Original source · versioned page text
updated flood investigation
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (19.7 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.
Original PDF page 1, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.
Flood Investigation 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah Mark Bain Constructions 21-0288-FS001-V1 6 December 2021
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 sections 2 to 22 (of 55)
Section 2
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
This document is commercial-in-confidence. The recipient of this document agrees to hold all
information presented within as confidential and agree not to use or disclose or allow to use or
disclosure of the said information to unauthorized parties, directly or indirectly, irrespective of the
acceptance or rejection of the presentation or at any time before, during or after an
agreement has been reached, without prior written consent.
PEAKURBAN Pty Ltd
ABN 44 615 403 506
Brisbane
Level 4, 196 Wharf Street
Spring Hill Qld 4000
Sunshine Coast
Level 2, 1 Innovation Parkway
Birtinya Qld 4575
Melbourne
Level 1, 1-5 Nantilla Road
Notting Hill Vic 3168
E [email protected]
W peakurban.com.au
DOCUMENT CONTROL
21-0288-FS001-V1
Version Date Details Prepared Checked Approved Signed RPEQ
1 14/12/21 Issue B. Bolt B. Bolt B. Bolt 11523
Section 3
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 1
2. AVAILABLE DATA ........................................................................................................................... 3
3. HYDROLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 4
Catchment .................................................................................................................................... 4
Peak Flow Rates and Verification ............................................................................................... 5
3.2.1. TUFLOW Peak Flows .................................................................................................. 5
4. HYDRAULICS ................................................................................................................................... 7
Model Setup .................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.1. Topography ............................................................................................................... 7
4.1.2. Inflow .......................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.3. Roughness .................................................................................................................. 7
4.1.4. Boundary .................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.5. Culverts....................................................................................................................... 7
Model Scenarios ........................................................................................................................... 8
4.2.1. Existing Scenario (E01) .............................................................................................. 8
3.2.3 Proposed Scenario (P01) .......................................................................................... 8
Results - Existing Scenario (E01) ................................................................................................... 9
4.3.1. Existing Scenario ........................................................................................................ 9
4.3.2. Proposed Scenario ................................................................................................... 9
4.3.3. Severe Storm Assessment ....................................................................................... 12
5. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 13
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Summary of Study Data ..................................................................................................... 3
Table 3-1: Catchment Details .............................................................................................................. 4
Table 3-2: 1% AEP Peak Flow Verification .......................................................................................... 5
Table 3-3: 1% AEP Peak Flow Comparison ......................................................................................... 5
Table 4-1: Model Roughness Values ................................................................................................... 7
Table 4-2: Model Culvert Information ................................................................................................. 8
Table 4-3: Existing and Proposed Peak discharge at the Site Boundary. ....................................... 9
Table 4-4: 1% (2100) AEP Flood Storage Comparison. ................................................................... 10
Table 4-5: Lot Levels Compared to Adjacent 1% (2100) AEP Peak Flood Levels ........................ 11
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah
Section 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Site Location (Source: QGIS Open Street Map 2021) ................................................... 1
Figure 1-2: NSC Flood Hazard Overlay Mapping (Source: NSC Interactive Mapping) ............... 2
Figure 3-1: NSC Flood Search Levels (orange box) versus Site Model Results (white box) ......... 6
Figure 4-1: Section Across Internal Road Extension ........................................................................ 10
Figure 4-2: 1% (2100) AEP Peak Water Surface Elevation Reporting Locations ........................... 11
APPENDICES
Development Plans
Catchment Plan
TUFLOW Model
Existing Flood Maps (E01)
Proposed Flood Maps (P01)
Flood Afflux Maps (P01-E01)
Severe Storm Assessment (P01a)
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah
Section 5
1. INTRODUCTION
PEAKURBAN Pty Ltd have been engaged by Mark Bain to prepare a Flood Investigation in
support of a development application to Noosa Shire Council (NSC) over land located at 60
60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah (Lot 47 RP 860577). This development application seeks a
development permit for a Reconfiguration a Lot (ROL) to create 8 rural residential lots.
The proposed outcome of this investigation is to inform the layout design with respect to
managing flood impacts, demonstrate non-worsening and sizing of cross-drainage culverts in
order to achieve the requirements and targets of NSC Planning Scheme “Flood Hazard Overly
Code”.
