Original source · versioned page text
SBSMR 20004 Revision C - Op Works Application
From the archive Stormwater Submission.zip, inside Operational Works Application OPW21/0272 Submission - DA Form 1 - Plans - Geotech Report - 32 Viewland Dr, Noosa Heads. File date in the archive: 2021-09-21 15:20.
Suite 14, Clayfield Courtyard
699A Sandgate Road, Clayfield Qld 4011
Ph: 07 3862 1886 Fx: 07 3862 1397
E: [email protected]
Site Based Stormwater
Management Plan
Project Reference: Q20004 Revision C
Prepared for: Deluca Development & Construction
Prepared by:: J. N. McKenzie {B.E. (Civil). M.I.E. Aust.}
RPEQ 2097 NPER 3
Dated:: September 21, 2021
Site Address: 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads
Project Reference: Q20004
Prepared for: Deluca Development & Construction
Prepared by: J. N. McKenzie {B.E. (Civil). M.I.E. Aust.}
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 23 pages
Page 2
CONTENTS
SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................................3
2. SITE CHARACTARISTICS ..............................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Topography ......................................................................................................................................................4
2.3 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................................4
2.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................4
2.5 Environmental Values ......................................................................................................................................4
3. SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL ..............................................................................................................................5
3.1 Erosion Potential..............................................................................................................................................5
4. SITE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................................................5
4.1 Design Rainfall Intensities ................................................................................................................................5
4.2 Performance Requirements .............................................................................................................................5
4.3 Concept Stormwater Management Layout .....................................................................................................6
5. WATER QUANTITY .....................................................................................................................................................7
5.1 Piped Drainage System – Pre-Development ....................................................................................................8
5.2 Piped Drainage System – Post Development...................................................................................................9
6. WATER QUALITY ......................................................................................................................................................10
6.1 Stormwater Quality Objectives ......................................................................................................................10
6.2 Stormwater Quality Modelling ......................................................................................................................11
6.3 Treatment Systems Required ........................................................................................................................11
6.4 Results............................................................................................................................................................12
10. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................13
12. REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................................13
10.APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................... i
Page 3
SUMMARY The following Site Based Stormwater Management Plan addresses the stormwater drainage issues associated with the development of Lot 1 on RP 226728 known as 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads The proposed development is summarized as an SDA Accommodation Development for Youngcare. The site falls approximately 7.5% to the south west corner. From an environmental perspective, there are no clear environmental values associated with the site as there are no waterways and vegetation is non-remnant. The site measures 3105m2. The existing stormwater drainage will be improved on by the stormwater management proposed herein. Erosion control measures will comply with best management practices. There will be an increase in impervious surface area due to the development but the increase in peak flow and runoff volume are mitigated by a stormwater management strategy that reduces the impact compared with existing drainage conditions. Achieving the water quality objectives is an important aspect of the proposal. The design is based on design standards as described in “State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waters” and “Queensland Urban Drainage Manual” which in turn references “Water Sensitive Urban Design for South East Queensland”. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 1
Page 4
The specific stormwater quality management objectives are met when comparing the mitigated
and unmitigated post-development site.
Developed Developed Load Reduction Required Load
Pollutant Type
Unmitigated Mitigated (%) Reduction (%)
TSS (kg/year) 352 40.3 88.5 80
TP (kg/year) 0.889 0.235 73.6 60
TN(kg/year) 6.97 3.27 53.2 45
Gross Pollutants
61 0 100 90
(kg/year)
All relevant stormwater requirements have been addressed and support the development
application of the site.
With regard to the Approved Development MCU20/0128 please find certification herein as
required by Condition 33.b If the works are carried out in accordance with the design plans the
development of the site will not create a stormwater worsening on the adjoining downstream
properties.
This report also confirms Conditions:
47.1 all runoff can be filtered via vegetated areas prior to discharge from the site.
