Brownhill Keswick Creek Draft Stormwater Management Plan .
Brownhill Keswick Creek Draft StormwaterManagement PlanCommunity Consultation ReportLead ConsultantIn association withPrepared forConsultant Project ManagerURPSNatalie Fuller & Associates Pty LtdHarlen GraphicsBrownhill Keswick Creek StormwaterProjectVictoria Haupt, AssociateSuite 12/154 Fullarton(cnr Alexandra Ave)Rose Park, SA 5067Tel: (08) 8333 7999 Fax: (08) 8331 0017Email: victoria@urps.com.auWebsite: www.urps.com.au URPSAll rights reserved; these materials are copyright. No part may be reproduced or copied in any way, formor by any means without prior permission.URPSThe ideas, concepts and methodology set out and described in this document are and remain theproperty of URPS and are provided to the client in confidence. They may not be used or applied by therecipient or disclosed to any other person without the prior written consent of URPS.
Document StatusDateVersionURPS ContactReviewed BySummary of Amendments4/1/2012Rev1Victoria HauptNicole HalseyGeneral commentsNatalie Fuller5/1/2012Rev 2Victoria HauptNatalie FullerProgress review of section 76/1/2012Rev 3Victoria HauptNatalie FullerProgress review of section 712/1/2012Rev 4Victoria HauptNicole HalseyReview of complete draft15/1/2012Rev 5Victoria HauptNicole HalseyReview of complete draft16/1/2012Rev 6Victoria Haupt-Review comments incorporated24/1/2012Rev 7Victoria HauptNicole HalseyAmendments as a result of Steeringand Natalie FullerGroup review and update of reportwith data from additional feedbackforms29/2/2012Rev 8Victoria HauptSteering GroupUpdate of incomplete sections fromRev 7 and update of sectionsregarding consultation withAboriginal people2/3/2012Rev 9Victoria HauptSteering GroupAmendments to sections 6 and 7 asrequested by Steering Group5/3/2012Rev 10Victoria HauptProject DirectorRenumbering of sections amendedin Rev 95/3/2012Rev 11Victoria HauptProject DirectorAmendments to section 9 andExecutive SummaryDistribution RecordURPSDistribution ToDistributed ByQuantityDateVersionDistributedDistributedMichael SalkeldVictoria HauptEmail16/1/2012Rev 6Michael SalkeldNicole HalseyEmail6/2/2012Rev 7Michael SalkeldVictoria HauptEmail29/2/2012Rev 8Michael SalkeldVictoria HauptEmail2/3/2012Rev 9Michael SalkeldVictoria HauptEmail5/3/2012Rev 10Michael SalkeldVictoria HauptEmail5/3/2012Rev 11
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community tive SummaryiiPreparation and distribution of information materialsiiConduct of briefings, meetings and open daysiiiFeedback receivediiiSummary of feedback receivedivPart 1: Consultation Process11.0Introduction22.0Background33.0Community Consultation Activities43.1.Written information43.2.Mail outs53.3.Key group meetings73.4.Information displays83.5.Website83.6.Open Days93.7.Consultation with Aboriginal people10Part 2: Consultation Findings114.012Consultation with Key Groups4.1.Residents living in close proximity to the proposed flood control damat Brownhill Creek and Friends of Brown Hill Creek125.04.2.Residents for Effective Stormwater Solutions Inc. (RESS)144.3.South East City Residents Association (SECRA)154.4.Private individual, Mitcham154.5.Netley Residents’ Association16Consultation with Government175.1.SA Health175.2.State Emergency Service17
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationContents5.3.6.07.0Department for Water18Written Submissions196.1.Community196.2.“No Dam” petition296.3.Government29Feedback Forms317.1.Introduction317.2.City of Adelaide347.3.City of Burnside487.4.City of Mitcham617.5.City of Unley807.6.City of West Torrens957.7.All Councils1118.0“No Dam” Petition1329.0Summary13310.0Appendices138Appendix A139Appendix B140Appendix C144
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationiAcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge the following people who provided support inconducting the community consultation process for the Brown Hill Keswick CreekStormwater Draft Stormwater Management Plan:Alan Ockenden, Adelaide and MountLofty Ranges Natural ResourcesManagement BoardChris Linnell, City of UnleyTom McCready, Adelaide City CouncilMark Clarke, City of UnleyAlida Pisano, Adelaide City CouncilTrevor Stein, City of UnleyAndrew Smith, Adelaide City CouncilTerry Buss, City of West TorrensGeoff Fisher, Australian WaterEnvironmentsAndrew King, City of West TorrensMichael Salkeld, Brown Hill KeswickCreek Stormwater ProjectPaul Deb, City of BurnsideAlisha Gangell, City of BurnsideSteve West, City of BurnsideMatthew Pears, City of MitchamHoward Lacy, City of MitchamJohn Wiley, City of MitchamJulie Lamond, City of MitchamPeter Tsokas, City of UnleyMichelle Bonnici, City of UnleyURPSAlan Johns, City of UnleyDuncan Bainbridge, City of UnleyAngelo Catinari, City of West TorrensBruno Gazzola, City of West TorrensKathleen Allen, City of West TorrensNerissa Nicholson, City of West TorrensJared Wilson, OxigenKeith Downard, Tonkin ConsultingDonna Ruggiero, URPSMarcus Rolfe, URPSCorey Brown, WAX DesignWarwick Keates, WAX DesignChris Thomas, WorleyParsonsWarick Honour, WorleyParsons
