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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 20 Unit Landuse constraints in relation to geotechnical hazards for the terrain units are presented in Table 2-13 on the basis of risk of occurrence. The risk of slope instability is assessed based on the scheme presented in Table 2-14 which is widely used by local government authorities for zonation purposes. Soil Origin Table 2-13 Terrain Units – Geotechnical Hazard Risk Assessment Slope Gradient (%) Risk of Slope Instability Risk of Acid Sulphate Soils Erosion Hazard Risk of Low Strength Foundation Soils * R1 Residual >40 High Very low Moderate (sheet) Very low R2 Residual 25 – 40 Medium Very low Moderate (sheet) Very low R3 Residual 10 – 25 Low Very low Moderate – high Very low (sheet, gully) R4 Residual
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 21 Based on the geotechnical hazard risk assessment presented in Table 2-13 for slope instability, soil erosion, acid sulphate soils and low bearing capacity soils, land use constraints for the terrain units are presented in Table 2-15. Table 2-15 Land Use Constraints on the Basis of Geotechnical Hazards Unit Soil Origin Slope Gradient (%) Land Use Urban Development Potential R1 Residual >40 Severe physical limitation to urban development. Generally not suitable for development. Development would require detailed geotechnical investigation to assess feasibility with development if appropriate requiring detailed engineering design and site management. R2 Residual 25 – 40 Moderate to severe physical limitations to development that can be overcome by detailed design and site management techniques. Selective development (ie residences founded on rock, pole frame). Incorporation as backyard areas in R3 or R4. Development restrictions in relation to earthworks, site disturbance, erosion control etc are likely to apply. Development requires specific geotechnical investigation. R3 Residual 10 – 25 Minor to moderate physical limitations to development. Suitable for residential development subject to erosion control measures. Geotechnical investigation appropriate where earthworks in excess of 1m depth proposed. R4 Residual
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 and 16: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 7 2.3.3 Geol
Page 17 and 18: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 9 Table 2-3
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: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL 19 to steepe
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?