47.2 pollutant reduction predicted for the stormwater quality treatment train is designed in
accordance with the Water by Design MUSIC modelling guidelines (Version 1) 2010.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 2
Page 5
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND This report has been prepared as an important component of the Development and Operational Works Applications. The primary focus is describing the impact of the proposed development on the local and regional stormwater drainage system, particularly from a quality and quantity perspective. 1.2 EXISTING SITE The existing site covers Lot 59 on SP 280852 and will be developed. A Locality Plan indicating the proposed development site is shown below. (Figure 1) NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 3
Page 6
2. SITE CHARACTARISTICS 2.1 TOPOGRAPHY A detailed survey of the site has been completed (by Project Urban Pty Ltd) and shows slope with a maximum site level of 78 AHD. 2.3 SOILS No specific soil testing has been completed on site at this time. Soil investigations on file for the area indicate fine to medium grained sand 2.4 VEGETATION The site falls to the south west with the highest point of the site being midway along the eastern boundary at an RL of 78m approximately. The lowest elevation in the south west corner is RL 72m. Average slope gradient is 7.5%. The site is vegetated with non-remnant trees and grasses. 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES There are no waterways or significant vegetation within the site. Environmental values of the site appear to be negligible. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 4
Page 7
3. SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL 3.1 EROSION POTENTIAL Based on the completed Noosa Council Erosion Hazard Assessment Form, the proposal is classified as a “low risk” development for erosion potential see Appendix A for a copy of the completed form. Erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures will be required to be established and maintained in accordance with IECA’s standards of best practice. Preparation of a detailed ESC plan will be completed as part of the operational works submission. 4. SITE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION 4.1 DESIGN RAINFALL INTENSITIES Rainfall intensities were obtained from the Bureau of Meterology’s Rainfall Intensity Duration Data (RIFD) for Noosa Heads, Queensland. 4.2 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS The performance requirements for the stormwater system include: • Development to be generally in accordance with QUDM (2016); • Major Design Storm is 100 year ARI event (1%AEP); • Minor Design Storm is 10 year ARI event; and (10%AEP) These requirements will be complied with throughout the detailed design stage. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 5
Page 8
4.3 CONCEPT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LAYOUT Runoff from the buildings is collected via a piped drainage system. This piped system will be connected into the new stormwater infrastructure. A detention tank will be installed to reduce peak runoff to below pre-construction runoff. The lawful point of discharge for the site has been undertaken as follows: Areas of the landscaping which are well below the ability of the stormwater infrastructure to collect will be allowed to flow as overland flow to the rear south-western corner of the property into a soakage pit. We have estimated that the area of landscaped site discharging to this location will be 450m2. An existing grated inlet exists at the lower corner of 28 Viewland Drive to pick up this flow. Most of the pre-development flow would have discharged to this point. We are, therefore, substantially reducing discharge to this location. The areas of the site which can be picked up by the development’s stormwater infrastructure will be discharged by a new piped stormwater network running down viewland drive and connected into the existing stormwater gully at the corner of Viewland Drive and The Quarterdeck. The area discharging to this gully will be 2655m2. Runoff will be limited to below pre-development flows by the installation of a detention tank with orifice plate. Neil McKenzie & Associates Drawings No. 20-004-C01 Revision 1, C01.1 Revision 3 and C02 Revision 1 can be found in Appendix B NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 6
Page 9
5. WATER QUANTITY
Stormwater from this site has been calculated using the Rational Method as described in the
Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (QUDM) except as amended. The Rational Method is the
most commonly used method for drainage design in Queensland and uses the Rational
Formula:
Qy = Cy . tIy . A /360
where
Qy = peak flow rate (m3/s) for average recurrence interval (ARI) of ‘y’ years
Cy = coefficient of discharge (dimensionless) for ARI of ‘y’ years
A = area of catchment (ha)
tI = average rainfall intensity (mm/h) for a design duration of ‘t’ hours
y
and an ARI of ‘y’ years.
The ARI is defined as the average or expected values of the period between exceedances of a
given discharge. The ARI for the design storm for both the major and minor system depends on
the current and potential land use, convenience and safety for pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
When designing the stormwater drainage system the following points have been considered:
• Stormwater treatment shall be designed for a 3 month storm event
• Stormwater reticulation is to cater for Q10 (.11% EY) and Q100 (1%EY) events
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 7
Page 10
5.1 PIPED DRAINAGE SYSTEM – PRE-DEVELOPMENT
Total Catchment is 3105m2
Coefficient of Runoff
The coefficient of runoff for the existing site has been determined using light cover bush with a
high soil permeability (sand) for zero fraction impervious, giving a C10 value of 0.53.
Time of Concentration
Slope of catchment: Length 55m, fall 4m.
Therefore Slope = 4/55 x 100 = 7.3%
For average grassed surface n = 0.045
Using Friend’s Equation:
t = 107nL0.333/S0. 2
= 107 x 0.045 x 55.333/7.30.2 = 12.3 minutes
However, adopt a time of 10 minutes.
EY % ARI 10 min Rainfall Intensity
1 1 102
0.2 5 155
0.11 10 181
0.05 20 205
0.02 50 236
0.01 100 259
Table 1 – 10min Rainfall Intensity
Using these values the pre-development flows are as follows
EY % ARI Pre Development Flows m3/s
1 1 0.037
0.2 5 0.067
0.11 10 0.083
0.05 20 0.098
0.02 50 0.124
0.01 100 0.142
Table 2 - Site Pre-Development
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 8
Page 11
5.2 PIPED DRAINAGE SYSTEM – POST DEVELOPMENT
Post development areas adopted are as follows:
Total Catchment as before of 3105m2
It is proposed to use detention tank totaling 48m3 with a 160mm orifice overflow outlet for the
development. Additional detention will be provided by the construction of the bio-basin but
has not been included in the below calculations which will be conservative. The design of the
piped infrastructure and detention system was undertaken using Drains program has been used
with Extended Rational Method.