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationiiExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryA consultation process was undertaken between 31 October and 12 December2011 regarding the Brownhill Keswick Creek Draft Stormwater Management Plan(the Draft Plan).The consultation process was undertaken by an independent consultant teamcomprised of URPS, Natalie Fuller & Associates Pty Ltd, and Harlen Graphics, onbehalf of the five catchment Councils: the Cities of Adelaide, Burnside, Mitcham,Unley and West Torrens.This report summarises the feedback collected via the consultation process onthe Draft Plan.The consultation process aimed to: Provide information to stakeholders and the broader community regardingthe Draft Plan; Receive feedback on the Draft Plan from stakeholders and the broadercommunity; Collate and summarise feedback on the Draft Plan for use by the fiveCouncils in finalising the Draft Plan.The consultation process comprised three key aspects, namely: Preparation and distribution of information materials and feedback form; Conduct of briefings, meetings and open days; Receipt, collation and analysis of feedback.Preparation and distribution of information materialsA suite of information materials was prepared including: A summary report which summarised key aspects of the Draft Plan; A summary brochure which provided an overview of the Draft Plan, theconsultation process and how people could access more information; Fact sheets addressing key components of the Draft Plan.A feedback form and reply paid envelope were also provided to assist membersof the community to provide their feedback on the Draft Plan.The information materials and the feedback form were made available via adirect mail out to:URPS 26,539 property owners and occupiers across the catchment;
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationiiiExecutive Summary A number of community, sporting and recreation groups, schools, libraries,community centres and Adelaide Park Lands user groups; Federal and State Members of Parliament, State government Ministers,government departments and Councils;The information materials and the feedback form were also made available: At each Council’s offices where consultation materials were displayed andmade available to take home, and the Draft Plan was on display; On a dedicated web page linked to the home pages of the fivecatchment Councils which provided background information, details ofthe consultation process, and electronic copies of the informationmaterials. The website also featured an online version of the feedbackform. At the open days.Conduct of briefings, meetings and open daysMembers of the wider community could obtain further information about theDraft Plan by attending any or all of three open days which were held during theconsultation period at the Unley Town Hall, the Mitcham Civic Centre and theWest Torrens Civic Centre. The open days provided an opportunity to learn moreabout the Draft Plan and ask questions of members of the project team. In total,approximately 160 people attended the three open days.It was recognised that there were a number of key stakeholders that had aspecial interest in the Draft Plan and therefore a number of key groups within thecommunity were invited to meet with members of the consultation team as partof the consultation process. In total, six groups accepted this invitation to meet,with some groups meeting on more than one occasion.Feedback on the Draft Plan from representatives of the Kaurna and Ramindjeripeoples was also pursued via telephone and direct mail but to date no responsehas been received.Invitations to be briefed were provided to Federal and State Members ofParliament, State government Ministers, government departments and Councils.Briefings were held with the Department for Health, the State Emergency Service,and the Department for Water.Feedback receivedURPSIn total, 2,172 feedback forms were returned by members of the community, ofwhich 2,149 were from respondents with an inertest in at least one of the fivecatchment councils.
