Council archive · source document
B07056.W-01A Complete - Stormwater [As Published] · 132007.2398
CONCEPT STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT REPORT
FOR
COOROY RETIREMENT VILLAGE
Trading Post Road
Cooroy
RSL Care Pty Ltd
October 2007
Report Number B07056.W
B07056.W-
7056.W-01A
BROWN CONSULTING
Engineers & Managers
ABN 38 109 428 506
Telephone: 07 3231 5555 Facsimile 07 3231 5500
Level 3/410 Queen Street, Brisbane Qld 4000
Email:[email protected]
Web: www.brownconsulting.com.au
PEOPLE & PROJECTS
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 70 pages
Page 2
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care — Cooroy Retirement Village
- oS
=
=
=
=
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Alt intellectual property rights, including copyright, in designs developed and documents created by Brown
Consulting (Qld) remain the property of this company. Any use made of such design or document without the prior
writen approval of Brown Consulting (Qld) will constitute an infringement of the rights of the company which
reserves all legal rights and remedies in respect of any such infringement.
The information, including any intellectual property, contained in this proposal is confidential and proprietary to the
Company. It may only be used by the person to whom it is provided for the stated purpose for which it is provided
and must not be imparted to any third person without the prior written approval of the Company. The Company
reserves all legal rights and remedies in relation to any infringement of its rights in respect of its confidential
information.
©
Brown Consulting (Qld) Pty Ltd
2007
DOCUMENT CONTROL
B07056.W-01
Issue Date Issue Details Author Checked Approved
A 23/10/07 | For Approval kus | MS {
AMcP (RPEQ 6921) A.
BO7056.W-01A.doc Page i
Page 3
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
CONCEPT
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
RSL CARE, COOROY RETIREMENT VILLAGE
TRADING POST RD, COOROY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Location .......................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Topography and Site Drainage....................................................................................................2
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION ................................................................................... 4
3.1 DRAINS Model Setup ..................................................................................................................4
3.1.1 DRAINS Input Data.......................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Existing Catchment......................................................................................................................5
3.2.1 Existing Catchment Characteristics ................................................................................. 5
3.3 Developed Catchment Characteristics ........................................................................................5
3.3.1 Developed Catchment Characteristics ............................................................................ 5
3.4 Existing and Developed Catchment Results................................................................................6
4.0 FLOOD INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................... 8
5.0 DETENTION BASIN MODELLING...................................................................................... 9
5.1 Concept Detention Basin Design.................................................................................................9
5.2 Mitigated Scenario Results ........................................................................................................10
6.0 STORMWATER QUALITY ................................................................................................ 11
6.1 Pollutants of Concern / Water Quality Objectives......................................................................11
6.1.1 Regional Water Quality Guidelines................................................................................ 11
6.2 Stormwater Quality Management Strategy................................................................................13
6.3 MUSIC Modelling.......................................................................................................................14
6.3.1 Meteorological Data....................................................................................................... 14
6.3.2 Source Nodes ................................................................................................................ 15
6.3.3 Drainage Links............................................................................................................... 15
6.3.4 Treatment Nodes ........................................................................................................... 15
6.4 MUSIC Modelling Results..........................................................................................................17
7.0 WATER BALANCE MODELLING ..................................................................................... 19
7.1 Proposed Measures...................................................................................................................19
7.2 Water Balance Methodology......................................................................................................19
7.2.1 Rainfall Data .................................................................................................................. 19
7.2.2 Roof Details ................................................................................................................... 20
7.2.3 Usage ............................................................................................................................ 20
7.3 Water Balance Results ..............................................................................................................20
7.3.1 Existing & Developed Scenarios.................................................................................... 20
7.3.2 Mitigated Scenario ......................................................................................................... 21
8.0 WATER SENSITIVE DESIGN CODE RESPONSE ........................................................... 22
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 24
10.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 25
11.0 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 25
B07056.W-01A.doc Page ii
Page 4
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
CONCEPT
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
RSL CARE, COOROY RETIREMENT VILLAGE
TRADING POST RD, COOROY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Brown Consulting (QLD) Pty Ltd has been commissioned to prepare a Concept Stormwater Management Plan to
support the Development Application for the development of an existing rural site at Cooroy. The proposal for
the development comprises:
• 118 Independent Living Units (ILU’s)
• 2 Apartment Buildings
• Village Centre Community Building
• Residential Aged Care Building (120 beds)
• Internal Roads
• Car Parking Facilities
• Landscaping, and
• Water Management Systems including communal underground rainwater tanks for reuse, and two water
quality control ponds incorporating stormwater detention.
This Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared according to The Noosa Plan (February 2006) and
Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (2006). The report comprises the following:
• Hydrological investigation for the two gullies on the site;
• Flood inundation investigation for the lower reaches of the two gullies;
• Detention basin investigation including concept detention basin sizing to mitigate peak flow rates to
existing flow rates;
• Stormwater Quality Management Strategy outlining a treatment train of suitable Stormwater Quality
Improvement Devices (SQID’s) to achieve relevant water quality objectives;
• Water Balance Modelling to demonstrate that the increase in runoff volumes from the proposed
development can be mitigated;
• Response to Noosa Council’s Water Sensitive Design Code is provided to show compliance with the
code has been achieved.
The methodology of the analyses, measures proposed, results and drawings are presented in the report.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 1
Page 5
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
2.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS
2.1 Location
The site of the proposed development is located at 19 Trading Post Road, Cooroy with Real Property Description
Lot 1 RP 215922. The site is located approximately 1.5 km North of Cooroy Railway Station.
The site is bounded by Trading Post Road and an undeveloped lot to the east, rural residential lots to the north,
Pearsons Rd to the south and Cooroy Connection Road (Elm Street) to the west and has an area of 9.51 ha.
Figure 1 below indicates the approximate location of the site.
SITE
N
Figure 1.1: Approximate Location of Site (source: UBD 2006)
2.2 Topography and Site Drainage
The site is located on the eastern side of a north-south ridge line upon which is a railway corridor. The site
therefore falls from the western boundary with Cooroy Connection Road to the eastern boundary with Trading
Post Road and the neighbouring eastern lot. The highest point on the site is near the intersection of Cooroy
Connection Road and Pearsons Road at RL 111 m AHD. The lowest point on the site is where the existing
northern dam discharges across the eastern boundary at approximately RL 99 m AHD.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 2
Page 6
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village Stormwater runoff from areas external to the site, including part of the railway corridor and Cooroy Connection Road, discharge to the site at two locations. Runoff drains through existing gullies from each of these locations. The gullies are referred to as ‘northern gully’ and ‘southern gully’. The average grade of the northern gully is approximately 1.8% and the southern gully is approximately 3.5% as measured from the western boundary to the eastern boundary. Each gully leads to existing dams on the eastern side of the site. Both gullies discharge across the eastern boundary to neighbouring rural lots. The dams are referred to as ‘northern dam’ and ‘southern dam’. The existing scenario stormwater catchment plan is presented in Drawing No. B07056-SK01 of Appendix A. B07056.W-01A.doc Page 3
Page 7
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
In order to assess the impact of the proposed development and the effectiveness of mitigating the increase in
flows, a hydrological analysis was undertaken. This analysis involved the following investigation.
• Identifying the appropriate catchment for the site and land uses,
• Modelling of the existing catchment using DRAINS Modelling Software (Version 2006.01),
• Modelling of the catchment with the proposed allotment development and comparison to existing
scenario results,
• Calibration of the developed scenario DRAINS Model to the Rational Method,
Design and modelling of concept detention basins to ensure developed peak discharges from the proposed
residential development do not exceed those from the existing scenario is undertaken in Section 5.0.
3.1 DRAINS Model Setup
The existing and developed scenario flow rates were analysed using the computer package DRAINS. DRAINS
analysis enables both the hydrological and hydraulic modelling of the site for numerous design storm events and
land uses. DRAINS calculates the full hydrographs of flows resulting from the specified rainfall hyetographs.
Design storm bursts from Australian Rainfall and Runoff 1987 are used for generation of hyetographs. This
section sets out the various assumptions and procedures used in developing the DRAINS modelling.
3.1.1 DRAINS Input Data
DRAINS uses an ILSAX type hydrological model. A soil type 3 was adopted to reflect slow infiltration rates. An
antecedent moisture condition (AMC) of 3, reflecting fairly frequent catchment wetting was also used. Paved and
supplementary areas had depression storage of 1 mm and grassed areas have storage of 5 mm.
Rainfall storms for modelling were entered into DRAINS using intensity values for the area interpolated from
Noosa Council Standard Drawing 9232 ‘Rainfall Intensity Curves Plateau (Tinbeerwah to Black Mountain)’.
Cooroy falls within Zone 3 – North East Coast Rainfall Zone (Figure 3.1 of ARR87). The IFD curve used is
presented in Appendix B.
Modelling was performed for the 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 year ARI storm events with storm durations of 5, 10,
15, 20, 25, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 minutes. Intensity values corresponding to these storm events and durations
are presented in Appendix B.
Further input data to DRAINS that is required for catchments are detailed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 4
Page 8
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
3.2 Existing Catchment
3.2.1 Existing Catchment Characteristics
For the existing scenario analysis, the site was divided into two sub-catchments representing the northern and
southern gullies and discharge locations as shown in Drawing B07056-SK01 in Appendix A.
The site is considered totally pervious, with the only contribution to impervious areas being Cooroy Connection
Road to the west of the site.
Catchment areas and impervious proportions are presented in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1: Existing Sub-Catchment Areas and Percentage Impervious Values
Area Impervious Area
Sub Catchment % Impervious
(ha) (ha)
North 7.40 3.27 5
South 6.26 2.86 5
Total 13.66 - -
3.3 Developed Catchment Characteristics
3.3.1 Developed Catchment Characteristics
For the developed scenario analysis the site was again divided into two sub-catchments. The divide between the
sub-catchments was located based on the alignment of proposed roads and expected bulk earthworks. The
developed scenario catchment plan is presented on Drawing B07056-SK02 in Appendix A.
Catchment areas and impervious proportions are presented in Table 3.2 below. Note, that modelling was
undertaken using the higher impervious percentage value shown in the table and is therefore conservative.
Table 3.2: Developed Sub-Catchment Areas and Percentage Impervious Values
Area Impervious Area
Sub Catchment % Impervious*
(ha) (ha)
North 7.00 2.33 35 (33)
South 6.58 3.02 50 (46)
Entrance Rd 0.089 0.036 45 (41)
Total 13.59 - -
* Actual values (bracketed) rounded up to nearest 5%.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 5
Page 9
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
3.4 Existing and Developed Catchment Results
Peak discharge rates for the existing and developed catchments from DRAINS modelling are shown in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Existing and Developed DRAINS Modelling Peak Flow Rates
Existing Peak Discharge Developed Peak Discharge
ARI (m3/s) (m3/s)
Sub Catchment: North
2 Year 1.12 1.81
5 Year 1.56 2.36
10 Year 1.82 2.73
20 Year 2.16 3.18
50 Year 2.62 3.62
100 Year 2.91 3.94
ARI Sub Catchment: South
2 Year 0.95 1.53
5 Year 1.32 2.02
10 Year 1.54 2.30
20 Year 1.83 2.69
50 Year 2.22 3.11
100 Year 2.46 3.46
Results show that both developed catchments require stormwater detention controls to mitigate the increase in
peak flows that result from the development. Stormwater detention measures are discussed in Section 5.0.
A check was made using the Queensland Rational Method as a comparison with the existing scenario peak
discharge results from DRAINS. Input data for the Rational Method calculation is presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Rational Method Input Data for Existing Scenario North and South Sub-Catchments
Sub-Catchment North South
Sub-Catchment Area 7.40 ha 6.26 ha
Fraction Impervious 0.05 0.05
C10 0.71 0.71
Frequency Factor
1.2 1.2
(100 year ARI event)
*Time of Concentration Range 21 - 30 minutes 21 – 31 minutes
Interpolated Interpolated
Rainfall Intensity
(See Appendix B) (See Appendix B)
* Time of Concentration Range determined from various calculation methods (See Appendix B).
The 100 year ARI event peak DRAINS discharges for each sub-catchment are compared with the Rational
Method peak discharges in Table 3.5.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 6
Page 10
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
Table 3.5: Comparison of 100 year ARI flow rates
Sub-Catchment North South
Rational Method
2.59 – 3.02 m3/s 2.17 – 2.56 m3/s
Peak Discharge Range
DRAINS Peak Discharge
2.91 m3/s 2.46 m3/s
(*Time of Concentration = 28 mins)
* Time of Concentration for the north and south catchments are the same. However, the southern catchment
has a longer length of catchment despite a smaller catchment area.
The results from the DRAINS model fit well within the range of Rational Method peak discharges, therefore the
peak flows determined by DRAINS are considered appropriate.
For DRAINS model layouts and results refer to Appendix B.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 7
Page 11
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
4.0 FLOOD INVESTIGATION
A search of Noosa Council’s Planning and Development publications was undertaken. It was found that the site
falls within the Cooroy and Lake McDonald Locality Plan. The Natural Hazard: Landslide and Flooding Overlay
to this locality (Map OM3.3) shows that the site does not fall within the flood hazard area as nominated by
Council.
Using the peak flows presented in Section 3.4, existing peak flood levels for the 100 year ARI storm has been
determined using weir and Manning’s equations across the downstream extents of the northern and southern
dams.
A total of six cross sections have been used to determine the existing peak flood levels. Two sections were used
for weir equations across the northern dam, as flows are limited by two distinct control points in topography.
Four sections were used across the southern dam. As the second section was located across an existing
embankment the weir equation was utilised in this location. The Manning’s equation was used for all other
sections, assuming a roughness of 0.045. Channel slope was adopted from the survey provided.
The upstream and downstream water surface levels determined for the 100 flood levels at each location are
presented below in Table 4.1. A detailed summary of the weir and Manning’s equation calculations is presented
in Appendix C.
Table 4.1: Calculated 100 year ARI Flood Levels
Flood Level (m. AHD)
Extent
Northern Dam Southern Dam
Upstream 100.60 102.88
Downstream 99.69 101.15
Flood extents for the existing 100 year ARI flows have been determined and plotted. Refer to the Existing Flood
Extents plan (Drawing No. B07056-SK10) in Appendix A for details.