Drains Output:
EY ARI Post Development Flows m3/s
1 1 0.038
0.2 5 0.054
.11 10 0.061
.05 20 0.067
.02 50 0.075
.01 100 0.082
Table 3 - Site Post-Development
Comparing the results pre and post development:
AEP ARI Pre Development Flows m3/s Post Development Flows m3/s
0.632 1 0.037 0.038
0.181 5 0.067 0.054
0.095 10 0.083 0.061
0.049 20 0.098 0.067
0.02 50 0.124 0.075
0.01 100 0.142 0.082
Table 4 - Pre & Post Development Comparison
Flows discharging from the site will be adequately mitigated.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 9
Page 12
6. WATER QUALITY
6.1 STORMWATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Noosa Council recommends using design standards as described in “State Planning Policy 4/10
Healthy Waters” and “Queensland Urban Drainage Manual” which in turn references “Water
Sensitive Urban Design for South East Queensland”.
The specific stormwater quality management objectives that will apply to the operational phase
of the proposed development have been taken, as advised in the above documents, from SEQ
Regional Plan 2009-2031 Water Sensitive Urban Design: Design Objectives for Urban
Stormwater Management (DERM). These load reduction targets will be used when comparing
the mitigated and unmitigated post-development site.
WSUD for SEQ - Water Quality Objectives
Indicator Required Reduction in Average
Annual Pollutant Load
Suspended Solids (TSS) 80 %
Total Phosphorus (TP) 60 %
Total Nitrogen (TN) 45 %
Gross Pollutants 90 %
These load reduction values are based on the developed unmitigated scenario compared to the
developed scenario with stormwater quality improvement devices.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 10
Page 13
6.2 STORMWATER QUALITY MODELLING
The modelling for the subject catchment with and without the proposed treatment system has
been carried out using Model for Urban Stormwater Conceptualisation (MUSIC) software.
The catchment was modelled in music in accordance with the following guidelines &
parameters:
• Music Verions 6.3
• “MUSIC Modeling & Guidelines Version 1.0 – 2010”, Water by Design (2010)
• Rainfall Station 40059 Cooroy, 6 minute time step from 1980 to 1989
• Water by Design MUSIC Modeling Guidelines.
• No drainage routing between nodes.
6.3 TREATMENT SYSTEMS REQUIRED
A schematic plan of the stormwater treatment train form MUSIC is show below.
Figure 2 - SW Treatment Train
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 11
Page 14
6.4 RESULTS
The outcome from the MUSIC modelling for the developed mitigated and developed
unmitigated scenarios are shown in figure 3 and table 5.
Figure 3 - MUSIC Screenshot
Developed Developed Load Reduction Required Load
Pollutant Type
Unmitigated Mitigated (%) Reduction (%)
TSS (kg/year) 352 40.3 88.5 80
TP (kg/year) 0.889 0.235 73.6 60
TN(kg/year) 6.97 3.27 53.2 45
Gross Pollutants
61 0 100 90
(kg/year)
Table 5 - Pollutant Load Reduction Results
The load reduction achieved meets the minimum load reductions from the Guidelines. Given
the proposed development will meet the water quality and quantity objectives it is considered
that the development complies with Noosa Council’s stormwater requirements.
NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 12
Page 15
10. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Aspects relating to stormwater management across the proposed development have been described. Erosion potential is only considered a relevant issue during the construction phase. The grade across the site is minimal, minimizing the potential for onsite erosion. Best management practices will be applied to erosion control on the site. Stormwater quality modelling was completed and the outcome from MUSIC indicated the water quality objectives would be achieved. Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices are on private land and will remain a private asset. All relevant stormwater requirements in accordance with MCU20/0128 have been addressed. 12. REFERENCES Noosa Council City Plan 2020 State Planning Policy 4/10 Healthy Waterways – Guidelines Water Sensitive Urban Design – Technical Design Guidelines for Southeast Queensland Queensland Urban Drainage Manual – 2015 MUSIC Modeling & Guidelines Version 1.0 – 2010, Water by Design (2010) Water by Design Bio-retention Technical Design guidelines (Version 1.1) October 2014. NMA-SBSWMR-20004 Noosa Youngcare 13
Page 16
10.APPENDICES Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment Appendix B – Neil McKenzie & Associates Drawing Numbers Q20-004-C01E and C02
Page 17
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX A: EROSION HAZARD ASSESSMENT [OCR of page images] Neil McKenzie & Associates Oy Ratu aa ie Otel ica ta Co ed Suite 14 /699A Sandgate Road CLAYFIELD QED 4011 P:-07 3862-1886. F:-07 3862-1397 [email protected] SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX A: EROSION HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Page 18
SCHEDULE 2—EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ASSESSMENT 4: Preamble Erosion and sediment control on building sites Builders must not pollute the environment. The Environmental Protection Act provides for penalties for persons or entities causing environmental harm. Soil erosion on building sites can be a major source of sediment pollution (environmental harm) in our watercourses. A single building site can lose up to four truckloads of soil in one storm. Washed from the sites into stormwater drains, this sediment can cause flooding and also affects the water quality and the fish stocks in our creeks, lakes and the Noosa River system. Preventing sediment run-off from building sites is one of a number of ways that Council and industry are improving our watercourses. Effective on-site erosion and sediment control provides the following benefits— e A better looking, more marketable site; e Improved wet weather working conditions; e Reduced stockpile losses; e Less mud and dust problems; e Reduced clean-up costs; e Fewer public complaints; e Better public image; e Cleaner watercourses; and e Better fishing and swimming in our nearby watercourses. 2. Erosion Hazard Assessment Form Controlling Factors mos) Score Checking Predominant slope’ of the whole site, prior to building works: e 0-3% slope 0 e >3% - 5% slope 1 - e >5%- 10% slope 2 ° >10% - 15% slope 4 e >15% slope 5 Soil type: (see 1 below) e Sandy soil/gravel 0 oO e Sandy loam 1 ‘The term ‘predominant slope’ is defined in Part 2 Section 2.12. $2.1 The Noosa Plan Proposed Amendments August 2015
Page 19
The Noosa Plan Proposed Amendments August 2015 Controlling Factors Points Seo Checking e Clay loam 2 e Clay soil 2 Anticipated duration of site disturbance: (see 2 below) e Duration < 2 weeks 0 e 2weeks # Duration < 3 months 2 + e 3 months # Duration < 6 months 4 e Duration > 6 months 5 Month that works are undertaken: (see 3 below) e August, September 0 e April, May, June, July, November, October 1 | e March December 2 e January February 3 Offsite sediment control (i.e. down slope of the soil disturbance): e Score 1 point if there is no purpose built, operational 1 and well maintained sediment traps (eg. sediment Oo basin, gross pollutant trap or purpose built wetland) to catch sediment before it enters a water body with environmental values (eg. creek, natural wetland, tiver or bay) (see 4 below) Run-off entering the site: e Score 1 point if stormwater run off entering the site is 1 Oo not diverted away from the soil disturbance Extent of site disturbance: e Score 2 points if building work requires reshaping of the ground surface (eg. ‘cut and fill’ works) (see 5 2 below) Ss e Score 5 points if the area to be disturbed is greater 5 than 600m? Works within environmentally sensitive areas: e Score 11 points if the disturbance is within the banks of a watercourse (see 6 below) 11 e Score 5 points if the disturbance is within 50m of the top of bank of a watercourse 5 OQ e Score 2 points if the disturbance is between 50m and 100m of the top of bank of a watercourse 2 TOTAL SCORE (See 7 & 8 below) \ 2 Notes: 1. Where there is more than one type of soil on the site, select the category with the highest point value. 2. The time, from when the building site will first become vulnerable to erosion, to the time the soil will be fully stabilised (eg. grassing). 3. If this time span covers more than one category, select the category with the highest point value. Note that if there is no grass/vegetation cover on the site before building work has started, the time span starts from the time this form is completed. 4. If you are not sure, score 1 point. 5. For the purpose of this form, ‘cut and fill’ works are those that will result in a steep batter or retaining wall above and/or below the building slab, greater than 1 metre in height. If the building slab has already been fully cut and stabilised (eg. grassed) during the subdivision stage, score 0 points. 6. Watercourse means any clearly identifiable creek, stream or river, whether flowing permanently or intermittently. 7. Fora high risk site, the total score is > 14 points. 8. Fora low risk site, the total score is < 14 points. $2.2
Page 20
3. Erosion and Sediment Control Methods aCinitcine Solution Minimise disturbance when excavating Retain as much grassed area as possible on the site. These areas not only improve the appearance of the site they also filter much of the sediment from stormwater run-off before it reaches the drainage system. Catch drains and perimeter banks Allow for diversion of up slope stormwater around the work site and other disturbed surfaces. Install a sediment barrier Install sediment barriers down slope of the building site to filter coarse sediment before it can wash into gutters, drains and watercourses. e Purpose designed geotextile sediment fabric (i.e. not shadecloth) attached to posts with the geotextile buried in an upstream trench; or e Place turf of a minimum 600mm width along kerb line; or e Straw bales, staked in a 100mm (min) deep trench. Single gravelled entry-exit Restrict vehicle access to one entry-exit point. e Gravelling the access point will allow all weather access, will reduce the amount of soil carried off the site by vehicles, and will provide a permanent base for the driveway. Early stormwater drainage connection Connect a temporary or permanent downpipe/s to the stormwater system before laying the roof or slow and spread the flow from downpipe/s to avoid localised erosion. Downpipe/s may be temporarily removed during wall construction. All stormwater must discharge in a manner that does not cause soil erosion. Concrete waste and washing Waste concrete and household paint must not be allowed to wash into the gutters or the street. Sand and soil stockpiles Stockpiles must be placed wholly on the construction site and behind a sediment barrier. $2.3 The Noosa Plan Proposed Amendments August 2015
Page 21
SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX B: STORMWATER LAYOUT PLAN AND SECTIONS [OCR of page images] Neil McKenzie & Associates Oy Ratu aa ie Otel ica ta Co ed Suite 14 /699A Sandgate Road CLAYFIELD QED 4011 P:-07 3862-1886. F:-07 3862-1397 [email protected] SITE BASED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX B: STORMWATER LAYOUT PLAN AND SECTIONS
Page 22
SW
[OCR of page images]
EXISTING GULLY PIT
SL 60.50 NEW GULLY PIT WITH KERB ENTRY RECONSTRUCTION GULLY PIT
