%
5% 3.69 3.69 0%
2% 4.82 4.28 -11%
1% 5.27 4.95 -6%
As indicated in the table above, XP-RAFTS peak flows vary from QRM, but are generally lower than the QRM peak flows.
The average variance is 5%. Therefore the model parameters adopted from the council report in Section 3.1.2 are
considered appropriate.
3.2 DEVELOPED MITIGATED SCENARIO
The Developed Mitigated Scenario was undertaken to demonstrate no adverse impact as a result of the proposed
mitigation measures.
3.2.1 CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Developed catchments were delineated and split based on preliminary earthworks. A Fraction Impervious value of 70%
was adopted for all sub-catchment areas as per the Concept SWMP Report (No. B14158.W-03A dated November 2015).
Catchment details have been updated to reflect minor changes undertaken during detailed design. The vectored slope
remains consistent with the corresponding existing catchment, as no significant changes under developed conditions
were expected. A summary of the developed catchment details are provided in Table 3.5 below.
Table 3-5: Developed Mitigated Scenario Catchment Details
Downstream Sub-
Overall Sub- Fraction
Sub- Catchment Vectored Slope (%)
Catchment catchment Impervious
Catchment Area (ha)
North A1 A2 0.98 0.70 0.7%
A2 A_OUTLET 1.51 0.70 2.9%
Central B1 B2 2.13 0.15 1.7%
B2 B3 2.38 0.70 2.5%
B3 B4 2.06 0.70 7.1%
B4 D 1.05 0.38 4.0%
South C1 C2 1.32 0.22 0.8%
C2 C2 2.02 0.80 2.6%
C3 D 2.93 0.70 6.0%
Central & D1 D2 0.27 0.63 4.4%
South D2 D_OUTLET 1.25 0.70 4.0%
D3 D_OUTLET 0.58 0.70 4.0%
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY |9
Page 14
3.2.2 INFILTRATION LOSS & LAG PARAMETERS
The same Infiltration Loss and Lag Parameter values were adopted as per the Existing Scenario (refer to Section 3.1.2),
which are consistent with Water Technology’s Cooroy Flood Study.
3.2.3 CHANNEL ROUTING
Channel Routing (XP-RAFTS Link Routing) was modelled as per Water Technology’s Cooroy Flood Study (2013), by
determining ‘k’ lag values based on flowpath lengths and average channel velocities, with a constant ‘x’ coefficient of 0.2.
Refer to Section 3.1.3 for details.
3.2.4 RAINFALL DATA
Rainfall data was generated as per the Existing Scenario in Section 3.1.4.
3.2.5 PROPOSED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The following detention basins (incorporated with stormwater quality treatment) are proposed as part of the stormwater
mitigation strategy to reduce peak flows back to or below existing levels. This is consistent with the Concept SWMP
Report (No. B14158.W-03A dated November 2015) and other past approved documentation.
• Northern Basin consists of a combined bioretention and detention basin to mitigate peak flows from the northern
portion of the site (i.e. Sub-Catchments A1 and A2). This basin is consistent with the previously proposed basin in
the past DA approval and only been slightly updated to account for the new development layout and the use of a Bio-
Retention system rather than a water quality control pond for treatment.
• Central Basin is a water quality control pond (WQCP) which incorporates both detention storage for peak flow
mitigation and water quality components. The WQCP will mitigate peak flows from the central and southern portion of
the site (i.e. Sub-Catchments B1, B2, B3, B4, C1, C2 and C3). This concept is different from the previously approved
Central Basin as the wetland has been replaced with a WQCP and the basin has been upsized to mitigate runoff
from the southern portion of the site.
• Southern Catchment Diversion – Minor flows from the southern portion of the site are to be directed from the
proposed South Bioretention Basin towards the Central Basin for flow attenuation. This flow diversion will be sized for
the minor design storm (63% AEP), which is a flow of 1.25m3/s. Runoff that exceeds this capacity will overtop the
bioretention basin and be conveyed to the eastern corner of the site. The southern bioretention basin has been
modelled in XP-RAFTS to ensure that the outlet configuration is adequate to convey runoff as proposed.
Details of the proposed detention basins are presented in Table 3-6. For details of the proposed South Bioretention Basin
outlet configuration (sized for diversion of 63% AEP peak flows), refer to Drawing No. B14158.W-SK105 in
Appendix G.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 10
Page 15
Table 3-6: Stormwater Detention Basin Concept Details
Basin Details Northern Basin2 Central Basin3
Detention Volume to 1% AEP
1,030m3 4,620m3
Basin Level
1% AEP Basin WSL (m AHD) RL 100.5 RL 101.03
Minimum Embankment Level (m
RL 100.8 RL 101.30
AHD)
Normal Operating Level (m
RL 99.1 (Filter Level) RL 99.2
AHD)
1.2m x 1.2m Riser Pit at RL 100.45m
Primary Outlet Pit 0.9m x 0.9m pit at RL 100.0m AHD
AHD
Primary Front Orifice 2 x 250mm Dia at RL 99.4m AHD 2 x 400mm at RL 99.6m AHD
Primary Side Orifice - 2 x 400mm at RL 99.6m AHD
Balance Orifice (between pits) 1 x 300mm Dia at RL 98m AHD -
Secondary Outlet Pit 0.9m x 0.9m pit at RL 100.15m AHD -
Outlet Pipe 1 x 375mm at RL 98m AHD 1 x 825mm at RL 98.3m AHD
Major Overflow Weir
4m Wide1 Weir at RL 100.4m AHD 10m Wide1 Weir at RL 100.9m AHD
(Major Storm Events)
Note: Further Basin Configuration Details are provided in Appendix C
1
Width refers to the base width of the weir; refer Calibre Consulting’s Operational Works Drawings within Appendix H for details
2
For further configuration details of the Northern Basin, refer to Drawing No. 16-001014-415, 416 and 417.
3
For further configuration details of the Central Basin, refer to Drawing No. 16-001014-402, 409 and 410.
The storage utilised for Stormwater Quality (i.e. the 300mm of temporary extended ponding depth above the bioretention filter media and the
400mm above the normal operating level in the pond) has not been included in the detention volume. This is considered a conservative
assumption.
The following stage-storage discharge relationship provided in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 was modelled for each detention
basin.
Table 3-7: Northern Basin Stage Storage Discharge Relationship
Accumulated Discharge
Stage (m AHD) Basin Control/Structure
Storage (m3) (m3/s)
99.4 0 0.00 Primary Front Orifice (2 x 250mm Dia)
99.5 70 0.02
99.6 144 0.06
99.7 222 0.11
99.8 306 0.14
99.9 394 0.16
100.0 487 0.18 Primary Outlet Pit (RL 100.0m AHD)
100.1 585 0.28
100.2 688 0.35 Secondary Outlet Pit (RL 100.15m AHD)
100.3 796 0.45
100.4 910 0.46 Major Overflow Weir (RL 100.4m AHD)
100.5 1,030 0.70
100.6 1,156 1.20
100.7 1,287 1.95
100.8 1,424 2.92 Top of Embankment (RL 100.8m AHD)
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 11
Page 16
Table 3-8: Central Basin Stage Storage Discharge Relationship
Accumulated
Stage (m AHD) Discharge (m3/s) Basin Control/ Structure
Storage (m3)
99.6 0 0.00 Primary Front & Side Orifices
99.7 240 0.06
99.8 491 0.17
99.9 751 0.33
100.0 1,021 0.53
100.1 1,301 0.77
100.2 1,591 0.87
100.3 1,891 0.96
100.4 2,202 1.04 Primary Outlet Pit Weir Level (RL100.45mAHD)
100.5 2,523 1.21
100.6 2,944 1.66
100.7 3,379 2.01
100.8 3,828 2.06
100.9 4,291 2.12 Major Overflow Weir (Major & Extreme Events)
101.0 4,774 2.83
101.1 5,272 4.15
101.2 5,783 5.95
101.3 6,308 8.16 Minimum Top of Embankment (RL 101.3m AHD)
Since the Issue A report, stage-storage-discharge relationship for the Central Basin has been updated and
remodelled. The outlet configuration has not been changed as it is still appropriate and therefore has not been
modified, however, a slight modification to the width of the overflow weir has changed discharge values.
3.2.6 DEVELOPED MITIGATED PEAKS FLOW RESULTS
Modelling was undertaken for the all recurrence interval storm events up to and including the 1% AEP storm event with
storm durations ranging from 30 to 120 minutes (these were considered the critical durations). A comparison between
peak flows for the existing and developed mitigated scenarios has been provided at each discharge location in Table 3-9
below.
Table 3-9: Developed Mitigated Scenario Peak Flow Comparison
Existing Peak Developed Peak Percentage
AEP Discharge (m3/s) Discharge (m3/s) Difference
Discharge Location A (North)
63% 0.17 0.16 -5%
39% 0.26 0.23 -8%
18% 0.36 0.34 -4%
10% 0.43 0.41 -4%
5% 0.55 0.46 -17%
2% 0.66 0.59 -12%
1% 0.77 0.77 0%
AEP Discharge Location B (Central)
63% 1.14 1.12 -2%
39% 1.71 1.54 -10%
18% 2.54 2.30 -9%
10% 3.02 2.73 -10%
5% 3.69 3.55 -4%
2% 4.28 4.09 -4%
1% 4.95 4.62 -7%
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 12
Page 17
Since the Issue A report results have been updated to incorporate slight modification to the Central Pond.
Updated results in Table 3-9 indicate that developed peak flows have been reduced below existing levels, which
demonstrates no adverse impact.
As indicated in the results, peak flows have been reduced below existing levels at both discharge locations. Therefore,
the results demonstrate that the proposed detention basins are adequate to reduce peak flows to ensure no adverse
impact due to the development.
The Water Surface Levels (WSL’s) determined in each basin have been indicated in Table 3-10 below.
Table 3-10: Developed Mitigated Scenario Basin Water Surface Levels
Northern Basin Central Basin
AEP
WSL (m AHD) Depth (m)1 WSL (m AHD) Depth (m)1
63% 99.92 0.52 100.28 0.68
39% 100.06 0.66 100.50 0.90
18% 100.19 0.78 100.64 1.04
10% 100.26 0.86 100.75 1.15
5% 100.37 0.97 100.96 1.36
2% 100.45 1.05 101.00 1.40
1% 100.51 1.11 101.03 1.43
Depth noted is the height above the stormwater quality temporary ponding level, which is 99.4m AHD and 99.2m AHD for the
Northern and Central Basin respectively.
The results above indicate that 300mm freeboard has been achieved to the top of each basin’s minimum embankment
level. Results also indicate that the major overflow weirs are only overtopped during the major storm events (i.e. during
the 2% and 1% AEP storms). During the 1% AEP storm, discharge across the major overflow weir is limited to a depth of
200mm. The depth velocity (dV) products reaches a maximum of 0.15m2/s for the major overflow weirs, which is lower
than the QUDM requirements.
Since the Issue A report results have been updated to incorporate slight modification to the Central Pond.
Updated results in Table 3-10 demonstrate that the same outcomes have been achieved as discussed above.
3.2.7 EXTREME EVENT SENSITIVITY CHECK
The major overflow/emergency weir for each detention basin has been designed to cater for extreme events, i.e. extreme
storms (i.e. 0.2% AEP storm event) and extreme blockage (100% blockage of basin pits/outlet pipes). To be conservative
the extreme 0.2% AEP storm event has been modelled with 100% blockage of the pits (considering weir flow only). The
0.2% AEP storm for 15 to 4320 minute durations has been modelled in XP-RAFTS with rainfall hyetographs generated
using the IFD parameters for Cooroy specified in Section 3.1.4. Results have been cross-checked with the 0.2% AEP
regional rainfall hyetograph for the 1440 minute storm duration adopted in Water Technology’s Cooroy Flood Study
(2013) model. The highest basin WSL was adopted from all these scenarios. Other than the rainfall parameters and basin
discharge values, all other modelling parameters remain the same as per the Developed Mitigated Scenario.
Table 3-11 below indicates 0.2% AEP basin WSL’s determined in XP-RAFTS.
Table 3-11: Extreme Storm Event Weir Assessment
Parameter Northern Basin Central Basin
Minimum Top of Embankment Level (m AHD) 100.8 101.30
Critical 0.2% AEP Storm Duration (minute) 45 minute 120 minute
0.2% AEP Basin WSL (m AHD) 100.72 101.26
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 13
Page 18
Since the Issue A report results in Table 3-11 were updated to incorporate modified storage and discharge of the
Central Basin. Results indicate that the basin WSL’s are still below the top of the embankment levels.
As indicated in the above table, basin WSL’s indicated above are below top of the embankment levels.
3.2.8 INTERNAL DRAINAGE STRATEGY
An internal stormwater drainage strategy is required to ensure that runoff is managed effectively through the site during
minor and major storm events. The following is proposed:
• Management of Internal Site Runoff -The proposed site stormwater network and road system is proposed to
convey the major and minor storm events through the site. Typically, road drainage is designed to convey the
minor storm only as per Council’s requirements. However, drainage has been upsized due to the limited
overland flow or road capacity. This will decrease the frequency of runoff conveyed over the road, which
promotes safety. As a minimum the minor drainage design capacity will be the 10% AEP storm event with road
network or overland flowpaths to convey 1% AEP storm event.
• Management of External Catchment Runoff - As indicated in Drawing No. B14158.W-SK101 provided in
Appendix G, stormwater drainage through the site will be upsized to convey major storm runoff from the
external catchments (Sub-Catchment C1 and C2) through the site.
• Drainage Easements – Drainage easements are indicated on Drawing No. B14158.W-SK110 & SK111 provided
in Appendix G.
• Discharge to Existing Swale on Site – Manning’s calculations were undertaken to compare peak flows and
velocities through the existing swale located along the boundary of Lot 4 on RP215922. Results indicate that
flood levels are less in the swale under existing conditions due to the proposed peak flow mitigation measures
(i.e. detention basins). Refer to Appendix E for details. Furthermore scour protection has been designed based
on QUDM (2013) at pipe outlets discharging to the swale to prevent scour and erosion. Refer to the SMCMP
Report (No. 16-001014-02B dated January 2017).
• Basin Scour Protection – Rock scour protection has been designed at each basins inflows and outflows. Energy
dissipater calculations for each basin are provided in Appendix E. To protect from vegetation damage velocity
checks within each basin have also been undertaken with details provided in Appendix E.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 14
Page 19
4 STORMWATER QUALITY
It is expected that the proposed development will increase the export of pollutants in runoff from the subject site. A
treatment train of a suitable Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices (SQID’s) have been proposed to intercept and
capture the pollutants. The methodology adopted in this analysis is generally consistent with the past approvals.
However, the proposed Water Quality Control Pond has conservatively not been modelled. This section discusses:
• The identification of key stormwater pollutants associated with the proposed development;
• The Water Quality Objectives (WQO’s) identified for the catchment;
• The stormwater quality management strategy to mitigate the increase in pollutant export; and
• The modelling of the proposed measures and comparison to the identified WQOs.
4.1 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Typical key pollutants expected to be generated during the operational (post-construction) phase of the planned
development are listed as follows, with those presented in capitals being the key pollutants to be targeted for treatment:
• LITTER • HEAVY METALS (associated with fine sediments)
• SEDIMENT • Surfactants
• Oxygen demanding substances (possibly present) • Organochlorines & organophosphates
• NUTRIENTS (N & P) • Thermal pollution
• Pathogens / Faecal coliforms • pH altering substances
• Hydrocarbons
Only the key pollutants will be further addressed in this report; however, the treatment train developed will adequately
mitigate the other pollutant loads. As heavy metals will predominately be associated with fine sediment, controls
proposed to reduce total suspended solids will also adequately reduce loads of heavy metals.
4.2 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Healthy Waterways WSUD Technical Guidelines (2006) outlines stormwater pollutant load reduction objectives required
for all developments within South East Queensland. These objectives have been adopted as the WQOs for conceptual
modelling of the development site and are summarised in Table 4-1 below.
Table 4-1: Load Reduction Water Quality Objectives
Total Suspended Total Phosphorus Gross Pollutants
Pollutant Total Nitrogen (TN)
Solids (TSS) (TP) (GP)
Load Reduction
80% 60% 45% 90%
Target
It is noted that the above load-based objectives are consistent with those specified in the SEQ Regional Plan Guideline
No. 7, required under the SPP 2014.
4.3 STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A treatment train of suitable SQIDs has been proposed to mitigate the potential increase of stormwater pollutant loads.
Three SQIDs have been provided for the development to treat stormwater runoff before discharging downstream. The
locations of these devices are shown on Drawing No. B14158.W-SK102 in Appendix G.
As presented in Drawing No. B14158.W-SK102 in Appendix G some minor external catchment runoff flows through the
site and will be treated by the SQIDs. Treatment of stormwater runoff from external catchment areas of the railway
corridor and Cooroy Connection Road adjacent to the site is not an obligation of the developer. Not treating these
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 15
Page 20
external areas would be difficult in practice as they drain through the site and could not practically be diverted around
treatment measures. Therefore, opportunity to treat stormwater runoff from these areas has been taken to benefit the
water quality of downstream systems. The treatment of external catchments is consistent with the strategy previously
approved by Council (Report No. B14158.W-01A dated December 2014). Refer to Section 4.4 for further details of the
modelling methodology.
As per the approval conditions, grease and oil generated from road and car parking areas, must be managed by
proprietary GPT’s before discharge to Bioretention Basins. This requirement will be identified and incorporated if
necessary during detailed design.
4.3.1 UTILISED TREATMENT SYSTEMS
A treatment train of Gross Pollutant Traps (or sediment forebays), Bioretention systems and a Water Quality Control
Pond (WQCP) is proposed for the site’s stormwater quality management strategy. The details of the treatment systems
are provided below.
• Proprietary Gross Pollutant Trap (GPT) Devices (Primary Treatment) – While GPT’s have not been
modelled in MUSIC, GPT’s are proposed upstream of the Central Bioretention Basin, Northern Bioretention
Basin and Bio-Pod D2 (these secondary treatment devices receive runoff from a significant catchment, above
5ha, and/or large car parking areas). As discussed in Section 4.3.2 below, GPT’s will be sufficient for capturing
oil and grease from car parking areas prior to discharge to the downstream Bioretention System.
• Bioretention Systems (Secondary Treatment) – These systems utilise a sandy loam soil based media to filter
runoff. Sediment particles and suspended solids are trapped on the surface of the filter media, while
microorganisms and vegetation planted in the filter removes dissolved nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
through biological uptake processes. Subsoil drainage provided below the filter media allows the treated runoff to
discharge from the bioretention basin.
• Water Quality Control Pond (WQCP) (Tertiary Treatment) –The WQCP reduces stormwater pollutants
associated with fine particulates such as TSS, metals, nutrients and toxicants as well as soluble contaminants.
The water bodies/ponds will have enhanced nutrient removal by incorporating macrophyte planting areas and
open water zones. They will ensure that adequate pollutant retention is achieved before discharging offsite to
adjacent properties. WQCP have a permanent water storage volume.
4.3.2 PROPOSED END-OF-LINE SYSTEMS
Three end-of-line stormwater quality systems are proposed for the development and are summarised below.
• Northern Basin (Bioretention System) - Catchment A is to be treated by a bioretention system. The system
has no permanent water. Refer to Drawing No. 16-001014-415 in Appendix G for system details.
• Central Basin (Bioretention System and WQCP) - The Central Basin will treat Catchment B and C of the
development. The central basin is proposed to be an open water feature. The basin comprises of a bioretention
system and WQCP. The open water body will be topped up with treated stormwater from the Southern Basin
during rainfall events. It is proposed that the macropyhtes are to cover a minimum of 20% of the water surface.
Due to larger catchment a proprietary Gross Pollutant Trap (GPT) will be included upstream of the Bioretention
Basin. Refer to Drawing No. 16-001014-405 in Appendix G for system details.