As discussed previously the increase in 100 year ARI peak flows resulting from the development will be reduced
to existing peak flows by the proposed detention basins. Refer to Section 5.0 for further details.
Therefore the extent of flooding will not worsen as a result of the development. Furthermore, detailed design of
roads and embankments at the downstream extents of the site will be undertaken at Operational-Works stage.
Details of flood extents for the future design can be provided if required at this stage.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 8
Page 12
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
5.0 DETENTION BASIN MODELLING
As identified in Section 3.0, measures are required to mitigate the increase in peak flows resulting from the
development.
The measures to mitigate the increase in runoff from North and South developed catchments is to enlarge the
two existing dams to provide adequate detention volume. Outlet structures will also be installed to control the
discharge from each basin.
This section discusses the concept designs of the two detention basins proposed, the modelling methodology
and results confirming their effectiveness to mitigate the increase in peak flows.
5.1 Concept Detention Basin Design
The concept design of the two detention basins has been based on the following:
• Mitigate the increase in peak flows resulting from the development;
• To incorporate the existing northern and southern farm dams located on the site.
• Allow for access by maintenance vehicles,
• Provide significant visual amenity.
Also incorporated into each basin are Water Quality Control Ponds (WQCP’s) that will form part of the water
quality treatment train for the site. While runoff from each catchment discharges to the detention basins only low
flows (up to 3 month ARI) will be treated by the WQCP’s. Refer to Section 6.0 for information on WQCP’s.
In the event of storm flows (2 to 100 year ARI events) the detention volume, outlet structures and overflow weirs
will reduce flows leaving each basin to below existing levels. Flow leaving the basins will discharge offsite to the
downstream drainage system.
After calculating preliminary detention basin volumes each basin was designed accommodating the above
constraints. The minimum level of detention storage was based on the top of the storage required for the
WCQP’s. Effectively this means that storage for stormwater quality treatment is not included in the detention
basin volumes.
Different outlet configurations were tested until configurations were achieved that mitigated developed catchment
peak discharges to existing levels. The developed site hydrological model set up using the DRAINS software
package and described in Section 3.0 was modified to include the Stage-Discharge relationship (Mitigated
Scenario).
Details of the proposed Stormwater Detention Basins are presented in Table 5.1.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 9
Page 13
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
Table 5.1: Stormwater Detention Basin Concept Details
Basin Details Northern Basin Southern Basin
Detention Storage1 1940m3 1640m3
Min. Detention Level RL 99.60m RL 101.50m
Embankment Level RL 101.00m 103.00m
Detention Area1 2200m2 1980m2
Low Level Outlet & Invert Level2 5 x 375mm – RL 99.60m 5 x 375mm – RL 101.50m
Outlet Pit Size & Invert Level2 2.4m x 0.9m – RL 100.25m 2.4m x 0.9m – RL 102.40m
1 x 50mm – RL 99.20m 1 x 50mm – RL 101.00m
Multiple Pipe Outlet Dia
1 x 750mm – RL 99.15m 1 x 450mm – RL 101.20m
& Invert Levels2
1 x 825mm – RL 99.15m 2 x 525mm – RL 101.20m
Overflow Weir Width 4m 3.75m
Overflow Weir Level RL 100.70m RL 102.5m
1 - Details based on Overflow Weir Level.
2 – Refer to Outlet Structure details on Drawing No. B07056-SK08 in Appendix A.
Note: Concept details subject to final design.
5.2 Mitigated Scenario Results
The mitigated scenario model was created by entering the storage characteristics and stage discharge
relationships of each detention basin into the developed scenario model. All ARI storms and durations
previously listed were modelled. Results for the mitigated scenario and comparison to the existing site peak
discharge rates are detailed in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: Comparison of Existing and Mitigated Scenario Peak Discharge Results
Northern Basin Southern Basin
ARI Storm Event Change in Change in
Existing Mitigated Existing Mitigated
Peak Flow Peak Flow
2 Year 1.12 0.94 -0.18 0.95 0.95 0
5 Year 1.56 1.47 -0.09 1.32 1.16 -0.16
10 Year 1.82 1.76 -0.06 1.54 1.28 -0.26
20 Year 2.16 2.13 -0.03 1.83 1.68 -0.15
50 Year 2.62 2.43 -0.19 2.22 2.13 -0.09
100 Year 2.91 2.69 -0.22 2.46 2.46 0
Results indicate that both basins are effective in reducing the increase in peak discharges from the development
back to existing flows. Maximum Water Surface Levels (WSL) in the Northern and Southern detention basins
during the peak 100 year ARI storm are 100.72m and 102.71m respectfully. This indicates that a minimum
freeboard of 300mm to the top of each basin’s embankment can be achieved.
For the Southern Basin, discharge across the overflow weir is limited to a depth of 210mm. The velocity depth
product (V.D) of the flow over the weir is 0.16m2/s. Both depth and V.D are in accordance with QUDM. While no
discharge across the Northern Basin overflow weir occurs for the 100 year ARI storm, a weir is provided to
control overflow should such an event occur. Please note the sag in the accessway is flatter and wider than the
weir. Therefore, the V.D product will be lower than QUDM requirements.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 10
Page 14
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
6.0 STORMWATER QUALITY
The introduction of impervious surfaces to the site has the potential to increase the export of pollutants in runoff
and cause adverse impacts to downstream waterways if not managed appropriately. Measures therefore need
to be implemented to minimise any pollutant export from the development.
Reference has been made to Noosa Council’s Cooroy and Lake Macdonald Zone Map ZM3 (February 2006) that
shows runoff from the site flows to a tributary of Six Mile Creek. This tributary then enters Six Mile Creek that
flows to the Mary River Catchment Zone Map ZM5 (February 2006). Please note, despite the site being on the
Cooroy and Lake Macdonald Zone Map ZM3, runoff from the site does not drain to Lake Macdonald.
This section of the report identifies:
• key pollutants associated with the development;
• appropriate water quality objectives (WQO’s); and
• stormwater quality improvement devices (SQID’s) to achieve the WQO’s.
Computer modelling of the adopted SQID’s and presentation of the results are also provided in this section.
6.1 Pollutants of Concern / Water Quality Objectives
6.1.1 Regional Water Quality Guidelines
The site appears to have been cleared of most vegetation some time ago and used for agricultural purposes.
Portions of the site have been recently used as an orchard. It is unknown if any pesticides, insecticides or
fertilisers have been applied to the site in the past. However, agricultural purposes and the possibility of
chemical application, leads to the likelihood that higher pollutant loads compared with loads from a natural state.
Due to the fact that the site is not in a natural ‘undeveloped’ condition and other reasoning below, it is considered
that concentration values listed in Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (2006) (QWQG) cannot appropriately be
applied to this development.
Reference has been made to the QWQG to determine the physico-chemical indicators applicable to the water
type of the catchment. Reference to Section 2.5.1.2 of these guidelines shows that the specific waterway for the
subject site is not specified in Table 2.5.1.2. The guidelines then refer the user to the default regional water
quality guidelines for slightly to moderately disturbed waters (Table 2.5.1.1). According to Figure 2.5.1c of the
QWQG, the site falls within the ‘lowland freshwater’ water type. Table 2.5.1.1 outlines the guideline values for
the receiving waters. The guideline values listed in the QWQG are reproduced in Table 6.1 below.
Table 6.1: South-East Queensland Regional Water Quality Guideline Values*
Pollutant Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Total Phosphorous (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Objective 6 0.050 0.500
*Concentrations given are median values.
In-situ ambient water quality concentrations (such as those presented in Table 6.1) conventionally relate to the
long term water quality in the receiving water, such as the Mary River which is the main downstream water body.
Concentrations of discharges from the site however, are highly variable, depending on the response of the
catchments to rainfall. Healthy Waterways (2006) argues that selection of pollutant concentrations for
stormwater discharges is therefore problematic. Engineers Australia (2006) states that ambient water quality
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 11
Page 15
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
trigger levels ‘do not directly provide water quality targets for stormwater discharge or for the selection, sizing
and design of catchment management measures.’
Site specific discharges, therefore, have brief impacts on the quality of water within the river. It is considered
more appropriate to assess impacts by considering pollutant loads, given that the total load, rather than the
concentration, affects the long term water quality in the river. Furthermore, the contribution of the development
to the river inflows is small, because the development comprises only a small part of the river’s wider catchment.
The Mary River’s wider catchment consists of a large proportion of open space and natural bushland, which
contributes low contaminant loads relative to an impervious development site. Therefore, concentrations from
the total catchment are more representative of guideline values for receiving waters.
Healthy Waterways (2006) says that the substantial increase in runoff volume that accompanies urban
development can increase pollutant loads to receiving waters, even if concentrations are not increased.
ANZECC (2000) states that water bodies over large continuous tracts of land are highly disturbed and adjacent
water bodies are not necessarily of better quality than the water body of interest. The water body over a large
tract of land, is in this case the Mary River, while the water body of interest would be Six Mile Creek. Figure
3.1.3 in ANZECC (2000) shows that a water body includes lowland rivers and streams, which are applicable to
this site. In regards to pollutant loads, ANZECC (2000) says that excessive growth of aquatic plants occurs
when there are high concentrations and loads of nutrients. However, biomass is more controlled by the total
mass of nutrients available to growing algae.
It is therefore concluded that load reduction targets are considered as a more appropriate water quality objective.
This report, however, will demonstrate that concentrations have been considered to an acceptable extent.
The following load reduction targets which satisfy water quality objectives (WQOs) of the Healthy Waterways
(2006) Water Sensitive Urban Design – Technical Design Guidelines for South East Queensland (2006) are
listed in Table 6.2. The load reduction targets of Healthy Waterways (2006) have been adopted for the purposes
of this Stormwater Quality Management Strategy. Healthy Waterways (2006) are the regionally adopted
guidelines for load reduction targets. The design objectives are reductions in mean annual loads leaving
developed areas, compared to traditional urban design where stormwater is not treated (Healthy Waterways,
2006).
Table 6.2: Load Reduction Targets*
Pollutant Load Reduction Target (%)
Total Suspended Solids 80
Total Phosphorous 60
Total Nitrogen 45
Gross Pollutants 90
* Healthy Waterways (2006).
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 12
Page 16
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village 6.2 Stormwater Quality Management Strategy A treatment train of suitable Stormwater Quality Improvement Devices (SQIDs) has been proposed to mitigate the increase of stormwater pollution loads. The locations and distribution of these devices are shown on Drawing No.’s B07056-SK04 and SK05 in Appendix A. The treatment devices proposed for this development have been modelled for Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Phosphorous (TP), Total Nitrogen (TN) and Gross Pollutants. The treatment devices however, are not limited to the removal of these pollutants and are expected to mitigate the other pollutants. For example, if TSS is adequately controlled the associated heavy metals are also controlled. The treatment train will incorporate the following devices: (a) Bio-Filtration Basins Bio-filtration basins will treat stormwater runoff from external sub-catchments. One basin will be located within the site just downstream of the northern discharge point off Cooroy Connection Road. The other bio-filtration system incorporates two basins and will be within the site just downstream of the southern Cooroy Connection Road discharge point. These basins will be located in series between proposed ILU’s. Refer to Drawing B07056-SK04 and SK05 for locations of these basins. Stormwater discharge from the two low points on Cooroy Connection Road will be directed to the basins by swales. These basins will treat runoff from the external sub-catchment including part of the railway corridor and Cooroy Connection Road. Treatment of an external catchment is proposed to improve the runoff entering the site to assist with the on-site stormwater quality treatment devices. Bio-filtration devices act to remove fine sediment and reduce nutrient concentrations. (b) Water Quality Control Ponds (WQCP’s) Two WQCP’s are proposed for the site. These WQCP’s are located as part of the proposed stormwater detention basins at the downstream ends of the northern and southern gullies. The water bodies / ponds will have enhanced nutrient removal by incorporating macrophyte planting areas and open water zones. They will ensure that adequate pollutant retention is achieved before discharging offsite to adjacent properties. Low flows that do not overtop the low level outlet structure of the detention basin will be detained temporarily in the WQCP’s. Each WQCP will also have a permanent water storage volume. Higher volumes of greater capacity than the temporary storage volume of each pond will enter the low level outlet structure pit of the basin. (c) Bio-Filtration Pods Bio-filtration pods are proposed in two locations to treat runoff from car park surfaces. Bio-filtration devices act to remove fine sediment and reduce nutrient concentrations. (d) Enviropods Fine mesh basket for installation in gully pits such as the ‘Enviropod’ product by Stormwater360 (formerly Ingal Environmental). These are proposed to be installed in various internal road surface inlet pits. Details of these devices are presented in Appendix F. (e) Rainwater Tanks Upon reference to Noosa Council’s Schedule 8 Map, it is found the site falls within the designated rainwater tank area. Three underground rainwater tanks are proposed to collect roof water runoff from ILU’s and apartment B07056.W-01A.doc Page 13
Page 17
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
buildings. Therefore, separate drainage systems will be required such that rainwater runoff from these buildings
is separated from street drainage stormwater runoff. The tanks are designated as ‘Northern Rainwater Tank’,
‘Central Rainwater Tank’ and ‘Southern Rainwater Tank’. Rainwater collected in each tank will be pumped back
in a separate reticulation line to the same buildings that drain to the tank. Water will be used by toilets, laundries
and for external use. A fourth rainwater tank is proposed for the Residential Aged Care building. These tanks
will reduce runoff volumes by reuse. Reuse will also assist in meeting water quality objectives by reducing
contaminant loads entering the stormwater system.
(f) Gross Pollutant Traps (GPTs)
Installed immediately upstream of WQCP’s to provide pre-treatment of stormwater discharges. The GPTs will
capture litter, coarse sediment and hydrocarbons, while significantly reducing the amount of fine sediments
entering the WQCP’s and leaving the site.
6.3 MUSIC Modelling
Water quality modelling of the proposed development has been undertaken using the Model for Urban
Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation (MUSIC) Version 3.01, developed by the Cooperative Research
Centre for Catchment Hydrology (CRCCH). MUSIC enables the user to model the transfer of pollutants through
a catchment and provides an aid in determining how effective the stormwater quality treatment train is at meeting
WQOs. The critical pollutants to be modelled are Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Phosphorous (TP), Total
Nitrogen (TN) and Gross Pollutants.
