Original source · versioned page text
RFI Response (rec. 4.09.25) S25-137 Stormwater Report_Optimized
Very large file (26.4 MB): the original may take a few minutes to open or download. The page text below is quick to read.
Original PDF page 1, section 1. The text section number identifies this passage in the reader.
Westera Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 52 097 417 975
Sunshine Coast Office
P 07 5391 3777
westerapartners.com.au
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT
22/512 David Low Way, Castaways Beach
FOR: Kylie Collum
c/- Shaun Lockyer Architects
Contact: Antonio Cappiello
Email: [email protected]
Our Ref: S25-137
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
The download may take a few minutes. On mobile data, it is best to wait for Wi-Fi.
Full text of sections 2 to 22 (of 83)
Section 2
DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Client Contact: Kylie Collum
Project Name: 22/512 David Low Way, Castaways Beach
Westera Partners Ref: S25-137
Westera Partners Contact: Jared Hill
Phone: 07 3852 4333
Email: [email protected]
Certified for Issue by: Jared Hill
RPEQ: 19891
Date: 18/08/2025
Document Control:
Revision Author Checked Date
Draft/Original I.Watson Jared Hill 18/08/2025
Revised
This report has been prepared for Kylie Collum for the purpose of accompanying a development application to Noosa
Council. This report must only be used by Kylie Collum for this purpose and must not be used or relied upon by any other
person for any other purpose.
The assessment, conclusions or recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information
received at the time of preparing the report and may not be relied upon as site conditions or operations vary over time.
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report ii
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
2 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Location and Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Lawful Point of Discharge................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Upstream Drainage Connection ......................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Flooding.............................................................................................................................................. 2
3 STORMWATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 2
4 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 2
4.1 Operational Phase .............................................................................................................................. 2
4.2 Construction Phase ............................................................................................................................ 3
4.2.1 Erosion and Sediment Control ................................................................................................................ 3
4.2.2 Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements ......................................................................................... 4
5 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 5
6 COMPANY DETAILS AND INSURANCE ............................................................................. 6
7 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. A
Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment ................................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B – Flood and Tidal Inundation Information ............................................................................. B-1
Appendix C – Preliminary Engineering Plans ............................................................................................ C-1
Appendix D – Site Survey & Architectural Drawings ................................................................................. D-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Pollutants typically generated during the construction phase ............................................................................ 3
Table 2 - Maintenance of ESC measures ........................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Indicative Site Location (Qld Globe, 2025) .......................................................................................................... 1
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report iii
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 4
1 INTRODUCTION
Westera Partners Pty Ltd has been commissioned by Kylie Collum to prepare a Stormwater Management Report to
accompany a development application for a proposed residential development.
The proposal involves the construction of an improved dwelling complemented by landscaping and ground-level
features with access via Marcus Dune Court.
This report documents how stormwater runoff will be managed on site in accordance with Noosa Council’s (NC’s)
requirements.
2 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Location and Land Use
The proposed development site is located at 22/512 David Low Way, Castaways Beach; also known as Lot 22 on
SP111721.
The proposed development area is approximately 648m2, with fall of approximately 28% grade toward the
southeastern corner of the lot and exists as a vacant parcel.
The site is bound by residential dwellings to the north and south, natural vegetation to the east and Marcus Dunes
Court to the west. Figure 1 displays the site location of the proposed development with detailed site survey
information provided in Appendix D.
Figure 1 Indicative Site Location (Qld Globe, 2025)
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report Page 1 of 6
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 5
2.2 Lawful Point of Discharge
Under existing site conditions, stormwater runoff is expected to discharge downslope as sheet flow toward the
southern boundary.
Stormwater drainage for the proposed development shall ensure no adverse impacts on upstream, downstream or
adjoining properties. Runoff from roof and hardstand areas for the proposed development is to be collected onsite
and discharged into an existing stormwater grate on Marcus Dunes Court. Runoff from ground surface areas below
the infiltration trench will continue to discharge downslope in line with existing conditions. Refer to Appendix C for
further information regarding the proposed stormwater works for the development.
2.3 Upstream Drainage Connection
The development site does not have any upslope properties that are unable to achieve a lawful point of discharge,
impacting the proposed development.
2.4 Flooding
The proposed development site is outside of flood and tide inundation extents indicated by NC disaster maps and is
considered to be flood free.