At Council’s request the WQCP has not been modelled in MUSIC, i.e. the treatment resulting from the WQCP
has not been modelled or included in the results contributing to the overall reduction in pollutant loads. This is
conservative, considering that the WQCP will provide treatment by reducing suspended solids through
sedimentation and is designed to capture some nutrients.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 16
Page 21
• Southern Basin (Bioretention System) – Catchment C is to be treated by a bioretention system. 63% AEP
peak flows will be directed from this basin into the Central WQCP for additional treatment and detention. The
system has no permanent water. Refer to Drawing No. 16-001014-400 in Appendix G for system details.
• Bioretention Pod D2 – A small Bioretention system is proposed to treat the car parking area.
• Bioretention Pod D3 – A small Bioretention system is proposed to treat Catchment D3.
• Treatment System for Age Care Facility – A treatment system is proposed to treat the Age Care Facility prior
to discharge towards the Southern Basin.
Note that runoff from Catchment D3 is conveyed to Site Discharge Location B and therefore has been included in the
overall MUSIC model. An estimated breakdown of road, roof and ground area based on Table 3.3 of WBD’s MUSIC
Modelling Guidelines (2010) has been conservatively assumed for this catchment. A Bioretention Pod sized at 0.9% of
the catchment is proposed for this catchment area when it is developed. Further details are provided in Section 4.4.5.
As per Condition 65.2, Council specify that runoff from all road and car parking areas is to be pre-treated for grease and
oil prior to discharging to the downstream Bioretention Devices. According to WBD Bioretention Technical Design
Guidelines (2014), Bioretention Devices are suitable for treating runoff from roof, ground and road areas. Table 14 of the
guidelines outlines pre-treatment measures typically proposed upstream of Bioretention Devices based on catchment
size (i.e. for catchments between 2ha and 5ha vegetated swales, coarse sediment forebays, inlet pond or GPT’s are
recommended). The condition to pre-treat all runoff from road and car parking area specifically for oil and grease prior to
discharge into Bioretention Devices is considered to be conservative given the nature of the Bioretention treatment
device. There are also many examples of urban, commercial and industrial developments that propose Bioretention
Devices without pre-treatment of oil and grease.
It is also noted that the Bioretention Device will not be a Council asset. Hence it will be the responsibility of the developer
to manage and replant the basin in the very unlikely event that extreme oil spillages damage the Bioretention Devices
vegetation.
Apart from the Northern Bioretention Basin, GPT’s are proposed upstream of all Bioretention Devices and subsequently
the proposed pond. GPT’s have the capability of trapping floating oil and grease pollutants and are considered to be an
appropriate pre-treatment to Bioretention Devices, albeit conservative where the catchment is small. Since Catchment A
(Northern Bioretention Basin) is only 2.45ha with no significant areas of car parking a sediment forebay has been sized.
The HumeGard GPT’s proposed upstream of the proposed Bioretention Devices have the capability of trapping floating
oil and grease pollutants. As demonstrated on Page 2 of the HumeGard GPT Technical Manual provided in Appendix C,
the application of a floating boom provides separation at the surface of the waters between the sediment storage
chamber and the outlet chamber. This effectively captures pollutants such as oils and greases that float to the surface.
Based on laboratory and field testing, Table 1 on Page 3 of the Technical Manual indicates 90% removal efficiency of
Hydrocarbons during emergency spill events.
4.4 MUSIC MODELLING
Water quality modelling of the proposed development has been undertaken using the Model for Urban Stormwater
Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC) Version 6 developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology (CRCCH). MUSIC enables the user to conceptualise the transfer of pollutants through a stormwater drainage
system and provides an aid in quantifying the effectiveness of the proposed stormwater quality management strategy.
MUSIC only provides quantitative modelling for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Phosphorous (TP), Total Nitrogen
(TN), and Gross Pollutants (GP).
The MUSIC model was setup generally in accordance with Water by Design MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010). The
subsequent sections discuss the model configurations adopted for the analysis.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 17
Page 22
Two models have been undertaken to determine whether site will meet objectives, the “Developed Site Only” model and
the “Developed Site with External - Mitigated” model. The methodology for demonstrating that WQOs for the site have
been met is summarised below.
• The Load Retention Target (in kg/yr) for the site was determined using the “Developed Site Only” model, estimating
the pollutants generated from the developed site only.
• The Load Retention Achieved (in kg/yr) was determined using the “Developed Site with External - Mitigated” model,
estimating the amount of pollutants removed from site and External Catchment B1 and C1 as a result of the
stormwater quality improvement devices.
Catchment B1 and C1 as shown on Drawing No. B14158.W-SK102 are external and are not part of the site area. While
External Catchment B1 and C1 have been included in the stormwater quality analysis (as runoff from these areas enter
the site and into proposed stormwater quality treatment devices), these areas are not considered a “part of the
development” or identified as ‘site area’. As such, determining the amount pollutant reduction required to meet objectives
for the site (i.e. Load Retention Target) does include the pollutants generated from the external catchment areas. The
Load Retention Achieved has been determined by the total pollutants removed by the proposed SQID’s prior to discharge
from the site.
Since the Issue A report, the modelling strategy has been updated to include treatment of external catchment
areas. Refer to Appendix I for correspondence with Council.
4.4.1 METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Six-minute pluviographic data was sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for Cooroy Composite (Station No.
40059). In accordance with Table 3.1 from MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010), the 10-year period from 1st January
1973 to 31st December 1983 has been adopted for the rainfall duration. The mean annual rainfall for this period is
1,600mm. The mean annual evapotranspiration for the modelled period is 1,629mm.
4.4.2 SOURCE NODES
Source nodes are sub-catchments that are defined for MUSIC modelling purposes. The site was divided into
sub-catchments as shown in Drawing No. B14158.W-SK102 in Appendix G.
The split catchment approach has been used to set up all source nodes in MUSIC. The MUSIC Modelling Guidelines
(2010) have been used to configure three types of surfaces, Roof, Road and Ground, to be modelled for each sub-
catchment. All sub-catchments within the model extent were assigned either Urban Residential or Commercial
Residential dependent on land use. Refer to Appendix F for MUSIC node configurations for the site. Split sub-catchment
node areas were calculated based on Concept Master Plan presented in Appendix A.
Rainfall runoff parameters for all nodes were assigned as residential land-use, in accordance with Table 3.7 of the
MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010). Pollutant export properties for source nodes have been configured according to the
industrial land use category in accordance with Table 3.8 of the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010).
Stochastic generation estimation and serial autocorrelation set to zero has also been adopted.
4.4.3 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DRAINAGE LINKS
A combination of primary and secondary drainage links have been used in MUSIC to model minor flow diversions
adopted in the site’s internal drainage strategy. Primary and secondary drainage links have been applied in two areas of
the site as indicated below:
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 18
Page 23
• Minor runoff from Southern Basin directed to Central WQCP – 63% AEP peak flows from the Southern Bioretention
Basin (will be directed to the Central WQCP to increase turnaround time (Hydraulic Residence Time) of the Pond and
for peak flow attenuation. This has been modelled in MUSIC by using primary drainage link to direct runoff below the
63% AEP storm event (<1.25m3/s) to the “Central WQCP” (not modelled in MUSIC) and a secondary drainage link to
direct runoff high-flows downstream of the Pond.
• Minor runoff (63% AEP peak flow) from Catchment B1 and B2 to Central Bioretention Basin – peak flows in the 63%
AEP storm event will be directed towards the GPT and Central Bioretention Basin for stormwater quality treatment
before discharging to the proposed WQCP (not modelled in MUSIC). High flows bypassing the Central Bioretention
Basin will be directed into the WQCP. This has been modelled in MUSIC by using primary drainage link to direct
runoff below the 63% AEP storm event (<0.29m3/s) to the Central Bioretention Basin and a secondary drainage link
to direct high-flows to the towards the proposed WQCP (not modelled in MUSIC).
A layout of the primary and secondary drainage links modelled is indicated on the MUSIC configuration layout provided in
Appendix F. Drawing No. B14158.W-SK102 also provides further details of the site’s internal drainage strategy.
No routing was adopted for drainage links within MUSIC model in accordance with Section 4.17 of the MUSIC Modelling
Guidelines (2010). This assumes flows and associated pollutants from all parts of the catchment arrive at the treatment
nodes at the same time. This is conservative as it means that MUSIC may overestimate the overflow volumes.
4.4.4 TREATMENT NODES
4.4.4.1 BIORETENTION TREATMENT NODE
Bioretention treatment nodes were used to model the proposed bioretention filter in the northern and southern basin and
bio-pod. Default K and C* values were adopted for these treatment nodes. These treatment nodes were set up generally
in accordance with the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010) and Interim MUSIC Bioretention Treatment Node (2013).
Refer to Table 4-2 for the bioretention treatment node configuration. All other parameters have been adopted from
MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010).
Table 4-2: Bioretention Basin Modelled Parameters
Parameter Northern Basin Central Basin Southern Basin Pod D2 Pod D3
Filter Media Area (m2) 525 650 305 75 75
Surface Area (m2) 525 650 340 75 75
Extended Detention Depth (m) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Filter Depth (m) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Sandy Sandy
Filter Media Type Sandy Loam Sandy Loam Sandy Loam
Loam Loam
Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity of Filter Media 200 200 200 200 200
(mm/hr)
TN Content of Filter Media
400 400 400 400 400
(mg/kg)
Orthophosphate Content of
30 30 30 30 30
Filter Media (mg/kg)
Overflow Weir Width Modelled
4 5 6 2.4 2.4
(m)1
1The width of the major overflow weir was conservatively modelled.
Refer to Drawing No. B14158.W-SK102 and SK113 in Appendix G for further treatment train details.
Since the Issue A report, Table 4-2 has been updated to incorporate the approved stormwater quality
management strategy, as agreed with Council. Refer to Appendix I for correspondence with Council.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 19
Page 24
4.4.4.2 GENERIC NODE
A generic treatment node was used for the proposed treatment system for the Aged Care Facility. The following
treatment efficiencies were modelled.
Table 4-3: Generic Node Treatment Removal Efficiency (Aged Care Facility)
Treatment Removal
Pollutant
Efficiency
TSS 90%
TP 60%
TN 45%
GP 90%
The future proposed stormwater quality treatment system for the Aged Care Facility must achieve this pollutant
removal efficiency or greater. This is to be demonstrated in future Development Applications for the Aged Care
Facility.
4.4.4.3 POND NODE
A separate MUSIC model was configured, including the WCQP to determine Hydraulic Residence Time (HRT), which is
an important feature of the pond required for avoiding outbreaks of algae (as discussed below). Table 4-4 indicates the
pond node configuration adopted in MUSIC. Further details of the WQCP are indicated on the Drawing No. 16-001014-
402 in Appendix G.
Table 4-4: Pond Node Configuration
Pond Parameter Central Basin
Surface Area (m²) 1,940
Extended Detention Depth (m) 0.40
Permanent Pool Volume (m³) 1,840
Notional Detention Time (hrs) 48.4
Equivalent Pipe Diameter (mm) 55
Since the Issue A report only the permanent pool volume has been changed from 1,845m2 to 1,840m2. As this is
such a minor change the previous HRT analysis of the pond is considered to be still applicable (i.e. no update to
the modelling is required).
Hydraulic Residence Time/Turnover Period
An important factor in determining pond sustainability is the turnover period, or Hydraulic Residence Time (HRT). Ponds
with high residence times are considered to be at risk of algal bloom and poor water quality.
Water By Design’s Urban Lakes Discussion Paper-Managing the Risk of Cyanobacterial Blooms dated Febuary 2012
recommends 10 to 15 days Hydraulic Residence Time for a lake. Other Queensland publication recommend 20 days
maximum hydraulic retention time. As such, we have recommended a Performance Indicator of a maximum Hydraulic
Residence Time of 15 days for the Central Basin / WQCP.
Using a simplistic approach as detailed in WSUD Engineering Principles – Stormwater (2005), the 20th percentile
Hydraulic Residence Time of 12 days was determined over a 30-year period (1973-2003) based on available data. Refer
to Table 4-5 below.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 20
Page 25
Table 4-5: 20th Percentile Hydraulic Residence Time Results (Simplistic Approach)
Parameter 30-Year Period (1973-2003)
Impervious Area (ha)* 8.8
Lake Volume (m3) 1,840
Pond Area (m2) 1,940
All Year Rainfall (mm) 678
Catchment Inflow (m3) 59,956
Yearly Evaporation (mm) 1,629
Net Evaporation (m3) 1,844
Net Inflow (ML) 58
Net Yearly Inflow / Lake Volume Ratio 31
Probabilistic Residence Time (No. of days) 12
*The catchment impervious area to the central pond is consistent with MUSIC modelling areas and Fi values.
A continuous modelling approach was also undertaken using daily output from MUSIC modelling over the same 30-year
period. Using the more detailed approach, the 20th percentile HRT was determined to be 9 days, which also achieves the
required objective.
Therefore based on both the simplistic and continuous modelling approaches the Hydraulic Residence Time for the pond
will be below 15 days. This demonstrates that the required performance objective will be met.
If the water quality of the pond is found to be poor, recirculation of flows through the WQCP could be provided to increase
the turnover of water within the pond.
4.4.4.4 PROPRIETARY GROSS POLLUTANT TRAP (GPT)
A proprietary (GPT) is proposed upstream of large catchments (above 5ha) or significant areas of car parking areas
before discharging to the proposed Bioretention Basins. While GPT’s are proposed upstream of the Central Basin,
Southern Basin and Bio-Pod D2 they have not been modelled. This will make the results more conservative, as GPT’s
will capture gross pollutants and some sediments.
4.5 MUSIC MODELLING RESULTS
This section has been updated to reflect revised modelling method and results recently approved by Council
Officer Cherie O’Sullivan. Refer to email correspondence provided in Appendix I. Results for the updated
modelling is presented in Table 4-6 below.
Table 4-6: MUSIC Modelling Results
Results at Receiving Node Source Load Residual Load % Reduction
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 36300 7740 79
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 76.4 23.1 70
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 481 240 50
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 4620 249 95
The above results were approved by Council as meeting the required WQO’s.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 21
Page 26
5 WATERWAY STABILITY MANAGEMENT The SPP 2014 waterway stability requires the limiting of the 63% AEP post-development peak flows within the receiving waters to be below a minimum of pre-development peak flows. Section 3.2.6 of this report includes analysis of peak flows for a 63% AEP rainfall event in which developed peak flows have been mitigated back to existing conditions in all recurrence intervals. Therefore, the waterway stability management objectives has been met. 16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST (SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 22
Page 27
6 CONCLUSION
This Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared to support the Operational Works Application for Stage 2 and
subsequent Stages of the Palm Lakes Cooroy Retirement Community. The outcomes of the stormwater investigations
are listed below:
• Stormwater Quantity – Hydrological analysis demonstrates that no actionable nuisance to adjoining properties can be
provided as peak flows at each discharge location from the site have been reduced below existing conditions for all
storm events up to and including the 1% AEP storm. The proposed peak flow mitigation strategy (involving the
Northern and Central Detention Basins, integrated with stormwater quality devices) is therefore adequate. Updated
modelling to incorporate the recent modifications to the Central basin since the Issue A report achieve the same
outcome and results.
• Stormwater Quality – MUSIC modelling demonstrates that water quality objectives required by Noosa and the SPP
(2014) can be met for the proposed development. The proposed Stormwater Quality Management Strategy involving
Gross Pollutant Trap devices (GPT’s), Bioretention Basins and a Water Quality Control Pond (WQCP, not modelled
in MUSIC) is therefore adequate. Construction and operational management and maintenance of the GPT’s,
Bioretention Basins and WQCP is provided in the SMCMP Report. The updated stormwater quality management
strategy was developed alongside Council and has already been approved. The details provided in this section is in
accordance with the approved strategy.
• Waterway Stability Management - Results determined in the hydrological analysis demonstrate the waterway stability
management requirements will be achieved, as there is a reduction in peak flows during the 63% AEP storm event.
Following MCU approval from Council, this report also addresses the Approval Conditions relating to stormwater
management. This has been summarised in Section 1.3 of this report.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that this Operational Works design for Stage 2 (including Central Basin and Southern Basin) be
approved on the basis that acceptable outcomes will be provided for stormwater management.
With this submission we seek overall strategy approval for the balance stormwater management works (including the
Central Basin and Southern Basins). We also seek the approval for the Northern Bioretention Basin design however
inflow pipes are subject to future Civil Drainage Operational Works approval. Bio-Pod D2, D3 and the treatment system
for the Age Care Facility are subject to future Civil Drainage Operational Works approvals.
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 23
Page 28
8 DISCLAIMER
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Palm Lake Resorts, is subject to, and issued in
accordance with the agreement between Calibre Consulting (QLD) Pty Ltd.
Our investigation and analysis has been specifically catered for the particular requirements of Palm Lake Resorts and
may not be applicable beyond this scope. For this reason, any other third parties are not authorised to utilise this report
without further input and advice from Calibre Consulting (QLD) Pty Ltd.
Calibre Consulting (QLD) Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for the report in respect of any use of or
reliance upon this report by any third party.
The investigation and analysis has relied on information provided by others. We accept no responsibility for accuracy of
material supplied by others. The accuracy of the investigation, analysis and report is dependent upon the accuracy of this
information.
9 REFERENCES
• Bureau of Meteorology (2001), Climatic Atlas of Australia (Evapotranspiration).
• Engineers Australia (2006), Australian Runoff Quality. A guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design.
• Environmental Protection Agency (QLD) (2006). Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 1997. Noosa River
Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives.
• Healthy Waterways (2006). Water Sensitive Urban Design – Technical Design Guidelines for South East
Queensland (2006).
• Noosa Council (2006). The Noosa Plan. Planning Scheme Policy.
• Queensland Government (2006), Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2006. Environmental Protection Agency
(QLD).
• Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM 2013).
• Queensland Water Commission (QWC) (2008). South East Queensland Water Strategy – Draft. Queensland Water
Commission.
• Water by Design (2011), Construction & Establishment Guidelines.
• Water by Design (2012), Urban Lakes Discussion Paper - Managing the Risk of Algal Blooms.
• FAWB Guidelines for Filter Media Biofiltration Systems (Version 301, 2009).
• Water by Design, MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010).
• Water Technology’s Cooroy Flood Study (Report No. J2835-01_R02v01 dated 26 July 2013)
• SEQ Regional Plan 2009-2031 Implementation Guideline No. 7.
• Qld State Government, State Planning Policy (2014).