The following models were set up to examine the effectiveness of the water quality treatment train:
Developed Site Only (without mitigation measures applied)
Model name: B07056 Developed Site Only Unmitigated.sqz
Developed Site plus an External Catchment (without mitigation measures applied)
Model name: B07056 Developed Total Unmitigated.sqz
Developed Site plus an External Catchment (with mitigation measures applied)
(B07056 Developed Total Unmitigated.sqz with mitigation measures applied)
Model name: B07056 Developed Total Mitigated.sqz
As there are no specific guidelines issued by Noosa Council for MUSIC modelling, Brisbane City Council’s
Guidelines for Pollutant Export Modelling in Brisbane Version 7 – Draft Revision 2 (October 2003) have been
used to configure each model. These are the current widely accepted guidelines for MUSIC modelling. The
following sections summarise the parameters and procedures adopted from these guidelines.
6.3.1 Meteorological Data
Six minute pluviographic data was sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the Cooroy Composite
Station No. 040059, approximately 1.5 km to the south of the site. Cooroy Composite Station was chosen as it
was the closest station with rainfall data available in a suitable format for MUSIC modelling (continuous rainfall
data). The 11 year period from 1st January 1972 to 31st December 1982 has been adopted for the rainfall
duration. This period was selected due to its mean annual rainfall of 1613 mm, compared with that of Cooroy
(1602 mm). In addition, series of zero recorded data were limited within the dataset.
Monthly areal potential evapo-transpiration (PET) data was sourced from BOM for the Mary River Basin and
applied to the model (Bureau of Meteorology, 2001).
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 14
Page 18
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
6.3.2 Source Nodes
Source node land-use characteristics must be defined for MUSIC modelling purposes. The site under the
developed scenario was categorised into land-use types according to source node types in the MUSIC program.
Developed scenario sub-catchments were further apportioned into roofed and non-roofed nodes in order to
model rainwater tanks. The impervious percentage for all roofed areas was assumed to be 100%. The Gold
Coast City Council MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2006) were referenced to configure the pollutant concentration
properties of roof areas. For non-roofed areas, percentage impervious values were determined based on
proposed road and other hard surface areas. The effective impervious factor was applied to each impervious
percentage value for the non-roofed area of each sub-catchment in accordance with Table 2.2 of Brisbane City
Council’s Pollutant Export Modelling Guidelines.
Stochastic generation estimation and serial autocorrelation set to zero has also been adopted.
The developed site sub-catchment areas and percentage impervious values are presented in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3: Developed and Mitigated Scenarios Sub-Catchment Areas and Percentage Impervious Values
Sub-Catchment Area (ha) % Effective Imp. Land Use
North ILU Roofs 0.701 100 *Urban Residential
Apt 1 Roof 0.150 100 *Urban Residential
RAC Roof 0.378 100 *Urban Residential
North Catch 1.005 10 Urban Residential
North Bio Basin Catch 1.527 6 Urban Residential
North Bio Pod 1 Catch 0.122 20 Urban Residential
North Bio Pod 2 Catch 0.168 20 Urban Residential
Remainder of North Catch 2.931 2 Urban Residential
Central ILU Roofs 0.244 100 *Urban Residential
South ILU Roofs 1.303 100 *Urban Residential
Apt 2 Roof 0.140 100 *Urban Residential
Village Ctr Roof 0.082 100 *Urban Residential
South Catch 3.454 8 Urban Residential
South Bio Basin Catch 0.935 8 Urban Residential
Remainder of South Catch 0.424 1 Urban Residential
Entrance Rd Bypass 0.089 15 Urban Residential
TOTAL 13.65
*Denotes roof nodes with pollutant parameters applied as per GCCC (2006).
6.3.3 Drainage Links
No routing has been adopted for all drainage links within each model.
6.3.4 Treatment Nodes
Bio-filtration Basins, Bio-filtration Pods, Rainwater Tanks, Wetlands and Ponds were modelled in MUSIC. The
Bio-filtration Basin and Bio-filtration Pod treatment nodes have the following properties presented in Table 6.4.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 15
Page 19
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
Table 6.4: General Properties of Bio-filtration Basin and Pod treatment nodes
Treatment Node
Property
Bio-Filtration Basins Bio-Filtration Pods
Filtration Depth (m) 0.6 0.6
Ponding Depth (m) 0.4 0.25
Filter Media Sand Sand
Filter Median Particle
0.7 0.7
Diameter (mm)
Saturated Hydraulic
360 360
Conductivity (mm/hr)
Seepage Loss
0 0
(mm/hr)
Default k and C* values have been adopted for each Basin and Pod node.
The Wetland and Pond treatment nodes have the following properties presented in Table 6.5.
Table 6.5: Properties of Wetland and Pond treatment nodes
Treatment Node
Property
North Wetland South Wetland South Pond
Surface Areas
1202 991 216
(m2)
Extended Detention
0.4 0.2 0.5
Depth (m)
Permanent Pool
1072 630 150
Volume (m3)
Seepage Loss
0 0 0
(mm/hr)
Evaporative Loss as
125 125 100
% of PET
Notional Detention
25.2 21.1 20.2
Time (hrs)
The general properties of the rainwater tanks as modelled in the mitigated scenarios are presented in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6: Properties of Rainwater Tank treatment nodes
*Daily Demand
Tank Capacity Re-use Connections
of Re-use
North Rainwater Tank 250 kL 46.0 kL/day Toilets, Laundry, External and Irrigation
Central Rainwater Tank 39 kL 3.0 kL/day Toilets, Laundry, External
South Rainwater Tank 350 kL 43.0 kL/day Toilets, Laundry, External and Irrigation
RAC Rainwater Tank 50 kL 7.6 kL/day Toilets, Laundry
*Daily Demand sourced from Water Balance Model
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 16
Page 20
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
6.4 MUSIC Modelling Results
Computer modelling using MUSIC was undertaken for the existing and developed scenarios as described in
Section 6.3. The results of the various scenarios are compared in this section to show the effects of the
proposed water quality treatment train on pollutant loads and concentrations.
Results from modelling of the various scenarios are presented in Table 6.7 below. Load retention targets were
derived from the percentage reduction required from the developed site only (without mitigation). These have
then been compared with the load retention achieved from the total catchment (i.e. including some external
catchment areas).
Table 6.7: Load Reduction Results for Various Scenarios
TSS TP TN Gross
Description Pollutants
(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)
Existing Site (Agricultural Node) 9190 25.7 180 0
Developed Site Only (Without Mitigation) 8280 21.8 174 1410
WQOs (Percentage Reduction) 80% 60% 45% 90%
Load Retention Target 6624 13.1 78.3 1269
Developed Site plus External Catchment
12500 30.6 221 1490
(Without Mitigation)
Developed Site plus External Catchment
4160 16.1 143 0.1
(With Mitigation)
Load Retention Achieved 8340 14.5 78 1490
Load Retention Achieved as % of
101% 67% 45% 106%
Developed Site Load
Objective Achieved? Yes Yes Yes Yes
These results show the load retention achieved for the site and external catchments exceed that which is
required for the site only catchment. Proposed mitigation measures are therefore effective in reducing pollutant
loads to meet WQOs. It is also noted that the developed site plus an external catchment (with mitigation)
produces lower pollutant loads than the existing site.
The median concentration results from the developed site plus an external catchment are presented in Table 6.8
as required by Noosa Council. Results from the MUSIC model show that WQO’s as per Table 6.1 are not met
for the pollutants analysed.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 17
Page 21
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
Table 6.8: Concentration Results for Various Scenarios*
Pollutant Concentration
Scenario
Total Suspended Solids Total Phosphorous Total Nitrogen
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Existing Site
25.4 0.133 1.2
(Agricultural Node)
Developed Site
(No mitigation measures) 16.2 0.153 1.80
plus an External Catchment
Developed Site
(With mitigation measures) 8.62 0.073 1.15
plus External Catchment
WQOs 6 0.050 0.500
*Concentrations given are median values and are flow based sub-sample results for flows > 1 L/s
As the site was recently an orchard with fruit trees, a MUSIC model has been run for the site with an Agricultural
source node to represent the site. Table 6.8 also shows that the existing site concentrations are significantly
higher for TSS and TP than from the mitigated developed site. Therefore, it is argued that the proposed
treatment train of SQIDs is effectively treating developed scenario runoff to better quality than runoff from the
existing scenario.
As can be seen in Table 6.8, the proposed SQIDs are effective in reducing concentrations from the developed
scenario with an external catchment by approximately one half for TSS and TP and by approximately one third
for TN. As there is a reduction of concentrations from existing conditions, that the point site discharges are not
downstream ambient water quality levels and the high variability of concentrations off a small catchment, the
concentration outcomes are considered to be within an acceptable level. Net load reduction achieved is high
and concentration levels are low.
It should also be noted that MUSIC has various limitations when modelling concentrations. The default k and C*
variables adopted within MUSIC treatment nodes effectively limit the level of treatment achievable, especially for
TN. These default variables will produce relatively high outflow concentrations irrespective of inflow
concentrations irrespective of inflow concentrations or size of treatment device.
Treatment of stormwater runoff from external site areas of the railway corridor and Cooroy Connection Road
adjacent to the site is not required by Council. Not treating these external areas would be difficult in practice as
they drain through the site and could not practically be diverted around treatment measures. The opportunity to
treat stormwater runoff from these areas has been taken and will benefit the water quality of downstream
systems. Significant achievements have been demonstrated for improvements to water quality runoff.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 18
Page 22
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
7.0 WATER BALANCE MODELLING
Noosa Council’s Planning Scheme Policy requires the development to demonstrate no increase in average
annual runoff volumes from the site. In order to demonstrate this, a water balance simulation was undertaken for
the:
• Existing Scenario – the site in its predevelopment state;
• Developed Scenario – the site developed without the proposed management strategies; and
• Mitigated Scenario – the site developed with the proposed management strategies included.
The aim is to show that management strategies proposed will significantly reduce the increase in runoff volume
resulting from the development to existing or near existing volumes.
7.1 Proposed Measures
The following strategies will be employed to reduce potable water demand from the development:
• Efficient Water Use – to maintain a constant supply of water from a limited source, efficient water usage
and design principles will be incorporated throughout the development. This will include at minimum
AAA rated water saving devices (such as dual flush toilets, low-flow showers and faucets, front loading
washing machines and efficient dishwashers) and pressure management. Landscaping incorporating
water efficient vegetation will also be incorporated throughout the development.
• Rainwater Capture and Reuse – Four underground rainwater tanks with a total capacity of 700kL are
proposed. Captured rainwater from the underground tanks will be used to supply water for toilets,
laundry and external purposes for all ILU’s. The two Apartment buildings and the Residential Aged
Care (RAC) building will reuse rainwater for toilets and laundry. Landscaping will also be irrigated by
captured rainwater.
7.2 Water Balance Methodology
7.2.1 Rainfall Data
Daily rainfall data necessary to undertake the rainwater tank analysis was taken from the Rainman Professional
Edition Version 4.3, published by the QLD Government Department of Primary Industries (June 2003). Rainfall
data was analysed from the Cooroy Composite Station 1.5 km south of the site.
The relevant mean yearly rainfall for the 108 year period of available data for the Cooroy station was found to be
1602 mm. The yearly rainfall data was then analysed to determine which consecutive 30 year average was
closest to the average of the entire data set. This was determined to be from 1928 to 1957. Within this period,
10 and 90 percentile rainfall years occur as for the total 30 and 100 year periods.
Table 7.1 compares the 100 year period and the 30 year period relevant parameters.
Table 7.1: Comparison of 100 & 30 Year Periods
Parameters Compared 100 year period (mm) 30 year period (mm)
Mean 1602 1576
10%ile 1184 (1187mm for 1940) 1247 (1254mm for 1951)
90%ile 2184 (2183mm for 1950) 2262 (2260mm for 1956)
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 19
Page 23
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
7.2.2 Roof Details
All buildings within the site contribute to a total roof area of 2.91ha. For the water balance analysis it was
assumed that:
• 100% of total roof area contributing to capture. A separate piped drainage system is proposed to drain
roof runoff from ILU’s and Apartment buildings for collection in underground tanks. The RAC building
also has an underground tank at its eastern end (low side) so it is also assumed that 100% of the roof
area can drain to the tank.
• Coefficient of Runoff value of 0.9 was used as per HB 230 – 2006: Rainwater Tank Design and
Installation Handbook.
7.2.3 Usage
Variables assumed for water usage have been adopted from Maroochy Shire Council’s Integrated Water
Management Guidelines (2006). While current estimates of water consumption indicates a usage of
300L/person/day, the target of 240L/person/day represents MSC’s Planning Scheme Policy. On the basis that
efficient water use is proposed within this development, the reduced usage rate has been adopted. For the
Residential Aged Care building, usage was assumed to be lower at 180L/person/day.
Occupancy of 1.5 persons/dwelling has been adopted for the ILU’s and Apartment buildings according to The
Noosa Plan for Retirement or Special Needs Housing giving a total daily use of 360 L. For the Residential Aged
Care building, an occupancy of 120 persons was adopted based on the number of beds proposed. As per the
Maroochy guidelines, the proportions and breakdown of rainwater use per dwelling is indicated in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2: Breakdown of Total Water Usage
Use Proportion of Total Use Rainwater Tank Use (L/day)
External 30% 108
Toilets 20% 72
Laundry 15% 54
Hot water 20% Not applied
Kitchen / Bathroom 15% Not applied
Total 100% ( = 360 L) 234
An irrigation rate of 25mm/m2/week has been assumed landscaping areas around the apartment, residential
Aged Care and Village Centre Community Buildings. A total of area of 1.56ha is proposed for irrigation.
7.3 Water Balance Results
7.3.1 Existing & Developed Scenarios
To calculate the runoff generated by the site for the existing and developed scenarios, Average Volumetric
Runoff Coefficients (AVRC’s) were used in combination with the site 30 year daily rainfall data. AVRC’s of 0.30
and 0.49 were used for the existing and developed scenarios respectively. The resultant Average Annual Runoff
Volumes (AARV’s) for the two scenarios are presented below in Table 7.3.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 20
Page 24
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
Table 7.3: Average Annual Runoff Volume Comparison for Existing and Developed Scenarios
Scenario AVRC AARV (ML/year)
Existing 0.30 45.0
Developed 0.49 73.5
Increase - 28.5
Note: AVRC adopted based on Table 4.11.1 of PRSC Subdivision Development Guidelines.