The proposed Plan of Subdivision and concept engineering plans can be found in Appendix
A.
Site Location
The location of the proposed development site is shown in Figure 1-1.
The site is influenced by two unnamed tributaries of the Noosa River. Both catchments
extend upstream across McKinnon Drive to the west and join at the eastern boundary of the
site. The total catchment of both tributaries is 130ha. The catchment is characterised by
steep upper catchment and flattens out along the lower part of the flood plain. Elevations
on site range from 10 to 44m AHD.
The site is located within the mapped NSC Flood Hazard Overlay (refer Figure 1-2).
SITE
Figure 1-1: Site Location (Source: QGIS Open Street Map 2021)
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |1
Section 6
SITE
Figure 1-2: NSC Flood Hazard Overlay Mapping (Source: NSC Interactive Mapping)
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |2
Section 7
2. AVAILABLE DATA
The data detailed in Table 2-1 was reviewed and used in this assessment.
Table 2-1: Summary of Study Data
ID Data Description
1 Digital Elevation 1 metre resolution digital elevation model (DEM) based on
Model Aerial LiDAR survey captured by DERM in 2015 (vertical
accuracy of +/- 200mm [2 sigma error rate])
2 Aerial Photograph Aerial photography captured by NearMap (10 September
2021).
3 GIS Information Stormwater pipe, pit and infrastructure GIS information
supplied by NSC.
4 Layout AutoCAD layout of proposed development (6 December
January 2021 by TOD Consulting).
5 ARR Data Hub North East Coast, Mary Rivers (accessed 26 October 2021 for
Latitude: -26.37, Longitude: 152.98)
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |3
Section 8
3. HYDROLOGY
Hydrologic modelling of the catchment has been carried out using WBNM software (2019
version) developed jointly by the University of Wollongong, Rienco Consulting and Balance
R&D. Australian Rainfall and Runoff 2019 (ARR2019) methodology was used for this
assessment.
Catchment
The objective of this component of the study was to investigate the peak flows contributing
to the site. The catchment has been delineated based on 2015 LiDAR survey data. The
catchment layout is shown in Appendix B, with a total catchment area of 434 ha being
assessed. The proposed site is located within sub-catchment 1H and 1L, with a contributing
catchment area of 130 ha. A summary of the catchment details is presented below in Table
3-1. The impervious values applied are representative the rural, rural residential and
bushland land-use of the catchment. The existing and proposed impervious values are
noted for catchments 1H and 1L to represent the development.
The default catchment lag parameter within WBNM of 1.6, was applied to the model setup.
Rainfall losses have been applied as per the ARR Data Hub, with an initial loss of 35mm, and
continuing loss of 3.0mm/hr for pervious areas. 0mm was applied for impervious. The median
pre-burst rainfall depth was applied to the model setup.
Table 3-1: Catchment Details
Catchment Downstream Area (ha) Impervious
Name Catchment (%)
1A 1C 29.842 5
1B 1C 14.787 10
1C 1F 18.826 10
1D 1H 19.329 0
1E 1G 24.075 0
1F 1K 4.325 10
1G 1H 13.695 10
1H 1M 6.056 0 / 10
1I 1K 4.445 10
1J 1L 3.637 20
1K 1L 1.461 20
1L 1M 11.036 5 / 20
1M 2F 5.527 10
2A 2C 64.299 0
2B 2C 62.751 2
2C 2D 28.965 2
2D 2E 38.306 5
2E 2F 43.203 10
2F SINK 39.526 10
TOTAL 434.091
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |4
Section 9
Peak Flow Rates and Verification
The peak flow rates estimated from the WBNM model have been verified against the rational
method for the 1% AEP event, with the Bransby-Williams equation adopted to determine the
time of concentration as recommended by the Department of Transport and Main Roads
“Road Drainage Manual 2015”. The flow verification was completed in relation to two sub-
catchments (1A and 2C). Details of the flow verification are presented in Table 3-2. Based
on this assessment it can be seen a suitable verification has been achieved.