16-001014-01B | STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN COOROY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, TRADING POST
(SWMP) | PALM LAKE RESORTS ROAD, COOROY | 24
Page 29
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDICES [OCR of page images] APPENDICES
Page 30
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX A CONCEPT MASTERPLAN LAYOUT [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX A CONCEPT MASTERPLAN LAYOUT
Page 31
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX B RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX B_ RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATION
Page 32
Catchment B - Existing Rational Method Calcs
File: H:\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\BHP WORKING_20161223\[B14158.W_Rational Method Calculations_20161223.xlsx]Existing_B
Date: 23/01/2017
Job: B14158.W
By: BHP
Locality: NSC Plateau
IFD Ref: IFD_NSC Plateau
IFD Source: Derived from Noosa Shire Council Rainfall Intensity Curves Tinbeerwah to Black Mountain (Plateau) STD. DRG. 9232 (1991)Bureau of Meteorology Chart Noosa Heads (1987)
Time of Concentration Calculations
Av. Pipe Wetted Roughness
Velocity Wetted Area Hydraulic Sub Total
Reference Equation Type / Method Area (ha) Length (m) Slope Diameter Perimeter (Mannings/H tc (min)
(m/s) (m2) Radius R (mins)
(%) (mm) (m) ortons)
4.06.6 QUDM Overland Sheet Flow - Friends Equation 16.16 200 0.5 0.045 32
4.06.8 QUDM Concentrated Overland / Channel Flow 340 1.5 4 36
Adopted tc 36
C10 VALUE
Enter Fraction Impervious Development Category fi 1I10 (mm/hr) C10
Table 5.04.2 QUDM 0.08 70 0.72
Adopted C10 0.72
Flow Calculations (QUDM 4.03.1)
tc (min) 36
tc
ARI Cy Iy A (ha) Q (m3/s)
1 0.57 52 16.16 1.32
2 0.61 66 16.16 1.81
5 0.68 84 16.16 2.56
10 0.72 93 16.16 2.98
20 0.75 110 16.16 3.71
50 0.82 131 16.16 4.84
100 0.86 138 16.16 5.30
Page 33
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX C DETENTION BASIN CALCULATIONS [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX C DETENTION BASIN CALCULATIONS
Page 34
Northern Basin: CONCEPT DETENTION BASIN DESIGN CALCULATIONS
File: H:\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Detention Basin Design (Master Layout).xls]WeirB
Date: 12/08/2015
User: CM
Note: Storage and outlet calcs for Detention Basin
STAGE - STORAGE RELATIONSHIP FOR WBNM
Stage areas taken from ACAD model
Accumulated
RL Area. (m2) Vol. (m3) Vol. (m3)
99.1 0
99.2 0
99.3 0
99.4 0 Primary Front Orifice
99.5 70
99.6 144
99.7 222
99.8 306
99.9 394
100 487 Primary Outlet Pit
100.1 585
100.2 688
100.3 796
100.4 910
100.5 1,030 Secondary Outlet Pit
100.6 1,156
100.7 1,287 Emergency Weir
100.8 1,424
OUTLET CALCULATIONS
Bio
Circular Primary Front Primary Outlet Secondary Major Overflow
Filtration Balance Orifice Outlet Pipe
Inlet 1 Orifice Pit Outlet Pit Weir
Type Basin
Length 0.9 0.9 20
Width 0.9 0.9
No. 2 1 1
Dia (m) 0.25 0.3 0.375
Height (m)
Area (m2) 525 0.81 0.81 0.110
Invert Level (R.L) 99.1 99.4001 100.0 98 100.15001 98 100.4001
Inflow Level (R.L) 99.1 99.4001 100.0 99.4 100.15001 99.4
D/S HGL (R.L) 0.000
f (Fig 1.6) 0.029
Pit Loss (K) 1
Hyd Cond. (k) (m/hr) 0.2
Depth Media d (m) 0.4
Perimeter (m) 2.7 3.6 4
% Opening Clear * 75% 75%
STAGE - DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP FOR WBNM
Accum. Bio Filtration
RL Circular Inlet 1 Primary Front Orifice Primary Outlet Pit Balance Orifice Secondary Outlet Pit Outlet Pipe Major Overflow Weir Discharge (m3/s)
Vol. (m3) Basin
99.4 0 0.051 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
99.5 70 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.02
99.6 144 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.06
99.7 222 0.07 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.11
99.8 306 0.08 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.14
99.9 394 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.16
100 487 0.09 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.18
100.1 585 0.10 0.00 0.20 0.14 0.28 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.28
100.2 688 0.11 0.00 0.22 0.40 0.29 0.07 0.44 0.00 0.35
100.3 796 0.12 0.00 0.23 0.74 0.30 0.35 0.45 0.00 0.45
100.4 910 0.12 0.00 0.25 1.13 0.30 0.75 0.46 0.00 0.46
100.5 1030 0.13 0.00 0.26 1.27 0.31 1.07 0.47 0.23 0.70
100.6 1156 0.14 0.00 0.28 1.40 0.32 1.21 0.48 0.72 1.20
100.7 1287 0.15 0.00 0.29 1.51 0.33 1.34 0.50 1.45 1.95
100.8 1424 0.15 0.00 0.31 1.61 0.33 1.45 0.51 2.41 2.92
Note:
The following equations have been used to calculate flow capcaties for the
outlet types for each stage:
Sand Filter Equation (NSW EPA 1997) Q = A x k(h+d) / d
Pipe Flow (M.J.Boyd 1972) Q = 0.421 x g0.5 x Dia0.87 x HW 1.63 (where HW/Dia < 1.2)
Q = 0.53 x g0.5 x Dia1.87 x HW 0.63 (where HW/Dia > 1.2)
where g = 9.81m/s2
Weir Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.5) Qi = 1.66 x P x d1.5
Orifice Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.6) Qi = 0.67 x A x (2g x d)0.5
HGL Calculation (as per Section 5.21 QUDM)
Page 35
Central Basin: CONCEPT DETENTION BASIN DESIGN CALCULATIONS
File: H:\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Detention Basin Design (Master Layout).xls]WeirB
Date: 11/01/2017
User: BP
Note: Storage and outlet calcs for Detention Basin
STAGE - STORAGE RELATIONSHIP FOR WBNM
Stage areas taken from ACAD model
Accumulated Vol.
RL Area. (m2) Vol. (m3) (m3)
99.2 1950 0
99.3 2108 0
99.4 2265 0
99.5 2423 0
99.6 2581 0 0 Primary Front Orifice
99.7 2739 266 240
99.8 2896 282 491
99.9 3054 298 751
100 3212 313 1,021
100.1 3369 329 1,301
100.2 3527 345 1,591
100.3 3685 361 1,891
100.4 3842 376 2,202
100.5 4000 392 2,523 Primary Outlet Pit
100.6 4100 405 2,944
100.7 4200 415 3,379
100.8 4300 425 3,828
100.9 4400 435 4,291 Major Overflow Weir
101 4500 445 4,774
101.1 4600 455 5,272
101.2 4700 465 5,783
101.3 4800 475 6,308 Min. Embankment Level
OUTLET CALCULATIONS
Primary Side Primary Front Major Overflow
Bio Filtration Basin Primary Outlet Pit Outlet Pipe
Type Orifice Orifice Weir
Length 1.2 20
Width 1.2
No. 2 2 1
Dia (m) 0.4 0.4 0.825
Height (m)
Area (m2) 1.44 0.53
Invert Level (R.L) 99.6 99.6 100.45 98.3 100.9
Inflow Level (R.L) 99.6 99.60 100.45 99.6
D/S HGL (R.L) 0.000
f (Fig 1.6) 0.022
Pit Loss (K) 1
Hyd Cond. (k) (m/hr)
Depth Media d (m)
Perimeter (m) 4.8 12
% Opening Clear * 75%
STAGE - DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP FOR WBNM
Total
Accum.
RL Bio Filtration Basin Circular Inlet 1 Circular Inlet 2 WEIR 1 PIPE 1 WEIR Overflow Discharge
Vol. (m3)
(m3/s)
99.6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
99.7 240 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.06
99.8 491 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.17
99.9 751 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 1.56 0.00 0.33
100 1021 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 1.62 0.00 0.53
100.1 1301 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 1.68 0.00 0.77
100.2 1591 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 1.74 0.00 0.87
100.3 1891 0.00 0.48 0.48 0.00 1.79 0.00 0.96
100.4 2202 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 1.85 0.00 1.04
100.5 2523 0.00 0.56 0.56 0.09 1.90 0.00 1.21
100.6 2944 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.46 1.96 0.00 1.66
100.7 3379 0.00 0.64 0.64 1.00 2.01 0.00 2.01
100.8 3828 0.00 0.67 0.67 1.65 2.06 0.00 2.06
100.9 4291 0.00 0.71 0.71 2.15 2.12 0.00 2.12
101 4774 0.00 0.74 0.74 2.38 2.17 0.66 2.83
101.1 5272 0.00 0.77 0.77 2.58 2.22 1.93 4.15
101.2 5783 0.00 0.80 0.80 2.78 2.27 3.68 5.95
101.3 6308 0.00 0.84 0.84 2.96 2.31 5.85 8.16
Note:
The following equations have been used to calculate flow capcaties for the
outlet types for each stage:
Sand Filter Equation (NSW EPA 1997) Q = A x k(h+d) / d
Pipe Flow (M.J.Boyd 1972) Q = 0.421 x g0.5 x Dia0.87 x HW 1.63 (where HW/Dia < 1.2)
Q = 0.53 x g0.5 x Dia1.87 x HW 0.63 (where HW/Dia > 1.2)
where g = 9.81m/s2
Weir Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.5) Qi = 1.66 x P x d1.5
Orifice Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.6) Qi = 0.67 x A x (2g x d)0.5
HGL Calculation (as per Section 5.21 QUDM)
Page 36
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX D XP-RAFTS LAYOUT SUMMARY [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX D XP-RAFTS LAYOUT SUMMARY
Page 37
CALIBRE CONSULTING
Existing Scenario Layout
Developed Mitigated Scenario Layout
[OCR of page images]
CALIBRE CONSULTING
Existing Scenario Layout
Al
Oe
OUT
B1 B2 B3 B4 D2
O- O o=
C1 C2 G 1
O..—_
Developed Mitigated Scenario Layout
Al A2 /
Oar BasinA
in O—g = A OUT
$+.
OO B4 / ink1
in D2 D_OUT
link28 lin!
C1 C3 de2
} - SthBasin node: .
© link23 Tal oO Tink ink27 ink2
link4 >
\ ink26 3
D1
Page 38
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX E STORMWATER DESIGN CALCULATIONS E1: Existing Swale – Manning’s calculations E2: Energy Dissipater Calculations (Bioretention Basins and WQCP) E3: Design Velocity Check (WQCP and Bioretention Basin)
Page 39
Section Location Sketch Manning’s Sections Assumptions • Manning’s n value = 0.06 (site information) • Longitudinal Slope = 0.6% (average slope measured from survey)
Page 40
Manning's Section A - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Des XSEC A
Date: 9/09/2016
By: CM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Developed 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
1 14.443 98.169 0.060
2 15.4 97.745 0.060 0.69 1.05 0.04 0.20 1.04 0.01
3 15.4 97.745 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 15.445 97.725 0.060 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00
5 15.445 97.71 0.060 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
6 15.582 97.708 0.060 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.00
7 15.744 97.705 0.060 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.07 0.16 0.00
8 15.804 97.704 0.060 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00
9 15.876 97.703 0.060 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00
10 16.054 97.702 0.060 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.00
11 16.39 97.717 0.060 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.15 0.34 0.01
12 17.018 97.745 0.060 0.59 0.63 0.04 0.27 0.63 0.02
13 17.15 97.786 0.060 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.14 0.00
14 17.271 97.823 0.060 0.11 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.00
15 18.783 98.288 0.060 0.93 1.58 0.06 0.19 1.17 0.01
16 19.462 98.497 0.060 0.19 0.71 0.01
17 19.537 98.52 0.060 0.01 0.08 0.00
18 19.703 98.566 0.060 0.02 0.17 0.00
19 19.804 98.593 0.060 0.01 0.10 0.00
20 19.896 98.611 0.060 0.01 0.09 0.00
21 19.912 98.613 0.060 0.00 0.02 0.00
22 19.930 98.614 0.060 0.00 0.02 0.00
23 19.935 98.615 0.060 0.00 0.01 0.00
24 20.318 99.715 0.060 0.00 0.06 0.00
25 20.646 100.200 0.060
26 20.660 100.200 0.060
27 25.350 100.200 0.060
28 29.130 100.200 0.060
wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 3.633854 5.791722 0.218031 1.222289 4.120926 0.073337
S
0.006 R n Q R n Q
0.627422 0.060 3.44 0.296605 0.060 0.70
B4 Flow 3.44 3.44
WSL 98.673 98.168
Calculated by Manning's Equation 3.44 0.70
Vel (m/s) 0.95 0.57
Manning's Section A - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
100.5
100
Proposed Development
99.5
99
Height (m AHD)
98.5
Overtops Embankment
98
97.5
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
A 0 Desi97.9
gn Surface Existing Surface Exis ting 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
A 5.466 97.97
[OCR of page images]
Manning's Section A - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
Filename: \\bnenas01 \projects\B14\150-199\814158,W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Des XSEC A
Date: 9/09/2016
By: cM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Developed 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Zz Q wA we. nxwA | _wA wP nx wA
1 14.443 98.169 0.060
2 15.4 97.745 0.060 0.69 1.05 0.04 0.20 1.04 0.01
3 15.4 97.745 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 15.445, 97.725 0.060 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00
5 15.445, 97.71 0.060 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
6 15.582 97.708 0.060 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.06 0.14 0.00
7 15.744 97.705 0.060 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.07 0.16 0.00
8 15.804 97.704 0.060 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00
9 15.876 97.703 0.060 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00
10 16.054 97.702 0.060 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.08 0.18 0.00
ant 16.39 97.717 0.060 0.32 0.34 0.02 0.15 0.34 0.01
12 17.018 97.745 0.060 0.59 0.63 0.04 0.27 0.63 0.02
13 17.15 97.786 0.060 0.12 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.14 0.00
14 17.271 97.823 0.060 0.14 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.00
15 18.783 98.288 0.060 0.93 1.58 0.06 0.19 1.17 0.01
16 19.462 98.497 0.060 0.19 0.71 0.01
17 19.537 98.52 0.060 0.01 0.08 0.00
18 19.703 98.566 0.060 0.02 0.17 0.00
19 19.804 98.593 0.060 0.01 0.10 0.00
20 19.896 98.611 0.060 0.01 0.09 0.00
21 19.912 98.613 0.060 0.00 0.02 0.00
22 19.930 98.614 0.060 0.00 0.02 0.00
23 19.935 98.615 0.060 0.00 0.01 0.00
24 20.318 99.715 0.060 0.00 0.06 0.00
25 20.646 100.200 0.060 [ . r .
26 20.660 100.200 0.060 [ . r .
27 25.350 100.200 0.060 ff . r .
28 29.130 100.200 0.060 [ . r "
wA wP nxwA | wA wP nx wA
TOTAL 3.633854 5.791722 0.218031 | 1.222289 4.120926 0.073337
s
0.006 R n Q R n Q
0.627422 0.060 3.44 0.296605 0.060 0.70
B4 Flow 3.44 3.44
WSL 98.673 98.168
Calculated by Manning's Equation 3.44 0.70
Vel (m/s) 0.95 0.57
Manning's Section A - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
100.5
100
Proposed Development
99.5
99
2
98.5
- Overtops Embankment
S 98
3
x=
97.5
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
————Design Surface ——Existing Surface = Existing 1% AEP === Developed 1% AEP
Page 41
Mannin's Section B - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Des XSEC B
Date: 9/09/2016
By: CM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Developed 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
1 13.086 98.021 0.060
2 13.653 98.011 0.060 0.31 0.57 0.02
3 14.059 98.007 0.060 0.23 0.41 0.01
4 14.657 98 0.060 0.34 0.60 0.02
5 14.657 98 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 15.266 97.828 0.060 0.40 0.63 0.02
7 16.265 97.5 0.060 0.91 1.05 0.05 0.14 0.96 0.01
8 17.242 97.887 0.060 0.86 1.05 0.05 0.11 0.81 0.01
9 17.874 98.08 0.060 0.37 0.66 0.02
10 17.976 98.084 0.060 0.05 0.10 0.00
11 17.976 98.085 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 17.976 98.085 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 20.187 98.59 0.060 0.51 2.18 0.03
14 22.134 99.034 0.060
15 23.242 99.287 0.060
16 23.958 99.451 0.060
17 24.459 99.565 0.060
18 24.634 99.603 0.060
19 25.826 99.862 0.060
20 25.96 100.2 0.060
21 26.455 100.2 0.060
22 26.630 100.200 0.060
wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 3.976967 7.248306 0.238618 0.250663 1.776325 0.01504
S
0.006 R n Q R n Q
0.548675 0.060 3.44 0.141113 0.060 0.09
B4 Flow 3.44 3.44
WSL 98.57 97.8
Calculated by Manning's Equation 3.44 0.09
Vel (m/s) 0.87 0.35
Manning's Section B - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
100.5
100.5
100
100
99.5
99.5
99
Proposed Development
99
98.5
Height (m AHD)
98.5
98
98
Overtops Embankment
97.5 Series1
Developed 1% AEP
97.5
97
Developed 1% AEP
96.597
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
Design Surface Exis ting Surface Exis ting 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
A 0 97.9
[OCR of page images]
Mannin's Section B - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xIsx]Des
Date: 9/09/2016
By: CM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Developed 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP nx wA wA wP nx wA
1 13.086 98.021| 0.060
2 13.653 98.011 0.060 f 031 " 0.57 0.02 [ r
3 14.059 98.007, 0.060 f 0.23 " 0.41 0.01 f ’
4 14.657 98 0.060 f 034 " 0.60 0.02 [ r
5 14.657 98 0.060 f 0.00 " 0.00 0.00 f r
6 15.266 97.828 0.060 f 040 " 0.63 0.02 [ r
7 16.265 97.5 0.060 f 091 " 1.05 0.05 f 014 " 0.96 0.01
8 17.242 97.887 0.060 [f 086 " 1.05 0.05 f 011 " 081 0.01
9 17.874 98.08 0.060 f 037 " 0.66 0.02 f r
10 17.976 98.084 0.060 f 0.05 " 0.10 0.00 f r
1 17.976 98.085 0.060 f 0.00 " 0.00 0.00 ff r
12 17.976 98.085 0.060 f 0.00 " 0.00 0.00 [ ’
13 20.187 98.59 0.060 f 051 " 218 0.03 r
14 22.134 99.034 0.060 [ r r r
15 23.242 99.287, 0.060 | r 4 r
16 23.958 99.451 0.060 [ r r r
17 24.459 99.565, 0.060 | r r
18 24.634 99.603 0.060 [ r r r
19 25.826 99.862, 0.060 | r [ r
20 25.96 100.2| 0.060 [ r 4 r
21 26.455 100.2 0.060 [ ’ lr ’
22 26.630 100.200 0.060 [ r if r
wA wP nx wA wA wP nx wA
TOTAL | 3.976967 7.248306 0.238618 | 0.250663 1.776325 0.01504
s
0.006 R n Q R n Q
0.548675 _ 0.060 3.44 [0.141113 0.060 0.09
B4 Flow 3.44 3.44
WSL 98.57 97.8
Calculated by Manning's Equation 3.44 0.09
Manning's Section B - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
100.5
100 fc
99.5 Sf
Proposed Development
99 LZ P oP
98.5 eeeenenn--- f--
o oo
= -
<= .