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationivExecutive SummaryTwenty nine written submissions were received from individuals, groups ororganisations.A petition stating that it contained 4,010 signatures was submitted to the City ofMitcham and forwarded onto the consultation process by the No Dam inBrownhill Creek Action Group. It is understood that since this time, the number ofsignatures to the petition has increased, but an updated version has not beenreceived by the consultants undertaking the consultation process.Five groups provided feedback via meetings with the consultant and/or projectteam. These groups comprised: Friends of Brown Hill Creek Residents living in close proximity to the proposed flood control dam atBrownhill Creek Residents for Effective Stormwater Solutions Inc. (RESS) South East City Residents Association Netley Residents’ AssociationThe Department for Health, the State Emergency Service, and the Departmentfor Water provided feedback at their briefing sessions, while written submissionswere received from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and theAdelaide Airport.Summary of feedback receivedSeveral key trends have emerged from the consultation process, taking accountof the various avenues for community feedback.Overall there is general recognition of the importance of undertaking floodmitigation works to reduce the impacts of flooding across the catchment. Thiswas particularly evident from analysis of the feedback forms, with the majority ofrespondents (74% unweighted data) considering it is important/very important toundertake flood mitigation works compared with only 12% (unweighted data)not considering it not important/not very important. Respondents with an interestin West Torrens were more likely to consider flood mitigation works areimportant/very important.Qualitative comments indicated that many respondents are supportive of‘getting on and doing something’. As several respondents stated:Well done! Please commence work as soon as possible.We need some action now ie before it is too late. It’s been 6 years sincethe last flood in Millswood and I can’t see any changes.URPSLet’s do it.
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationvExecutive SummaryThis support for taking action is qualified however, by the need ‘to get it right’and ensure that appropriate infrastructure measures are implemented thatadequately reduce the impacts of flooding while at the same time deliveringacceptable outcomes in terms of financial, environmental and social impacts.As one respondent stated:I would support this action as long as the appropriate environmentalimpact reviews had been done and there was minimal to no impact(detrimental) to the environment and local fauna.In relation to the Draft Plan, while views varied in relation to specific componentsof the Plan, the majority of respondents indicated overall support for the Plan.Based on the analysis of feedback forms, 71% of all respondents (unweighted)indicated support (4 or 5 rating) while only 13% opposed (1 or 2 rating), with anoverall mean score of 3.9 (unweighted). Levels of support varied across the fivecatchment councils, with respondents with an interest in West Torrens showinghigher levels of support (mean score of 4.4) compared to those in Mitcham(mean score 3.2).Analysis of the feedback forms also clearly indicates that support for the DraftPlan was higher amongst those respondents who attributed higher levels ofimportance to the need for flood mitigation as well as those currently at risk offlooding.In relation to specific infrastructure components proposed in the Draft Plan,analysis of the feedback forms indicated high levels of support for allcomponents across all five catchment councils with the exception of theproposed flood control dam at Brownhill Creek where there were both lowerand more variable levels of support across the councils.In relation to the components that were supported, feedback form responsesindicated consistently high levels of support from all respondents (with weightedand unweighted data showing negligible differences), being supported by atleast 70% of respondents from each council area for: Channel upgrades Minor channel and bridge works Improvements to planning and development processes Improvements to community awareness and emergency response Improvements to creek maintenanceSupport for these infrastructure components is reflected by respondents ownwords:Continual monitoring and improvements can only enhance the long termbenefits of this stormwater management planURPSCreek maintenance is “always worthwhile”