Table 3-2: 1% AEP Peak Flow Verification
Parameter Value
Sub-Catchment 1A 2C
Contributing Area 29.8 ha 156.0
Time of Concentration 38 min 92 min
Runoff Coefficient 0.7 0.7
Rational Peak Flow 9.1 m3/s 31.2
WBNM Peak Flow 8.1 m3/s 33.0
Critical Duration 720 min 720 min
3.2.1. TUFLOW Peak Flows
A comparison of peak flows from the WBNM hydrology model to that estimated within the
TUFLOW hydraulic model is presented below Table 3-3 at catchment 1A and 2C for the 1%
AEP event. It can be seen that the TUFLOW hydraulic model estimates for these two
catchments correlate well to the WBNM output, with peak flows from Catchment 1A slightly
less in the hydraulic model and Catchment 2C slightly more. The critical duration also
changed from 720min to the 120min, with the TUFLOW hydraulic model considered a better
representation of flow routing within the catchment.
Table 3-3: 1% AEP Peak Flow Comparison
Parameter Value Value
Sub-Catchment 1A 2C
WBNM (Hydrology) 8.1 (720min) 33.0 (720 min)
TUFLOW (Hydraulics) 7.5 (120 min) 33.5 (120 min)
Difference -0.6 +0.5
A comparison of the peak 1% (2100) AEP flood levels from the NSC flood search and TUFLOW
model results from this investigation is presented below in Figure 3-1. This highlights that the
estimated levels are a close match across the site with a levels at the downstream boundary
of the site slightly higher in this current investigation (which is considered to create a
conservative outcome). As such it is considered that a suitable verification between the NSC
regional flood model and the current investigation has been achieved.
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |5
Section 10
12.56
.36
13.36
12.37
.36
12.37
13.00
Figure 3-1: NSC Flood Search Levels (orange box) versus Site Model Results (white box)
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |6
Section 11
4. HYDRAULICS
Hydraulic modelling has been carried out using TUFLOW software developed by BMT WBM.
TUFLOW is a computational engine that provides one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional
(2D) solutions for the free-surface flow equations to simulate flood and tidal wave
propagation. The Heavily Parallelised Compute (HPC) computational method has been
applied using 2020-10-AA version of TUFLOW. Modelling assumptions and outcomes are
described below.
Model Setup
4.1.1. Topography
TUFLOW model topography is based upon the DEM that was created from 2015 LiDAR and
detailed site survey. The catchment has been represented using a 5m hydraulic grid size.
The internal road was represented the proposed road profile using a 2d_zsh, with the crown
having a minimum level of 12.81m AHD above the culvert.
The building envelopes were also raised to ensure flood immunity using a 2d_zsh, with minor
regrading of lot beside building envelope of Lot 1.
4.1.2. Inflow
Inflows have been incorporated into the model setup using inflow polygons (2d_sa) to read
in the inflow hydrographs from the WBNM hydrology model.
4.1.3. Roughness
The roughness of the flow path has been incorporated into the model using Manning’s ‘n’
values to represent the differing land-uses. Table 4-1 outlines the applied roughness values.
Table 4-1: Model Roughness Values
Description Manning’s ‘n’
Road 0.015
Road Reserve 0.03
Cleared / Sporadic Vegetation 0.04
Low Dense Vegetation 0.06
Highly Dense Vegetation 0.10
4.1.4. Boundary
The TUFLOW model has been extended 1.5 km downstream of the study area such that tail
water assumptions do not influence flooding at the site. A normal depth rating curve has
been adopted for the downstream.
4.1.5. Culverts
A total of eighteen (18) existing culverts were represented within the model extent, with
culvert information obtained from Noosa Shire Council GIS information. The new ‘internal’
culvert has been sized to ensure the internal road servicing the development can achieve
immunity in the 10% AEP and remain trafficable in the 1% (2100) AEP event. A summary of
the culverts represented in the model are detailed in Table 4-2.