The above results indicate that runoff from the site will be increased by 63% as a result of the development.
7.3.2 Mitigated Scenario
To determine the reduction in the volume of runoff by the proposed measures, four separate water balance
models for each of the underground rainwater tanks were undertaken to determine the amount of water that
could be captured and reused from roof areas.
The results of the analysis are presented below in Table 7.4, with detailed results presented in Appendix E.
Table 7.4: Water Balance Model Results
Tank Size (kL) Reduction in Runoff (ML/year)
Northern 250 6.88
Central 39 0.90
Residential Aged Care 50 1.68
Southern 350 9.22
Total Reduction - 18.68
The above results indicate that a reduction in runoff volume of 18.68 ML can be achieved by adopting the tank
sizes and management scheme proposed. Therefore, the proposed annual runoff is 54.8 ML. While the
proposed management scheme does not reduce the increase in flows to below existing volumes, it should be
noted that:
• The increase in runoff volume has been significantly mitigated;
• Equivalent Person (EP) occupancy rates for ILU’s and Apartments as required by The Noosa Plan for
Retirement or Special Needs Housing are low at 1.5 (as modelled). This has an impact on water
balance models through lower demand and hence lower rainwater use for toilets and laundries.
Therefore, normal residential EP rates of around 2.5 would reduce the developed annual runoff further;
• Overflow from the underground rainwater tanks will flow into the two WQCP’s. This overflow is required
to maintain water levels in the ponds for submerged plant species and continuous turnover of the water
bodies for stormwater quality treatment; and
• Reduction of runoff volumes via evaporation within the WQCP’s has not been accounted for in the
analysis.
On this basis the proposed measures to reduce runoff volume from the development is considered to be
appropriate.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 21
Page 25
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
8.0 WATER SENSITIVE DESIGN CODE RESPONSE
This section presents a response to ‘Division 20 – Water Sensitive Design Code’ of Noosa Council’s ‘The Noosa
Plan’ to demonstrate that the specific outcomes have been met by the proposed development. Specific
Outcomes as set by Noosa Council have been sourced from Section 14.176, Table 14-58 of ‘The Noosa Plan’.
Code Probable Solutions Response
(if code assessable)
Water Reuse S1.1 No solution provided The development proposes retention
O1 Development uses a storage in the form of rainwater tanks
combination of detention and for collection of roof water runoff from
retention systems to capture buildings. Detention storage is
run-off from areas on the site; proposed for mitigation of developed
AND peak flows in the enlarged northern and
southern dams according to relevant
design standards.
COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
O2 Water storage devices must S2.1 No solution provided All modelling and design has
have sufficient capacity having considered local rainfall patterns and
regard to local rainfall pattern increase of impervious surfaces.
and the catchment area of roof COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
or other hard standing surface;
AND
O3 Captured water is utilised for S3.1 Captured water is plumbed Captured rainfall runoff is proposed for
all non-potable uses on site to be available for all external non-potable reuse where considered
AND uses including gardening, appropriate. ILU’s will reuse rainwater
irrigation, ponds, filling swimming for toilet flushing, laundry and external
pools and outdoor cleaning, as demands. Apartment buildings and the
well as all ground floor toilet Residential Aged Care building will
cisterns and washing reuse rainwater for toilets and laundry.
machine cold taps; and The captured rainwater in some
S3.2 Where the captured water is underground tanks is proposed for
used for toilet flushing and/or irrigation of landscaped areas. A tap
laundry use an automatic or can be provided for swimming pool top
manual interchange device that up at Community Centre.
allows alternate use of captured
water or the reticulated water Automatic or manual interchange
supply is installed to ensure that devices will be installed to ensure there
there is a continual supply of is a continual supply of water for
water for sanitary flushing and sanitary flushing and laundry use.
laundry use. COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
O4 On-site detention does not S4.1 No solution provided Detention basin storages have been
adversely impact on water designed to mitigate peak flows to
requirements downstream of existing conditions. Retention devices
the site where the water is have been designed to ensure annual
required to sustain the ecology runoff is not significantly impacted. An
and hydrology of downstream increase of runoff does occur, however
systems (environmental flows); this is considered to be within
AND acceptable limits and natural yearly
variability. Therefore, this development
has no adverse impacts on
downstream sites.
COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 22
Page 26
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
O5 Within the Shire Business S5.1 No solution provided Not applicable as subject site is not
Centre site, as shown on Map within the Shire Business Centre site.
SBC, on-site detention
measures are contained within
the developed areas of the site,
clear of drainage lines and
Open Space Precincts.
Run-off treatment No solution provided A treatment train of Stormwater Quality
O6 Run-off that leaves the site Improvement Devices (SQIDs) is
is treated so as not to adversely proposed to treat runoff from both the
impact on the ecology and subject site and external site areas to
hydrology of downstream reduce the pollutant loads draining to
environmental flows; downstream areas. Developed
AND pollutant loads from the total catchment
are reduced to meet targets of the
Healthy Waterways (2006).
COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
O7 Within the Shire Business No solution provided Not applicable as subject site is not
Centre site, as shown on Map within the Shire Business Centre site.
SBC—
a) run-off treatment occurs
within the site ; and
b) drainage lines are only used
for final polishing of run-off.
Town water supply S8.1 A suitable backflow Backflow prevention devices or similar
connections prevention device is installed to will be installed on water reuse facilities
O8 Backflow devices or similar protect the potable water within to ensure that mixing with town mains
systems ensure water reuse the reticulated water supply in water does not occur.
facilities have no impact on the accordance with AS/NZS COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
quality of the town mains water. 3500:2003 Plumbing and
Drainage.
Use of natural treatments and No solution provided Natural treatment strategies for water
systems quality controls including bio-filtration
O9 Natural treatment strategies, basins and pods, wetlands and ponds
including grass swales and bio- are proposed for the development.
retention systems, vegetated These basins and wetlands will provide
filtration strips and gross visually appealing solutions to water
pollutant traps, are used quality management in the retirement
wherever practicable; village development. Gross pollutant
traps are also proposed. Due to the
AND
nature of the development (Retirement
Village with an aged demographic),
grassed roadside swales are not
considered appropriate.
COMPLIANCE ACHIEVED
O10 Within the Shire Business No solution provided Not applicable as subject site is not
Centre, as shown on Map within the Shire Business Centre site.
SBC— where necessary,
drainage lines are ecologically
enhanced to ensure that the
water quality polishing functions
are of high standard.
B07056.W-01A.doc Page 23
Page 27
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This report has been prepared generally in accordance with Noosa Council’s ‘The Noosa Plan’ Planning Scheme Policy. Information has been provided on the existing and developed scenario hydrological aspects, detention basin measures, a stormwater quality management strategy and a water balance analysis. Detention basins were modelled using DRAINS software. It has been demonstrated that the proposed detention basins and outlet structures at both the northern and southern discharge points mitigate developed peak flows to below existing rates for all analysed average recurrence interval storms. The treatment train was modelled using the software program MUSIC and has been demonstrated to achieve pollutant load reductions from treatment of both the developed site and external site catchments. Load reductions have been compared to water quality objectives as required by Healthy Waterways (2006). Load based objectives are considered more appropriate than concentration objectives as discussed in the report. The developed scenario water balance model (with rainwater reuse measures) significantly reduces average annual runoff volumes from the proposed development. It is recommended that the Concept Stormwater Management Plan be approved and incorporated into the Operational Works design. Detailed construction drawings for proposed water quality treatment devices will be submitted with the Operational Works application. B07056.W-01A.doc Page 24
Page 28
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village 10.0 REFERENCES ANZECC (2000), Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Brisbane City Council (2003), Guidelines for Pollutant Export Modelling in Brisbane Version 7 – Draft Revision 2. Bureau of Meteorology (2001), Climatic Atlas of Australia (Evapotranspiration). Engineers Australia (2006), Australian Runoff Quality. A guide to Water Sensitive Urban Design. Environmental Protection Agency (QLD) (2006). Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 1997. Noosa River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives. Gold Coast City Council (2006). MUSIC Modelling Guidelines. Jenkins G. A. (2004), Getting to Know MUSIC. Healthy Waterways (2006). Water Sensitive Urban Design – Technical Design Guidelines for South East Queensland (2006). MUSIC Version 3.01 (2005), Model for Urban Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation Noosa Council (2006). The Noosa Plan. Planning Scheme Policy. Queensland Government (2006), Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2006. Environmental Protection Agency (QLD). Queensland Urban Drainage Manual (1992). 11.0 APPENDICES Appendix A Stormwater Management Plan Drawings Appendix B Hydrological Data Appendix C Flood Investigation Results Appendix D MUSIC Model Layouts, Data and Results Appendix E Water Balance Modelling Appendix F Information on Stormwater360 Environmental Products B07056.W-01A.doc Page 25
Page 29
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
APPENDIX A:
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAWINGS
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 30
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
APPENDIX B:
HYDROLOGICAL DATA
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 31
~
[sor
_ __ | I a ¥ — -
CECH | iWiviNnow Novia OL AYMUSI INLD aang Hat
= ~ sa AVIL¥1d . 2 SZe°Z4l "S aZE°9Z NOIVIN
i HVYO) SaAunD ALISNALNI TIVANINY oe es SE
uaaWISNA TANAOI JMS ¥SCON .
me Sinoy NOLLYEE 0 - 2f 4 €£ :
re 5 5 g -& 5 a a ' A a ei
[p~
PP LT 3 ie 7
TDW OR A a T-
fers
S et
Tr =
Bl eh J 4 =
SY
SEES — r b
OR ES
J E
i
{I P
LI 1 WLLL esau
|
az
OE
oe
oF
OB
og
TE
O0z
OSE
on
as
LIE AAV UIA
ANGU/UM ALISNALNI
ET‘ET 2002/S0/7
“IONNOS SYIHS YSOON CIBTLDbL-19
€@/2G 3d
s
Page 32
Appendix B
RSL CARE, COOROY Site Layout Impervious Area Calculations
Job: RSL Care, Cooroy
File: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[B07056 Area Calculations.xls]Imperv - Layout 2
Date: 22/10/2007
By: KU
Northern Catchment
Total Catchment
Footpaths Allowance Allowance
Roads Length Width Area ILU Type Roof/Paved Area # of Sub-Total Driveway Sub-Total Buildings Roof Area Paved External Road
m2 m m m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2
1162 83 1.5 124.5 A 188 16 3008 16 256 RAC 3779 189 3274
1861 66 1.5 99 B 189 3 567 20 60 Apartment 1 1502 75
353 65 1.5 97.5 C 209 13 2717 14 182
897 240 1.5 360 D 241 5 1205 29 145
505 54 1.5 81
445
366
Totals 5589 762 7497 643 5281 264 3274
Total Impervious Area 23310
Catchment Area 70007 <Entered into DRAINS model Ave 20
Percentage Impervious 33% >Rounded up to 35% in DRAINS model
Southern Catchment
Total Catchment
Footpaths Allowance Allowance
Roads Length Width Area ILU Type Roof/Paved Area # of Sub-Total Driveway Sub-Total Buildings Roof Area Paved External Road
m2 m m m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2
410 145 1.5 217.5 A 188 28 5264 16 448 Village Centre 821 123 2865
857 7 1.5 10.5 B 189 14 2646 20 280 Apartment 2 1397 0
461 180 1.5 270 C 209 26 5434 14 364
1318 414 1.5 621 D 241 13 3133 29 377
983 125 1.5 187.5
1698
Totals 5727 1307 16477 1469 2218 123 2865
Total Impervious Area 30186
Catchment Area 65755 <Entered into DRAINS model Ave 20
Percentage Impervious 46% >Rounded up to 50% in DRAINS model
Entrance Road
Roads
m2
Totals 363
Total Impervious Area 363
Catchment Area 889 <Entered into DRAINS model
Percentage Impervious 41% >Rounded up to 45% in DRAINS model
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\B07056 Area Calculations.xls
Page 33
Appendix B
Time of Concentration and Rational Method Calculations
Job: RSL Care, Cooroy
File: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\[B07056 070802 Rational Method Calculations.xls]North
Date: 2/08/2007
By: KU
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS EXISTING NORTHERN CATCHMENT
Wetted
Length Av. Slope Se Velocity Wetted Perimeter Slope
2
Reference Equation Type / Method Area (ha) (km) (%) (m/km) (m/s) Area (m ) (m) R Modifier Rs Manning's n Chez's Coeff tc (min)
AR&R Eastern NSW Rational Method 7.401 17
5.05.3A QUDM Bransby Williams 7.401 0.332 14.9 15
5.05.1 QUDM Overland Flow Based on Friends Equation 0.11 2.1 0.045 20
Table 5.05.4 QUDM Concentrated Flow Based on Average Velocities 0.01 15.2 3 0
0.01 -13.9 0.3 0
0.04 0.0 0.3 2
0.05 1.6 0.7 1
0.08 1.3 0.3 4
0.05 3.5 0.7 1
Overland Flow + Concentrated Flow 30
Average tc (min) 21
Adopted tc (min) 28
Range tc (min) 21-30
FLOW CALCULATIONS
5.02.2 QUDM Queensland Rational Method For a tc of 28 min & Area of 7.401 ha. Flow Summary
Trial 2 tc of 30 min tc 21 28 30
tc
ARI C10 Cy Iy A (ha) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s)
1 0.71 0.57 0.0 7.401 0.00
2 0.71 0.60 72.0 7.401 0.89 1.07 0.94 0.89
5 0.71 0.67 90.0 7.401 1.25 1.50 1.30 1.25
10 0.71 0.71 100.0 7.401 1.46 1.73 1.53 1.46
20 0.71 0.75 120.0 7.401 1.84 2.08 1.88 1.84
50 0.71 0.82 140.0 7.401 2.35 2.71 2.40 2.35
100 0.71 0.85 148.0 7.401 2.59 3.02 2.69 2.59
ARI
Mins 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
30 72 90 100 120 140 148
45 58 75 82 95 118 122
IFD Data
Road Impervious 3388 m2 ARI
North Catchment 74010 m2 Mins 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
fi = 5% 20 87 110 120 138 165 175
I (1hr, 10 min) = 70 mm/hr 25 82 100 112 126 148 162
C10 = (from QUDM Table 5.04.2 0.71 30 72 90 100 120 140 148
45 58 75 82 95 118 122
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\B07056 070802 Rational Method Calculations.xls
Page 34
Appendix B
Time of Concentration and Rational Method Calculations
Job: RSL Care, Cooroy
File: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\[B07056 070802 Rational Method Calculations.xls]South
