smiths lake planning study volume 1: text - Great Lakes Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 8 rock types across the study area which combined with variable topography and coastal processes results in a variety of soil forming factors. Soil profiles undertaken by the DLWC in the study area and incorporated into the NSW soil data system are attached in Appendix B and are summarised in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 Soil Data Profiles (DLWC) Profile Location Soil Type Erosion Hazard 1 Off Lakes Way, Wamwarra Bay 3 Road to Sandbar, Symes Bay 69 Lakes Way north of Sandbar 159 Corner Lakes Way and Macwood Road 160 Amaroo Drive, Smiths Lake 161 Tarbuck Bay residential area 162 Corner Lakes Way and Sugar Creek Road Lacustrine / aeolian sediments - hydrosol Moderate Acid sulphate testing Deep sands - hydrosol Slight Acid sulphate testing Silty and clay loam over silty clay Very high Sodosol Silty loam over silty clay Very high hydrosol Silty and clay loam over medium-heavy clay Moderate - sodosol Medium to heavy clay - kurosol High Silty and clay loam over light-heavy clay Extreme hydrosol 193 Sugar Creek Road Sandy clay loam - tenosol Slight 194 Sugar Creek Road Silty and clay loam over medium clay High 426 Sandbar Road near Silty and clay loam - tenosol Slight quarry 427 Sandbar Road near quarry Silty and clay loam over medium clay kurosol Moderate The profiles in Table 2-2 indicate the soil profiles within the study area typically comprise silty clay loams over silty clays and medium to heavy clays. The physical properties of the areas soils have been characterised by testing undertaken by the Department of Public Works & Services which includes particle size distribution (sieve and hydrometer analysis) and Atterberg limits. Results of this testing are presented in Table 2-3. SMITHS_LAKE_PLANNING_STUDY.DOC O C E A N I C S A U S T R A L I A
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 9 Table 2-3 Table Summary of Particle Size Distribution Analysis and Atterberg Limits (DPWS) Location Depth (m) Particle Size Distribution (%) ATTERBERG limit Unified Soil Classification and description Gravel Sand Silt Clay P1 1.0-1.3 - 7 36 57 55 19 36 (CH) silty clay, dark grey P1 1.3-2.0 58 24 34 (CI) silty clay, grey-brown P2 0-1.0 3 48 49 44 23 21 (CL) silty clay, black P2 1.5-2.0 58 16 26 (SC) clayey sand, grey P3 1.0-2.0 5 48 47 47 19 28 (ML) clayey silt, grey brown P4 0.4-1.7 74 30 44 (CH) silty clay, brown P5 1.0-2.0 82 36 46 (CH) silty clay, yellowbrown P6 1.0-2.0 3 26 37 34 (CL) sandy clayey silt, dark brown P7 0.8-1.2 28 32 40 56 20 36 (CH) sandy silty clay, yellow-brown P8 0.8-1.25 21 40 39 (ML/CL) sandy clayey silt, yellow -brown P9 2.0-2.45 88 12 - (SM-SP) sand with some silt, grey P10 0.8-1.25 80 20 - (SC) silty sand, grey P11 0.4-0.7 2 29 48 21 25 14 11 (ML) sandy clayey silt, yellow brown P12 2.0-2.5 4 45 51 73 31 42 (CH) silty clay, lt brown P13 0.5-0.9 4 30 66 75 32 43 (CH) silty clay, yellow - brown P14 2.2-2.5 10 14 48 28 56 29 27 (MH) clayey silt, light brown P15 1.3-1.6 1 39 60 72 31 41 (CH) silty clay, lt grey P16 2.0-2.3 78 32 46 (CH) silty clay, lt grey LL = liquid limit PL = plastic limit PI = plasticity index The results shown in Table 2-3 indicate that the soils within the hillside and footslope areas comprise mainly silty clays of medium to high plasticity. This is typical of soils that have been transported from or weathered in-situ from siltstone and lithic sandstone rock types. Based on the particle size distribution, the soils would be described as a clayey silts or silty clays with a variable sand content. The sandy soils in the low lying estuarine areas contain a variable fines content ranging from about 10% to 40%. In general terms, the sands would be described as “dirty”. The effect of an increased fines content in the sand will be a lower permeability of the sand. LL % PL % PI % SMITHS_LAKE_PLANNING_STUDY.DOC O C E A N I C S A U S T R A L I A
Page 1 and 2: SMITHS LAKE PLANNING STUDY VOLUME 1
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS I CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION
Page 5 and 6: CONTENTS III 11.1 Sewer 128 11.2 Ot
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF FIGURES V Figure 8-1 Visual
Page 9 and 10: INTRODUCTION 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 G
Page 11 and 12: INTRODUCTION 3 • visual quality;
Page 13 and 14: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 5 2.2.2 Fiel
Page 15: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 7 2.3.3 Geol
Page 19 and 20: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 11 rather th
Page 21 and 22: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 13 soils wit
Page 23 and 24: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 15 The resul
Page 25 and 26: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 17 • RCA11
Page 27 and 28: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 19 to steepe
Page 29 and 30: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 21 Based on
Page 31 and 32: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 23 • Mediu
Page 33 and 34: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 25 There are
Page 35 and 36: FLOODING AND DRAINAGE 27 3 FLOODING
Page 37 and 38: FLOODING AND DRAINAGE 29 3.2 Floodi
Page 39 and 40: FLOODING AND DRAINAGE 31 3.2.3 Floo
Page 41 and 42: FLOODING AND DRAINAGE 33 the perime
Page 43 and 44: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 35 This study
Page 45 and 46: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 37 Figure 4-4
Page 47 and 48: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 39 4.4.7 Sedi
Page 49 and 50: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 41 4.5.4 Swal
Page 51 and 52: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 43 Table 4-1
Page 53 and 54: FLORA 45 characteristics. Some vege
Page 55 and 56: FLORA 47 mahogany (Eucalyptus robus
Page 57 and 58: FLORA 49 Distribution: This forest
Page 59 and 60: FLORA 51 Distribution: This forest
Page 61 and 62: FLORA 53 5.2.23 Scrub (224) Structu
Page 63 and 64: FLORA 55 Species Significance & Dis
Page 65 and 66: FLORA 57 Species Significance & Dis
Page 67 and 68:
FLORA 59 5.4.7 Swamp Oak (32) Distr
Page 69 and 70:
FLORA 61 5.4.17 Spotted Gum (70) Di
Page 71 and 72:
FLORA 63 Forest Type Description Co
Page 73 and 74:
FAUNA 65 6.1.4 Swamp Oak (32) Habit
Page 75 and 76:
FAUNA 67 heathland shrub layer woul
Page 77 and 78:
FAUNA 69 of the tree adjacent to th
Page 79 and 80:
FAUNA 71 Common Name Scientific Nam
Page 81 and 82:
FAUNA 73 Common Name Scientific Nam
Page 83 and 84:
FAUNA 75 6.4.1.1 Community Habitat
Page 85 and 86:
FAUNA 77 6.4.2 Problems with the Me
Page 87 and 88:
FAUNA 79 6.6.3 Development of Mediu
Page 89 and 90:
WATER QUALITY SENSITIVITY MAPPING 8
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
VISUAL AND SCENIC QUALITY 87 Rural
Page 97 and 98:
VISUAL AND SCENIC QUALITY 89 • mi
Page 99 and 100:
VISUAL AND SCENIC QUALITY 91 8.3.1
Page 101 and 102:
VISUAL AND SCENIC QUALITY 93 Sensit
Page 103 and 104:
LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 95 9 LAN
Page 105 and 106:
LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 97 Time
Page 107 and 108:
LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 99 Envir
Page 109 and 110:
LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT 101 Envi
Page 111 and 112:
ABORIGINAL AND EUROPEAN HERITAGE 10
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
INFRASTRUCTURE 129 11.2 Other Servi
Page 139 and 140:
BUSHFIRE MANAGEMENT INVESTIGATION 1
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
LAND SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 139 13
Page 149 and 150:
LAND SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 141 lin
Page 151 and 152:
LAND SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 143 13.
Page 153 and 154:
LAND SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 145 The
Page 155 and 156:
LAND SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 147 13.
Page 157 and 158:
LAND SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 149 The
Page 159 and 160:
REFERENCES 151 Floyd, A.G. (1990)
show all

smiths lake planning study volume 1: text - Great Lakes Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?