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |7
Section 12
Table 4-2: Model Culvert Information
ID Size Length USIL (m AHD) DSIL (m AHD)
1 1 x 1800 x 900mm RCBC 7.00 14.66 14.56
2 1 x 900mm RCP 11.15 14.08 14.01
3 1 x 300mm RCP 11.17 14.04 13.95
4 1 x 300mm RCP 10.74 13.63 13.60
5 1 x 450mm RCP 10.78 13.13 13.06
6 1 x 375mm RCP 15.00 12.89 12.78
7 4 x 750mm RCP 15.00 12.53 12.49
8 1 x 300 x 450mm RCBC 11.83 12.77 12.74
9 1 x 380mm RCP 13.32 13.40 13.30
10 1 x 380mm RCP 11.55 14.60 14.50
11 10 x 750mm RCP 11.2 13.95 13.80
12 3 x 1200 x 900mm RCBC 11.2 11.94 11.83
13 1 x 1500mm RCP 9.79 11.30 11.10
14 5 x 900mm RCP 11.2 15.68 15.62
15 1 x 380mm RCP 10.99 15.95 15.8
16 10 x 750mm RCP 11.2 14.05 13.95
17 5 x 2400 x 1500 9.24 6.50 6.40
18 1 x 450mm RCP 6.2 8.72 8.68
Internal 8 x 1200 x 600 10.00 11.80 11.75
Model Scenarios
The Existing (E01) and Proposed (P01) scenarios are described below and depicted in
Appendix C.
4.2.1. Existing Scenario (E01)
In representing the Existing Scenario, the model was setup to represent the overland flow
characteristics that existed prior to the site being developed. A combination of LiDAR and
detailed survey was used to represent the existing model terrain. The model was run for the
63.2%, 39%, 10% and 1% AEP for durations ranging from 30min to 12hrs.
3.2.3 Proposed Scenario (P01)
The Proposed Scenario has utilised the Existing Scenario model to represent the proposed
development. The following changes were made:
• Represent internal road at RL12.7m AHD (2d_zsh).
• Represent new 8 x 1200 x 600mm RCBC under internal road (1d_nwk).
• Represent filling of building envelopes of Lot 1 and 4 to achieve flood immunity
(2d_zsh).
• Represent minor regrading beside building envelope of Lot 1 (2d_zsh).
• Adjustments to roughness to account for new road (2d_mat).
The model was run for the 63.2%, 39%, 10% and 1% AEP for durations ranging from 60min to
24hrs.
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |8
Section 13
Results - Existing Scenario (E01)
The TUFLOW hydraulic model been assessed for a range of flood events including the 63.2%,
39%, 10% and 1% AEP storm events. The assessment has considered a range of storm
durations to ensure that the critical storm is defined. The results of the hydraulic assessment
are presented as a series of flood maps to illustrate the flooding characteristics of the
overland flow path and the resulting flood behaviours including flooded depth, height,
velocities, hazard and afflux.
The flood maps are presented in Appendix D and Appendix G.
4.3.1. Existing Scenario
The existing scenario flood maps are shown in Appendix D. This details the existing flood
extent and behaviour in relation to the development site. The results of this have been used
as the basis for assessing the potential impacts that may result from the development.
4.3.2. Proposed Scenario
The proposed scenario flood maps are shown in Appendix E. This details the proposed flood
extent and behaviour in relation to the development site. An indicative lot plan is overlaid on
this map set to highlight how the development relates to the flood plain.
It is noted that the building envelopes of Lot 1 and 4 have been filled to achieve flood
immunity requirements, will some minor shaping of the land beside the Lot 1 building
envelope to manage afflux cause by flooding backing up behind the building envelope.
4.3.2.1. Peak Discharge
The assessment found the peak discharge at the site boundary are predicted to decrease
across all modelled events. This is shown in Table 4-3 which compares the Existing and
Proposed peak discharge at the site boundary for each event. As such it is considered that
a formal detention is not required to service this development as the design has achieved
the required non-worsening outcome.
Table 4-3: Existing and Proposed Peak discharge at the Site Boundary.
Design Critical Duration Existing Peak Proposed Peak Difference (m3/s)
Event (AEP) (min) / Temporal Discharge (m3/s) Discharge (m3/s)
Pattern
1% (2100) 120 (TP3) 48.36 48.19 -0.18
1% 120 (TP6) 36.85 35.78 -1.07
10% 180 (TP8) 20.94 20.20 -0.74
39% 540 (TP5) 9.23 9.17 -0.07
63.2% 540 (TP5) 6.19 6.16 -0.02
4.3.2.2. Afflux
Afflux mapping has been undertaken for the 63.2%, 39%, 10% and 1% AEP to identify whether
there are any impacts resulting, and if so, whether an alternative development arrangement
needs to be investigated. Afflux maps have been provided in Appendix F.