Date: 2/08/2007
By: KU
TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS EXISTING SOUTHERN CATCHMENT
Wetted
Length Av. Slope Se Velocity Wetted Perimeter Slope
Reference Equation Type / Method Area (ha) (km) (%) (m/km) (m/s) Area (m2) (m) R Modifier Rs Manning's n Chez's Coeff tc (min)
AR&R Eastern NSW Rational Method 6.265 16
5.05.3A QUDM Bransby Williams 6.265 0.384 28.4 15
5.05.1 QUDM Overland Flow Based on Friends Equation 0.2 1.9 0.045 25
Table 5.05.4 QUDM Concentrated Flow Based on Average Velocites 0.01 14.2 1.5 0
0.02 3.5 0.7 1
0.05 0.0 0.3 3
0.02 6.6 0.9 0
0.04 1.8 0.7 1
0.01 14.4 1.5 0
0.04 2.0 0.7 1
Overland Flow + Concentrated Flow 31
Average tc (min) 21
Adopted tc (min) 28
Range tc (min) 21-31
FLOW CALCULATIONS
5.02.2 QUDM Queensland Rational Method For a tc of 28 min & Area of 6.265 ha. Flow Summary
Trial 2 tc of 31 min tc 21 28 31
tc
ARI C10 Cy Iy A (ha) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s) Q (m3/s)
1 0.71 0.57 0.0 6.265 0.00
2 0.71 0.60 71.1 6.265 0.75 0.90 0.80 0.75
5 0.71 0.67 89.0 6.265 1.04 1.27 1.10 1.04
10 0.71 0.71 98.8 6.265 1.22 1.46 1.29 1.22
20 0.71 0.75 118.3 6.265 1.54 1.76 1.59 1.54
50 0.71 0.82 138.5 6.265 1.97 2.30 2.03 1.97
100 0.71 0.85 146.3 6.265 2.17 2.56 2.28 2.17
ARI
Mins 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
30 72 90 100 120 140 148
45 58 75 82 95 118 122
IFD Data
Road Impervious 2864 m2 ARI
South Catchment 62650 m2 Mins 1 2 5 10 20 50 100
fi = 5% 20 87 110 120 138 165 175
I (1hr, 10 min) = 70 mm/hr 25 82 100 112 126 148 162
C10 = (from QUDM Table 5.04.2 0.71 30 72 90 100 120 140 148
45 58 75 82 95 118 122
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\B07056 070802 Rational Method Calculations.xls
Page 35
Appendix B
CONCEPT DETENTION BASIN DESIGN CALCULATIONS
File: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[Detention Calcs MS 071009.xls]North Basin
Date: 22/10/2007
User: MS
Note: Storage and outlet calcs for North Basin
STAGE - STORAGE RELATIONSHIP FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODEL
Stage areas taken from ACAD model
Accumulated
2 3 3
RL Area (m ) Vol. (m ) Vol. (m )
99.6 1334 0.00 0
99.75 1492 211.95 212
100 1642 391.75 604
100.25 1821 432.81 1037
100.5 1999 477.44 1514
100.7 2203 420.24 1934
101 2510 707.01 2641
OUTLET CALCULATIONS
Circular Inlet Circular Inlet
Type 1 2 INLET PIT PIPE 1 PIPE 2 WEIR
Length 2.4 15 15
Width 0.9
No. 1 5 1 1
Dia (m) 0.05 0.375 0.75 0.825
2
Area (m ) 2.16 0.442 0.535
Invert Level (R.L) 99.2 99.6 100.25 99.15 99.15 100.7
Inflow Level (R.L) 99.2 99.6 99.6 99.6
D/S HGL (R.L) 99 99
f (Fig 1.6) 0.023 0.023
Pit Loss (K) 0.5 0.5
Hydraulic Conductivity (k) (m/hr)
Depth Media d (m)
Perimeter (m) 4.2 4
% Opening Clear * 50%
STAGE - DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODEL
Accumulated Circular Inlet Circular Inlet
3
RL Vol. (m ) 1 2 INLET PIT PIPE 1 PIPE 2 WEIR TOTAL
99.6 0 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003
99.75 212 0.004 0.401 0.000 0.446 0.485 0.000 0.405
100 604 0.005 0.744 0.000 0.788 0.856 0.000 0.750
100.25 1037 0.006 1.011 0.000 1.029 1.230 0.000 1.017
100.5 1514 0.007 1.241 0.872 1.171 1.400 0.000 2.119
100.7 1934 0.008 1.408 2.105 1.278 1.527 0.000 2.804
101 2641 0.009 1.639 2.776 1.428 1.707 1.091 4.226
Note:
The following equations have been used to calculate flow capcaties for the
outlet types for each stage:
Pipe Flow (M.J.Boyd 1972) Q = 0.421 x g0.5 x Dia0.87 x HW 1.63 (where HW/Dia < 1.2)
Q = 0.53 x g0.5 x Dia1.87 x HW 0.63 (where HW/Dia > 1.2)
where g = 9.81m/s2
1.5
Weir Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.5) Qi = 1.66 x P x d
Orifice Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.6) Qi = 0.67 x A x (2g x d)0.5
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Detention Calcs MS 071009
Page 36
Appendix B
CONCEPT DETENTION BASIN DESIGN CALCULATIONS
File: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[Detention Calcs MS 071009.xls]South Basin
Date: 22/10/2007
User: MS
Note: Storage and outlet calcs for South Basin
STAGE - STORAGE RELATIONSHIP FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODEL
Stage areas taken from ACAD model
Accumulated
RL Area (m2) Vol. (m3) Vol. (m3)
101.5 1302 0.00 0
101.75 1465 345.88 346
102 1632 387.13 733
102.25 1804 429.50 1163
102.4 1910 278.52 1441
102.5 1980 194.48 1636
102.75 2159 517.38 2153
103 2344 562.88 2716
OUTLET CALCULATIONS
Circular Inlet Circular Inlet
Type 1 2 INLET PIT PIPE 1 PIPE 2 WEIR
Length 2.4 30 30
Width 0.9
No. 1 5 1 2
Dia (m) 0.05 0.375 0.45 0.525
2
Area (m ) 2.16 0.159 0.216
Invert Level (R.L) 101 101.5 102.4 101.2 101.2 102.5
Inflow Level (R.L) 101 101.5 101.5 101.5
D/S HGL (R.L) 101 101
f (Fig 1.6) 0.023 0.023
Pit Loss (K) 0.5 0.5
Hydraulic Conductivity (k) (m/hr)
Depth Media d (m)
Perimeter (m) 4.2 3.75
% Opening Clear * 50%
STAGE - DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIP FOR HYDROLOGICAL MODEL
Accumulated Circular Inlet Circular Inlet
RL Vol. (m3) 1 2 INLET PIT PIPE 2 PIPE 3 WEIR TOTAL
101.5 0 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004
101.75 346 0.005 0.554 0.000 0.256 0.568 0.000 0.559
102 733 0.006 0.857 0.000 0.324 0.865 0.000 0.863
102.25 1163 0.007 1.106 0.000 0.385 1.026 0.000 1.113
102.4 1441 0.008 1.241 0.000 0.418 1.116 0.000 1.248
102.5 1636 0.008 1.326 0.220 0.440 1.174 0.000 1.554
102.75 2153 0.009 1.526 1.444 0.492 1.311 0.778 2.581
103 2716 0.009 1.712 2.483 0.540 1.441 2.201 4.182
Note:
The following equations have been used to calculate flow capcaties for the
outlet types for each stage:
0.5 0.87 1.63
Pipe Flow (M.J.Boyd 1972) Q = 0.421 x g x Dia x HW (where HW/Dia < 1.2)
0.5 1.87 0.63
Q = 0.53 x g x Dia x HW (where HW/Dia > 1.2)
where g = 9.81m/s2
Weir Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.5) Qi = 1.66 x P x d1.5
Orifice Equation (AR&R Equ. 14.6) Qi = 0.67 x A x (2g x d)0.5
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Detention Calcs MS 071009
Page 37
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
DRAINS Model Layouts
Existing Scenario Model
Developed Scenario Model
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 38
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
DRAINS Model Layouts
Mitigated Scenario Model
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 39
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Existing Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Existing
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 2 year, 1 hour storm, average 50 mm/h, Zone 3
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp.
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 0.945 0 0.945 0 28 28
NORTH 1.116 0 1.116 0 28 28
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 2 year, 1 hour storm, average 50 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 1715.76 1715.76 0 0
N2 2026.87 2026.87 0 0
AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp.
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 1.324 0 1.324 0 28 28
NORTH 1.564 0 1.564 0 28 28
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 2503.98 2503.98 0 0
N2 2958.02 2958.02 0 0
AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp.
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 1.541 0 1.541 0 28 28
NORTH 1.821 0 1.821 0 28 28
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 2933.07 2933.07 0 0
N2 3464.91 3464.91 0 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 40
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Existing Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Existing
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp.
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 1.829 0 1.829 0 28 28
NORTH 2.161 0 2.161 0 28 28
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 3552.03 3552.03 0 0
N2 4196.11 4196.11 0 0
AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone 3
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp.
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 2.222 0 2.222 0 28 28
NORTH 2.625 0 2.625 0 28 28
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 4190.99 4190.99 0 0
N2 4950.92 4950.92 0 0
AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp.
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 2.461 0 2.461 0 28 28
NORTH 2.908 0 2.908 0 28 28
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 5098.66 5098.66 0 0
N2 6023.17 6023.17 0 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 41
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Developed Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Developed
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 2 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 1.512 0.948 0.596 17 17 0 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 1.805 0.828 1.036 13 13 0 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.034 0.017 0.017 6 6 0 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 1.512 1.512 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 1.805 1.805 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.034 0.034 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 1.528 1.528 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 1.512 1.512 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 1.805 1.805 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 1678.98 1678.98 0 0
N2 1636.87 1636.87 0 0
N4 22.34 22.34 0 0
N6 1701.33 1701.33 0 0
N7 1636.87 1636.87 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
N8 1701.33 1701.33 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
N3 1678.98 1678.98 0 0
N5 1636.87 1636.87 0 0
AR&R 5 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 1.993 1.139 0.898 17 17 0 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 2.359 1.01 1.411 13 13 0 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.043 0.021 0.022 6 6 0 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 1.993 1.993 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 2.359 2.359 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.043 0.043 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 2.018 2.018 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 1.993 1.993 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 2.359 2.359 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 3341.66 3341.66 0 0
N2 3325.72 3325.72 0 0
N4 44.37 44.37 0 0
N6 3386.03 3386.03 0 0
N7 3325.72 3325.72 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
N8 3386.03 3386.03 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
N3 3341.66 3341.66 0 0
N5 3325.72 3325.72 0 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 42
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Developed Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Developed
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 10 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 2.269 1.265 1.034 17 17 0 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 2.729 1.132 1.654 13 13 0 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 2.269 2.269 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 2.729 2.729 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 2.297 2.297 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 2.269 2.269 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 2.729 2.729 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone 3
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 3797.92 3797.92 0 0
N2 3810.52 3810.52 0 0
N4 50.56 50.56 0 0
N6 3848.48 3848.48 0 0
N7 3810.52 3810.52 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
N8 3848.48 3848.48 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
N3 3797.92 3797.92 0 0
N5 3810.52 3810.52 0 0
AR&R 20 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 2.66 1.446 1.223 17 17 0 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 3.181 1.274 1.943 13 13 0 AR&R 20 year, 30 minutes storm, average 120 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 20 year, 25 minutes storm, average 126 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 2.66 2.66 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 3.181 3.181 AR&R 20 year, 30 minutes storm, average 120 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 20 year, 25 minutes storm, average 126 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 2.692 2.692 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 2.66 2.66 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 3.181 3.181 AR&R 20 year, 30 minutes storm, average 120 mm/h, Zone 3
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 4453.02 4453.02 0 0
N2 4507.29 4507.29 0 0
N4 50.56 50.56 0 0
N6 4503.58 4503.58 0 0
N7 4507.29 4507.29 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
N8 4503.58 4503.58 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
N3 4453.02 4453.02 0 0
N5 4507.29 4507.29 0 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 43
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Developed Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Developed
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 50 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 3.079 1.636 1.443 17 17 0 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 3.618 1.372 2.246 13 13 0 AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 50 year, 25 minutes storm, average 148 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 3.079 3.079 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 3.618 3.618 AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 50 year, 25 minutes storm, average 148 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 3.111 3.111 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 3.079 3.079 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 3.618 3.618 AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone 3
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 5085.34 5085.34 0 0
N2 5207.46 5207.46 0 0
N4 44.26 44.26 0 0
N6 5129.6 5129.6 0 0
N7 5207.46 5207.46 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
N8 5129.6 5129.6 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
N3 5085.34 5085.34 0 0
N5 5207.46 5207.46 0 0
AR&R 100 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 3.424 1.809 1.615 17 17 0 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 3.935 1.522 2.439 13 13 0 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 3.424 3.424 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 3.935 3.935 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 3.456 3.456 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 3.424 3.424 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 3.935 3.935 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zone 3
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 6090.65 6090.65 0 0
N2 6248.47 6248.47 0 0
N4 50.56 50.56 0 0
N6 6141.2 6141.2 0 0
N7 6248.47 6248.47 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
N8 6141.2 6141.2 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
N3 6090.65 6090.65 0 0
N5 6248.47 6248.47 0 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 44
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Mitigated Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Mitigated
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 2 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 1.512 0.948 0.596 17 17 0 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 1.805 0.828 1.036 13 13 0 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.034 0.017 0.017 6 6 0 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 1.512 1.512 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 1.805 1.805 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.034 0.034 AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 0.948 0.948 AR&R 2 year, 1 hour storm, average 50 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 0.941 0.941 AR&R 2 year, 1 hour storm, average 50 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 0.937 0.937 AR&R 2 year, 1 hour storm, average 50 mm/h, Zone 3