IL 59.37 -—— 10 NOOSA SHIRE COUNCILS WITH KERB ENTRY TO —
DRAWING No. 9223 A NOOSA SHIRE COUNCILS
| BREAK INTO EXISTING GULLY VIEWLAND DRIVE SL 70.5 DRAHING No. 9223 A
iL 69.3
: J, IL 72.40 \
| / = SS
= I = See =
a a a — —_ — — — EE —_— Sor rr TT Oro SS er OC OC a a eT — eS T- = ‘SW ‘ow —— sw —— sw ‘SW sw —— sw ‘sw ow
Vax Pe \ \ ROP, CONCRETE CLASS BPE N x x \ Stat 00 3008 CONCRETE/CLASS 2 PIPE } x ust 7240 Z wy SSS ee
‘\ SS \ \ \ \ \ ‘ Nee \ i / \ > e <= cs ==
w w w- w w ww w w. w w a» w \ w 4 St et ar : pe w w. w. w. 1_w. w w. w ( w w. Ww w w. w |v @
on ES Ee
\ \ 2
— .— _— —. — oe oe k& \ _f Lyi. __ . __)___ ->g— ee ey ee ee se — .- | 74 . — — - — — .- — — .. XY. :
| \ A > —- \— 8 T S > ~ “Ty oe i nr STORMWATER INSPECION PIT YAN |
Zz, . "
QD | iL 72.20 S ; \
_. | | | MAINTAIN. STABILITY OF EXISTING | \ SITE a \* \
LIGHT POLE OR RELOCATE | | ‘| 3000 uve Pre = L_ \ \
EXISTING GULLY PIT | _ -— | | REFER TO ENERGEX | By | | | Rh
SL 60.00 'D
\ |
IL 59.14 mS |
| | | ORIFICE PLATE 1506. + 1 ~\ ROPOSED BUILDING ||
| | pt \ 475.310 Ry
| | | 3000 W x 6000 L x 2400 D | \ GRATED DRAIN Ne GRATED DRAIN \ J {fl
| | DETENTION TANK 4 \. F : > ? |
SL 74.70 \ [| \ A& ;
| | | | L 72.30 | | ! L . Le S 1
. 2000 | x NL “es
| | LANDSCAPE | | \ 3 \ H |
N ZONE a = SEZ
NN | | | PROPOSED BUILDING | * ls \ly IH
\ | | > | S| RL 75.020 | [" D & Ll
| Hy \ E | £ SWALE DRAIN ul bs
| \ ; PIT 24 SL
8 SL 74.85 ]
STORMAATER PIPE NOTES : oN STORMWATER DRAINAGE LAYOUT PLAN I fl | ert its |
1. STORMWATER PIPES SHALL BE OF THE TYPES DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS | BASIN 1 { \ | 7 | MI
OR UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT. 47m2 BIO RETENTION BASIN PN \\ & | |
— PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE | 200 SERIES BLOCKWORK | I} \ | une 2 s/ | |
2. HARDITUBE PIPES (uPVC) SHALL BE MANUFACTURED IN. ACCORDANCE WITH RETAINING WALL TO PERIMETER KS =|| 2958 UPVC PIPE & / aria ||
AUSTRALIAN STANDARD AS1254 “UNPLASTICISED PVC (uPVC) PIPES AND t EXISTING TELSTRA LINE TOW RL 74.40 (BASIN TO BE FENCED) | re = gl \ SL 74.90 N|
FITTINGS FOR STORM AND SURFACE WATER APPLICATIONS’. OUTLET PIT WITH GROSS POLLUTANT FRI IL AT HEADWALL 73.20 T> / —- 174.00 ||
TRAP OVERFLOW RL 72.60 | = aC —_! ANE | _ _g NE eT |
3. ALL PVC PIPES SHALL BE LAID AT A MINIMUM GRADE OF 1 IN 100 AND ——— w—— EXISTING WATER MAIN tf | 2250\UPVC PIE ce-- 2258 UPC PIPE |
HAVE A MINIMUM COVER OF 600mm IN TRAFFICABLE REGIONS. | ata SE a, on iB / | MI
ALL PVC PIPES SHALL BE R.RJ. AND SHALL HAVE AN INSPECTION OPENING > Sta iad | a lll
. | AT ALL CHANGES IN DIRECTION AND GRADE, Yq ~--——— a EXISTING CONTOUR LINE (1.0m INTERVALS) (ie ALUMNI BOARD 0956 UPVd PIPE | fo une N al |
= > ALL JUNCTIONS BETWEEN uPVC PIPES SHALL BE FORMED USING PIPE MANUFACTURES iw | \ Sd |s
_ 2 | STANDARD R.Ru. JUNCTIONS . EXISTING POWER POLE SREEN WHITE PALLET) | \\ = rT
2 es _ z | THIS BIO-RETENTION BASIN CLEAN | || SSeS | \ Is
& s < = 4. ALL PIPES AND PITS SHALL BE HANDLED AND STORED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE o EXISTING TELSTRA PIT WATER RUNOFF PRIOR TO ITS in IN a | \ ||
3 2 a z | WITH THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS, DISCHARGE TO THE NOOSA RIVER | | ait a \ MI
2) |e z 2 N Pits \ \
ZB TEWONh TENE | 5. ALL PIPES SHALL BE FREE OF DEFECTS, DAMAGE AND DISTORTION. a Propose 00 «inn SPEL FILTER BASKET | NI aa ; eo — 150d upve pr ! |
3 hed 4
a | 6. ALL PIPES SHALL BE BEDDED ON SAND OR APPROVED GRANULAR MATERIAL BASN 2 || ‘ LAT HEADWALL PIT 28 | Ml %
WHICH SHALL EXTEND TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 100mm BELOW THE LOWEST 25m2 BIO RETENTION BASIN | \ 74.20 SL_74.85
| PART OF THE PIPE. (REFER TO TYPICAL PIPE TRENCH SECTION). 4 PROPOSED 600 x 600 FIELD INLET a ANNG Wet 10 OERWETER | Y aos Bune \ . | | |
“ae | 7. THE FINISHED LINE AND GRADE OF DRAINS SHALL NOT DEVIATE BY MORE THAN PROPOSED 900 x 900 OUTLET PIT OUTLET PIT WITH GROSS POLLUTANT | | RL 751020 ‘ maGbOscD BULDNG |= M
79S | 10mm AT ANY POINT. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT. ek WTH CROSS POLLUTANT TRAP TRAP OVERFLOW IL 73.60 | \ RL 74000 E |