3 STORMWATER QUANTITY MANAGEMENT
A detailed stormwater quantity analysis of the existing site conditions has not been undertaken as the proposal is for
a residential development on a vacant residential lot within a small private community. No adverse impacts are
anticipated from the proposed development to the existing stormwater infrastructure within the community.
4 STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
4.1 Operational Phase
The development is not required to meet the Queensland Government’s State Planning Policy (July 2017) as the site
does not exceed the 2,500m2 minimum site area. However, stormwater quality management must still be undertaken
via the application of best management practices (BMPs) to ensure no adverse impacts to the downstream
environment.
Pollutants typically generated during the operational phase of the development include:
• Litter/gross pollutants;
• Sediment;
• Nutrients (N & P);
• Hydrocarbons (oils and grease); and
• Heavy metals.
Stormwater quality best management practices may be implemented for the development as follows:
• First flush diversion system for roof water diverting the roof water for irrigation purposes
• Rainwater storage tanks may be used to collect rainwater for landscape irrigation.
Best management practices have been deemed sufficient for the site area and land use. Refer to Appendix C for the
stormwater management drawing.
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report Page 2 of 6
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 6
4.2 Construction Phase
Management of stormwater runoff during construction and the implementation of an erosion & sediment control
program is necessary to avoid impacts to receiving waters from pollutants typically generated during the construction
phase. Typical pollutants are described in Table 1 below:
Table 1 Pollutants typically generated during the construction phase
Pollutant Sources
Litter (Gross Pollutants) Paper, construction packaging, food packaging, cement bags.
Sediment Unprotected exposed soils and stockpiles during earthworks and building.
Hydrocarbons Fuel and oil spills, leaks from construction equipment.
Toxic materials Cement slurry, asphalt prime, solvents, cleaning agents, wash waters.
pH altering substances Acid sulphate soils, cement slurry and wash waters.
Refer Table A in separate SPP Appendix 2 for further stormwater management design objectives that are applicable
to all climatic regions.
4.2.1 Erosion and Sediment Control
In addition to the degradation of receiving waters, impacts of inadequate erosion and sediment control downstream
from the site include:
1. Traffic safety problems
2. Blocked drains
3. Local flooding problems
4. Aesthetic pollution of drainage paths, and
5. Damage to local ecosystems
Best practice erosion and sediment controls must be installed to minimise the discharge of sediment laden run-off
during construction.
Erosion and sediment control plans shall be developed during detailed design phase and must be continually
maintained and amended as required to minimise environmental harm.
Erosion and sediment control plans are based on three sets of control measures:
1. Drainage control
2. Erosion control
3. Sediment control
These control measures must be maintained in an effective operational condition. Sediment disposal from site is to
occur to the satisfaction of Noosa Council. Defects in erosion and sediment control devices, such as sediment fences
and baskets, are to be inspected and documented. Upon Inspection, the Contractor is to determine whether the
device should be replaced or repaired. Documentation is to include how the damage (if applicable) was caused and
what measures can be implemented to reduce the possibility of repeat occurrences. Any damage to either permanent
or temporary water quality control structures or devices is to be immediately rectified at the contractor’s expense.
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report Page 3 of 6
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 7
The effectiveness of the erosion and sediment control devices can be monitored by visual audits. All ESC measures are
to be inspected:
• at least daily (when work is occurring on site) or weekly (when work is not occurring on site)
• within 24 hours of expected rain
• within 18 hours of a rainfall event (i.e. an event of sufficient intensity and duration to mobilise sediment on
site)
Drainage paths are to be inspected to ensure the sediment fences are not being bypassed as a result of soil erosion.
Sediment laden run-off shall be prevented from entering neighbouring properties. This shall be achieved by
landscaping disturbed areas immediately and prior to a rainfall event.
An erosion hazard assessment has been conducted in accordance with IECA.
The proposed development scored 18 on the erosion hazard assessment with one trigger score value exceeded as a
result of the site slope (refer Appendix A for details). Further details of proposed on site erosion and sediment control
measures will be required at the detailed design phase of the development.
4.2.2 Maintenance and Monitoring Requirements
Periodic maintenance and monitoring of stormwater devices proposed in this report is crucial to ensure effective
operation and design life.
Inspect field inlet grates, pits and underground pipes for blockage or damage at least 6 monthly or after significant
rainfall event. The filter baskets shall be inspected and maintained preferably by the manufacturer to avoid damage
to units and to ensure adequate cleaning and record keeping. For the first 12 months routine inspections of filter
baskets shall be carried out monthly with routine clean out at alternate months. Results of the initial 12 months
maintenance program shall be used to determine future maintenance intervals. Refer manufactures maintenance and
monitoring methodology for specific details.