= ZL
5 98 Overtops Embankment ee
Coe
97.5
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
—— Design Surface —-———— Existing Surface === Existing 1% AEP === Developed 1% AEP
Page 42
Manning's Section C - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Des XSEC C
Date: 9/09/2016
By: MS
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Developed 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
1 10.237 97.689 0.060
2 11.023 97.675 0.060 0.49 0.79 0.03 0.09 0.79 0.01
3 11.868 97.678 0.060 0.53 0.85 0.03 0.10 0.85 0.01
4 12.987 97.427 0.060 0.84 1.15 0.05 0.28 1.15 0.02
5 13.745 97.197 0.060 0.75 0.79 0.05 0.37 0.79 0.02
6 15.025 97.533 0.060 1.20 1.32 0.07 0.56 1.32 0.03
7 16.232 97.854 0.060 0.74 1.25 0.04 0.13 1.04 0.01
8 16.232 97.854 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 16.455 97.909 0.060 0.09 0.23 0.01
10 20.237 98.854 0.060 0.31 1.63 0.02
11 20.745 98.873 0.060
12 21.331 98.895 0.060
13 22.199 98.929 0.060
14 23.791 98.989 0.060
15 23.866 98.992 0.060
16 24.076 99 0.060
wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 4.95722 8.001502 0.297433 1.53479 5.932278 0.092087
S
0.006 R n Q R n Q
0.619536 0.060 4.65 0.258718 0.060 0.80
B4 Flow 4.65 3.44
WSL 98.304 98.302 97.8
Calculated by Manning's Equation 4.65 0.80
Vel (m/s) 0.94 0.52
Manning's Section C - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
99.5
99.5
99
99
98.5
Proposed Development
98.5
98
Height (m AHD)
98 Overtops Embankment
97.5
97.5 Design Surface
97
Developed 1% AEP
Developed 1% AEP
97
96.5
96
96.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
A 0 97.9
Design Surface Exis ting Surface Exis ting 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
A 5.466 97.97
Page 43
Manning's Section D - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Ex XSEC D
Date: 9/09/2016
By: CM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Existing 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
1 13.021 97.433 0.060
2 13.021 97.429 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 13.061 97.434 0.060 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00
4 14.942 97.366 0.060 1.08 1.88 0.06 1.04 1.88 0.06
5 15.203 97.356 0.060 0.16 0.26 0.01 0.15 0.26 0.01
6 15.325 97.354 0.060 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.12 0.00
7 15.559 97.277 0.060 0.15 0.25 0.01 0.15 0.25 0.01
8 15.674 97.238 0.060 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.12 0.00
9 16.393 97 0.060 0.61 0.76 0.04 0.60 0.76 0.04
10 16.878 96.84 0.060 0.51 0.51 0.03 0.50 0.51 0.03
11 16.989 96.815 0.060 0.13 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.11 0.01
12 17.441 96.946 0.060 0.49 0.47 0.03 0.48 0.47 0.03
13 17.63 97 0.060 0.19 0.20 0.01 0.18 0.20 0.01
14 17.63 97 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
15 19.191 97.451 0.060 1.17 1.62 0.07 1.13 1.62 0.07
16 19.3 97.48 0.060 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.00
17 21.177 97.53 0.060 0.88 1.88 0.05 0.84 1.88 0.05
18 21.177 97.53 0.060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 22.024 97.552 0.060 0.37 0.85 0.02 0.35 0.85 0.02
20 22.073 97.554 0.060 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00
21 22.239 97.632 0.060 0.06 0.18 0.00 0.06 0.18 0.00
22 28.224 97.956 0.060 1.07 5.99 0.06 0.94 5.90 0.06
23 30.445 97.914 0.060 0.08 2.22 0.00 0.04 1.96 0.00
24 31.958 98.000 0.060 0.03 1.02 0.00 0.01 0.65 0.00
wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 7.223475 18.65879 0.433409 6.840914 17.93179 0.410455
S
0.006 R n Q R n Q
0.387135 0.060 4.95 0.381496 0.060 4.65
Out B Flow 4.95 4.65
WSL 97.972 97.951
Calculated by Manning's Equation 4.95 4.65
Vel (m/s) 0.69 0.68
98.5
Manning's Section D - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
98.5
98
98
97.5
Overtops Embankment
Height (m AHD)
97.5
97
97 Exis ting Surface
Exis ting 1% AEP
96.5 Developed 1% AEP
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
Exis ting Surface Exis ting 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
[OCR of page images]
Manning's Section D - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B 14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Ex XSEC D
Date: 9/09/2016
By: CM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Existing 1% AEP Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP nx wA wA wP nx wA
1 13.021 97.433! 0.060
2 13.021 97.429 0.060 [ 0.00 " 0.00 0.00 f 0.00 " 0.00 0.00
3 13.061 97.434 0.060 f 0.02 " 0.04 0.00 f 002 * 0.04 0.00
4 14.942 97.366 0.060 f 1.08 " 1.88 o.o6 f 1.04 " 1.88 0.06
5 15.203 97.356 0.060 f 016 " 0.26 0.01 f 0.15 " 0.26 0.01
6 15.325 97.354 0.060 f 0.08 " 0.12 0.00 f 007 " 0.12 0.00
7 15.559 97.277 0.060 f 0.15 " 0.25 oor f 015 " 0.25 0.01
8 15.674 97.238 0.060 f 0.08 " 0.12 0.00 f 0.08 ” 0.12 0.00
9 16.393 97 0.060 f 061 " 076 0.04 f 060 ” 0.76 0.04
10 16.878 96.84 0.060 f 051 " 0.51 003 f 050 " 0.51 0.03
im 16.989 96.815 0.060 f 013 " 0.11 oor f 012 " O14 0.01
12 17.441 96.946 0.060 f 049 " 0.47 0.03 f 0.48 ” 0.47 0.03
13 17.63 97 0.060 f 019 " 0.20 0.01 f 0.18 " 0.20 0.01
14 17.63 97, 0.060 f 0.00 " 0.00 0.00 f 0.00 " 0.00 0.00
15 19.191 97.451 0.060 f 1.17 " 1.62 oo7 ff 113 " 1.62 0.07
16 19.3 97.48 0.060 f 006 " 0.11 0.00 f 0.05 " 0.11 0.00
17 21.177 97.53 0.060 f oss " 1.88 0.05 f 0.84 " 1.88 0.05
18 21.177 97.53 0.060 [ 0.00 " 0.00 0.00 f 0.00 " 0.00 0.00
19 22.024 97.552 0.060 f 0.37 " 0.85 002 f 035 " 0.85 0.02
20 22.073 97.554 0.060 f 0.02 " 0.05 0.00 f 0.02 ” 0.05 0.00
21 22.239 97.632 0.060 f 0.06 " 0.18 0.00 f 0.06 " 0.18 0.00
22 28.224 97.956 0.060 f 107 " 5.99 oo6 f 094 " 5.90 0.06
23 30.445 97.914 0.060 f 008 " 222 0.00 f 004 ° 1.96 0.00
24 31.958 98.000 0.060 f 0.03 ” 1.02 0.00 f 0.01 ” 0.65 0.00
wA wP nx wA wA wP nx wA
TOTAL | 7.223475 18.65879 0.433409] 6.840914 17.93179 0.410455
Ss
0.006 R n Q R n Q
0.387135 0.060 4.95 | 0.381496 _0.060 4.65
Out B Flow 4.95 4.65
WSL 97.972 97.951
Calculated by Manning's Equation 4.95 4.65
Vel (m/s) 0.69 0.68
Manning's Section D - Existing & Developed Flood Comparison
98.5
98
Overtops Embankment
Height (m AHD)
97 V
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
—— Existing Surface === Existing 1% AEP = === Developed 1% AEP
Page 44
Summary
Table A and B below indicate a comparison between existing and developed flood levels and
velocities within the existing channel on site.
Table A – Flood Level Comparison
Cross Section Ex WSL (m AHD) Dev WSL (m AHD) Difference (m)
A 98.77 98.67 -0.09
B 98.58 98.57 -0.01
C 98.30 98.30 0.00
D 97.97 97.95 -0.02
As indicated in Table A there are reductions in flood levels at each cross section location within the
existing swale due to the peak flow mitigation measures proposed. It is also noted that flood levels
will be significantly lower since they overtop the left channel embankment and sheet flows across
the site boundary (under both existing and developed conditions).
Table B –Velocity Comparison
Cross Section Ex Velocity (m/s) Des Velocity (m/s) Difference (m)
A 0.68 0.95 0.26
B 0.73 0.87 0.14
C 0.72 0.94 0.22
D 0.69 0.68 -0.01
While velocities within the existing swale have been slightly increased. The design velocity is less
than 1.0m/s which is not expected to cause scour.
Proposed Channel Capacity Immediately Downstream of Culvert Outlet
A check of the capacity of the proposed channel immediately downstream of the proposed culverts
was determined using Manning’s calculations (refer to the section below). Results indicate that flood
levels during the 1% AEP storm are well below the proposed level of the Caretakers building (by
more than 2m). Therefore, in the instance that Caretaker’s building floor levels are adjusted slightly
for detailed design, the building will not be impacting by flooding from the WQCP outflows.
Page 45
Manning's Section E - Developed Flood Conditions
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Des XSEC E
Date: 9/09/2016
By: CM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
CROSS SECTION DETAILS Developed 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA
1 13.21 98.664 0.060
2 13.324 98.636 0.060 0.03 0.12 0.00
3 13.469 98.599 0.060 0.04 0.15 0.00
4 14.1 98.441 0.060 0.22 0.65 0.01
5 14.115 98.438 0.060 0.01 0.02 0.00
6 14.215 98.413 0.060 0.04 0.10 0.00
7 14.615 98.312 0.060 0.21 0.41 0.01
8 14.871 98.248 0.060 0.15 0.26 0.01
9 15.242 98.155 0.060 0.25 0.38 0.01
10 16.16 98.15 0.060 0.66 0.92 0.04
11 16.169 98.15 0.060 0.01 0.01 0.00
12 16.743 98.147 0.060 0.42 0.57 0.03
13 17.589 98.15 0.060 0.61 0.85 0.04
14 18.244 98.153 0.060 0.47 0.66 0.03
15 18.549 98.229 0.060 0.21 0.31 0.01
16 18.896 98.316 0.060 0.21 0.36 0.01
17 19.663 98.507 0.060 0.36 0.79 0.02
18 20.01 98.593 0.060 0.11 0.36 0.01
19 21.015 98.844 0.060 0.16 1.04 0.01
20 22.643 99.081 0.060 0.00 0.22 0.00
21 25.118 99.446 0.060
22 26.084 99.536 0.060
23 26.410 99.566 0.060
24 26.555 99.580 0.060
25 27.251 99.644 0.060
26 27.631 99.680 0.060
27 27.637 99.680 0.060
28 28.042 99.726 0.060
29 28.213 100.200 0.060
30 28.524 100.200 0.060
31 28.573 100.200 0.060
32 30.377 100.200 0.060
wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 4.167516 8.167883 0.250051
S
0.006 R n Q
0.510232 0.060 3.44
Out B Flow 3.44
WSL 98.875
Calculated by Manning's Equation 3.44
Vel (m/s) 0.82
Manning's Section E - Developed Flood Conditions
100.5
100
99.5
99
Height (m AHD)
98.5
98
97.5
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
Design Surface Existing Surface Developed 1% AEP
[OCR of page images]
Manning's Section E - Developed Flood Conditions
Filename: \\bnenas01\projects\B14\150-199\B14158.W\01 Final Layout Op Works\SW_Quantity\[B14158.W_Mannings_Calcs.xlsx]Des XSEC E
Date: 9/09/2016
By: CM
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
[CROSS SECTION DETAILS Developed 1% AEP
POINT. CH Z n wA wP nx wA
1 13.21 98.664/ 0.060
2 13.324 98.636 0.060 f 0.03 " 0.12 0.00
3 13.469 98.599 0.060 f 0.04 " 0.15 0.00
4 141 98.441 0.060 f 0.22 " 0.65 0.01
5 14.115 98.438 0.060 f 0.01 " 0.02 0.00
6 14.215 98.413 0.060 f 0.04 " 0.10 0.00
7 14.615 98.312 0.060 f 0.21 " 0.41 0.01
8 14.871 98.248 0.060 f 015 " 0.26 0.01
9 15.242 98.155 0.060 f 0.25 " 0.38 0.01
10 16.16 98.15 0.060 f 0.66 " 0.92 0.04
1 16.169 98.15, 0.060 f 0.01 ” 0.01 0.00
12 16.743 98.147 0.060 f 0.42 " 0.57 0.03
13 17.589 98.15 0.060 f 061 " 0.85 0.04
14 18.244 98.153 0.060 f 0.47 " 0.66 0.03
15 18.549 98.229 0.060 f 0.21 ° 0.31 0.01
16 18.896 98.316 0.060 f 021 ” 0.36 0.01
17 19.663 98.507 0.060 f 036 " 0.79 0.02
18 20.01 98.593 0.060 f 0.11 ” 0.36 0.01
19 21.015 98.844, 0.060 f 016 " 1.04 0.01
20 22.643 99.081 0.060 f 0.00 ” 0.22 0.00
2t 25.118 99.446 0.060 [ r
22 26.084 99.536 0.060 fT r
23 26.410 99.566 0.060 [ r
24 26.555 99.580 0.060 [ r
25 27.251 99.644 0.060 fT .
26 27.631 99.680 0.060 [ r
27 27.637 99.680 0.060 [fT r
28 28.042 99.726 0.060 [ ,
29 28.213 100.200 0.060 fT r
30 28.524 100.200 0.060 [ r
31 28.573 100.200 0.060 [ r
32 30.377 100.200 0.060 [ ,
wA wP nx wA
TOTAL | 4.167516 8.167883 0.250051
Ss
0.006 R n Q
0.510232 __0.060 3.44
Out B Flow 3.44
WSL 98.875
Calculated by Manning's Equation 3.44
Vel (m/s) 0.82
Manning's Section E - Developed Flood Conditions
100.5
100
99.5
99
2
= 98.5
—
ar)
3
x=
97.5
97
96.5
96
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chainage (m)
Design Surface ——=Existing Surface === Developed 1% AEP
Page 46
WQCP ‐ Energy Dissipater Calculations (Derived From QUDM, 2013)
Pipe Outlets
Sizing of the scour rock protection for pipes was determined using calculations specified in Section
8.7 of QUDM, 2013. Below indicates rock protection requirements and the adopted outlet rock
protection configuration at each pipe outlet.
Central Bioretention Basin South Discharge into Central Pond Outlet into
Location
Outflow into Pond (375) Central Pond (900) Existing Swale (825)
Q (m3/s) 0.23 1.275 2.2
Area (m2) 0.1 0.6 0.5
Outlet Velocity (m/s) 2 2.0 4.1
Pipe Diameter 0.375 0.9 0.825
Multiple Cells? NO NO NO
Multiplication Factor for Multiple Cells N/A N/A N/A
Length Ratio D:L 3 3 5
Width (m) 1.4 2.6 3.1
Length (m) 1.125 2.7 4.125
d50 (mm) 200 200 300
Thickness of Rock Protection (mm) 400 400 600
Page 47
Multi‐Pipe Outlet
Sizing of the scour rock protection for the proposed multiple pipe outlet was determined using
calculations specified in Section 10.4.15 of QUDM, 2013. Below indicates rock protection
requirements and the adopted outlet rock protection configuration at each pipe outlet.
Central Basin Overflows
Location
(2 x 1050)
Catchments B1, B2
Q (m3/s) 1.5
Area (m2) 1.7
Outlet Velocity (m/s) 0.87
Diameter (m) 1.05
No of Cells 2
Equivalent Diameter (m) 1.45
Multiplication Factor for Multiple Cells N/A
Length Ratio D:L 3
Width (m) 1.45
Length (m) 4.35
d50 (mm) 200
Thickness of Rock Protection (mm) 400
Page 48
Bioretention Basin ‐ Energy Dissipater Calculations (Derived From QUDM, 2013)
Pipe Outlets
Sizing of the scour rock protection for pipes was determined using calculations specified in Section
8.7 of QUDM, 2013. Below indicates rock protection requirements and the adopted outlet rock
protection configuration at each pipe outlet.
Northern Bioretention Basin Outflow Central Bioretention Basin
Location
(375) Outflow (375)
Q (m3/s) 0.48 0.23
Area (m2) 0.1 0.1
Outlet Velocity (m/s) 4 2
Pipe Diameter 0.375 0.375
Multiple Cells? NO NO
Multiplication Factor for Multiple Cells N/A N/A
Length Ratio D:L 3 3
Width (m) 1.4 1.4
Length (m) 1.125 1.125
d50 (mm) 200 200
Thickness of Rock Protection (mm) 400 400
Page 49
Box Culvert or Multiple Pipe Outlets
Sizing of the scour rock protection for box culvert outlets were determined using calculations
specified in Section 10.4.15 of QUDM, 2013. Below indicates rock protection requirements and the
adopted outlet rock protection configuration at each culvert outlet.
Central Bioretention Basin Inflow (1500 Southern Bioretention Basin
Location
x 600) Inflow (2 x 750)
Q (m3/s) 1.67 2.08
Area (m2) 0.9 0.88
Outlet Velocity (m/s) 1.9 2.35
Diameter or Width (m) 1.5 0.75
Cell Height (m) 0.6 ‐
Multiple Cells? NO Yes
Length Ratio D:L 3 3
Width (m) 1.5 2.16
Length (m) 4.5 6.5
d50 (mm) 200 200
Thickness of Rock Protection (mm) 400 400
Page 50
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX F MUSIC MODELLING DETAILS [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX F MUSIC MODELLING DETAILS
Page 51
wl
XY)
A2 Ground [Mixed]
A2 Roof [Mixed] ‘A2 Road [MixeaJA2 Park [Mixed]
a2
Gi At Road [Mixed]
AM Roof [Mixed]
‘At Ground [Mixed] At Northern Basin
ra
KY)
82 Ground [Mixea] 52 ROof [Mixed]
‘Sedimentation Basin
23)
B2 Road [Mixed] ee
F4 High Flow (Pond)
Central Basin Bio Bc
EXT Bt Road [Mixed] 33 Root [Mixed] BS Ba 54 Ground [Mixed]
Par
83 Road [Mixedis3 Ground [Mixed] BA Root tines, O° Park [Mixed
D3 Road [Mixed]
D3 Ground Bypass [Mixed]
A Receiving Nod
D2 Ground - Bypass [Mixed]
D2 Road - Bypass [Mixed]
D2 Roof [Mixed]
D2 Road [Mixed]
D2 Roof [Mixed]
@
Bio Pod D2 D2 Ground [Mixed]
C2 Ground [Mixed] C2 Roof [Mixed]
Generic Treatment Node Junction C2 Road [Mixed]
Southern Basin Bio Extct
EXT C1 Road [Mixed]
C3 Road [Mixed] 3 Ground [Mixed]
C3 Roof [Mixed]
Page 52
Source Node Input
Sub-Catchment Area (ha) Impervious Percent Pervious Percent Surface Type
A1 Road 0.265 80 20 Urban_Road
A1 Roof 0.495 100 0 Urban_Roof
A1 Ground 0.225 50 50 Urban_Ground
A2 Road 0.300 80 20 Urban_Road
A2 Roof 0.641 100 0 Urban_Roof
A2 Ground 0.421 50 50 Urban_Ground
A2 Park 0.146 0 100 Urban_Ground
EXT B1 Road 0.372 100 0 Urban_Road
EXT B1 Ground 1.760 0 100 Urban_Ground
B2 Road 0.648 80 20 Urban_Road
B2 Roof 1.011 100 0 Urban_Roof
B2 Ground 0.724 50 50 Urban_Ground
B3 Road 0.594 80 20 Urban_Road
B3 Roof 0.925 100 0 Urban_Roof
B3 Ground 0.541 50 50 Urban_Ground
B4 Roof 0.300 100 0 Commercial_Roof
B4 Ground 0.100 50 50 Commercial_Ground
B4 Park 0.649 10 90 Urban_Ground
EXT C1 Road 0.342 80 20 Urban_Road
EXT C1 Ground 0.975 20 80 Urban_Ground
C2 Road 0.308 80 20 Commercial_Road
C2 Roof 1.065 100 0 Commercial_Roof
C2 Ground 0.651 50 50 Commercial_Ground
C3 Road 0.750 80 20 Urban_Road
C3 Roof 1.398 100 0 Urban_Roof
C3 Ground 0.781 50 50 Urban_Ground
D2 Road 0.249 80 20 Urban_Road
D2 Roof 0.369 100 0 Urban_Roof
D2 Ground 0.433 50 50 Urban_Ground
D2 Car Park 0.200 100 0 Urban_Road
D3 ROAD 0.174 80 20 Urban_Road
D3 ROOF 0.291 100 0 Urban_Roof
D3 GROUND 0.090 50 50 Urban_Ground
D3 GROUND BYPASS 0.026 0 100 Urban_Ground
Total 18.217 - - -
Results
Source Residual Reduction
Flow (ML/yr) 214 211 1.2
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 36300 7780 78.6
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 76.8 23.4 69.6
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 480 239 50.2
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 4620 249 94.6
[OCR of page images]
ce Node Input
Sub-Catchment Area (ha) Impervious Percent Pervious Percent Surface Type
A1 Road 0.265 80 20 Urban_Road
Al Roof 0.495 100 0 Urban_Roof
Al Ground 0.225 50 50 Urban_Ground
A2 Road 0.300 80 20 Urban_Road
A2 Roof 0.641 100 0 Urban_Roof
A2 Ground 0.421 50 50 Urban_Ground
A2 Park 0.146 0 100 Urban_Ground
EXT B1 Road 0.372 100 0 Urban_Road
EXT B1 Ground 1.760 0 100 Urban_Ground
B2 Road 0.648 80 20 Urban_Road
B2 Roof 1.011 100 0 Urban_Roof
B2 Ground 0.724 50 50 Urban_Ground
B3 Road 0.594 80 20 Urban_Road
B3 Roof 0.925 100 0 Urban_Roof
B3 Ground 0.541 50 50 Urban_Ground
B4 Roof 0.300 100 0 Commercial_Roof
B4 Ground 0.100 50 50 Commercial_Ground
B4 Park 0.649 10 90 Urban_Ground
EXT C1 Road 0.342 80 20 Urban_Road
EXT C1 Ground 0.975 20 80 Urban_Ground
C2 Road 0.308 80 20 Commercial_Road
C2 Roof 1.065 100 0 Commercial_Roof
C2 Ground 0.651 50 50 Commercial_Ground
C3 Road 0.750 80 20 Urban_Road
C3 Roof 1.398 100 0 Urban_Roof
C3 Ground 0.781 50 50 Urban_Ground
D2 Road 0.249 80 20 Urban_Road
D2 Roof 0.369 100 0 Urban_Roof
D2 Ground 0.433 50 50 Urban_Ground
D2 Car Park 0.200 100 0 Urban_Road
D3 ROAD 0.174 80 20 Urban_Road
D3 ROOF 0.291 100 0 Urban_Roof
D3 GROUND 0.090 50 50 Urban_Ground
D3 GROUND BYPASS 0.026 0 100 Urban_Ground
Total 18.217 a a S
Residual Reduction
Flow (ML/yr)
Total Suspended Solids (
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr)
Total Nitrogen r
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr.