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationviExecutive SummaryAnything that reduces the likelihood of my house flooding is good .Channel upgrades will hopefully maintain environmental habitat andreduce erosion from floodingComponents with more variation in levels of support were the detention basins atGlenside and the South Park Lands and at Ridge Park Reserve Myrtle Bank, andbypass and diversion culverts. These variations were however within 14%between the highest and lowest proportions of respondents indicating support.It is noted that respondents with an interest in both the City of Adelaide andBurnside were more likely to oppose these three components. Concernsregarding the proposed South Park Lands proposal were also expressed in ameeting conducted with the South East Residents Association (SECRA) and reiterated in their written submission.Analysis of the feedback forms received showed that the flood control dam atBrownhill Creek Recreation Park was the least supported component of the DraftPlan overall and showed the most varying levels of support between the councilareas. Using unweighted data, 60% of all respondents indicated support and32% opposed. When subjected to weighting, support increased to 71% andopposition reduced to 19%.This component of the Draft Plan was rated the lowest by respondents with aninterest in each of the councils with the exception of West Torrens where it wasrated the second lowest (after the detention basin at Ridge Park Reserve).Levels of support across councils ranged from 22% support and 74% opposition inMitcham, to 82% support and 7% opposition in West Torrens.A petition submitted to the City of Mitcham and copied to the consultationprocess contained 4,010 signatures supporting the statement “We, theundersigned, hereby PETITION Council to protect the environment and heritageof Brownhill Creek by opposing the damming of the Creek”. It is understood thatsince being submitted to the consultation process, the number of signatories tothis petition has increased.Based on the feedback forms as well as information received via meetings andwritten submissions (excluding the petition which is dealt with separately below),three key viewpoints emerged with respect to the flood control dam in Brown HillCreek: Strong opposition to any dam on Brownhill Creek with a view thatalternative infrastructure solutions that are available; Strong opposition to the proposed location of the dam in the BrownhillCreek Recreation Park based on concerns regarding visual amenity,heritage and the natural environment, but open to the possibility ofanother location along Brownhill Creek;URPS Support for the dam together with concerns that the ‘no dams’ positionmay continue to delay implementation of mitigation works.
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationviiExecutive SummaryThese differing viewpoints are reflected in qualitative comments recorded onfeedback forms which included:No dam. Explore other options.This is environmentally destructive and economically irresponsible. Isuggest you look for alternative methods rather than putting a 15 metrecement wall through a beautiful national park, which I frequent on aconstant basis, and grew up playing in and aroundBrownhill Creek is about keeping the flow, not major infrastructure toretain water. The creek needs to be returned to its natural course overtime, with proper stormwater management along its course.Brownhill Creek Recreation Park is an historic natural place for the public(from all over Adelaide) to enjoy. Dams do not have a place in a publicpark. It is of heritage value and would be ruined.A dam in Brownhill Creek Recreation Park would be environmentallynegligent and economically irresponsible.Dams have been used in England to prevent flooding, which have beensuccessful, so I believe it will also work hereWe support the idea of a controlled dam at Brownhill Creek RecreationPark providing the area remains aesthetically unharmed.I strongly agree with the flood control dam. Strongly agree with otherflood mitigation proposals. Strongly agree with this constructionBuild a dam for goodness sake!I consider that the dam is essential in providing flood mitigation for manyflood prone propertiesIn addition to this feedback received via feedback forms, other writtensubmissions and meetings, the petition received specifically called for “Councilto protect the environment and heritage of Brownhill Creek by opposing thedamming of the Creek”.Other comments and views that were expressed regarding the Draft Planincluded: Concerns relating to the communication and consultation process both inrelation to the current Draft Plan and on previous versions, while othersacknowledged the extent of the direct mail out undertaken for the currentconsultation process and the number of open days conducted across thecatchment.URPS Queries relating to the timing for implementation of the Draft Plan (onceapproved) as well as how it will be funded. Others expressed frustrationabout the continued delay in implementing the Draft Plan.