Maintenance of ESC measures must occur in accordance with Table 2.
Table 2 - Maintenance of ESC measures
Timeframe for Completion of
ESC Measure Maintenance Trigger
Maintenance
When settled sediment exceeds the
Sediment basins Within 7 days of the inspection.
volume of the sediment storage zone
The capacity of ESC measures falls
Other ESC measures By the end of the day.
below 75%.
Sediment accumulation on ESC devices is to be removed and disposed of to the satisfaction of Noosa Council.
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report Page 4 of 6
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 8
5 CONCLUSION
This SWMP outlines how stormwater runoff from the site will be managed to prevent adverse impacts to the receiving
environment.
The proposed lawful point of discharge to manage stormwater runoff from roof, hardstand and upper ground surface
areas is the existing stormwater infrastructure located on Marcus Dunes Court.
Stormwater detention is not considered to be required as the proposal is for a residential development on an existing
lot. Stormwater treatment from the development site will be managed on site by the application of best management
practices (BMPs) to ensure no adverse impacts to the downstream environment.
The site is not impacted by flooding or tidal inundation.
By implementing the proposed stormwater management system, and providing adequate maintenance, the
downstream environment and neighbouring properties will not experience any adverse deterioration of water quality
as a result of the proposed development.
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report Page 5 of 6
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 9
6 COMPANY DETAILS AND INSURANCE
Company Name: Westera Partners Pty Ltd
ABN 52 097 417 975
Quality Assurance: ISO AS/NZS 9001, 45001 and 14001
Insurance: We currently have Professional Indemnity Insurance to the value of $2,000,000 for any one
claim with XL Insurance Company SE, and Public Liability Insurance to the value of
$20,000,000 for any one occurrence underwritten by Wellington underwriting agencies
under authority from Certain Underwriters at Lloyds. Insurance certificates can be provided
on request.
PQC Registered: Registration No. 1471A (Level 3)
• Local Buy Prequalified Supplier for Engineering & Environmental Consultancy Services LB312
• Queensland Urban Utilities minor water and sewer endorsed Consultant
• Unitywater Accredited Entity under Unitywater’s Accreditation and Certification System
• Transport and Main Roads Prequalification of Consultants – Bridge Design BD2
• Accredited Consultants for Greater Western Water, Coliban Water and Goulburn Valley Water
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report Page 6 of 6
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 10
7 APPENDICES
Appendix A – Erosion Hazard Assessment
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report A-1
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 11
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Condition Points Score Trigger
value
AVERAGE SLOPE OF DISTURBANCE AREA [1]
• not more than 3% [3% 33H:1V] 0
• more than 3% but not more than 5% [5% = 20H:1V] 1
6 4
• more than 5% but not more than 10% [10% = 10H:1V] 2
• more than 10% but not more than 15% [15% 6.7H:1V] 4
• more than 15% 6
SOIL CLASSIFICATION GROUP (AS1726) [2]
• GW, GP, GM, GC 0
• SW, SP, OL, OH 1 1
• SM, SC, MH, CH 2
• ML, CL, or if imported fill is used, or if soils are untested 3
EMERSON (DISPERSION) CLASS NUMBER [3]
• Class 4, 6, 7, or 8 0
• Class 5 2 4 6
• Class 3, (default value if soils are untested) 4
• Class 1 or 2 6
DURATION OF SOIL DISTURBANCE [4]
• not more than 1 month 0
• more than 1 month but not more than 4 months 2 2 6
• more than 4 months but not more than 6 months 4
• more than 6 months 6
AREA OF DISTURBANCE [5]
• not more than 1000 m2 0
• more than 1000 m2 but not more than 5000 m2 1 0 4
• more than 5000 m2 but not more than 1 ha 2
• more than 1 ha but not more than 4 ha 4
• more than 4 ha 6
WATERWAY DISTURBANCE [6]
• No disturbance to a watercourse, open drain or channel 0
0 2
• Involves disturbance to a constructed open drain or channel 1
• Involves disturbance to a natural watercourse 2
REHABILITATION METHOD [7]
Percentage of area (relative to total disturbance) revegetated by seeding
without light mulching (i.e. worst-case revegetation method).