Page 53
Bioretention Basin Velocity Checks
Velocity checks were undertaken at the critical section through the Bioretention Basins (i.e. section
with the shortest width). Note that these calculations do not take into account backflow effect and
ponding, since the outflow of the Bioretention Basins is limited by the outlet pit and weir
configuration. These calculations are therefore considered to be conservative.
Northern Bioretention Basin
Critical Section
CROSS SECTION DETAILS 10% AEP 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
1 ‐9 100.1 0.060
2 ‐9 100.1 0.060
3 ‐6 99.1 0.060 0.07 0.67 0.00 0.10 0.82 0.01
4 6 99.1 0.060 2.54 12.00 0.15 3.10 12.00 0.19
5 9 100.1 0.060 0.07 0.67 0.00 0.10 0.82 0.01
wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 2.678832 13.34081 0.16073 3.295692 13.63174 0.197742
S
0.005 R n Q R n Q
0.2008 0.060 1.08 0.241766 0.060 1.51
Flow 1.08 1.51
WSL 99.312 99.358
Calculated by Manning's Equation 1.08 1.51
Vel (m/s) 0.40 0.46
Basin Section
100.2
100
99.8
Height (m)
99.6
99.4
99.2
99
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Width (m)
Existing Sur face 10 % AEP 1% A EP
As indicated in the results above, velocity is below 0.5m/s during both the major and minor storm
events. The potential for scour or damage to vegetation is therefore low and below requirements
specified in WSUD Technical Design Guidelines (2006)
Page 54
Central Bioretention Basin
Critical Section
CROSS SECTION DETAILS 10% AEP 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
1 ‐16.2 100.95 0.060
2 ‐16.2 100.35 0.060
3 ‐15 100.05 0.060 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.05 0.66 0.00
4 15 100.05 0.060 4.14 30.00 0.25 4.79 30.00 0.29
5 18.6 100.95 0.060 0.04 0.57 0.00 0.05 0.66 0.00
wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 4.216176 31.13798 0.252971 4.886761 31.31527 0.293206
S
0.005 R n Q R n Q
0.135403 0.060 1.31 0.15605 0.060 1.67
Flow 1.31 1.67
WSL 100.188 100.210
Calculated by Manning's Equation 1.31 1.67
Vel (m/s) 0.31 0.34
Basin Section
101
100.9
100.8
100.7
Height (m AHD)
100.6
100.5
100.4
100.3
100.2
100.1
100
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Width (m)
Existing Sur face 10 % AEP 1% A EP
As indicated in results above velocities are less than 0.5m/s during the minor and major storm
events. This is also within the requirements for the major storm (less than 2m/s). However, scour or
damage of vegetation is unlikely as the results do not take into account the backflow effect caused
by the outlet pit and weir which will reduce velocities through the basin. Therefore the design of the
basin is appropriate to cater for inflow velocity.
Page 55
South Bioretention Basin
Critical Section
CROSS SECTION DETAILS 10% AEP 1% AEP
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
1 ‐11.2 101.2 0.060
2 ‐11.2 101 0.060
3 ‐10 100.7 0.060 0.11 0.95 0.01 0.14 1.11 0.01
4 10 100.7 0.060 4.62 20.00 0.28 5.37 20.00 0.32
5 12 101.2 0.060 0.11 0.95 0.01 0.14 1.11 0.01
wA wP n x wA wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 4.833444 21.90487 0.290007 5.658369 22.21411 0.339502
S
0.005 R n Q R n Q
0.220656 0.060 2.08 0.25472 0.060 2.68
Flow 2.08 2.68
WSL 100.931 100.9685
Calculated by Manning's Equation 2.08 2.68
Vel (m/s) 0.43 0.47
Basin Section
101.4
101.2
101
Height (m AHD)
100.8
100.6
100.4
100.2
100
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Width (m)
Existing Sur face 10 % AEP 1% A EP
As indicated in the results above, velocity is below 0.5m/s during both the major and minor storm
events. The potential for scour or damage to vegetation is therefore low and below requirements
specified in WSUD Technical Design Guidelines (2006)
Page 56
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX G CONCEPT DRAWINGS [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX G CONCEPT DRAWINGS
Page 57
EXISTING SWALE
NORTHERN
EXISTING HOUSES
AND SHEDS
EXISTING DAM \
»
EXISTING HOUSES \ J /
AND SHEDS EXISTING Z 300 EXISTING 300 //
PIPE RCP /
LOT 2 .
RP 165418 \ EXISTING SHED . J Lf LY
9b J JnW
ot god / Y \
~\y Tamers
EXISTING B450 RCP —_
EXISTING HOUSES ¥ 4
AND SHEDS
Pad SOUTHERN
CENTRAL EXISTING DAM
EXISTING DAM I
7 LoT 1
4 RP165418 J S XN l
0 / LOT 1
7 J N RP215922 l
\ ? 7 4 \
\ J
\ 7 A ~N
SS 7 ~ ,
Bt { N ~ \
ey . ~“
% ON ” N \ EXISTING B375 \
vgn x RCP ~“
ae ON . S
AN XQ N \,
YN 1 — ae a _— a a a a = =
\ \s ~ aN ~~ ee — ~ ——
: COOROY CONNECTION ROAD
\ = a aks ee ee ee
EXISTING 900x300 — a a
~ BOX CULVERT =a EXISTING 1350x300 a
— aoe BOX CULVERT
ee
APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT OF ELEVATED RAILWAY
CORRIDOR (TOP OF CATCHMENT).
SOURCE; MAPVIEW - QLD GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND MINES (2006) SS
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY (MCU) » FLOW DIRECTION
EXISTING SCENARIO, EXISTING CONTOURS
CATCHMENT BOUNDARY
EXISTING SCENARIO @ DISCHARGE LOCATION
CATCHMENT LABEL NOTES:
FLE: BUs1S8.W-SK100.dwg_DATE: 12-11-2015 TIME: 08:47
iref's
X_BIA158.W_BASE X_BI4158.W_EXISTING X_B14158.W_TITLE USR: Sam Linde
FLOW PATH
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
LATEST ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No.
16-001014-01.
CONCEPT PLAN ONLY
NOT TO BE USED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
‘DRAWING TITLE
rast [ous ane] on Ue SRE TEST TRG Te Sr
AMM BETA SURVEYOR: KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES
—————e 49 THE ESPLANADE MAROOCHYDORE PALM LAKES RESORT EXISTING SCENARIO
a ‘moe et Ph (07) S463 2864 Fox (07) 3663 7146 | Cc CATCHMENT PLAN
O4zmE0zm=E>
mo] oe] >|
DRAWN CHECK
PROJECT No.
123500 3
B14158.W
"APPROVED, ANDREW McPHAIL RPEQ 6921
MATTHEW HILL RPEQ 11578
FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY L10
PALM LAKES - COOROY
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
Callore
CONSULTING
Biss Caber Usboma Spdwy Shgpom SumineCoat L404
TSSUE
B14158,W-SK100 B
‘DRAWING NUMBER
Page 58
-
CC___
BBQ AREA
DECK
POOL
SPA
SPA
__
CC___
[OCR of page images]
LEGEND:
SITE BOUNDARY
DEVELOPED CATCHMENT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
NORTHERN BASIN
PROVIDES PEAK
FLOW MITIGATION
CENTRAL BASIN
PROVIDES PEAK
FLOW MITIGATION
EXISTING SWALE
SOUTHERN BASIN
63% AEP PEAK FLOWS TO
BE DIRECTED TO POND
63% AEP PEAK
FLOW PIPE DIVERSION
DY TRADING POST ROAD.
—
ewo—eL
(3
UPSIZED SITE DRAINAGE NETWORK AND STORMWATER EASEMENT
TO CATER FOR UPSTREAM EXTERNAL CATCHMENT FLOWS
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POND
OR BIORETENTION BASIN >
FLOW DIRECTION
63% AEP PEAK FLOW DIVERSION
SITE DISCHARGE LOCATION
EXISTING SWALE
PROPOSED EASEMENT (STORMWATER/SERVICES)
SITE DRAINAGE AND ROAD NETWORK
DESIGNED TO CONVEY 1% AEP PEAK FLOWS
OF UPSTREAM EXTERNAL CATCHMNET
NOTES:
THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
‘ C
* oR FURTHER BASIN CONFIGURATION REFER 1.
TO DETAILS PROVIDED ON SUBSEQUENT
PLANS, SIZING SUBJECT TO DETAILED DESIGN.
LATEST ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No.
16-001014-01.
2. SPLIT FLOW PIT TO DIVERT 63% AEP FLOWS FROM
CATCHMENT B2 TO GPT AND BIORETENTION BASIN
MINOR DESIGN STORM CONVEYED
THROUGH SITE DRAINAGE. MAJOR
OVERFLOWS DIRECTED TOWARDS
TRADING POST ROAD
CONCEPT PLAN ONLY
NOT TO BE USED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
a
8
2
=
DATE
AMENDMENT DETAILS. DESIGN CHECK
"SCALE (METRES 7
cd
CH [IW | 29.10.15 | MINOR LAYOUT AMENDMENT
#_| IW [12.015 [MINOR LAYOUT AMENDMENTS ‘250 2 : 3
OzmzozmE>
= eo[@]>
=
50 Al
05.02.16
LAYOUT AMENDMENTS:
4.2500
DRAWN CHECK
26.08.16
MINOR” AMENDMENTS
200
UPDATED CENTRAL BASIN
a3
MIGROFICM No,
PROJECT No.
B14158.W
SURVEYOR: KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES
49 THE ESPLANADE MAROOCHYDORE
Ph (07) 5443 2844 Fax (07) 5443 7146
APPROVED ANDREW McPHAIL RPEQ 6921
MATTHEW HLL RPEQ 11578
FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTO
“CLIENT
PALM LAKES RESORT
Cc
PROECT
callore
CONSULTING
PALM LAKES - COOROY
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
Callbre Consulting (QLD} Pty Lid
Queen
(CONSULT AUSTRALIA
ental
i> Amin Extored
‘Ground Fer, S Bidens
Telephone 07 3895 3444 Facsimile 07 3895 2400 isohont
Recere Gabor Hebou tay Bappon Bene Coet 1c 404
‘DRAWING TITLE
DEVELOPED MITIGATED
CATCHMENT PLAN
‘DRAWING NUMBER
B14158.W-SK101
Page 59
POOL
SPA
SPA
-
DECK
[OCR of page images]
LEGEND:
Sw0-
—— =| oS =
WLM
ELLA
FILE, BUS1S8.W-SK102.duq DATE: 12-11-2015 TIME: 1531
Pref’s: X_BIs158.W_TITLE X_BI61S8.W_BASE USR: chris mok
NORTHERN BASIN (SW QUALITY & DETENTION)
BIORETENTION SYSTEM WITH SEDIMENT FOREBAY
FILTER AREA: 525m?
FILTER DEPTH: 0.4m
TEMP. PONDING DEPTH: 0.3m
CENTRAL BASIN (SW QUALITY & DETENTION)
TREATMENT TRAIN INCLUDES WaQcP,
BIORETENTION BASIN AND UPSTREAM GPT
REFER TO STAGE 2 OPERATIONAL WORKS
DRAWINGS FOR DETAILS
At WA
SITE BOUNDARY
MUISIC CATCHMENT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
PROPOSED FLOW PATH
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POND
OR BIORETENTION BASIN *
MODELLED AS COMMERCIAL
WOODWORKING/GOLF ROOM
AND TENNIS COURTS
STORMWATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT
AND SERVICES CORRIDOR
BIOPOD D2
BIORETENTION SYSTEM WITH
UPSTREAM GPT
FILTER AREA: 75m?
FILTER DEPTH: 0.4m
TEMP. PONDING DEPTH: 0.2m
CARETAKER’S
‘sy:
(e
|_| BOWLING | |
GREENS
SWIMMING
POOL
us
1— SWD-
ri)
a
BIOPOD D3
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE OWN
STORMWATER QUALITY TREATMENT
CONTROLS
FILTER AREA: 75m?
FILTER DEPTH; 0.4m
TEMP. PONDING DEPTH: 0.2m
SOUTHERN BASIN
BIORETENTION SYSTEM WITH UPSTREAM GPT (TREATED
FLOWS TO DISCHARGE INTO CENTRAL WQCP)
FILTER AREA: 305m?
FILTER DEPTH: 0.4m
TEMP. PONDING DEPTH: 0.3m
REFER TO STAGE 2 OPERATIONAL WORKS DRAWINGS
FOR FURTHERDETAILS
SPLIT FLOW PIT (63% AEP PEAK
TRADING POST ROAD
FLOWS TO SOUTHERN BASIN)
\
—
2
|
MUSIC CATCHMENT LABELS
LOW FLOW DIRECTION
MODELLED AS AREAS
BYPASSING TREATMENT
* or FURTHER BASIN CONFIGURATION REFER
TO DETAILS PROVIDED ON SUBSEQUENT
PLANS, SIZING SUBJECT TO DETAILED DESIGN.
COOROY CONNECTION ROAD
MUSIC CATCHMENT PLAN
SCALE 1:1250 (A1)
SCALE 1:2500 (A3)
NOTES:
MINOR DESIGN STORM CONVEYED
THROUGH SITE DRAINAGE. MAJOR
OVERFLOWS DIRECTED TOWARDS
TRADING POST ROAD
SITE DEVELOPMENT TO ACHIEVE 90/60/45
LOAD REDUCTION OBJECTIVES. STORMWATER
QUALITY TREATMENT DEVICES MAY CONSIST
OF BIORETENTION SYSTEMS WITH TOTAL
FILTER AREA OF 500m? OR OTHER INTEGRATED
SOLUTIONS (e.g. MULTIPLE BIORETENTION
\ PODS, PROPRIETARY DEVICES, COMBINATION OF
DEVICES, etc.) TO MEET THESE OBJECTIVES.
| CENTRAL 3 b
SBIORETENTION 9 5 a
BASIN x
FILTER AREA 2
= 650m? s
2; 5 5 c g 120 BED AGE %
kal CARE FACILITY ®)
Ba)
— * swo——— | :
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION
WITH CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No.
16-001014-01.
2. SPLIT FLOW PIT TO DIVERT 63% AEP! FLOWS
FROM CATCHMENT B2 TO GPT AND
CONCEPT PLAN ONLY
NOT TO BE USED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
BIORETENTION BASIN.
FRET [CALCS [DRAWN] _OATE
vesue PP | iat
AMENDMENT DETAILS.
DESIGN CHECK
B_[ aw [05.02.16 [LAYOUT AND CATCHMENT AMENDMENT
‘=>
H_[- cr _[ 0009.16 [MINOR AMENDMENTS:
1250 25 0
"SCALE (METRES 7
MIGROFICM No,
SURVEYOR: KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES
49 THE ESPLANADE MAROOCHYDORE
50 Al Ph (07) 5443 2844 Fax (07) 5443 7146
4.2500
DRAWN CHECK
H_[ or [23.2.16 [AMENDMENTS TO LABELS
A
B
[ome [mp | 19.12.16 [ upDATED MUSIC MODELLING
D
E
F
Oszmzozm!
H_[ RH _[ 20.0117 J UPDATED CENTRAL BASIN
AB PROJECT No.
B14158.W
"APPROVED.
FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTO
ANDREW McPHAIL RPEQ 6921
MATTHEW HILL RPEQ 11578
“CLIENT
‘DRAWING TITLE
PALM LAKES RESORT
PROECT
PALM LAKES - COOROY
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
callore
CONSULTING
Callbre Consulting (QLD} Pty Lid
Level 6, 199 Gray Steet, South Brisbane QLD Austria 4101
‘Telephone 07 3895 3444 Facsimile 07 3895 2400
Racerw Garton Mateus tty Bane Danae Cet
1 a
MUSIC CATCHMENT
PLAN
‘DRAWING NUMBER TSSUE
B14158.W-SK102 E
Page 60
PO
OL
SP
A
-
DECK
[OCR of page images]
Y | \
[A L \ | \
PROPOSED 6m WID! 4ly \ | N
DRAINAGE EASEMENT ‘4//¢ \ | \
4 |
7 )
/ \ oe J
PLUNGE POOL / y NY,
ENERGY 4/7 / \ LEGEND:
DISSIPATER 4% / \ a
\ a \ SITE BOUNDARY
EXISTING SWALE a \ sw PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
BIOPOD D2 ) Cau PROPOSED STORMWATER EASEMENT
a \
oN a a RETAINING WALLS
FLOW DIRECTION
NORTHERN BASIN
63% AEP PEAK FLOW DIVERSION
“ \ a
7 7 \ = DISCHARGE LOCATION
L \ L
- \ \ “
fA A \ \ a EXISTING SWALE
L . \
LZ \
7 \ \
CONCEPT ROAD AND DRAINAGE a~\ \
LAYOUT SHOWN IS SUBJECT TO a \ \
FUTURE STAGE 4 OPERATIONAL Z \ \ a \ \
WORKS DESIGN AND APPROVAL a \ - L \
“ \ | \ - LS \ \
\
825 ; \ “ ,
a \ a a \ \
“ - a —
a - <
Co \ ‘ \
PROPOSED GPT ) \ \ a
UPSTREAM OF BASIN [ \ \
< [ “ “ \ \ —
a “ a
a \U
a \ \
\ py ~
tn a \ —
| PEAK FLOWS ABOVE THE 1 YEAR a \ —
|/— PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL ARI STORM TO BE DIRECTED =a \
REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL FOR TOWARDS SWALE
LANDSCAPING AND FENCING r— 5m WIDE % \ \
m 5
STORMWATER $2 \ \
EASEMENT 417 ~\ \
3m WIDE DRAINAGE
__ EASEMENT
63% AEP PEAK FLOW
DIVERSION © 900
PROPOSED GPT
UPSTREAM OF
BASIN
SPLITTER MANHOLE TO DIRECT 63% AEP
PEAK FLOWS TO BASIN AND MAJOR FLOWS TO
TNS
PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
( y . THE PROPOSED SWALE & DRAINAGE EASEMENT — Proe ) lca Tt A
NS SONY a Q (10% AEP) TOWARDS SOUTHERN BASIN.