DETENTION BASIN DETAILS
Name Max WL MaxVol Max Q Max Q Max Q
Total Low Level High Level
Sth Basin 102.08 862.5 0.941 0 0.941
Nth Basin 100.18 901.7 0.937 0 0.937
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 2 year, 25 minutes storm, average 82 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 1678.98 1678.98 0 0
N2 1636.87 1636.87 0 0
N4 22.34 22.34 0 0
N6 1681.28 1681.28 0 0
N7 1608.73 1608.73 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
Sth Basin 1678.98 1678.98 1.98 -0.1
N8 1681.05 1681.05 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
Nth Basin 1636.87 1636.87 0.69 0
AR&R 5 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 1.993 1.139 0.898 17 17 0 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 2.359 1.01 1.411 13 13 0 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
ENTRANCE RD 0.043 0.021 0.022 6 6 0 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 1.993 1.993 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 2.359 2.359 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
OF4 0.043 0.043 AR&R 5 year, 25 minutes storm, average 100 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth OF 1.16 1.16 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 1.152 1.152 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 1.467 1.467 AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
DETENTION BASIN DETAILS
Name Max WL MaxVol Max Q Max Q Max Q
Total Low Level High Level
Sth Basin 102.29 1239.8 1.152 0 1.152
Nth Basin 100.35 1224.6 1.467 0 1.467
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 5 year, 1 hour storm, average 63 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 3341.66 3341.66 0 0
N2 3325.72 3325.72 0 0
N4 44.37 44.37 0 0
N6 3363.9 3363.9 0 0
N7 3308.2 3308.2 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
Sth Basin 3341.66 3341.66 2.01 -0.1
N8 3363.67 3363.67 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
Nth Basin 3325.72 3325.72 0.63 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 45
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Mitigated Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Mitigated
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 10 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 2.269 1.265 1.034 17 17 0 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 2.729 1.132 1.654 13 13 0 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 2.269 2.269 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 2.729 2.729 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone
Sth OF 1.28 1.28 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 1.27 1.27 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 1.761 1.761 AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
DETENTION BASIN DETAILS
Name Max WL MaxVol Max Q Max Q Max Q
Total Low Level High Level
Sth Basin 102.41 1454.3 1.27 0 1.27
Nth Basin 100.42 1352.2 1.761 0 1.761
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 10 year, 1 hour storm, average 70 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 3797.92 3797.92 0 0
N2 3810.52 3810.52 0 0
N4 50.56 50.56 0 0
N6 3822.16 3822.16 0 0
N7 3794.51 3794.51 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
Sth Basin 3797.92 3797.92 2.8 -0.1
N8 3821.84 3821.84 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
Nth Basin 3810.52 3810.52 0.75 0
AR&R 20 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 2.66 1.446 1.223 17 17 0 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 3.181 1.274 1.943 13 13 0 AR&R 20 year, 30 minutes storm, average 120 mm/h, Zone
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 2.66 2.66 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 3.181 3.181 AR&R 20 year, 30 minutes storm, average 120 mm/h, Zone
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 10 year, 25 minutes storm, average 112 mm/h, Zone
Sth OF 1.683 1.683 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 1.674 1.674 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 2.133 2.133 AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
DETENTION BASIN DETAILS
Name Max WL MaxVol Max Q Max Q Max Q
Total Low Level High Level
Sth Basin 102.53 1693 1.674 0 1.674
Nth Basin 100.51 1522.4 2.133 0 2.133
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 20 year, 1 hour storm, average 80 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 4453.02 4453.02 0 0
N2 4507.29 4507.29 0 0
N4 50.56 50.56 0 0
N6 4482.73 4482.73 0 0
N7 4488.76 4488.76 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
Sth Basin 4453.02 4453.02 3.84 -0.1
N8 4482.29 4482.29 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
Nth Basin 4507.29 4507.29 0.95 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 46
Appendix B
DRAINS MODEL RESULTS
Mitigated Scenario
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\[DRAINS Results.xls]Mitigated
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
AR&R 50 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 3.079 1.636 1.443 17 17 0 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 3.618 1.372 2.246 13 13 0 AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 50 year, 25 minutes storm, average 148 mm/h, Zone
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 3.079 3.079 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 3.618 3.618 AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 50 year, 25 minutes storm, average 148 mm/h, Zone
Sth OF 2.134 2.134 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 2.123 2.123 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 2.433 2.433 AR&R 50 year, 1 hour storm, average 95 mm/h, Zone 3
DETENTION BASIN DETAILS
Name Max WL MaxVol Max Q Max Q Max Q
Total Low Level High Level
Sth Basin 102.64 1915.9 2.123 0 2.123
Nth Basin 100.62 1754.9 2.433 0 2.433
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 50 year, 45 minutes storm, average 118 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 5085.34 5085.34 0 0
N2 5207.46 5207.46 0 0
N4 44.26 44.26 0 0
N6 5103.92 5103.92 0 0
N7 5183.63 5183.63 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
Sth Basin 5085.34 5085.34 11.72 -0.2
N8 5102.58 5102.58 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
Nth Basin 5207.46 5207.46 3.09 -0.1
AR&R 100 year
SUB-CATCHMENT DETAILS
Name Max Paved Grassed Paved Grassed Supp. Due to Storm
Flow Q Max Q Max Q Tc Tc Tc
(cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (cu.m/s) (min) (min) (min)
SOUTH 3.424 1.809 1.615 17 17 0 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
NORTH 3.935 1.522 2.439 13 13 0 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zon
ENTRANCE RD 0.048 0.023 0.025 6 6 0 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zon
OVERFLOW ROUTE DETAILS
Name Max Q U/S Max Q D/S Due to Storm
OF1 3.424 3.424 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
OF2 3.935 3.935 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zon
OF4 0.048 0.048 AR&R 100 year, 25 minutes storm, average 162 mm/h, Zon
Sth OF 2.456 2.456 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
Sth Outlet 2.445 2.445 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
Nth Outlet 2.688 2.688 AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
DETENTION BASIN DETAILS
Name Max WL MaxVol Max Q Max Q Max Q
Total Low Level High Level
Sth Basin 102.72 2081.3 2.445 0 2.445
Nth Basin 100.71 1962.3 2.688 0 2.688
CONTINUITY CHECK for AR&R 100 year, 1 hour storm, average 105 mm/h, Zone 3
Node Inflow Outflow Storage Change Difference
(cu.m) (cu.m) (cu.m) %
N1 6090.65 6090.65 0 0
N2 6248.47 6248.47 0 0
N4 50.56 50.56 0 0
N6 6121.86 6121.86 0 0
N7 6226.04 6226.04 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N2
Sth Basin 6090.65 6090.65 6.76 -0.1
N8 6121.09 6121.09 0 0 * - Compares with Existing Scenario Node N1
Nth Basin 6248.47 6248.47 1.75 0
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\DRAINS\071011\DRAINS Results
Page 47
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
APPENDIX C:
FLOOD INVESTIGATION RESULTS
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 48
Appendix C
WEIR CALCULATIONS
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[Weir Calcs MS 071017.xls]design ds_weir-data
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Northern Dam Northern Dam
North XS 1 - Dam Weir North XS 2 - Dam Weir on other side of boundary
WSL (m AHD) 100.062 WSL (m AHD) 99.684
Flow (m3/s) 2.91 Flow (m3/s) 2.91
Weir Flow Coefficient 1.66 Weir Flow Coefficient 1.66
Chainage RL (m AHD) P (m) D (m) Q (m3/s) Extents Chainage RL (m AHD) P (m) D (m) Q (m3/s) Extents
0.00 100.25 0.00 100.32
5.68 99.99 1.57 0.04 0.02 4.11 3.55 100.00
9.19 99.83 3.51 0.15 0.35 6.34 99.75
22.79 99.89 13.60 0.20 2.05 9.09 99.50 2.02 0.09 0.09 7.07
30.01 100.00 7.22 0.12 0.48 12.83 99.50 3.74 0.18 0.49
31.97 100.15 0.81 0.03 0.01 30.82 17.96 99.60 5.13 0.13 0.42
46.52 100.07 20.46 99.50 2.50 0.13 0.20
51.80 100.25 24.06 99.36 3.60 0.25 0.76
54.36 100.34 27.66 99.5 3.60 0.25 0.76
56.26 100.5 32.71 99.75 3.72 0.09 0.17 31.38
Calculated Weir Flow (m3/s) 2.90 Calculated Weir Flow (m3/s) 2.91
% Difference 0.35% % Difference 0.10%
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Weir Calcs MS 071017
Page 49
Appendix C
MANNING'S CALCULATION
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[Manning's Calcs MS 071017.xls]Sthn
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
Southern Dam
South XS 1 - Downstream of Dam
CROSS SECTION DETAILS EXISTING 100 YEAR ARI
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA
1 0.000 103.000
2 4.480 102.750 0.045 0.15 2.33 0.01
3 5.340 102.500 0.045 0.22 0.90 0.01
4 6.130 102.250 0.045 0.40 0.83 0.02
5 7.320 102.500 0.045 0.60 1.22 0.03
6 8.460 102.750 0.045 0.29 1.17 0.013
7 9.570 103.000 0.045 0.04 0.59 0.002
8 21.860 103.000 0.045
9
10
11
12
13
14
wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 1.698842 7.032164 0.076448
S
0.028 R n Q
0.241582 0.045 2.45
Q100 Flow 2.46
WSL 102.88
Calculated by Manning's Equation 2.45
103.200
103.000
102.800
102.600
102.400
102.200 Existing Surface
EXISTING 100 Y ARI WSL
102.000
-3.000 2.000 7.000 12.000 17.000 22.000
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Manning's Calcs MS 071017
Page 50
Appendix C
WEIR CALCULATIONS
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[Weir Calcs MS 071017.xls]design ds_weir-data
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Southern Dam
South XS 2 - Trading Post Road Weir
WSL (m AHD) 102.183
Flow (m3/s) 2.46
Weir Flow Coefficient 1.66
Chainage RL (m AHD) P (m) D (m) Q (m3/s) Extents
0.00 102.25
6.31 102.00 4.62 0.09 0.21 1.69
13.35 101.92 7.04 0.22 1.23
18.31 102.00 4.96 0.22 0.87
20.36 102.13 2.05 0.12 0.14
27.31 102.25 3.07 0.03 0.02 23.43
34.52 102.50
Calculated Weir Flow (m3/s) 2.47
% Difference -0.40%
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Weir Calcs MS 071017
Page 51
Appendix C
MANNING'S CALCULATION
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[Manning's Calcs MS 071017.xls]Sthn
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
Southern Dam
South XS 3 - Downstream of Pipe
CROSS SECTION DETAILS EXISTING 100 YEAR ARI
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA
1 0.000 102.250
2 7.170 102.000 0.045
3 14.830 101.750 0.045
4 15.620 101.500 0.045
5 16.330 101.250 0.045 0.02 0.36 0.00
6 17.060 101.000 0.045 0.18 0.77 0.01
7 18.670 100.800 0.045 0.76 1.62 0.03
8 20.290 101.000 0.045 0.76 1.63 0.03
9 21.140 101.250 0.045 0.21 0.89 0.01
10 22.810 101.500 0.045 0.05 0.81 0.00
11 25.000 101.750 0.045
12 28.640 102.000 0.045
13 33.980 102.250 0.045
14
wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 1.973744 6.08414 0.0888185
S
0.014 R n Q
0.324408 0.045 2.45
Q100 Flow 2.46
WSL 101.37
Calculated by Manning's Equation 2.45
102.500
102.000
101.500
101.000
100.500
Existing Surface
EXISTING 100 Y ARI WSL
100.000
-2.000 3.000 8.000 13.000 18.000 23.000 28.000
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Manning's Calcs MS 071017
Page 52
Appendix C
MANNING'S CALCULATION
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[Manning's Calcs MS 071017.xls]Sthn
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Manning's calculation as per Equation 4.2.3 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
Southern Dam
South XS 4 - Downstream lot
CROSS SECTION DETAILS EXISTING 100 YEAR ARI
POINT CH Z n wA wP n x wA
1 0.000 102.250
2 5.690 102.000 0.045
3 8.960 101.750 0.045
4 12.050 101.500 0.045
5 13.690 101.250 0.045 0.03 0.60 0.00
6 15.310 101.000 0.045 0.35 1.64 0.02
7 16.920 100.800 0.045 0.71 1.62 0.03
8 17.840 101.000 0.045 0.40 0.94 0.02
9 18.760 101.250 0.045 0.20 0.95 0.01
10 19.940 101.500 0.045 0.02 0.43 0.00
11 21.130 101.750 0.045
12 22.940 102.000 0.045
13 26.930 102.250 0.045
14
wA wP n x wA
TOTAL 1.704984 6.187852 0.0767243
S
0.023 R n Q
0.275537 0.045 2.43
Q100 Flow 2.46
WSL 101.34
Calculated by Manning's Equation 2.43
102.500
102.000
101.500
101.000
100.500
Existing Surface
EXISTING 100 Y ARI WSL
100.000
-2.000 3.000 8.000 13.000 18.000 23.000 28.000
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Manning's Calcs MS 071017
Page 53
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
APPENDIX D:
MUSIC MODEL LAYOUTS, DATA AND RESULTS
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 54
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village B07056 Existing Site Only - AGRIC.sqz B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 55
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village B07056 Developed Site Only Unmitigated.sqz B07056 Developed Site Only Unmitigated.sqz B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 56
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village B07056 Developed Total Unmitigated.sqz B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 57
Concept Stormwater Management Plan RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village B07056 Developed Total Mitigated.sqz B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 58
Appendix B
RSL CARE, COOROY MUSIC Model Calculations
Job: RSL Care, Cooroy
File: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[B07056 Area Calculations.xls]Imperv - Layout 2
Date: 22/10/2007
By: KU
Northern Catchment
MUSIC Model Impervious Area Calculations
Site Only Catchment
Data for GCCC Node model
Northern Site Area 41444
Total Non-Roof Area 29155 <This entered to MUSIC "Developed Site Only Unmitigated" Node: Remainder of North Catch
Non-Roof Impervious Area 7747
% Impervious 27%
Effective % Impervious 8% <This entered to MUSIC "Developed Site Only Unmitigated"
MUSIC Data
Catchment Impervious % Effective % Ave. Surface Filter Media Extended Detention Permanent Pool Rainwater Tank
MUSIC Catchment Area Area Impervious Impervious Treatment Device Name Area Area Depth Volume Volume Surface Area*
ha ha % 0.31 m2 m2 m m kL m2
North Bio Basin Catch 1.527 0.308 20 6 North Bio Basin 110 25 0.40 - - -
North Bio Pod 1 Catch 0.122 - 65 20 North Bio Pod 1 17 17 0.25 - - -
North Bio Pod 2 Catch 0.168 - 65 20 North Bio Pod 2 31 15 0.25 - - -
North Catch 1.005 0.320 32 10 5 x Nth Enviropods - - - - - -
North ILU Roofs 0.701 - 100 100 North Rainwater Tank - - - - 250 125
RAC Roof 0.378 - 100 100 RAC Rainwater Tank - - - - 50 25
Apt 1 Roof 0.150 - 100 100 GPT North - - - - - -
Remainder of North Catch 2.931 0.198 7 2 GPT North - - - - - -
North Wetland 1202 - 0.40 1072 - -
*Tank assumed 2m deep.