• not more than 1% 0 1
• more than 1% but not more than 5% 1
• more than 5% but not more than 10% 2
• more than 10% 4
RECEIVING WATERS [8]
• Saline waters only 0 0
• Freshwater body (e.g. creek or freshwater lake or river) 2
SUBSOIL EXPOSURE [9]
• No subsoil exposure except of service trenches 0 2
• Subsoils are likely to be exposed 2
EXTERNAL CATCHMENTS [10]
• No external catchment 0
1
1
• External catchment diverted around the soil disturbance
• External catchment not diverted around the soil disturbance 2
ROAD CONSTRUCTION [11]
• No road construction 0 0
• Involves road construction works 2
pH OF SOILS TO BE REVEGETATED [12]
• more than pH 5.5 but less than pH 8 0 1
• other pH values, or if soils are untested 1
Total Score [13] 18
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 1
Section 12
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Explanatory notes
Requirements: Specific issues or actions required by the proponent.
Warnings: Issues that should be considered by the proponent.
Comments: General information relating to the topic.
[1] REQUIREMENTS:
For sites with an average slope of proposed land disturbance greater than 10%, a
preliminary ESCP must be submitted to the regulatory authority for approval
during planning negotiations.
Proponents must demonstrate that adequate erosion and sediment control
measures can be implemented on-site to effectively protect downstream
environmental values.
If site or financial constraints suggest that it is not reasonable or practicable for
the prescribed water quality objectives to be achieved for the proposal, then the
proponent must demonstrate that alternative designs or construction techniques
(e.g. pole homes, suspended slab) cannot reasonably be implemented on the
site.
WARNINGS:
Steep sites usually require more stringent drainage and erosion controls than
flatter grade sites.
COMMENTS:
The steeper the land, the greater the need for adequate drainage controls to
prevent soil and mulch from being washed from the site.
[2] REQUIREMENTS:
If the actual soil K-factor is known from soil testing, then the Score shall be
determined from Table 1.
If a preliminary ESCP is required during planning negotiations, then it must be
demonstrated that adequate space is available for the construction and operation
of any major sediment traps, including the provision for any sediment basins and
their associated embankments and spillways. It must also be demonstrated that
all reasonable and practicable measures can be taken to divert the maximum
quantity of sediment-laden runoff (up to the specified design storm) to these
sediment traps throughout the construction phase and until the contributing
catchment is adequately stabilised against erosion.
WARNINGS:
The higher the point score, the greater the need to protect the soil from raindrop
impact and thus the greater the need for effective erosion control measures. A
point score of 2 or greater will require a greater emphasis to be placed on
revegetation techniques that do not expose the soil to direct rainfall contact
during vegetation establishment, e.g. turfing and Hydromulching.
COMMENTS:
Table 2 provides an indication of soil conditions likely to be associated with a
particular Soil group based on a statistical analysis of soil testing across NSW.
This table provides only an initial estimate of the likely soil conditions.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 2
Section 13
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
The left-hand-side of the table provides an indication of the type of sediment
basin that will be required (Type C, F or D). The right-hand-side of the table
provides an indication of the likely erodibility of the soil based on the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) K-factor.
Table 3 provides some general comments on the erosion potential of the various
soil groups.
Table 1 – Score if soil K-factor is known
RUSLE soil erodibility K-factor
K < 0.02 0.02<K<0.04 0.04<K<0.06 K > 0.06
Score 0 1 2 3
Table 2 – Statistical analysis of NSW soil data [1]
Unified Likely sediment basin Probable soil erodibility K-factor (%) [2]
Soil classification (%)
Class Dry Wet Low Moderate High Very High
System
Type C Type F Type D K < 0.02 0.02<K<0.04 0.04<K<0.06 K > 0.06
GM 30 58 12 12 51 26 12
GC 42 33 25 13 71 17 0
SW 40 48 12 49 39 12 0
SP 53 32 15 76 18 5 1
SM 21 67 12 26 48 25 1
SC 26 50 24 16 64 18 2
ML 5 63 32 4 35 45 16
CL 9 51 39 12 56 19 13
OL 2 80 18 34 61 5 1
MH 12 41 48 15 19 41 25
CH 5 44 51 39 43 11 7
Notes: [1] Analysis of soil data presented in Landcom (2004).
[2] Soil erodibility based on Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) K-factor.
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-clay mixtures
SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures
ML Inorganic silts & very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity
CL Inorganic clays, low–medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 3
Section 14
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
Table 3 – Typical properties of various soil groups [1]
Soil Groups Typical properties [2]
GW, GP • Low erodibility potential.