Brownhill Keswick Creek Stormwater Management Plan Community ConsultationviiiExecutive Summary Specific design and ongoing management details regarding the detentionbasin proposed at the Glenside Campus. The need for risk mitigation and safety factors to be considered as part ofthe detailed design of the proposed works. The desire by the SES to share project flood modelling to inform theirFloodSafe program and Emergency Response Plan to effectively targetcommunity engagement. Scepticism regarding the cost effectiveness of the Draft Plan. The assumptions the Draft Plan is based upon. The scope of the Draft Plan, including its lack of consideration of retentionand reuse of stormwater, non-structural solutions like FloodSafe andrevegetation, stormwater quality, water conservation, amenity,conservation, heritage, biodiversity, recreation and environmental flows. Concern over private property acquisition associated with
A consultation process was undertaken between 31 October and 12 December 2011 regarding the Brownhill Keswick Creek Draft Stormwater Management Plan (the Draft Plan). The consultation process was undertaken by an independent consultant team comprised of URPS, Natalie
Martin Creek 21, 22 Mud Creek 14, 15, 38 North Oconee River 30 Orr Creek 08, 09 Pitts Creek 38 Sardis Creek 22, 27 Sawnee Creek 05, 10 Shoal Creek 01, 02, 03 Short Creek 16, 17 Six Mile Creek 07, 11, 12 Split Oak Creek 32 Squirrel Creek 27, 33 Taylor Creek 20, 21, 24 T
Silver Creek Tributary #1 Bear Creek Alderwood Creek Lower Spring Creek Baker Creek Tributary Lower Baker Creek Lower . Project Area Legend XX-RR1 XX-RP1 FR 150 XX-WP1 150. Figure 11. Chuckanut Creek Sub-watershed: HRTA Tier 1 Summary . Bug Lake Sunset Pond Squalicum Creek Spring Creek Baker Creek South Fork Baker Creek Hannegan Rd d
NPDES: Stormwater Best Management Practice— — Stormwater Wetland Stormwater Retrofit A stormwater retrofit is a stormwater control (usually structural) that a community puts into place after development to improve water quality, protect downstream channels, reduce flooding or meet other specific objectives.
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance Manual 7 1.1 Introduc on The City of Philadelphia relies in part on Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) systems—comprised of one or more decentralized stormwater management prac ces (SMPs) such as rain gardens, stormwater tree trenches, and green roofs—to reduce stormwater volume and pollutants
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Maintenance Manual 7 1.1 Introduc on The City of Philadelphia relies in part on Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) systems—comprised of one or more decentralized stormwater management prac ces (SMPs) such as rain gardens, stormwater tree trenches, and green roofs—to reduce stormwater volume and pollutants
Langhorne Creek) LC10 (AS805397, Langhorne Creek) Selected from a SARDI trial in Langhorne Creek 1977-19804. Introduced into WA in 20023. LC14 (IW056133, Langhorne Creek) LC14 (AS805398, Langhorne Creek) Selected from a SARDI trial in Langhorne Creek 1977-19884. Introduced into WA in 20053. LC84 (IW056132, Langhorne Creek) LC84 (Langhorne Creek)
Battle Creek, MI 49017 BattleCreek.org 269.962.4076 P. 3 President's Welcome Letter P. 6 Parks of Battle Creek P. 8 Living in Battle Creek P. 10 Demographics of Battle Creek P. 12 Schools of Battle Creek P. 14 Calhoun County P. 16 Employment around Battle Creek P. 18 Top Attractions P. 24 Transportation in Battle Creek
ANATOMI Adalah ilmu yang . “osteon”: tulang; “logos”: ilmu skeleton: kerangka Fungsi tulang/kerangka: - melindungi organ vital - penghasil sel darah - menyimpan/mengganti kalsium dan pospat - alat gerak pasif - perlekatan otot - memberi bentuk tubuh - menjaga atau menegakkan tubuh. Skeleton/kerangka dibagi menjadi: 1. S. axiale sesuai aksis korporis (sumbu badan): a. columna .