Southern Catchment
MUSIC Model Impervious Area Calculations
Site Only Catchment
Data for GCCC Node model
Southern Site Area 52928
Total Non-Roof Area 35244 <This entered to MUSIC "Developed Site Only Unmitigated" Node: Remainder of South Catch
Non-Roof Impervious Area 9637
% Impervious 27%
Effective % Impervious 8% <This entered to MUSIC "Developed Site Only Unmitigated"
MUSIC Data
Catchment Impervious % Effective % Ave. Surface Filter Media Extended Detention Permanent Pool Rainwater Tank
MUSIC Catchment Area Area Impervious Impervious Treatment Device Name Area Area Depth Volume Volume Surface Area*
ha ha % 0.31 m2 m2 m m kL m2
South Bio Basin Catch 0.930 0.238 26 8 South Bio Basin 40 10 0.4 - - -
South Catch 3.454 0.906 26 8 8 x Sth Enviropods - - - - - -
Central ILU Roofs 0.244 - 100 100 Central Rainwater Tank - - - - 39 19.5
South ILU roofs 1.303 - 100 100 South Rainwater Tank - - - - 350 175
Village Ctr Roof 0.082 - 100 100 GPT South - - - - - -
Apt 2 Roof 0.140 - 100 100 South Rainwater Tank - - - - - -
Remainder of South Catch 0.424 0.012 3 1 South Wetland
South Wetland 991 - 0.2 630 - -
South Pond 216 - 0.5 150 - -
*Tank assumed 2m deep.
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\B07056 Area Calculations.xls
Page 59
Appendix D
RSL CARE, COOROY MUSIC RESULTS
Title: MUSIC Results
Job: RSL Care, Cooroy
File: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\MUSIC\[B07056 MUSIC Results.xls]Results
Date: 8/11/2007
By: KU
Existing Site Only - Agricultural "B07056 Existing Site Only - Agric.sqz"
Inflow
Flow (ML/yr) 52.7
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 9190
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 25.7
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 180
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 0
B07056 Existing Site Only - AGRIC - Receiving Node - Flow-Based Sub-Sample Statistics
Inflow mean standard deviation median maximum minimum 10 percentile 90 percentile
Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.00734 0.0554 0.00199 4.29 0.001 0.00115 0.00368
TSS Concentration (mg/L) 32.5 49.9 25.4 2310 7.86 17.2 38.8
Log [TSS] (mg/L) 1.43 0.201 1.4 3.36 0.895 1.23 1.59
TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.153 0.126 0.133 6.87 0.0366 0.09 0.203
Log [TP] (mg/L) -0.863 0.169 -0.875 0.837 -1.44 -1.05 -0.693
TN Concentration (mg/L) 1.33 0.805 1.2 27.5 0.343 0.811 1.82
Log [TN] (mg/L) 0.0881 0.158 0.0782 1.44 -0.465 -0.0909 0.26
TSS Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.498 6.87 0.0182 1070 0.00321 0.00946 0.038
TP Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.00137 0.0169 0.0000959 1.7 0.0000166 0.0000497 0.000199
TN Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.00955 0.127 0.000863 30.9 0.000141 0.000447 0.00178
Gross Pollutant Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Developed Site Only - Unmitigated "B07056 Developed Site Only Unmitigated.sqz"
Sources Residual Load % Reduction
Flow (ML/yr) 84.5 84.5 0
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 8300 8300 0
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 21.9 21.9 0
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 175 175 0
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 1410 1410 0
Total Developed Catchment - Unmitigated "B07056 Developed Total Unmitigated.sqz"
Sources Residual Load % Reduction
Flow (ML/yr) 108 108 0
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 12600 12600 0
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 31 31 0
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 221 221 0
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 1490 1490 0
B07056 Developed Total Unmitigated - Receiving Node - Flow-Based Sub-Sample Statistics
Inflow mean standard deviation median maximum minimum 10 percentile 90 percentile
Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.0162 0.094 0.0028 5.88 0.001 0.00115 0.0198
TSS Concentration (mg/L) 33.3 37.2 16.2 796 2.65 8.45 77.2
Log [TSS] (mg/L) 1.34 0.38 1.21 2.9 0.423 0.927 1.89
TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.167 0.0737 0.153 2.05 0.0354 0.0904 0.258
Log [TP] (mg/L) -0.815 0.178 -0.815 0.312 -1.45 -1.04 -0.588
TN Concentration (mg/L) 1.86 0.454 1.8 6.31 0.744 1.35 2.45
Log [TN] (mg/L) 0.259 0.102 0.256 0.8 -0.129 0.131 0.39
TSS Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.696 6.57 0.0165 698 0.00111 0.00537 0.461
TP Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.00169 0.0133 0.000143 1.29 0.0000142 0.0000558 0.00152
Total Developed Catchment - Mitigated "B07056 Developed Total Mitigated.sqz"
Sources Residual Load % Reduction
Flow (ML/yr) 108 84.8 21.5
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 12700 4160 67.3
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 30.9 16.1 48.1
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 220 143 35.3
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 1490 0.105 100
B07056 Developed Total Mitigated - Receiving Node - Flow-Based Sub-Sample Statistics
Inflow mean standard deviation median maximum minimum 10 percentile 90 percentile
Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.0102 0.0704 0.00289 4.71 0.001 0.00124 0.00704
TSS Concentration (mg/L) 11.1 9.04 8.62 281 4.46 7.85 13.7
Log [TSS] (mg/L) 0.995 0.168 0.935 2.45 0.65 0.895 1.14
TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.083 0.0313 0.0734 1.36 0.0444 0.0688 0.101
Log [TP] (mg/L) -1.1 0.104 -1.13 0.133 -1.35 -1.16 -0.995
TN Concentration (mg/L) 1.24 0.232 1.15 4.91 0.373 1.03 1.59
Log [TN] (mg/L) 0.0865 0.0745 0.0599 0.691 -0.428 0.0131 0.202
TSS Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.184 2.35 0.00869 219 0.00174 0.00428 0.0363
TP Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.000706 0.00754 0.0000749 0.564 0.0000229 0.0000348 0.000257
TN Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.00623 0.0512 0.00119 3.91 0.000152 0.000496 0.00399
Gross Pollutant Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.00000469 0.000286 0 0.0515 0 0 0
B07056 Developed Total Mitigated - Receiving Node - All Data Statistics
Inflow mean standard deviation median maximum minimum 10 percentile 90 percentile
Flow (cubic metres/sec) 0.00269 0.0359 0.00000064 4.71 0 0 0.00363
TSS Concentration (mg/L) 6.13 8.31 6.74 345 0 0 11.7
Log [TSS] (mg/L) 0.863 0.328 0.93 2.54 -0.928 0.363 1.08
TP Concentration (mg/L) 0.0601 0.0844 0.0699 4.11 0 0 0.0972
Log [TP] (mg/L) -1.11 0.216 -1.13 0.614 -2.43 -1.28 -0.897
TN Concentration (mg/L) 0.811 0.688 1.03 9.65 0 0 1.54
Log [TN] (mg/L) 0.0743 0.125 0.0392 0.984 -0.739 0.00164 0.232
TSS Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.0475 1.19 0.00000101 219 0 0 0.011
TP Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.000183 0.00383 2.18E-08 0.564 0 0 0.0000951
TN Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.00163 0.0261 0.000000348 3.91 0 0 0.0016
Gross Pollutant Load (kg/6 Minutes) 0.0000012 0.000145 0 0.0515 0 0 0
Sources Residual Load % Reduction
Flow (ML/yr) 108 84.8 21.5
Total Suspended Solids (kg/yr) 12700 4160 67.3
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 30.9 16.1 48.1
Total Nitrogen (kg/yr) 220 143 35.3
Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 1490 0.105 100
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\MUSIC\B07056 MUSIC Results.xls
Page 60
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
APPENDIX E:
WATER BALANCE MODELLING
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 61
Appendix E
RSL Care, Cooroy
Title: Water Balance - Area Calculations
Job: RSL Care, Cooroy
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\[B07056 Area Calculations.xls]Water Bal - Areas Layout 2
Date: 26/09/2007
By: KU
Enter values in blue
Existing Site
Catchment Catchment Area Catchment Area Cv
m2 ha
Total Site Area 95100 9.510 0.30
RSL Care Brief - Site Area 9.508
Developed Site
Catchment Catchment Area Catchment Area Cv
m2 ha
Total Site Area 95100 9.510 0.49
Mitigated Site
Catchment Catchment Area Catchment Area Cv
m2 ha
ILU Roofs 22474 2.247 0.9
Village Centre Roof 821 0.082 0.9
Apartment 2 (West) 1397 0.140 0.9
Apartment 1 (East) 1502 0.150 0.9
RAC Building 3779 0.378 0.9
Total 29973
Note:
Volumetric Coefficient of Runoff (Cv) values adopted from:
Table 4.11.1 "Pine Rivers Shire Council Design Manual. Design Standards - Part 2 - Drainage - Section 4 - Design Standards. January 2005".
Developed Site Calcs
Area # ILUs (Lots) Average 'Lot' Size Cv Weighted Cv Calcs
m2 m2
Residential Area 62893 118 533 0.50 31447
Residential Aged Care 15525 0.50 7763
Apartment 1 (East) 4282 0.50 2141
Apartment 2 (West) 3305 0.50 1653
Village Centre 2132 0.50 1066
South Basin 4136 0.35 1448
North Basin 3108 0.35 1088
Area Check 95381 0.49 Weighted Cv
Areas from "CV AREAS" on "H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Acad\X_B07056_BASE.dwg"
Virtual 'Lot' size is within 'Residential A' of PRSC Table 4.7.3, therefore Cv = 0.50 applied to this area.