GM, GC • Low to medium erodibility potential.
• May create turbid runoff if disturbed as a result of the release of silt
and clay particles.
SW, SP • Low to medium erodibility potential.
SM, SC • Medium erodibility potential.
• May create turbid runoff if disturbed as a result of the release of silt
and clay particles.
MH, CH • Highly variable (low to high) erodibility potential.
• Will generally create turbid runoff if disturbed.
ML, CL • High erodibility potential.
• Tendency to be dispersive.
• May create some turbidity in runoff if disturbed.
Note: [1] After Soil Services & NSW DLWC (1998).
[2] Any soil can represent a high erosion risk if the binding clays or silts are unstable.
Table 4 provides general guidelines on the suitability of various soil groups to various
engineering applications.
Table 4 – Engineering suitability based on Unified Soil Classification [1]
Embankments
USC Fill Slope Untreated
Unified Soil Class Water Non
Group stability roads
retaining water
retaining
Well graded gravels GW Unsuitable Excellent Excellent Excellent Average
Poorly graded gravel GP Unsuitable Average Excellent Average Unsuitable
Silty gravels GM Unsuitable Average Good Average Average
Clayey gravels GC Suitable Average Good Average Excellent
Well graded sands SW Unsuitable Excellent Excellent Excellent Average
Poorly graded sands SP Unsuitable Average Good Average Unsuitable
Silty sands SM Suitable [2] Average Average Average Poor
Clayey sands SC Suitable Average Average Average Good
Inorganic silts ML Unsuitable Poor Average Poor Unsuitable
Inorganic clays CL Suitable [2] Good Average Good Poor
Organic silts OL Unsuitable Unsuitable Poor Unsuitable Unsuitable
Inorganic silts MH Unsuitable Poor Poor Poor Unsuitable
Inorganic clays CH Suitable [2] Average Unsuitable Average Unsuitable
Organic clays OH Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
Highly organic soils Pt Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable Unsuitable
Notes: [1] Modified from Hazelton & Murphy (1992)
[2] Suitable only after modifications to soil such as compaction and/or erosion protection
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 4
Section 15
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[3] If the soils have not been tested for Emerson Class, then adopt a score of 4.
REQUIREMENTS:
Works proposed on sites containing Emerson Class 1 or 2 soils have a very high
pollution potential and must submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority
for review and/or approval (as required by the authority) during planning
negotiations.
WARNINGS:
Class 3 and 5 soils disturbed by cut and fill operations or construction traffic are
highly likely to discolour stormwater (i.e. cause turbid runoff). Chemical
stabilisation will likely be required if these soils are placed immediately adjacent
to a retaining wall. Any disturbed Class 1, 2, 3 and 5 soils that are to be
revegetated must be covered with a non-dispersive topsoil as soon as possible
(unless otherwise agreed by the regulatory authority).
Class 1 and 2 soils are highly likely to discolour (pollute) stormwater if exposed to
rainfall or flowing water. Treatment of these soils with gypsum (or other suitable
substance) will most likely be required. These soils should not be placed directly
behind a retaining wall unless it has been adequately treated (stabilised) or
covered with a non-dispersible soil.
[4] The duration of disturbance refers to the total duration of soil exposure to rainfall
up until a time when there is at least 70% coverage of all areas of soil.
REQUIREMENTS:
All land developments with an expected soil disturbance period greater than 6
months must submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review
and/or approval (as required by the authority) during planning negotiations.
COMMENTS:
Construction periods greater than 3 months will generally experience at least
some significant storm events, independent of the time of year that the
construction (soil disturbance) occurs.
[5] REQUIREMENTS:
Development proposals with an expected soil disturbance in excess of 1ha must
submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review and/or approval
(as required by the regulatory authority) during planning negotiations.
The area of disturbance refers to the total area of soil exposed to rainfall or dust-
producing winds either as a result of:
(a) the removal of ground cover vegetation, mulch or sealed surfaces;
(b) past land management practices;
(c) natural conditions.
WARNINGS:
A Sediment Basin will usually be required if the disturbed area exceeds 0.25ha
(2500m2) within any sub-catchment (i.e. land flowing to one outlet point).
COMMENTS:
For soil disturbances greater than 0.25ha, the revegetation phase should be
staged to minimise the duration for which soils are exposed to wind, rain and
concentrated runoff.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 5
Section 16
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[6] REQUIREMENTS:
All developments that involve earthworks or construction within a natural
watercourse (whether that watercourse is in a natural or modified condition) must
submit a conceptual ESCP to the regulatory authority for review and/or approval
(as required by the regulatory authority) during planning negotiations.