The afflux mapping shows that there are no external impacts resulting to any adjoining
properties as a result of the development. An increase in flood levels of up to 330mm is
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah |9
Section 14
estimated upstream of the proposed Internal Road extension in the 1% (2100) AEP, however,
this is contained within the site boundary.
4.3.2.3. Flood Storage
A flood storage assessment has been completed over the site to ensure there is no loss of
flood plain storage as a result of the development. For the existing flood storage calculation,
the existing peak 1% (2100) AEP flood surface was compared to the existing model terrain.
Similarly with the proposed flood storage calculation, the proposed peak 1% (2100) AEP flood
surface was compared to the proposed model terrain. Details of the flood plain storage in
the existing and proposed cases is summarised below in Table 4-4, where it is shown there is
an increase in the amount of flood storage as a result of the development, which is
considered positive outcome.
Table 4-4: 1% (2100) AEP Flood Storage Comparison.
Scenario Flood Plain Storage (m3)
Existing 36,831
Proposed 45,932
Difference +9,102
4.3.2.4. Internal Road
The Internal Road extension has been designed achieve flood immunity in the 10% AEP
event, whilst allowing some overtopping in the 1% AEP (major event). The high point of the
road (which acts as a weir) is at a minimum 12.81m AHD (refer Figure 4-1). This results in a
flow depth of less 0.2m occurring over the road pavement in the 1% AEP, with flow velocities
less than 1.6 m/s and flow hazard less than 0.3m2/s. These parameters are below the
trafficability requirements of QUDM, which require a maximum depth of 0.2m and hazard less
than 0.3m2/s in the 1% AEP event.
The new culverts have a flow velocity of 3.9m/s. Outlet scour protection will be required to
be provided with D50=500mm rock provided and extend 3.0m past apron.
Flow depth < 0.2m
1% AEP WSL
Internal Road
Figure 4-1: Section Across Internal Road Extension
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah | 10
Section 15
4.3.2.5. Flood Levels and Immunity
Flood levels around the site for the 1% (2100) AEP are detailed for various reporting locations
as shown in Figure 4-2. This shows the proposed new building envelopes are above the 1%
(2100) AEP peak flood event. The peak flood level and recommended minimum building
envelope / finished floor level (FFL) for each lot is provided in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5: Lot Levels Compared to Adjacent 1% (2100) AEP Peak Flood Levels
Lot 1% (2100) AEP Peak Flood Minimum Freeboard to Min Building Envelope
Level (m AHD) Floor (m) / FFL (m AHD)
1 13.24 0.5 13.74
2 13.23 0.5 13.73
3 13.21 0.5 13.71
4 12.97 0.5 13.47
5 13.21 0.5 13.71
6 12.97 0.5 13.47
7 12.57 0.5 13.07
8 12.57 0.5 13.07
Figure 4-2: 1% (2100) AEP Peak Water Surface Elevation Reporting Locations
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah | 11
Section 16
4.3.3. Severe Storm Assessment
A severe storm assessment was completed for the 1% (2100) AEP event assuming all of the
stormwater culverts are 100% blocked. The assessment found that the building envelopes
remained relatively flood free and 0.5m freeboard depths applied would ensure future
dwelling remain flood immune under this scenario. A flood depth map for this scenario is
provided in Appendix G.
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah | 12
Section 17
5. CONCLUSION
PEAKURBAN have completed a Flood Investigation to support the Reconfiguration of Lot
application for the development at 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah. The objective of this
investigation was to design an appropriate road crossing to service the development,
demonstrate that no impacts and no loss of flood plain storage will result from the proposed
development (and associated earthworks).
This investigation demonstrates that a suitable development strategy has be developed
without creating any impacts to any adjoining property owners. Afflux maps for the 63.2, 39%,
10% and 1% AEP flood events provided in Appendix F demonstrate this.
The investigation has found that there is a reduction in peak flows and increase in flood storage
provided. As such, any further formal on-site detention is not recommended as development
has been designed to achieve the outcome of non-worsening.
The proposed development lot building envelopes are located above the 1% (2100) AEP, and
it is recommended that finished floor levels of future dwellings achieve a minimum 0.5m
freeboard as detailed in Table 4-5.
This flood investigation plan successfully demonstrates that:
• The site is developed to create building envelopes that are flood free and enable
future finished floor levels to be a minimum 0.5m above the 1% (2100) AEP.
