Original source · versioned page text
Attachment 4 - Stormwater Managment Plan
The original of this document is very large (17.2 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.
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 drawnSQIDEP Evaluation SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs
Checks were carried out to examine the historical rainfall record (historic radar) and a
number of selected events as a ‘sensibility check’ to verify the on-site measurements were in
line with what should be expected.
Events
Radar records were used to examine historic rainfall. This is able to provide an indication of
rainfall occurrence and intensity. Figure 4 shows radar results for the 7th July and the
corresponding flow rates provided in ‘SQIDEP BOE Application - Supporting Information’.
In general terms:
• Higher rainfall intensities should manifest as higher peak flows through the device:
• Flow peaks through the device should match altered intensity as a storm front
passes; and
• The duration of an event (from start to finish) should match the radar record.
Figure 4 Radar Rainfall Checks
For the majority of events provided for analysis the observations indicate a reasonable
match in storm and flow peaks between the site recordings and meteorological results, with
two exceptions for the 8th July 2017 and 23 September 2017.
Both these days report relatively low flow through the device (i.e. less than 0.5l/s) and
reported rainfall depth for these events were 5.4 mm and 6.6 mm respectively. Scrutiny of
the flow rainfall depth for other days indicates a higher order of flow response. As such, it is
possible that the characterization of the storm event is incorrect and has been plotted
incorrectly. Given the overwhelming correlation of the other events to the data, the rainfall
and event data is generally accepted.
Note that it is possible that the sample collected on the 8th July was as a result of continuing
flow generated by the event on the 7th July, however the radar record does not appear to
indicate that there was sufficient rainfall on the 23rd September to generate the tabled data.
26
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery 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.