Permits and/or licences may be required from the State Government, including
possible submission of the ESCP to the relevant Government department.
[7] REQUIREMENTS:
No areas of soil disturbance shall be left exposed to rainfall or dust-producing
winds at the end of a development without an adequate degree of protection
and/or an appropriate action plan for the establishment of at least 70% cover.
COMMENTS:
Grass seeding without the application of a light mulch cover is considered the
least favourable revegetation technique. A light mulch cover is required to
protect the soil from raindrop impact, excessive temperature fluctuations, and the
loss of essential soil moisture.
[8] COMMENTS:
All receiving waters can be adversely affected by unnatural quantities of
sediment-laden runoff. Freshwater ecosystems are generally more susceptible to
ecological harm resulting from the inflow of fine or dispersible clays than saline
water bodies. The further inland a land disturbance is, the greater the potential
for the released sediment to cause environmental harm as this sediment travels
towards the coast.
For the purpose of this clause it is assumed that all sediment-laden runoff will
eventually flow into saline waters. Thus, sediment-laden discharges that flow first
into freshwater are likely to adversely affect both fresh and saline water bodies
and are therefore considered potentially more damaging to the environment.
This clause does not imply that sediment-laden runoff will not cause harm to
saline waters.
[9] COMMENTS:
This clause refers to subsoils exposed during the construction phase either as a
result of past land practices or proposed construction activities. The exposure of
subsoils resulting from the excavation of minor service trenches should not be
considered.
[10] WARNINGS:
The greater the extent of external catchment, the greater the need to divert up-
slope stormwater runoff around any soil disturbance.
COMMENTS:
The ability to separate “clean” (i.e. external catchment) stormwater runoff from
“dirty” site runoff can have a significant effect on the size, efficiency and cost of
the temporary drainage, erosion, and sediment control measures.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 6
Section 17
Best Practice Erosion And Sediment Control Erosion Hazard Assessment Form
[11] REQUIREMENTS:
Permission must be obtained from the owner of a road reserve before placing
any erosion and sediment control measures within the road reserve.
WARNINGS:
Few sediment control techniques work efficiently when placed on a road and/or
around roadside stormwater inlets. Great care must be taken if sediment control
measures are located on a public roadway, specifically:
• safety issues relating to road users;
• the risk of causing flooding on the road or within private property.
The construction of roads (whether temporary or permanent) will usually modify
the flow path of stormwater runoff. This can affect how “dirty” site runoff is
directed to the sediment control measures.
COMMENTS:
“On-road” sediment control devices are at best viewed as secondary or
supplementary sediment control measures. Only in special cases and/or on very
small projects (e.g. kerb and channel replacement) might these controls be
considered as the “primary” sediment control measure.
[12] WARNINGS:
Soils with a pH less than 5.5 or greater than 8 will usually require treatment in
order to achieve satisfactory revegetation. Soils with a pH of less than 5
(whether naturally acidic or in acid sulfate soil areas) may also limit the choice of
chemical flocculants (e.g. Alum) for use in the flocculation of Sediment Basins.
[13] REQUIREMENTS:
A preliminary ESCP must be submitted to the local government for approval
during the planning phase for any development that obtains a total point score of
17 or greater or when any trigger value is scored or exceeded.
IECA (Australasia) November 2008 Page 7
Section 18
Appendix B – Flood and Tidal Inundation Information
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report B-1
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 19
Noosa Shire Council does not warrant the accuracy of information in 18/08/2025
this publication and any person using or relying upon such
information does so on the basis that Noosa Shire Council shall bear
no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults,
defects or omissions in the information.
1:2257
Section 20
Appendix C – Preliminary Engineering Plans
S25-137 Stormwater Management Report C-1
Uncontrolled When Printed
Section 21
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
LEGEND
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
S
S
W
S
W
S
S
W
S
S
W
S
S
W
S
W
S
S
W
S
S
W
S
S
W
S
S
W
S
S
W
S
W
S
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
S
W
S
W
W
W
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S
S
W
S
W
S
W
E
E
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
Section 22
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
W
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
W
E
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
W
E
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S
E
W
S S
S
S S
S S
S
E
S S
S S
W
S
E
MARCUS DUNES CT
The text continues on section 23.