• There is no impact to flood levels to adjoining properties as a result of this
development.
• Non-worsening of peak flows downstream of the development is achieved.
• There is no loss in flood plain storage, with the proposed earthworks actually
increasing the available storage.
• Internal Road has been designed to achieve flood immunity in the 10% AEP event
and trafficable in the 1% AEP event.
• Severe storm assessment found that future dwellings with 0.5m freeboard would
remain free in the 1% (2100) AEP scenario with all culverts 100% blocked.
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah | 13
Section 18
6. REFERENCES
Noosa Shire Council (2020), “Planning Scheme”.
Brisbane City Council (2000), “Natural Channel Design Guidelines).
Queensland Government – Department of Transport and Main Roads (2015),
“Road Drainage Manual”.
BMT WBM (2020), “TUFLOW User Manual”.
Boyd et al (2019), “WBNM User Guide”.
ARR Data Hub, ‘https://data.arr-software.org/’
The Institute of Engineers Australia (2019), “Australian Rainfall and Runoff”.
21-0288-FS001-V1 | Flood Investigation | 60 Glenridge Drive, Cooroibah | 14
Section 19
APPENDICES [OCR of page images] APPENDICES
Section 20
Development Plans [OCR of page images] Appendix A Development Plans SD.
Section 21
BOR
EEN
POIN
T
G13L.2E5N
13.25
12.75
1213
.75
13.25
13
RIDGE
13
13
13 13
13
13
13
13
13
13.25
13
21.735
13
13
13
1313
121.5
13
13
12.75
12.5
13
13
13
10
.25.25
1133.2
13
1
5
13.2
1313
5
13
13 .75
1.532 ha
.5
2
SITE
131
.25 25
13
13
13
13
10
13 13
13.5
13
.2
13
5
13.2
5
12
10
10
12.75
.7
13.7
5
.25
13
13
13.5
.2
13
5
5
13.2
5
McKINN
13.5
13
.5
13
13.25
13
12
13
12.75
.7
13 13.5
12
13
5
.7
5
.75
5
13
.7
.5
13
12.7 5
ON
10
14
52
.5
13
2
13
13.25 13.5
.7
12.5
5
13.7
13
10
13
13.5
5
1.554 ha
13
14 14
13
DRI
12.5
14.2
13.5
13
12.5
12.75
14
VE
14.25
.75
NO
5
D 13.25
12
OA
14.5
13.25 13.25
.5 THROUGH
.7
13
12 13.5
5
13.75
14.7
12.5R
14.25
14.5
14
13 ROAD
10
13.5
13.25
25
5
13.25
5
14.25
12.75 13.2
14.5
1313
13.5
12.25
12.5 Section 22
13.75
13
13.25 14
12.25 13
12
12.2 13
5
13 5 14.7
.5
12.75
12.7
12.2 5
5 12.75
12.2 12.5
13 5 5
13 13
5 12.7
.75
. .2
12
14.5 14
12 .5 5
12 12.25 13
.
12.25
25
12 12 10
12.75
14 14
12.5 12.25 12 11.75 12.25
12.5
12.5
5 12
12.2
11.75
12.7
8
12.5
12
12
5
12
11
LOCALITY PLAN
5
.7
12.2
LITTLE CREEK ROAD
5
5
114133.7.513.2 13
12.7
25
1.75
3.170 ha
12 12 1
5 5
NOT TO SCALE
3 4 11.75
5 12.5
11.75
11.7
12 2
1.675 ha 1.512 ha
12.25
.2
11.5
5
13
1 .75
12.7
11.5
11
11.5
12 11.75
12.5
12.25
12.
5
5
5
12.2
11.5
12.75
.2
5
NEW
12
12.25
12
13
.5
12.5 11.75 11.75
12.2
12.5
.5
13
13.25
12
12.5
5
11
11.5
12
25
12
.75
.
12
12.5
11.75
12
111. 1.5
11.7
12.75 12.7
12
5
75 1
11.75
5
25
12.7
13.2135.
12
1
.25
.5
25
25
5
.5
13.5
13
13
12.5 12.2 12.2
.5
25
5 5
13
12.5
12.75
25
.5
12
10
11
.75
12.5
3.5
5 12.7
5
1
.7
13.2 10
5
12
12
12.5
75
The text continues on section 23.