> Y s : x
8. NO BACKFILLING OF TRENCHES SHALL OCCUR UNLESS APPROVED BY THE | | 2 T \ x
2: 450 m2 QF SIE_DISCHARBES N
SUPERINTENDENT. “ —h | THROUGH CORNER \ \ | Ny
NG-EHANGE IN DIRECTION OF \ \ | |
9. FINISHED LEVELS OF PAVEMENTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN TOLERANCE | | / |
LOCALITY PLAN OF + 5mm OF THE SPECIFIED LEVEL. 200 200 1500 DEEP SA \ dh y
— — sit tan HS OO a
SCALE 15000 10. LocaTions OF SPOT LEVELS CAN BE SCALED OFF DRAWINGS WITHIN 6S — .—— — =
. , A oy
J ‘ ‘D
EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE BOARD A | |
(4mm ALUMINIUM BOARD
GREEN WHITE PALLET) | |
THIS BIO-RETENTION BASIN CLEAN |
3000 _W x 6000 L OVERFLOW 1508 UPVC PIPE WATER RUNOFF PRIOR TO ITS |
TO SURFACE DISCHARGE TO THE NOOSA RIVER | |
$181 MESH — ACCESS MANHOLE 4m2 ROCK PITCHED OVER = —— — SWALE DRAIN
5174.10
gg) [== =F = Se PSQNYSESONT Tsou SoSC 2
x +— — — — = — — — 4 [— — — — — — — L | WE 7 2| 300
| i S| |____SWALE DRAIN
, S81 MESH — A | | | 600 x 600 FELD INLET 2. FALL 10 OUTLET
\ {| S—— WITH GROSS POLUTANT TRAP |
| | Le J NATURAL GROUND LINE
lo 4 | 1d | L
200 SERIES BLOCKWORK
K— FULLY GROUTED CORES g | ry |
lo | | | 1508 UPVC PIPE |
NI6 @ 200 | | |
| {2m GRAVEL
fe) N12 @ 400 z | |
[ececsneseesezesececesecesscesszessseseseaestaeses sei}
SECTION A-A — SWALE DRAIN DETAIL
hy ¢ 2000 x 2000
N16 @ 200 STARTERS 3008 UPVC PIPE
600 LAP MIN.
| S82 MESH | RUBBLE PIT DETAIL
$172.30 a
—_ OS eo [—
& ala 2 @ a a a a
N12 @ 200 EACH WAY ——
E REDESIGNED 04.03.21 | db APPROVED SCALE 1:250 JOB DESCRIPTION DRAWING TITLE
D STORMWATER LINES RELOCATED wo221 | dt NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. DRAWN dL NOOSA YOUNGCARE STORMWATER DRAINAGE LAYOUT PLAN
C SW RUBBLE DRAIN PIT RELOCATED 08.02.21 | dL CONSULTING ENGINEERS CHECKED WM 32 VIEWLAND DRIVE
1 1409.21 | d_ [8 | LANDSCAPE ZONE ADDED aon | a Wie wer aPe0, 70H NeER 3 14/699a SANDGATE ROAD DESIGNED m NOOSA HEADS
f GENERAL 1.05.21 a A 18.20 a THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF PHONE: (67) 8862 1886 APPROVED NM CLIENT DRAWING REVISION
va | RAWSON ome | om bao | pevson ome | Day | NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES (©) Copyright FAX: (07) 3862. 1397 ONE xc 0 DELUCA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION NUMBER Q20-004-C01 NUMBER |
Page 23
STORMWATER 900 x 900 CONCRETE STORMWATER 900 x 900 900 x 900 CONCRETE
INSPECTION PIT QUTLET PIT HEADWALL PIT 1B PIT 1A INSPECTION PIT OUTLET PIT QUTLET PIT — HEADWALL PIT 2A
300 UPVC | DETENTION 300 UPVC PIPE 2250 UPVC PIPE 2250 UPVC PIPE 300 UPVC | DETENTION 300# UPVC PIPE 225 UPVC PIPE 2250 UPVC PIPE
TANK TANK
BASIN 1 BASIN 1 BASIN 2
i po tI 1# a
Pr ro |
LL
DATUM RL 70.00 DATUM RL 70.00
3 8
ead 8 2 2 =e 8 8 ea 8 g 2 = gz 8B
Bq = = = 3 = = aa = = = 3 = =
Sea a a <i 3 s = Sea a a < s 3 2
= 7000 18500 22100 14150 = 7000 18500 14100 16700
S S
SCALE : 1 IN 250 HORIZONTALLY SCALE : 1 IN 250 HORIZONTALLY
1 IN 125 VERTICALLY 1 IN 125 VERTICALLY
900 x 900 OVERFLOW PIT oveetow Pr
"ABOVE-DESIGN’ FLOWS SPILL EXTENDED DETENTION
INTO FIELD ENTRY PIT. DESIGN FLOWS POND IN EXTENDED FUNCTIONAL VEGETATION SUPPORT NUTRIENT
DETENTION ZONE INCREASING REMOVAL AND MAINTAINS POROSITY OF SOIL.
FENCE ——————>f VOLUME OF STORMWATER THAT IS [- CARPARK SLAB 74.80 (VARIES)
STONE CLADDING TO 4 CAPTURED AND TREATED. CONCRETE HEADWALL =——
BLOCK WALL WHERE EXPOSED LL ——— DRIVEWAY SLAB
— TOP OF WALL RL 7440 0S se U 200 SERIES BLOCKWORK
Bi RETAINING WALL AS PER DETAILS
8 HY 2256 SW UPVC PIPE
NATURAL GROUND SURFAGE RL 7360 ‘. \I-s-+ [
NUT VERT RL 73200 WwW Wij) — iW H a LET INVERT 73.20. ,
TREATED FLOWS AND qT a sg cg Sf.
_QUILET PIT L726 overruows a <=> 4S) Tete Te? | Tee ee ee re SV] SCst~CSst~CstCtC T= K—— aie crud cores
RECEIVING WATERS. 2 BASE GRADES @ 0. N -
: UNDER-DRAINS g 5
CLEANOUT RISER
——— SLOTTED RIGID PIPE ‘ 2100 MAX.