’ “ . is ”
Vie a PR + SPLITTER MANHOLE TO DIRECT 63% verre TeADING BOSS ROAD
a ? \ | | [i] | ZZ__ AEP PEAK FLOWS TO PROPOSED
— — | | -—___ = ‘¢ =
Li) 63% AEP PEAK , ee
// FLOW DIVERSION T
| | Nisa oT
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONCEPT PLAN ONLY
LATEST ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No.
LE, BUAIS8.W-SK1N0.dwg_DATE, 12-11-2015 TIME: 08:49 16-001014-01 CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
Xref's: X_B14158.W_ BASE X_B14158.W_MODIFIED ARCH X_B14158.W_TITLE ADAM DTM Layer Copy USR: Sam Linde *
Tear outs ene One ao THRONE Ne Ten DRAWS TE
AMENDMENT DETAILS DESIGN CHECK SURVEYOR: KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES , mas
NNW aE 49 THE ESPLANADE MAROOCHYDORE PALM LAKES RESORT ‘CONSULT AUSTRALIA CONCEPT STORMWATER
. Ph (07) 5443 2844 Fax (07) 5443 7146 DRAINAGE PLAN
Fe | | 07.09.16 [ MINOR ANENOMENTS oa 0 u 2 20 a PRORGT - 4
Biot cx | ev [ zoo. [upoaTeo CENTRAL BASIN Drawn cHecx| PROJECT Wo ‘APPROVED ANDREW McPHAIL RPEO. 6921 Calbre Consulting (QLD) Py Lid SHEET 1 OF 2
zp 814158, W win Se] PALM LAKES - COOROY callore ceegecan tracked oo Se area maa am
sir FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTD RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CONSULTING Daten fata town fry nen tant Tb GBt B14158.W-SK110 Cc
Page 61
PO
OL
SP
A
-
DECK
[OCR of page images]
_4\/
PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL
REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL FOR
LANDSCAPING AND FENCING
——
\ At
PEAK FLOWS ABOVE THE 63% AEP
.. STORM DIRECTED TOWARDS DISCHARGE
“LOCATION B
900 STORMWATER 63% AEP
PEAK FLOW DIVERSION PIPE
3m WIDE D
EASEMENT
RAINAGE
LEGEND:
SPLITTER MANHOLE TO DIRECT 63% AEP
PEAK FLOWS TO BASIN AND MAJOR FLOWS
TOWARDS SITE DRAINAGE NETWORK
SITE BOUNDARY
PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
(CONCEPTUAL ONLY) N.
PROPOSED STORMWATER EASEMENT
RETAINING WALLS
MAJOR FLOW DIRECTION
63% AEP PEAK FLOW DIVERSION
DISCHARGE LOCATION
EXISTING SWALE
PROPOSED GPT
UPSTREAM OF BASIN
SPLITTER MANHOLE TO DIRECT 63%
AEP PEAK FLOWS TO PRO!
GPT AND OVERFLOWS TO
iz
POSED
BASIN
SWo-
Va
5m WIDE
STORMWATER
EASEMENT
5m WIDE
STORMWATER
EASEMENT
=
OF
FILE: B14158.W-SKNI0.dwg_DATE: 12-11-2015 TIME: 08:49
iref's
X_BihiS8.W_BASE X_B14158.W MODIFIED ARCH X_B1158.W_TITLE ADAM DTM Layer Copy USR: Sam Linde
NOTES:
1.
CONCEPT PLAN ONLY
THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
LATEST ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No.
16-001014-01,
NOT TO BE USED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
ee "amnousny oevane DESIGN GHECK Sone ETRE) mmonorem™e | surVEYOR: KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES
Feb eo Lar nfo 49 THE ESPLANADE MAROOCHYDORE
t By MH RH | 20.01.16 J UPDATED CENTRAL BASIN 1500 10 5 o {0 20M ax
8 ¢ DRAWN CHECK 1:1000 AR PROJECT No. ‘APPROVED Anne, er
SE B14158.W
siF FOR & ON BEHALF GF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTD
“CLIENT
PALM LAKES RESORT
Cc
PROWECT
PALM LAKES - COOROY
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
RPEQ 6921
RPEQ 11578
CONSULTING
calibre
cnn CONCEPT STORMWATER
DI DRAINAGE PLAN
Calle Consutng (QLD) Pty id att SHEET 2 OF 2
Gran Fon, 545 Quan, bibs DA 2000 Eos Feats noaen aU
tere eon new te over tnt B14158.W-SK111 B
Page 62
POO
L
SPA
-
DECK
[OCR of page images]
SOURCE NODE INP!
MNOR AMENDMENTS:
FILE: B14158.W-SKNI0.dwg_DATE: 12-11-2015 TIME: 08:49
Pxref's: X_Bt\158.W_BASE X_B14158.W_MODIFIED ARCH X_B14158.W_TITLE ADAM DTM Layer Copy USR: Sam Linde
‘SUB-CATCHMENT AREA (ha) [IMPERVIOUS %| LEGEND
At_ROAD 0.265 80
‘At ROOF 0.495 100
Ai GROUND 0.225 50 -——_— = =
‘A2 ROAD 0.300 80
‘A2 ROOF 0.641 700. |
A2 GROUND 0.421 50
‘A2 PARK 0.146 0
B2 ROAD 0.648 80
B2 ROOF 1.011 100
B2 GROUND 0.724 50
B3 ROAD 0.594 80
B3 ROOF 0.925 100
B3 GROUND 0.541 50
B4 ROOF 0.300 100
B4 GROUND 0.100 50
B4 PARK 0.649 10
C2 ROAD 0.308 80
C2 ROOF 1.065 100
€2. GROUND 0.651 50
C3 ROAD 0.750 80
C3 ROOF 1.398 100
€3 GROUND 0.781
D2 ROAD 0.249
D2 ROOF 0.369
D2 GROUND 0.433
D2 CAR PARK 0.200
D3 ROAD 0.174
D3 ROOF 0.291
D3 GROUND 0.090
D3 GROUND BYPASS 0.026
TOTAL 14.768
SITE BOUNDARY
MUSIC CATCHMENT BOUNDARY
DESIGN CONTOURS
EXISTING CONTOURS
IMPERVIOUS AREA
ROOF AREA
NORTHERN
BASIN
CENTRAL
BASIN
TRADING POST ROAD
SOUTHERN
BASIN
waded ae
Raniah
pldlastablasla
APPLET EPrer
——COOROY CONNECTION ROAD
NOTES:
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH LATEST ISSUE OF
CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No. 16-001014-01.
=
2. WHILE NOT SHOWN ON PLAN, EACH PROPOSED LOTS WILL HAVE IMPERVIOUS
ROOF AREA (COVERING A MAJORITY PORTION OF TOTAL LOT AREA). AN
AVERAGE ROOF AREA OF 215m? PER LOT WAS MODELLED AS PER TABLE
CONCEPT PLAN ONLY
NOT TO BE USED FOR
FRST [CALCS [DRAWN] _OATE
vesue [cw | 05.02.16
AMENDMENT DETAILS.
[ow [ o10s.16
MINOR” AMENDMENTS
[RH [20007
UPDATED CENTRAL BASIN
DESIGN CHECK
1000 10 0
"SCALE (METRES 7
MIGROFIUM No,
30.4050 Al
=] eo @]>
O4zmzozmE>
4.2000
DRAWN CHECK|
AB PROJECT No.
B14158.W
Ph (07)
"APPROVED.
SURVEYOR: KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES
49 THE ESPLANADE MAROOCHYDORE
5443 2844 Fax (07) 5443 7146
ANDREW McPHAlL RPEQ 6921
MATTHEW HILL RPEQ 11578
FOR & ON BEHALF QF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTO
3.3 OF WATER BY DESIGN’S MUSIC MODELLING GUIDELINES (2010). CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
PALM LAKES RESORT C cn run IMPERVIOUS AREA
moe ee PLAN
PALM LAKES - COOROY Canliorseten te ahaa am Sat bec Tae aE
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY caliore in St ol a ee B14158.W-SK112 B
Page 63
EXISTING SWALE
PROPOSED 6m WIDE
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
/
WEIR AT
RL 98.30
GPT TO BE PROVIDED
UPSTREAM OF
BIORETENTION BASIN
a
EXTENDED
DETENTION
DEPTH
a
FINAL ROAD AND
DRAINAGE DETAILS TO
BE CONFIRMED DURING
DETAILED DESIGN
0.50m_ MIN.
“en
—_ oS
0.40m
0.30m
BIORETENTION
LAYERS
TYPICAL BIOPOD DETAIL
SCALE 1:25 (A1)
SCALE 1:50 (A3)
ENERGY DISSIPATER SUBJECT
TO DETAILED DESIGN
BIOPOD D
FILTER AREA: 75m?
FILTER DEPTH: 0.4m
EXTENDED DETENTION DEPTH: 0.2m
[ EXISTING SURFACE
LEGEND:
NOTES:
1. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH
LATEST ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No.
16-001014-01.
SITE BOUNDARY
PROPOSED STORMWATER DRAINAGE
PROPOSED STORMWATER EASEMENT
EXISTING SWALE
BIORETENTION FILTER
CONCEPT PLAN ONLY
NOT TO BE USED FOR
CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
ALCS,
[DRAW]
DATE
05.02.16
AMENDMENT DETAILS.
DESIGN CHECK
OzmzozmE>
= eo[@]>
M
RH
20017
UPDATED CONTROL BASIN
DRAWN CHECK
150
1100
1100
4200
"SCALE (METRES 7
eee
ee ee.
MIGROFICM No,
1 2M
PROJECT No.
B14158.W
3 4 5 MM
SURVEYOR: KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES
49 THE ESPLANADE MAROOCHYDORE
Ph (07) 5443 2844 Fax (07) 5443 7146
APPROVED ANDREW McPHAIL RPEQ 6921
MATTHEW HLL RPEQ 11578
FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTO
“CLIENT
PALM LAKES RESORT
PROECT
PALM LAKES - COOROY
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
Cc
calibre
CONSULTING
(CONSULT AUSTRALIA
4
Callbre Consulting (QLD} Pty Lid
‘Greurd Flor, 545 Queen 8 Brisbane, GID Aurraia 400).
‘Tidephone 07 3895 3444 Facsimile 07 3895 2400
Racerw Garton Mateus tty Bane Danae Cet
‘DRAWING TITLE
BIOPOD D2
DETAILS PLAN
ented
Sompeny
‘DRAWING NUMBER TSSUE
‘ta B14158.W-SK113 A
Page 64
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX H OPERATIONAL WORKS DRAWINGS [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX H OPERATIONAL WORKS DRAWINGS
Page 65
Noosa Council documents
-
NOOSA COUNCIL
APPROVED PLAN
OPW16/0203 5 DEC 2016
Document Set ID: 20226266
Version: 1, Version Date: 10/01/2017 Print Date: 10 January 2017, 1:42 PM
Page 66
Noosa Council documents
-
NOOSA COUNCIL
APPROVED PLAN
OPW16/0203 5 DEC 2016
Document Set ID: 20226266
Version: 1, Version Date: 10/01/2017 Print Date: 10 January 2017, 1:42 PM
Page 67
Noosa Council documents
-
NOOSA COUNCIL
APPROVED PLAN
OPW16/0203 5 DEC 2016
Document Set ID: 20226266
Version: 1, Version Date: 10/01/2017 Print Date: 10 January 2017, 1:42 PM
Page 68
RETAINING WALL
(SLEEPERS)
ACCESS GATE FOR 7
22 MAINTENANCE
+--+ --—-- —.,
p=
DRAWINGS FOR ROAD AND
REFER TO STAGE 1A
OPERATIONAL WORKS
DRAINAGE LAYOUT
GROSS POLLUTANT
TRAP (GPT)
1.
CENTRAL BIORETENTION BASIN SPECIFICATIONS
SERERAL BIURE TENTION BASIN SPECIICA TIONS.
FILTER MEDIA AREA: 650.25m‘
* /|BIORETENTION BASIN
CENTRAL
F
i ee
NO PONDING (i.e. DEPRESSIONS OR
MOUNDS) THAT WOULD PROHIBIT
FISH HOVERENT BETWEEN ZONES
1
“gn WATER QUALITY CONTROL POND)
(INCLUDING DETENTION STORAGE)
i
om Nenigen WALL
AND SPA
Cc
PERMANENT SIGNAGE 3.
FOR BIORETENTION BASIN
(REFER TO NOTE 11) 4
CLUB HOUSE
ene
om SAFETY
: Ry F FENCE
™\
NTRAL B
RETAINING WALL
(SLEEPERS)
BOWLING a
5
SIGNAGE TO BE ERECTED
AROUND POND AND OUTDOOR
BBQ AREAS TO DISCOURAGE
FEEDING OF BIRDS
ANY SOFT CLAYS TO DEPTHS OF APPROXIMATELY 0.3m IS REQUIRED.
THE STRIPPED SURFACE AND EMBANKMENT FOUNDATION IS TO BE INSPECTED AND TESTED BY A GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
SUBJECT TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INSPECTION EXCAVATION OF A CUTOFF KEY ALONG THE NEW
EMBANKMENT CENTRELINE AT LEAST 0.5m - 1.0m INTO THE FOUNDATION MATERIALS SHALL BE REQUIRED.
POND TO BE LINED WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, ie: CLAY OR OTHER APPROVED MATERIAL, i.e. BELOW NOL RL
99.20.
ROCK RETAINING WALL
10m OVERFLOW WEIR
RL 100.90
cone
FOR THE ENTIRE NEW EMBANKMENT AREA STRIPPING OF VEGETATION AND ANY HIGHLY ORGANIC TOP SOILS AND
sta POND) SPECIFICATIONS
NORMAL OPERATING LEVEL: RL 99.20
NORMAL OPERATING AREA: 1,940m?
PERMANENT PONDED VOLUME: 1,840m?
TEMPORARY PONDING SURFACE LEVEL: RL 99.60
EXTENDED DETENTION DEPTH: 400mm
DEEP WATER ZONE SURFACE AREA: 1,495m?
MACROPHYTE PLANTING AREA: 443m?
NOTIONAL DETENTION TIME: 48.4 hrs
EQUIVALENT PIPE DIAMETER: 55mm
Pera wns
———
CARPARK DESIGN TO BE 7
CONFIRMED DURING
DETAILED DESIGN mise) /
3
7
DESIGN SURFACE CONTOUR
{0.2m INTERVALS)
“TTT TTT” BATTERS (GRADE AS SPECIFIED)
PROPOSED BOULDER RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED SLEEPER RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED FENCE
EXISTING STORMWATER PIPE
PROPOSED STORMWATER PIPE
FUTURE STORMWATER PIPE
© 100% SUBSOIL AND CLEANOUT PITS
SUBSOIL COLLECTOR
ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION
ae) ur
MACROPHYTE ZONE
REINFORCED TURF
MAINTENANCE ACCESS TRACK
(REINFORCED TURF)
THE CLAY FILLING FOR THE WETLAND SHOULD BE PLACED IN TWO HORIZONTAL LAYERS OF 150mm THICKNESS.
CLAY LINER SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 300mm AND COMPACTED TO A DENSITY RATIO WITHIN THE TES:
RANGE 98% - 102% STANDARD COMPACTION (AS 1289.5.1.1). PLACEMENT MOISTURE CONTENTS SHOULD BE
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT FOR STANDARD
WITHIN THE RANGE OMC - 1% TO OMC
COMPACTION).
+ 2% (WHERE OMC =
CLAY LINER SHOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF 1x10-? m/s.
NON-DISPERSIVE CLAYS ARE DESIRABLE.
1, REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING
DETAILS.
2. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH LATEST
ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No. 16-001014-01.
TOPSOIL MUST BE TESTED BY N.A.T.A. ACCREDITED LABORATORY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.S. 4419 (SOILS FOR
LANDSCAPING AND GARDEN USE) AND SHOULD BE PLACED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 300mm.
TOPSOIL MAY BE TREATED WITH GYPSUM OR LIME.
3. REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-403 TO 16-001014-406 FOR
BASIN SETOUT DATA.
2. FILTER DEPTH: 0.4m 10. TOPSOIL LAYER (OVER CLAY LAYER) REQUIRED FOR MACROPHYTE PLANTING AREAS.
3. EXTENDED DETENTION DEPTH: 0.3m 11. PERMANENT SIGNAGE TO READ: “BIORETENTION BASIN - THIS BIORETENTION BASIN REDUCES THE POLLUTION OF 4. REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-400 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND
4, BASIN SURFACE LEVEL: 100.05m AHD OUR WATERWAYS BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF HEAVY METALS, LITTER, SUSPENDED SOLIDS, AND NUTRIENTS DETAILS.
DISCHARGED TO SIX MILE CREEK"
N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
pa AMEWOMENT DETALS eson concn vous Umm sesnoren"™ | SURVEYOR: ML_SURVEYS a cameo
re Cc 38 Leybourne Street, Chelmer QLD 4068 PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD CONSULT AUSTRALIA CENTRAL BASIN
E . M wu 2 0 2 4 6 8 1 “ Mob: 0412 744 223 E: [email protected] - LAYOUT PLAN
€ \ PROWCT Ha
is —— coo ne a oe PALM LAKE RESORT Calibre Se aa _—_
Ne cM = Telephone 07 3895 3444 Focsinle 07 3895 3400 enon 46-001014-403 A
sir FOR & ON’BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING ‘Wabane Canbere lobourne Syénny Singapore Sunsine Const Lie 4064 =" =
Page 69
f- TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DETAIL
" PROVIDED ON DRG No. 16-001014-400
\
.
om a
2
FER TO DRG No. 16-001014-405
) ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION
Dsp = 200mm
THICKNESS = 400mm
MATCHLINE FOR CONTINUATION RE
REFER TO OPERATIONAL
WORKS DRAWINGS FOR ROAD
AND DRAINAGE DETAILS ™~, ; : ~ _-
. mk ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION ~~ ~
Dsg = 200mm
THICKNESS = 400mm
GENERAL_NOTES:
1. REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING
DETAILS.
THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LATEST
ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No. 16-001014-01.
v
oS ; REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-403 AND 16-001014-407 FOR LEGEND
FER TO DRG No. 16-001014-406
AND BASIN SETOUT DATA.
4, REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-400 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS.
N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
ras [oc eee roan wera [oem como eens eras) “enorme T SURVEYOR: ML_SURVEYS “— aN o""" CENTRAL BASIN
ome [CH | aw | 0609.16 01 je _—
siete Ce |e gy yes Rite earn sue, | PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD C— a SETOUT PLAN
ile eawn omex| 1200 a PROSECT Mo, THEW SU 785 PALM LAKE RESORT i Calibre Consulting (QLD) Pty Lid a SHEET 1 OF 4
i che woo | eee a COOROY Callbre este he I _
Sir FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING ‘Wadena Carbara Maboore Spanay Seeger Buti Cust Oto 16-001014-404 A
Page 70
a ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION
- —— ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION Dsp = 300mm
f-— Ly THICKNESS = 600mm
THICKNESS = 600mm
— TN WIDTH = 1.5m MIN. FROM BASE OF WALL
a ES ee ee Dep = 300mm
7 CHANNEL TO CONVEY
FLOWS TO EXISTING SWALE
474° BASE WIDTH = 3m
+_+ BATTER SLOPE = 16
+ + +
RISER OUTLET PIT FOR DETAILS
REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-410 REINFORCED TURF
~ MAJOR OVERFLOW WEIR FOR DETAILS
+” + REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-410
ee ee
CARETAKERS BUILDING
FINAL LEVELS OF CARETAKERS
BUILDING AND CAR PARK TO BE
CONFIRMED DURING DETAILED
DESIGN PHASE OF STAGE 3
TURNING AREA FOR
MAINTENANCE VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE ACCESS TRACK
(REINFORCED TURF)
MATCHLINE FOR CONTINUATION REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-404
BOWLING GREENS
RL 101.80m AHD
GENERAL_NOTES:
1. REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING DETAILS.
2. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LATEST
ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No. 16-001014-01.
3. REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-403 AND 16-001014-407 FOR LEGEND AND
BASIN SETOUT DATA.
4. REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-400 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS.
F NO\NMCU15/0111\& REC15/0031
we [or [ean Aucsouerr Devan pen evscx mm sees wmoruv"* | SURVEYOR: ML_SURVEYS = suees m= CENTRAL BASIN
AL | an | TH CM [ue ses 2 ee Fea Gee Tis se Esurepaisinefe teen Le Dae WORKS) Ftv EID Cc SETOUT PLAN
¢ mawn crox| 120° 8 PROSECT Neo MATTHEW STARR RPEO 9485 PALM LAKE RESORT il Calibre Consuing (QLD) Ply id SHEET 2 OF 4
2 cm 16-001014 CLL Are WML EO COOROY Calibre Sc een ae Sen aT =e
F FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING ishane Carbone Mebourne Syty Sigapar Sunshine Comet Lic 4064 16-001014-405 A
Page 71
i i /
900X900mm OUTLET PIT
TOP RL 100.35
ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION
Dsp = 200mm
THICKNESS = 400mm
REFER TO
STAGE 1A OPERATIONAL
WORKS DRAWINGS
CENTRAL BIORETENTION BASIN
nes /| SURFACE LEVEL: 100.05m AHD } f
/ /°-|FILTER AREA: 650m? / wo
oo S| FILTER DEPTH: 0.4m )
/* | TEMPORARY PONDING DEPTH: 0.3m| °
REFER TO STAGE 1A
OPERATIONAL WORKS DRAWINGS
FOR DRAINAGE INFORMATION
(f “>
4 a
MII) ¢ 900X900mm OUTLET PIT ~ —
TK TOP RL 100.35 A
FOR ROAD AND
DRAINAGE DETAILS
s REFER TO STAGE 1A
\ OPERATIONAL WORKS
DRAWINGS
GENERAL _ NOTES:
1, REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING
DETAILS.
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
TRACK (REINFORCED TURF)
2. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
LATEST ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No. 16-001014-01.
CLUBHOUSE
PAD RL 102.60m AHD 3. REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-403 AND 16-001014-407 FOR
LEGEND AND BASIN SETOUT DATA.
N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
rar [ence fone Avevowet DETAR pesion cnecx = ueree? semorm"* | SURVEYOR: ML_SURVEYS a a sanea m= CENTRAL BASIN
me] cH | JW | 06.09.16
é : SL AR PATE: TO NTA ASH cM woo 1 0 47 2 3 4 SM ioe we te ZA be wartnyOulsurayseon.an | __P ALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD Cc Ss SETOUT PLAN
ze pean cmc] 17° od me TEM si PALM LAKE RESORT i cole Cnutig (0 SHEET 3 OF 4
ie a 16-001014 ZZ se a COOROY calibre cea eee akan Se ae a =
alr FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING ie Ce team ey Sap Bata 16-001014-406 A
Page 72
CENTRAL BASIN SETOUT
CENTRAL BASIN SETOUT
CENTRAL BIORETENTION BASIN SETOUT
MACROPHYTE ZONE SETOUT
SOPs [EASTING [NORTHING LEVEL tm AAD) SOPs [EASTING [NORTHING [LEVEL Im AHD) SOPs [EASTING [NORTHING [LEVEL tm AHD) SOPs [EASTING [NORTHING [LEVEL Im AHD)
v1 672.905 | 1043.03 101.910 48 ___|737.197 [1005.46 99.250 100 [677.664 | 993.668 100.800 150 [680.236 | 1015.270 98.950
02 [676.372 _|1043.803 101.735 49 |718.799 | 1003.617 98.950 101 [689.120 | 996.820 100.800 151__[681.248 |1026.840 98.950
03 [682.165 | 1040.250 101.275 50 |712.606 | 1000.863 99.250 102 (690.519 | 996.281 100.800 152 [692.867 | 1032.043 98.950
0% 672.922 [1040.603 101.780 51 709.330 [999.457 98.950 103 | 691.858 [994.767 100.500 153 (748.950 | 1026.841 98.700
05 676.372 | 1040.803 101.575 52 | 707.168 [998.989 99.250 104 (696.526 | 992.950 100.500 154 [752.944 [028.525 98.700
06 [679.491 | 1038.890 107.280 53 | 706.079 [998.863 98.950 105 (698.545 193.190 100.800 155 [760.079 | 1028.657 98.950
07 [676.968 |1036.384 101.300 54 [700.798 _|999.039 99.250 106 | 701.653 | 991.992 100.800 156 [762.829 _|1020.554 98.950
08 (684.073 | 1041.851 701.300 55 [700.054 [999.169 98.950 107 [712.129 1972.39 100.800 157___/757.585 | 103.815 98.700
09 [751.455 | 1039.659 101.300 56 1692.66 | 1001.72% 99.250 108 {710.705 | 970.037 100.630 158___|749.528 | 108.351 98.700
10 767.459 __|1033.612 107.300 57 [685.500 | 106.851 98.950 109 [707.057 | 966.751 100.050 159__[ 745.469 | 1007.235 98.700
1 767.404 | 1030.683 100.900 58 | 682.562 [010.252 99.250 110 | 703.093 | 967.286 100.050 160___| 742.972 | 1007.412 98.700
2 770.831 | 1022.04 100.900 59 | 6et.r72 [012.459 98.950 1__|702.320 1961.56 100.050 161 (740.591 | 1008.689 98.700
8 773.082 __|1019.801 707.300 60 [679.521 _|1016.507 99.250 112 [694.342 | 963.480 100.050 162___| 712.699 | 101.269 98.950
14 ___|772.980 [107.673 101.300 6 768.264 | 1041.655 98.950 113 [681.954 | 976.601 100.050
5 7.517 [104.938 101.300 62 | 769.943 [035.294 99.250 111 683.917 197.361 100.050
16 762.428 _|1002.001 107.300 63 [772.552 | 1034.163 98.950 115 [683.502 _1978.434 100.050
7 750.829 | 991.069 101.300 64 ___|777.016 |1022.803 99.250 116 [683.285 _|978.994 100.050
18 [736.8460 | 993.246 701.300 65 [175.761 | 020.128 701.300 117 [682.871 | 980.065 100.050
9 731.221 {100.016 707.300 66 _|776.034 | 1019.056 107.300 118 [680.804 |979.261 100.050
20 172.950 | 998.585 101.300 67] 183.266 | 1019.769 101.300 119 [678.859 [985.353 100.050
21 721.923 [997.599 107.300 68 1783.90 | 1013.301 107.300 120 [688.041 | 994.020 100.050
22 [700.882 [993.361 700.800 69 1779.94 {012.910 107.506 121 {709.566 [980.859 100.050
23 [698.904 [994.123 100.800 70 __|780.172 | 1010.599 107.600 121 [700.575 1.989.193 100.250
2h [697.566 1.995.656 100.500 7h 785.430 | 105.123 107.600 122__|708.520 _|981.380 100.050
25 [692.900 | 997.453 100.500 72 |196.896 [001.475 100.329 123 {708.770 [980.716 700.050
26 1.690.879 _|997.21% 100.800 73 |797.737___ [998.586 100.345 124 [707.697 | 970.139 100.050
27 [689.479 | 997.753 700.800 7] 783.261 | 1003.050 107.700 125 | 708.725 | 971.413 100.050
28 [677.639 [995.157 400.800 75 |775.019 | 011.633 101.700 126 [680.807 197.553 100.050
30 [679.028 __|1021.565 99.250 80 | 761508 [1023564 | OUTLET PIT 126 [693.054 1.990.965 100.050
31 681.916 | 1028.138 99.250 81 762.956 _|1024.149 | OUTLET PIT 127 [683.602 [979.116 100.050
32 [684.050 |1029.931 99.250 82 | 782.207 {031.946 98.300 128 [689.926 |979.476 100.050
33 (686.726 _|1031.292 99.250 83 | 782.833 | 1034.171_ | ROCK ARMOUR 129 [694.422 |978.300 100.050
34 [687.452 | 1031.535 99.250 84 | 787.788 [036.388 | ROCK ARMOUR 130 |700.300 |979.317 100.050
35 [693.544 [1032329 99.250 85 | 789.308 | 032.633 | ROCK ARMOUR 131 ]701.800 | 980.340 700.050
36 [702.228 {1030.41 99.250 86 | 784.207 | 1030.778 | ROCK ARMOUR 132 [707.765 | 981.536 100.050
37 [747.302 |1030.379 99.250 87 |677.163 | 1008.56 | ROCK ARMOUR 133 | 707.644 [980.948 100.050
381.752.3466 |1031.564 99.250 88 [677-112 [1011623 | ROCK ARMOUR 134 (702.138 |979.844 100.050
39 |756.57% | 1031.07% 99.250 90 1691.42 [101.947 97.200 135 [700.638 [978.821 100.050
40 [762.568 [025.204 99.250 7 695.871 {019.739 97.200 136 694.270 197.719 100.050
a |763.129 | 1020.531 99.250 92 |705.036 _|1015.931 97.200 137 [689.774 [978.895 100.050
42 |762.249 | 1016.355 99.250 93 [706.810 | 1009.895 97.200 138 (683.819 [978.557 100.050
43 [761.898 |1015.444 99.250 94 | 705.697 | 109.385 97.200 139 | 705.571 | 966.951 100.050
be [760.604 | 1012.887 99.250 95 [702.056 _|1009.477 97.200 140 [704.662 [960.075 100.971
“5 | 151372 ]1004.466 99.250 96 [748.234 |1016.557 97.200 141___|703.119 |957.108 401.621
46 [145.866 | 1002.954 99.250 97 {751.553 __|1018.967 97.200 142 1699.97 [954.115 102.000
47 [744.994 [1003.25 99.250
N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
me or ff sone it a oo | SWEtO SUEY sue aun sase | BALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD oo oo" CENTRAL BASIN
BAL east eo oo is CM | + 0 1 2 3 6 5 Hob: O12 Tau 223 E: [email protected] _ on SETOUT PLAN
Nie £200 AB PROJECT Mo, a in ed
ip Pau 16-001014 se te PALM ARROYO" calibre Serre agen 2 Ceara A
fle cM Twephane 07 3895 3444 Facile 073895 3409 ATNary 7
Hi FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING {QLD) PTY LTD ST, CONSULTING Wtabane Cantera Hidhoare Sydny Singapers Sunihine oud Lic 4084 16. 001014-407
Page 73
BASIN EDGE
DESIGN SURFACE
DENSE PLANTING OF LOMANDRA AROUND
THE POND EDGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CANE TOAD MANAGEMENT
SECTION (A)
SCALE (Atl 1100 \co3/
SCALE (A3):1:200
DENSE PLANTING OF LOMANDRA AROUND
THE POND EDGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGN SURFACE
CANE TOAD MANAGEMENT
BASIN EDGE
BASIN EDGE
a i
EXISTING SURFACE
SECTION (8 \
SCALE (AN: 1100 \a03/
SCALE (A3):1:200
DENSE PLANTING OF LOMANDRA AROUND
THE POND EDGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CANE TOAD MANAGEMENT
MAINTENANCE ACCESS
BASIN EDGE
BOWLING GREENS
BASIN EOGE
TENNIS COURTS
“
EXISTING SURFACE
SECTION
TOPSOIL TO PLANTING ZONE (300mm)
CLAY LAYER (300mm)
NOL. 99.2m AHD
Se RL 98.70 RRS INDICATIVE MACROPHYTE PLANTING AREA
\
SW) WA Si [TTT VVV INDICATIVE VEGETATION
Shean -—o-e. NORMAL OPERATING LEVEL (RL 99.20)
BOTTOM OF CLAY LAYER
ABOVE 99.2m AHD (NOL)
Tin 8 TYP.
Tin 30 MIN.
(VARIES)
= WATER QUALITY TREATMENT LEVEL (RL 99.60)
----—-——- 1% AEP WATER LEVEL (RL 101.03)
MACROPHYTE EDGE TREATMENT DETAIL
SCALE 1:50 (A1)
SCALE 1100 (A3) N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
mn | cecelenen|_ oom AMENOMENT DETAR besion cHecx seu usres) menorm"* I SURVEYOR: ML_SURVEYS a BB suse ms CENTRAL BASIN
worl cH SW | 06.09.16
gfe oD | ane ere CM | om ss 2 ts few HL TEE 28 uray@isuveysconay |__PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD =" SECTIONS
i caw cre] 12° 13) momer ne moner i SHEET 1 OF 2
i cM 16-001014 A Ae it PALM LAKEGT OORT Calibre celia identi cohen ee Para —
é t FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING shen Cater Kahne Sy Sopp Stat SAGE 16-001014-408 A
Page 74
DESIGN SURFACE
RL 100.35
Oe
RL 100.95
gee
RISER OUTLET PIT FOR DETAILS
REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-410
600mm
|
é|
S|
Ss
ay
EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION AS PER
NOTES ON DRG No. 16-001014-403
ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION
Dsp = 300mm
THICKNESS = 600mm
KEY DEPTH = 900mm
LENGTH = 6m MIN. LENGTH
OVERFLOW WEIR
EMBANKMENT BEYOND \ DESIGN SURFACE
= —— — He EE EE
[... -
150 /
PIT IL 97.2
DESIGN SURFACE
RETAINING WALL REFER TO DRG
No. 16-001014-400 FOR DETAILS
CENTRAL BIORETENTION BASIN TOP RL 100.35
\e
4.88m_ MIN.
/ 025 }
EXISTING SURFACE DS IL 98.2
IL 98.3
Sar wear Cos)
SCALE (A3):1:200 Ye
LEVELS TO TIE IN TO
EXISTING SWALE
| SWIMMING POOL
BEYOND
TOP OF BIORETENTION
BASIN BATTER
TOP OF BIORETENTION
BASIN BATTER
BASIN END
Cos IL 99.2 \
ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION EXISTING SURFACE
Dsp = 200mm
THICKNESS = 400mm
MAJOR OVERFLOW WEIR (RL 100.50m AHD)
AND EMBANKMENT BEYOND
CENTRAL WQCP
900 X 900 OUTLET PIT
\ 375
DS IL 99.24 DS IL 99.20
BIORETENTION FILTER &
DRAINAGE LAYERS ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION
Dsy = 200mm
THICKNESS = 400mm
TOPSOIL TO PLANTING ZONE (300mm)
CLAY LAYER (300mm)
Se NORMAL OPERATING LEVEL (RL 99.20)
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT LEVEL
(WQCP - RL 99.60, BIOBASIN - RL 100.35)
~ ee DT Rene
\ Ds IL 9.67 _
B1050 AT MIN 1%
-—-—-—-—-——- 1% AEP WATER LEVEL (RL 101.03)
ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION
Dsp = 200mm THICKNESS = 400mm
1 @
SAE tak tz00 S227
N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
rast once feceo perane pesan cncx vurenes snore" SURVEYOR: ML_SURVEYS “= Ex 3," CENTRAL BASIN
water a foro Cr on pe lsd set tae owe, | _ PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD C= oe SECTIONS
# ‘i Aa PROJECT Mo. H ,
ft a 16-001014 _ ae PAM eOSRdy Calibre BeBe eee A
HE cm FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING OLD! PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING princes nsrndirachited ee 16-001014-409 A
Page 75
STRUCTURAL NOTES:
1, DESIGNED FOR LIVE LOAD 5kPa
2. REINFORCEMENT STEEL:
2.1. ABBREVIATIONS FOR STEEL GRADE AND TYPE:-"N" -
| t GRADE D500N DEFORMED BAR TO AS/NZS 4671.
ee 2.2. REINFORCEMENT 1S REPRESENTED DIAGRAMMATICALLY
| tt Li 2x@400 SIDE ORIFICE AND NOT NECESSARILY SHOWN IN TRUE PROJECTION.
ON EACH SIDE AT IL 2.3. ENSURE THE CORRECT SPACING OF BARS IS
I 99.6 180 a 180 MAINTAINED AND ALL REINFORCEMENT IS SUPPORTED
RL 100.45 IN ITS CORRECT POSITION BY APPROVED PLASTIC BAR
(eb PHIL 4 j e ewe CHAIRS, SPACERS OR SUPPORT BARS AT 800 MAX
ey LH iL 5 . CENTRES IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.
f 2.4. TIE ALL INTERSECTIONS OF BARS WITH 1.25mm MIN.
f . DIA. ANNEALED WIRE.
l 7 , 2.5. DO NOT WELD REINFORCEMENT WITHOUT APPROVAL
rT] i] i OF THE ENGINEER.
o- feat : ts : . N16-200-EW Zz . 3. FORMWORK TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AS3610.
A SSS SSS = Yj CENTRAL = 7 SK nt2-600 Ties 4, COVER TO BE 50mm U.N.O.