ILU Roof Areas
ILU Type m2 # of Total
A 169 44 7436
B 178 17 3026
C 200 39 7800
D 234 18 4212
22474
Other Buildings m2
Royal Aged Care (North) 3779
Apartment 1 (East) 1502
Apartment 2 (West) 1397
Village Centre 821
7499
All Buildings on site
Total 29973
Housing Clusters
House Type numbers
ILU Rainwater Tank Catchment North or South Dam No. of ILU's Tank Size A B C D Total Roof Area
(kL) # # # # m2
North North 37 250 16 3 13 5 7008
Central South 13 39 6 2 3 2 2438
South South 68 350 22 12 23 11 13028
118
EP Calculations
Catchment ILU's EP/ILU EP Roof Area
m2
North 37 1.5 55.5 7008
Central 13 1.5 19.5 2438
South 68 1.5 102 13028
RAC 120 1 120 3779
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\B07056 Area Calculations.xls
Page 62
Appendix E
Rainwater Tank Sizing
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\[Rainwater Tank Usage - North N3 - MS 071018.xls]Data En
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Note: Water Balance model for Northern Tank area
Northern Catchment
Model Start Date Domestic Usage Variables
Start Year 1928 Equivalent Persons (EP) 85.5
Start Month 1 Daily EP Consumption (L/EP/day) 240
Start Day 1 Daily Household Use (L/day) 20520
RWT Usage
Roof Details Breakdown of Domestic Use % RWT Use (L/day)
Roof Area (m2) 8510 External 30% y 6156
% of Roof Draining to Tank 100% Toilets 20% y 4104
Coefficient of Runoff 0.9 Laundry 15% y 3078
1st Flush Depth (mm) 0.3 Hot Water 20% 0
Kitchen / Bathroom 15% 0
Rainwater Tank Details TOTAL RWT Use 100% 13338
Tank Volume (L) 250000 Mains Usage (L/day) 7182
Dead Storage (L) 12500
Min Storage (L) 13338 Landscaping Water Usage Details
Start Storage (L) 125000 Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/week) 25
Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/day) 3.57
Irrigation Area (m2) 9140
Daily Irrigation Volume (L) 32643
Results
Average Yearly Rainfall (mm) 1576 External Use Variable
Average Yearly Runoff (ML) 12.08 Option 1 Always On y
Average Yearly Rainwater Usage (ML 6.89 Option 2 Off when Raining
Option 3 Off when Storage is Too Low
Average Rainwater Supply Option 4 Off when Raining or Storage is Too Low
as % of Demand 57% Option 5 Always Off
!st Flush
2%
Domestic Use
19%
Landscape Use
38%
Overflow
41%
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\Rainwater Tank Usage - North N3 - MS 071018
Page 63
Appendix E
Rainwater Tank Sizing
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\[Rainwater Tank Usage - Central C1 - MS 071019.xls]Data
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Note: Water Balance model for Central Tank area
Central Catchment
Model Start Date Domestic Usage Variables
Start Year 1928 Equivalent Persons (EP) 19.5
Start Month 1 Daily EP Consumption (L/EP/day) 240
Start Day 1 Daily Household Use (L/day) 4680
RWT Usage
Roof Details Breakdown of Domestic Use % RWT Use (L/day)
Roof Area (m2) 2438 External 30% y 1404
% of Roof Draining to Tank 100% Toilets 20% y 936
Coefficient of Runoff 0.9 Laundry 15% y 702
1st Flush Depth (mm) 0.3 Hot Water 20% 0
Kitchen / Bathroom 15% 0
Rainwater Tank Details TOTAL RWT Use 100% 3042
Tank Volume (L) 39000 Mains Usage (L/day) 1638
Dead Storage (L) 1950
Min Storage (L) 3042 Landscaping Water Usage Details
Start Storage (L) 19500 Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/week) 0
Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/day) 0.00
Irrigation Area (m2) 0
Daily Irrigation Volume (L) 0
Results
Average Yearly Rainfall (mm) 1576 External Use Variable
Average Yearly Runoff (ML) 3.46 Option 1 Always On y
Average Yearly Rainwater Usage (ML 0.90 Option 2 Off when Raining
Option 3 Off when Storage is Too Low
Average Rainwater Supply Option 4 Off when Raining or Storage is Too Low
as % of Demand 53% Option 5 Always Off
!st Flush
2%
Domestic Use
26%
Overflow
72%
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\Rainwater Tank Usage - Central C1 - MS 071019
Page 64
Appendix E
Rainwater Tank Sizing
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\[Rainwater Tank Usage - South S3 - MS 071019.xls]Data E
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Note: Water Balance model for Southern Tank area
Southern Catchment
Model Start Date Domestic Usage Variables
Start Year 1928 Equivalent Persons (EP) 129
Start Month 1 Daily EP Consumption (L/EP/day) 240
Start Day 1 Daily Household Use (L/day) 30960
RWT Usage
Roof Details Breakdown of Domestic Use % RWT Use (L/day)
Roof Area (m2) 14425 External 30% y 9288
% of Roof Draining to Tank 100% Toilets 20% y 6192
Coefficient of Runoff 0.9 Laundry 15% y 4644
1st Flush Depth (mm) 0.3 Hot Water 20% 0
Kitchen / Bathroom 15% 0
Rainwater Tank Details TOTAL RWT Use 100% 20124
Tank Volume (L) 350000 Mains Usage (L/day) 10836
Dead Storage (L) 17500
Min Storage (L) 20124 Landscaping Water Usage Details
Start Storage (L) 175000 Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/week) 25
Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/day) 3.57
Irrigation Area (m2) 6430
Daily Irrigation Volume (L) 22964
Results
Average Yearly Rainfall (mm) 1576 External Use Variable
Average Yearly Runoff (ML) 20.47 Option 1 Always On y
Average Yearly Rainwater Usage (ML 9.22 Option 2 Off when Raining
Option 3 Off when Storage is Too Low
Average Rainwater Supply Option 4 Off when Raining or Storage is Too Low
as % of Demand 58% Option 5 Always Off
!st Flush
2%
Landscape Use
23% Domestic Use
22%
Overflow
53%
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\Rainwater Tank Usage - South S3 - MS 071019
Page 65
Appendix E
Rainwater Tank Sizing
Filename: H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\[Rainwater Tank Usage - RAC R1 - MS 071019.xls]Data En
Date: 22/10/2007
By: MS
Note: Water Balance model for RAC Tank area
RAC Catchment
Model Start Date Domestic Usage Variables
Start Year 1928 Equivalent Persons (EP) 120
Start Month 1 Daily EP Consumption (L/EP/day) 180
Start Day 1 Daily Household Use (L/day) 21600
RWT Usage
Roof Details Breakdown of Domestic Use % RWT Use (L/day)
Roof Area (m2) 3779 External 30% 0
% of Roof Draining to Tank 100% Toilets 20% y 4320
Coefficient of Runoff 0.9 Laundry 15% y 3240
1st Flush Depth (mm) 0.3 Hot Water 20% 0
Kitchen / Bathroom 15% 0
Rainwater Tank Details TOTAL RWT Use 100% 7560
Tank Volume (L) 50000 Mains Usage (L/day) 14040
Dead Storage (L) 2500
Min Storage (L) 7560 Landscaping Water Usage Details
Start Storage (L) 25000 Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/week) 0
Irrigation Rate (mm/m2/day) 0.00
Irrigation Area (m2) 0
Daily Irrigation Volume (L) 0
Results
Average Yearly Rainfall (mm) 1576 External Use Variable
Average Yearly Runoff (ML) 5.36 Option 1 Always On
Average Yearly Rainwater Usage (ML 1.71 Option 2 Off when Raining
Option 3 Off when Storage is Too Low
Average Rainwater Supply Option 4 Off when Raining or Storage is Too Low
as % of Demand 22% Option 5 Always Off y
!st Flush
2%
Domestic Use
32%
Overflow
66%
H:\B07\050-099\B07056 - RSL Care Cooroy.WW\Misc\Water Balance\MS_071018\Rainwater Tank Usage - RAC R1 - MS 071019
Page 66
Concept Stormwater Management Plan
RSL Care – Cooroy Retirement Village
APPENDIX F:
INFORMATION ON STORMWATER360
ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS
B07056.W-01A.doc
Page 67
The Enviropod® An Enviropod Filter is a gully pit insert designed to be easily retrofitted into new and existing stormwater gully pits, requiring no construction and no land take. Located at the source of stormwater contaminates the Enviropod Filter has interchangeable filters ranging from 200 micron to 1600 micron pore size. Independently trialed and tested by City Councils throughout Australia and New Zealand and with installation of over 7,000 units including North Amcrica, the Enviropod Filter s the ultimate gully pit insert. Enviropod features are; « Captures trash, solids and other pollutants as runoff enters the storm drain system ¢ Very robust and fail safe design with easy access that is maintenance friendly. ¢ Bypasses high flows with no moving parts during peak storm events. e Available in a range of sizes to suit pits from 450mm to 1200mm being either square, rectangular or round with a minimum depth of 300mm © Flexible and adjustable design fits multiple style of pits Enviropod Specifications; Size EP 675 x 450 EP 450 x 450 Pitt Width 600-700 350-460 Pitt Length 380-600 400-460 Treatable Flow up to 10L/s up to 10L/s Bypass Capacity 55L/s 38L/s Filter bag The filter Bag is a polyester 200 micron monofilament material which is precision woven. The filter medium has a smooth and slippery surface which allows filtered sediments to be easily washed from the filtration surface. In a high flow situation, this will serve as a self cleaning mechanism Size EP 675 x 450 EP 450 x 450 Open area 45% 5% Thread Diameter 105 micron 105 Micron Weight 75 g per nf 75 gper nt Head Loss AtlILs 19mm 22mm * Based on bag @ 2/3 full. Head loss determined by lab testing of filter fabric. (Tonkin &: Taylor) Sediment Removal Particle Range ALIs 12L/s 20L/s 500-10,000 100 100 99 100-500 7 100 6 0-100 23 4 18 * Figures from ARC Lab testing 2003 using artificial sediments, (Tonkin & Te ‘aylor) Storage Volume 0.155 m3 0.114 m3 Screening Area 1.848m2 1.488m2 * Figures from ARC 2003 Oakley Creek trial, (Tonkin & Taylor) Enviropod Cage Option 1 Fabricated hot dip galvanized mild steel Option 2 Fabricated 304 grade stainless stee! Filter Box Option 1 Fabricated hot dip galvanized mild steel Option 2 Fabricated 304 grade stainless steel Components Diaphragm seal; Recycled HDPE, UV Stabilised Stainless steel bag support ring, Fabricated 304 grade stainless steel
Page 68
Overview of Ingal Music Nodes
Introduction
This Overview briefly describes how the Ingal Music nodes have been developed. The
majority of the results have come from flow proportional upstream down stream
sampling over numerous locations. Influent Event Mean Concentrations (EMC) and
Effluent Event Mean Concentrations have been imputed into the generic treatment node
transform functions. Supporting this paper is a series of documents detailing the exact
experimental procedure used in each study.
StormFilter Node (Zeolite/Perlite).
Sizing.
Figure 1: Portland Submittal Influent/Effluent Relationship
Each StormFilter cartridge has a treatable flow rate of 0.95 l/sec. When sizing a Source: City of Portland Submittal 2002
StormFilter in MUSIC set the high flow by-pass at the number of Cartridges x 0.95 l/sec.
Suspended Solids
The transfer function for suspended solids for the StormFilter node has been imputed
from the results of the “The Portland Submittal”. This paper details the results from 5
separate StormFilters. Figure 1 shows the influent / effluent relationship developed in the
paper.
Also attached as supporting information is the paper; “Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Removal Using Different Particle Size Distributions with the Stormwater Management
StormFilter”. The particle size distribution in Stormwater is highly variable and greatly
affects the performance of the treatment device. This paper details Laboratory testing of
the StormFilter with different particle size distributions of synthetic sediment.
Total Phosphorous
The transfer function for total phosphorus has been developed from sampling 9 different
StormFilters over 55 storms. The results are detailed and discussed in the paper “The
Stormwater Management StormFilter Performance for Removal of Total Phosphorus”.
The Influent / Effluent relationship was developed through liner regression of the 55
storms as shown in figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Influent TP vs. Effluent RP Linear Regression
Source: The Stormwater Management StormFilter Performance for Removal of Total Phosphorus
Page 69
Total Nitrogen. Suspended Solids
The paper “Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter system for the The Enviropod 200 node has a transfer function developed from the “Wairau Road Trial”
Removal of total nitrogen: Kearny Mesa Maintenance Station case study” details the paper. Figure 4 details the efficiency of a 100micron filter bag at different influent
performance of the StormFilter with a zeolite/perlite filter media mixture. EMC’s
Figure 3: Influent Total nitrogen vs. Effluent Total Nitrogen Figure 4: Upstream EMC vs. Event Contaminant Removal
Source: Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® system for the Source: Wairau Road Trial
Removal of total nitrogen: Kearny Mesa Maintenance Station case study
The efficiency of the 200 micron filter is approximate 10% less than the 100 micron filter
therefore the transform function has been reduced by 10%.
Gross Pollutants
It is assumed that the StormFilter will capture all particles over 5mm in size unless in Also attached as supporting information, is the report “Auckland Cities Field and
bypass. Laboratory testing for Stormwater Catch Pit Filters”. This paper details a laboratory test
of an Enviropod 200 and shows there is approximate 10% reduction if a 400 micron
Enviropod Filter screen is used. Figure 5 details the performance of the Enviropod with different particle
size distributions. The Enviropod 200 was tested up to 20 l/sec; a conservative value of
Sizing 10 l/sec was therefore adopted as the treatable flow rate (see Enviropod Sizing).
There are two Enviropod nodes one for the GPT bag and one for the 200 micron filter.
For the 200micron Enviropod it is assumed that that the treatable flow rate (TF) of the
systems is 10 l/sec. For the GPT bag is assumed the TF is 50l/sec. When first installed
the systems have a much higher rate however the values are conservatively adopted as it
will eventually fill and clog.
Ingal’s research has shown that are approximately 4 Enviropods per hectare of residential
land use and approximately 5 for Commercial land use.
Page 70
modeling for the same catchment it was estimated the Enviropod 200 removal
efficiencies for nutrients were 40% for Total Phosphorous and 21% for Total Nitrogen.
The transform function for Nitrogen and Phosphorous for the Enviropod 200, has these
percentage removals as a linear relationship between influent concentration and Effluent
concentration.
The estimated removal efficiency of the Enviropod 200 is consistent with testing of the
CDS by the CRC which showed the CDS removed 30% Phosphorous and 13% Nitrogen.
The Enviropod 200 has a higher removal of nutrients than the CDS because it captures
finer particles and holds the retained material dry which prevents decomposition and
release of the nutrients, which was observed in the CRC study.
It is assumed an Enviropod GPT will perform the same as a generic GPT.
Buffa Tank
Buffa tank is an attenuation device. Attenuation is reduction of the peak flow of a storm.
Attenuation can greatly reduce the size of your treatment device. To simulate the effect
of the Buffa tank is suggested a sedimentation basin node be used. It is suggested that a
Figure 5: Sediment Removal by the Enviropod 200 high flow bypass value be determined for the Buffa tank and the overflow weir be set to a
Source: Auckland Cities Field and Laboratory testing for Stormwater Catch Pit Filters width of 0m. The depth of the Buffa tank should correspond to the extended detention
depth. If it is indented for the Buffa tank to be used as pre-treatment a sump can be
added to the tank and the permanent pool volume calculated.
For the Enviropod GPT, It is assumed the system will perform the same as the generic
GPT node in relation to suspended solids
Effective Impervious Area
Gross Pollutants.
An important consideration when constructing your model is the effective impervious
The Enviropod has been tested at the University of South Australia to determine the area terminology used for modeling in MUSIC. Effective impervious area is the directly
hydraulic and gross pollutant capture efficiency. The attached paper “Evaluation of connected impervious area. It is a measure of the area of land that is directly connected
Gully Pit Inlet Litter Control Systems” details the results of the testing. The study to the stormwater drainage system
showed the Enviropod captured 100%of gross pollutants up to 100 l/sec approach flow
for a gross pollutant bag. This result has been used to assume the treatable flow rate of Table 2.2 gives an estimation of the percentage effective impervious area to the overall
the GPT bag as 50 l/sec. (See Enviropod Sizing) total impervious area. The total impervious area is generally determined from analysis of
the proposed development layout and/or GIS and aerial images. For instance, an urban
It is assumed the Enviropod 200 will capture 100% of particles over 5mm unless the catchment with 50% total impervious area has an effective impervious area for MUSIC
system is in bypass. of 16%, i.e. being 31% of 50%.
Urban Commercial Industrial Rural Forested
Nutrients. Residential Residential
Effective
The performance of the Enviropod in removing Nitrogen and Phosphorus has been Impervious Area 31 50 76 55 0
determined by a field study of the retained material in the Enviropods and corresponding as a
3rd party modeling. Nitrogen and Phosphorous are transported in Stormwater in large Table 1: MUSIC Pervious and Impervious Area Parameters
Source: Guidelines for Pollutant Export Modeling in Brisbane Version 7 - Draft
and small particles. Unfortunately conventional water sampling techniques do not tend to
sample large particles such as leaves. Large organic particles contain Phosphorous and
Nitrogen. The paper “Contaminate Investigation in Blackbutt Creek” details a 12month
study of nutrient capture in 80 Enviropods. Comparing the results with the third party
Page 71
Summary Attached is a CD containing the Ingal MUSIC nodes some examples and supporting information. Additional testing information has been provided for reference. These nodes represent the current level of testing of Ingal products. Stormwater Management Inc and Ingal Environmental Services is continuing field testing and monitoring of our devices. As these results become available new updates of the music nodes will be released. Log on and register at www.ingalenviro.com to receive these future updates.
Used in these records
B07056.W-01A Complete - Stormwater [As Published]Related documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 2.7 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.