FILTER CLOTH UNER DRANAGE LAYER (FINE AGGREGATE) @ 015% SLOPE. SNR. PR OEANOUTY BIO. RETENTION N16 @ 200
TRANSITION LAYER (COARSE SAND) . FILTER MEDIA
FILTER MEDIA (SANDY LOAM) Z N16 @ 400
ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONTENT < 60mg/kg g
SCALE 1:50
N16 @ 200 STARTERS
600 LAP
OVERFLOW PIT pore
900 x 900 OVERFLOW PIT FUNCTIONAL VEGETATION SUPPORT NUTRIENT
[BOVE-DESKN FLOWS SPILL REMOVAL AND MAINTAINS POROSITY OF SOIL. | | LI17M300 TOP & BTM
: EXTENDED DETENTION — "
DESIGN FLOWS POND IN EXTENDED CONCRETE HEADWALL ~=—— STONE CLADDING TO 70 | | R6 LIGS @ 1000 CRS.
f DETENTION ZONE INCREASING BLOCK WALL WHERE EXPOSED | |
FENCE. > VOLUME OF STORMWATER THAT IS
B CAPTURED AND TREATED. p
WALKWAY SLAB a) H CARPARK SLAB 74.80 (VARIES)
200 SERIES BLOCKWORK | rT | IF 450
RETAINING WALL AS PER MN lf 2250 SW UPVC PIPE —_
DETALS J WA ST NETINERT AL 74.20
OUTLET PIT IL 73.60 ORNOWE | 7) FT Tee ee er eT IS “ts
— OUTLET PIT IL 73 60 ___ OVERFLOWS T0.__»_S ANE Gp HTT TTT DUST TTT) oe L
RECEIVING WATERS, ; BASE [email protected]% TOWARDS PIT ‘ S BIO RETENTION BASIN RETAINING WALL DETAIL
UNDER DRAINS CLEANOUT RISER S
FILTER CLOTH LINER |_DRAINAGE LAYER (FINE AGGREGATE) aoe Ore PIPE UNSLOTTED STANDPIPE FOR
. . DRAINAGE PIPE. CLEANOUT.
TRANSITION LAYER (COARSE SAND)
FILTER MEDIA (SANDY LOAM)
ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONTENT < 60mg/kg
SCALE 1:50
APPROVED SCALE AS SHOWN | JOB DESCRIPTION DRAWING TITLE
a NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. DRAWN 1 NOOSA YOUNGCARE STORMWATER DRAINAGE
5 noa2 | aL CONSULTING ENGINEERS CHECKED NM 32 VIEWLAND DRIVE LINE 1 & LINE 2 LONG SECTION
2 20a21 | db VIEWS, REE 2087, NPER 3 14/699a SANDGATE ROAD DESIGNED NM NOOSA HEADS
1 1409.21 | db ——————— CLAYFIELD, QLD 4011 APPROVED NN CLIENT 6
THIS DRAWING REMAINS THE PROPERTY OF PHONE: (07) 3862 1886 DRAWIN' REVISION
vo | RAWSON ome | Dwy | NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES (@) Copyright Pa yy Seon 1587 ONE ART DELUCA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION NUMBER Q20-004-C01.1 NuMBER
Page 24
EXISTING GULLY PIT 300@ CONCRETE CLASS 2 STORMWATER PIPE NEW GULLY PIT WITH KERB ENTRY TO NOOSA SHIRE COUNCILS DRAWING No. 9225 A 3008 CONCRETE CLASS 2 STORMWATER PIPE RECONSTRUCTION GULLY PIT WITH KERB ENTRY 10 NOOSA SHIRE COUNCILS DRAWING No. 9225 A STORMWATER INSPECTION PIT PROPERTY LINE 3008 CONCRETE CLASS 2 STORMWATER PIPE DATUM RL 59.00 WITH RUBBER RING JOINT WITH RUBBER RING JOINT WITH RUBBER RING JOINT 8 1 IN 24 1 IN 22 1 IN 87 LONGITUDINAL SECTION SCALE : 1 IN 250 HORIZONTALLY 1 IN 125 VERTICALLY APPROVED SCALE AS SHOWN | JOB DESCRIPTION DRAWING TITLE 1 14.09.21 dL OT NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES PTY. LTD. DRAWN dL NOOSA YOUNGCARE STORMWATER DRAINAGE LONG SECTION C 11.0321 | aL CONSULTING ENGINEERS CHECKED NM 32 VIEWLAND DRIVE B 23.01.21 | aL 14/699a SANDGATE ROAD DESIGNED NM NOOSA HEADS A 18n.20 a THIS DRAWING Thinns WE ohortny oF CLAYEILD, 5862. 1886 APPROVED NN CLIENT DRAWING REVISION No. REVISION DATE DWN NEIL McKENZIE & ASSOCIATES © Copyright FAX: . (07) 3862 1397 DATE OCT. 20 DELUCA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION NUMBER Q?0-004-C02 NUMBER |