: | J P 4 ee
n16-200-Ew |}f" . :
WH CENTRAL . 5 : 2
I 8 | soo STRUCTURAL CERTIFICATION
WL) “ [ 3/L11-TM BTM STRUCTURAL DETAILS
50 COVER
il Ht | | + .
iT SL92 MESH TOP AND 2
t BTM. 50mm COVER Signed, fe sennenon Date AA Pay) P-
weSeyskas ri 96.30 AO A Wichael Jimmieson RPEQ 17233
Oe a For &
gq (== TYPICAL OVERFLOW WEIR EDGE DETAIL See a) an eV
LU SCALE 110 (A1)
1200 SCALE 1:20 (A3)
N16-200 ‘L’ BARS (TO MATCH 25mm BLINDING LAYER
VERT. BARS COG 500 TYP. SECTION ; 10MPa CONCRETE
RL_100.45
RE 100.45
WATER LEVEL CONTROL PIT DETAIL B30 RL 99.50 Oo
SCALE 1:20 (At) _| |_| ==
SCALE 1:40 (A3) 2x400 SIDE ORIFICES
AT IL 99.60 EACH SIDE O30 Rt 99.0
a
S.S. CHAIN BOLTED —_|
180 1200 180 1200 180 TO THREADED CAPS Lata ANCHOR D30 RL_99.30 Oo
RL_ 100.45 RL_99.10
——— —-- RL_99.00
. 7 qd |. : RL_98.90 == —— 40 RL_99.20
4 ~~ “oe RL_98.80 O Pad RL 99.20
: 7 : 2x@400 SIDE ORIFICE ON L_98.70 = =-——
—= LEACH SIDE AT IL 99.6 —_-- t - RL 98.60
. RL_98.50 5 -4 =-—
—— - RL_98.40
A ca N16-200-EW CENTRAL _ —]- 4 =—
= 100 CLASS SN6 uPVC STUBS PIPE
FOR WATER LEVEL CONTROL, WITH
a THREADED CAP STUBS TO EXTEND SECTION
r TO A MINIMUM OF 50mm INTO PIT SCALE (ASh.aD
e| p
4 JS ete 25 00
7 - . 1 7
N16-200-EW = 160m 80m m
CENTRAL . — RL 100.80 RL 100.80
— = = oe ———
ee
| =r =| 3 REFER TO TYPICAL
EDGE DETAIL
. — : \ 200 CENTRAL BIORETENTION OVERFLOW WEIR DETAIL
al | 4 LN16-200 ‘L’ BARS (TO MATCH ue ad Aa)
1508 —- Sle VERT. BARS COG 500 TYP. nei tie Rts aan aan
2 (
\ s\" SL92 MESH TOP AND BTM. \ 1.00m 2.40m 10.00m 2.40m ,_1.00m
RL_97.20 -— 50mm COVER
7 3 SRL 101,30 RL_ 101.30
q g (== =o
( RL_100.90 4
| ( EE. Sa os See a aa
SL92 MESH TOP AND BTM. 25mm BLINDING LAYER \
50mm COVER 1OMPa CONCRETE ( 150 THICK CONCRETE 500 KEY MIN. REFER TO
SECTION (A) ? 10m OVERFLOW WEIR DETAIL F72 MESH 50 FROM TOP —_—«T YPICAL EDGE DETAIL
SCALE (Atk: 1:20 I SHALE 1S OAM I
SCALE (A340 SCALE “100183 ~~ N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
rest [eoce [oem sare AmmnOMenT DETAR pesian ciecx sexe Ustes) orm" SURVEYOR: ML SURVEYS ome ~ seamen
a an 7 ant UPDATED WEIR DETAIL Ci 120 0.2 0 02 04 06 08 1 Af 38 Leybourne Street, Chelmer QLD 4068 PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD CONSULT AUSTRALIA WATER QUALITY RISER
a i 1 | Fl ———— a; Mob: 0412 744 223 E: [email protected] Sw OUTLET PIT DETAILS
Nie PROJECT Wo. APPROVED A o
a remome| so gs ps DP aun 9 as PALM LAKE RESORT e:) 0) ( a =|
he CM 43) 16-001014 Telephone 07 3895 3444 Facsimile 07 3895 3400 Convert 1 0
HG FOR & ON BEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING {QLD} PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING ‘bane Canbora Mehoure Byénty Sinipore Susi Cosel Lic 408 16-001014-41 A
Page 76
BASIN 1. EXTENDED DETENTION DEPTH: 400mm 2. FILTER AREA: 525m? 3. 1% AEP DETENTION VOLUME: 1,030m? 4. 1% AEP BASIN WSL: RL 100.5M SPECIFICATIONS / LEGEND: DESIGN SURFACE CONTOUR T T BATTERS (GRADE AS SPECIFIED) PROPOSED FENCE / eee PROPOSED STORMWATER PIPE | in 4.5), sw FUTURE STORMWATER PIPE ax ROCK SCOUR PROTECTION a REINFORCED TURF ae 100% SUBSOIL AND CLEANOUT PITS seeeeeeeeeen== SUBSOIL COLLECTOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY V\\ VA 4m OVERFLOW WEIR AT RL 100.40 FOR DETAILS REFER DRG No. 16-001014-412 SETOUT POINT TABLE SOP No. | EASTING | NORTHING [LEVEL (m AHD) Bens TTT Te SCOUR PROTECTION AND o 700.4% | 133.448 102.30 Hee ATER 02 700.420 | _1132.439 102.30 THICKNESS = 400mm 03 714.158 | _1131.676 100.80 04 714.022 1130.686 100.80 05 737.1462 | 1128.21 100.80 06 737.575 | 127.235 100.80 07 751.249 | 112.419 100.80 08 750.264 | 112.247 100.80 TS 09 751.621 | 1111434 100.80 10 750.436 | _ 1111.262 100.80 1 753.016 | 1109.276 100.40 12 749.659 1108.690 100.40 B 753.704 | _1105.336 100.40 1 750.347 | _1104.750 100.40 15 752.934 | 102.765 100.80 SEDIMENT FOREBAY 16 751.949 102.593 100.80 MIN SURFACE AREA: 6m? 17 753.106 | _1101.780 100.80 FOREBAY DEPTH: 0.3m 18 752.121 1101.608 100.80 REFER 16-00-001014 DWG 9 754.592 | 1093.272 100.80 FOR TYPICAL DETAIL 20 753.607 | 1093.10 100.80 a 754.739 | 092.427 100.80 22 753.754 | 1092.255 100.80 OUTLET CONTROL PIT FOR DETAILS B 752.477 | _1083.916 100.80 co REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-416. 2 750.971 | 1083764 100.80 ! “| 30 117.545 1125.015 99.10 | SL 31 736.712 | 122.207 99.10 ' 32 74.685 | 116.483 99.10 | REFER TO FUTURE OPERATIONAL 3 7T41.571_| 1098.020 99.10 ' WORKS PLANS FOR FINAL eNO 34 745.270 | _1093.489 99.10 | 35 41.249 | _1093.635 99.10 ' 36 715.308 1119.401 99.10 | 37 740.405 | 1085.475 100.45 ' 38 736.201 | 1087.812 100.45 | CARPARKING SPACES NOTES: 39 737.606 | _1084.591 100.71 ' 4. REFER TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS DRAWINGS FOR PLANTING 40 734.695 | 1087.567 100.71 DETAILS. a 727.575 | _1084.508 100.35 | “2 727.550 | 1087.508 100.35 2. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH LATEST iB 766.112} 109.396 98.00 iL) | ISSUE OF CALIBRE CONSULTING REPORT No. 16-001014-01. 4b 761.942 | _1101.782 97.90 i is T6007} Teo 5B ooo 3. REFER TO DRG No. 16-001014-400 FOR GENERAL NOTES AND 46 762.192 113.315 97.68 ! ( : \ 47 764.373 | 110.336 97.77 j \ N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031 vast [cas [one] ote Seoun Gneoe TORE TIETREST THORP Wa aT aR TE AMENDMENT DETAILS SURVEYOR: ML SURVEYS me orf fe 38 Leybourne Street Chelmer QLD 4068 PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD co nnun NORTHERN BASIN ut 02 0 2 46 6 8 wm Mob: 0412 744 223 E: [email protected] [| ——— LAYOUT PLAN NTe 1:400 AR PROJECT No. a D eran 16-001014 ‘ANDREW MCPHAIL RPEQ 6921 PALM CAKE RESORT Call re Ca aS (OP en md tote! TaAWNG HOGER resus] Sle =! Te 07 3895 3444 Facsimile 07 3895 3400 a cM CONSULTING fo) FT LO STAGE 2 CONSULTING Se eee ee 16-001014-411
Page 77
PROPERTY BOUNDARY DESIGN SURFACE EXISTING SURFACE SECTION (“A NY, ACCESS TRACK DESIGN SURFACE REFER OPERATIONAL WORKS CIVIL SCOUR PROTECTION PACKAGE FOR DRAINAGE DETAILS Dso = 200 THICKNESS = 400mm SECTION 5 (8 DESIGN SURFACE EXISTING SURFACE 4m WIDE OVERFLOW WEIR AT 100.4 (BEYOND) RL_99.00m_ AHD <— LEGEND REFER TO DRG NO ------------- TEMPORARY PONDING LEVEL (RL 99.40) 16-001014-411 FOR. Rock ae PROTECTION ‘50 = OUTLET PIT DETAILS SECTION 7 () THICKNESS = 400mm — a 5% AEP WATER LEVEL (RL 100.37) -_—--o 1% AEP WATER LEVEL (RL 100.51) BIORETENTION FILTER AND DRAINAGE LAYERS REFER TO LLZLZA,.-RG No. 16-001014-400 FOR TYPICAL BIORETENTION s ECTION N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031 om or To [ans sctven pease OL’ | 30 Leyboune Sires Chelmer OLD 4068 PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD C —_—, con uum NORTHERN BASIN é 4 400 1 20244 #2 3 & 5 At Mob: 0412 744 223 E: [email protected] hg DP SECTIONS sc exw cnzox] *270 3] proner ne Pm T(r | PALM dake RESORT all Cale Cont (LD) Py Ls a : D 7 ANDREW MCPHAIL RPEQ 6921, OOROY C I re Ground For, $45 Quen Sed, Bsbore, QLD Asia 4000 Cony | DRAWNG WOMEN SSCSC*dC BO 8 = cM“ 16-001014 FOR & ON pi cw ( (QLD) PTY LTD STAGE 2 CONSULTING Sree nee aoe ee = Res 16-001014-412
Page 78
OUTLET PIT TO BE
DESIGNED BY OTHERS
900x900 PRIMARY 900x900 SECONDARY
OUTLET CONTROL PIT OUTLET CONTROL PIT
RL_100.15m_AHD
———————
RL_100.00m AHD
3
2x O250 ORIFICE :
AT IL 99.40 “
RL_99.40m AHD
oF
y Vy
—|
1
RL _98.00m AHD | . I\
FILTER MEDIA REFER DWG SUBSOIL DRAINAGE 1 x G300 ORIFICE
16-001014-400 FOR TYPICAL
BIORETENTION DETAIL
NORTHERN BASIN OUTLET PIT DETAIL
SCALE 1:20 (At)
SCALE 1:40 (A3)
2.40m 4.00m 2.40m 1.00m
RL 100.80 RL_100.80
= Te -
\\ soe KEY REFER TO TYPICAL
150 THICK CONCRETE EDGE DETAILS PROVIDED ON
F712 MESH 50 FROM TOP DRG. NO. 16-001014-410
NORTHERN BASIN OVERFLOW WEIR DETAIL
SCALE 1:25 (A1)
SCALE 1:50 (A3)
N.S.C. REF NO. MCU15/0111 & REC15/0031
TAGROFLNT Ros Daawana THLE
fen [use bowel eras escn creo Sea TEST mine T surveyor: ML_SURVEYS =“ P~
= M | 6.09.56 420 0.2 0 0.2 04 06 08 1 AL 38 Leybourne Street, Chelmer QLD 4068 PALM LAKE WORKS PTY LTD CONSULT AUSTRALIA NORTHERN BASIN
aE Of, Mob: 0412 744 223 E: [email protected] fd <2 iP 4 DETAILS
Nic PROJECT Wo. APPROVED a , . - a
a PRAWN CHECK) 4950.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0 1.25 At ANDREW MCPHAIL RPEQ 6921 PALM COG RESORT calibre nce cr aa = awe “ae
HE “ls == .| 16-0104 V4 Teephne 07 38953444 Facsimile 073895 3400 SO 16-001014-413
if For _& ON-GEHALF OF CALIBRE CONSULTING (QLD) PTY LTO STAGE 2 CONSULTING ee — -
Page 79
CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX I COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE [OCR of page images] CALIBRE CONSULTING APPENDIX! COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE
Page 80
Chris Mok
From: Chris Mok
Sent: Friday, 23 December 2016 12:55 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: Andrew McPhail; Matthew Starr; Pamela Arconado
Subject: [pending]FW: Hydraulic & Water Quality Conditions for OpWorks (16).docx
Attachments: WQCP PI & Corrective Measures.pdf; B14158.W-SK102(D).pdf; 161223_Palm_Lakes_GenericC2Node.sqz
Hi Cherie,
Please find our comments in green below.
Calibre is on leave until the 9th of January, but if you could please review the week before when you get back that
would be greatly appreciated.
Have a good break.
Thanks,
Chris
Chris Mok
Engineer – Water & Environment
T 07 3895 3444
E [email protected]
This email should be read in conjunction with Calibre Consulting's Disclaimer
From: Pamela Arconado [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 19 December 2016 4:59 PM
To: Cherie O'Sullivan <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew McPhail <[email protected]>; Chris Mok <[email protected]>;
Monkeith Kadhum <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Hydraulic & Water Quality Conditions for OpWorks (16).docx
Hi Cherie,
1
Page 81
Thank you for sending through the draft conditions.
Please note the following:
a. Please refer to the attached B14158.W-SK102 for your review.
This design is changed again. If Calibre is seeking approval of this plan please provide me the music model that
shows the changes (i.e. 0.9% treatment of D3 and 80/60/45) will still achieve the overall outcomes.
It is intended to keep the strategy you have recently reviewed and accepted. Biopod D3 will provide 75m2 filter area.
We have reworded this label for clarity. Refer to Amended Issue D of Drawing No. B14158.W‐SK102 attached for
details.
b. We will update the design of the central basin and hydrological modelling to achieve no increase in peak
flows from the pre-development condition.
Does this mean another plan is on its way to get approved?
Updates to design of central basin is a Monkeith query to ensure peak flows are mitigated back to existing
conditions (recent changes to central bio‐basin will change hydrology and so will be updated in the revised report).
There will be no change to recent stormwater quality strategy (shown in Issue D of Drawing No. B14158.W‐SK102
attached)
c. Outlet from Southern basin to Central Basin is 900mm dia.
Noted
Our comments on the draft conditions are as follows (The first three (3) items are the major ones):
1. Item 19 – This line should read “The pre-start meeting for stormwater management infrastructure only, must
be scheduled…….”
Unable to change. The MCU required the SWQMP to be approved prior to issue of any Op Works. The agreement
was then for its to be provided prior to issue of op works that involve stormwater infrastructure. Accepting it prior
to the pre start meeting, i.e. before the Op Works commence, is as far as I can justify to push is back in line with the
conditions.
Noted.
No Stormwater Management Plan works will progress before Stormwater Quality Management Plan is approved.
2. Item 19.11 – Based on DA conditions and as per approved Letter Report (No.14158W.07L dated 8 October
2015), minimum 20% coverage is acceptable for ponds.
Noted‐ will change to 20% coverage across the pond to be consistent with s3.1 of the letter report (apologies for the
mix up with the wetland coverage)
Noted
3. 500 m2 Functional Filter Media Area size for Bio-pod C2 (Age Care Facility) – B14158.W-SK102 Rev C
(attached) specified the provision of multiple bio-retention pods with combined fill area of 500m2 or
combination with proprietary product, to achieve 80/60/45 load reduction objective.
While this principle is supported ‐ I will need you to please demonstrate that the same overall pollutant reduction
targets outcome will still be achieved in the music model.
Noted – We have modelled a generic node at C2 that individually achieves 90/60/45 for Catchment C2. This meets
the same overall objectives for entire development as previously provided. Refer to the table below for a summary
table of the control measures – only change is the generic node on C2. Also refer to the latest MUSIC model with the
generic node.
Location of Stormwater Quality Treatment Functional Filter Media Area Size
Northern Basin 525m2
Central Basin 650m2
Southern Basin 305m2
Biopod D3 75m2
Biopod D2 75m2
2
Page 82
C2 SW Treatment Device/s to meet 90/60/45 %Reduction
Results are indicated in the table below:
Results at Receiving Node Source Load Residual Load % Reduction
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 36300 7740 79
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 76.4 23.1 70
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 481 240 50
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 4620 249 95
4. Item 16 – conflicts with item 12.
No Conflict. Item 12 is to do with commencement of construction of the biobasins – such as installing the sand. Item
16 has to do with installation of landscaping.
Noted ‐ planting will be undertaken after 80% of building phase completion as per our report and WBD guidelines.
In terms of requiring 80% of upstream earthworks catchment to have suitable groundcover before functional
elements of bioretention basin can be installed, this is not a requirement of Option 1 outlined in the WBD guidelines
as the biobasin functional elements will have suitable sediment protection. Refer to the below procedure.
Option 1 of WBD Construction and Establishment Guidelines (which we are proposing) indicates the following
procedure during construction and building phase:
During earthworks phase functional elements of basin (outlet, filter, drainage layer) are installed with
protection (as per below)
Temporary sediment fences around perimeter of basin, and filter cloth and turf above filter layer so that
basin can function as a sediment basin during construction
After 80% building phase completion removal of temporary measures (sediment fence and filter cloth) will
occur so planting of biobasin can commence.
5. Item 8 – Should read “…all hardstand areas within the site except for small car parking area adjacent to the
Southern Basin are treated by the bio-basin. The Trading Post Road by-passes the bio-basin……..”
I propose to change the word biobasin to “water polishing devices “.
Noted – As per the recently updated strategy and Drawing No. B14158.W-SK102 there are some areas near the
entrance and 6 lots immediately north of Trading Post Road cul-de-sac that were modelled as bypassing treatment
(orange hatch on plan). This still achieves the overall load reduction results that have recently been reviewed.
6. Item 19.10 – The report will specify non-use of fertiliser around water bodies.
What about pesticide use?
Bio-degradable pesticides will be used.
7. Item 11 – This line item does not agree with the report. Please note that the report has proposed to adopt
Option 1 of Table 4.4 and section 4.7.2 of Water By Design’s Construction and Establishment Guidelines
(2011)
These conditions are for Op Works stage 2 and the only device stage 2 has is a biobasin.
See response to Item 4 above.
The SWMP and SMCMP report provides details of design and management of all stormwater management devices
within the overall development (including GPTs, pond and bioretention systems). As indicated in our reports we are
seeking approval for all stormwater management devices in the overall development. Stage 4 and 5 Opworks
Drawings will be provided at a later date.
3
Page 83
8. Item 19.2 – Please clarify
Performance outcomes give something to measure against to identify when a corrective action needs to be taken.
At the moment a lot of the report just talks about the actions/steps a maintenance crew needs to implement – but
doesn’t give the target of what is trying to be achieved.
The performance indicators are actually detailed in the letter report No.14158W.07L dated 8 October 2015– so just
need to be transferred across to the new report.
The corrective actions will guide maintenance crews of what to do when performance indicators are not being met.
Specific indicators from the approved letter report was provided in the SMCMP within the body of the report (for
example Section 2.3.3 below) and in the inspection and maintenance checklists. I’ve attached the WQCP inspection &
Maintenance Requirement tables for WQCP taken out of our report as an example of how the Performance Indicators
have been integrated with recommended corrective measures.
Item 19.3 – Please note that fish movement is provided between deep water zones through connectivity of the pond.
We don’t understand how ponding will prohibit fish movement.
Item 19.3 has to do with how to prevent wheel ruts etc that happen after design/construct is complete.
Access maintenance tracks with reinforced turf have been provided to prevent wheel ruts during operational phase.
The inspection checklists attached indicates that that if depressions or mounds are found >100mm then filling, re-
profiling and if necessary replanting will be undertaken. This is predominantly to avoid mosquito habitats forming but
also prevents isolated ponds that may trap fish. Design of the pond and access between deep water zones allows for
fish movement.
9. Item 19.4 – Standard construction methodology accounts for these items and are also highlighted in the
report.
Please detail or make reference to this in the SWMP also
The SWMP outlines analysis undertaken for design of stormwater management devices to meet objectives.
The SMCMP report outlines the maintenance procedures.
References will be provided in SMCMP to highlight our responses to these specific items.
10. Item 19.5 – Please clarify
This section is referred to in the SWMP but is not provided
This is a reference to Section 4.4.4 and will be updated in the amended report.
11. Item 19.6 – Some macrophyte species have been provided on plans however, we cannot provide a more
extensive plant list.
Pamela advised “cannot” is a typo and the list of species can be provided
Noted
12. Item 19.7 – Monthly inspections during construction and establishment have been specified in the report.
Where do they include inspecting for birds and depressions?
Section 2.2.1 indicates that monthly inspections will be undertaken during establishment and construction. This also
provides details regarding birds and depressions.
13. Item 19.8 – Refer to report for construction protocol for all water quality treatment devices.
What sections?
Construction protocols are detailed in Section 2.2 and 3.2 of the SMCMP.
Happy to discuss over the phone when you are free.
Kind regards,
4
Page 84
Pamela Arconado
Senior Engineer - Urban Development
T +61 7 323 15505
E [email protected]
This email should be read in conjunction with Calibre Consulting's Disclaimer
From: Cherie O'Sullivan [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2016 9:20 AM
To: Pamela Arconado <[email protected]>
Cc: Monkeith Kadhum <[email protected]>; Andrew McPhail
<[email protected]>
Subject: Hydraulic & Water Quality Conditions for OpWorks (16).docx
Hi Pamela,
As promised, please find attached the proposed conditions to be included in the Operational Works approval we
have been discussing.
Condition 64 says for the external site to be included as the development.
You will see I have a note that I need to check B14158.W‐SK105
I will be back after midday on Monday if you would like to discuss anything further.
Kind Regards
Cherie
5