DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Sensitive SA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Sensitive SA DIT:Planning Reform Submissions From: Sent: Friday, 18 December 2020 6:15 PM To: DIT:Planning Reform Submissions Subject: Water Sensitive SA submission - Code Phase 3 I 4 November 2020 amendment Attachments: WSSA_Planning and Design Code Revision _submission FINAL_Letter and Submission_ 18Dec20.pdf - ■ Dear Mr Lennon Please find attached the submission from W ater Sensitive SA in response to the consultation on the Code (Phase 3) amendment 4 November 2020. Regards Me llissa Mellissa Bradley ager Water Sensitive SA · 142 --e~s1 1vesa.com LIVFRBLE - WRTER WRTER SENSITIVE ■■ SENSITIVE SR COMMUNITIES. 1 ■■ WRTER ■■ SENSITIVE SR 18 December 2020 Mr Michael Lennon Planning Commission [email protected] Dear Mr Lennon Planning and Design Code – Phase 3 submission, 4 November 2020 amendments Water Sensitive SA is pleased to submit this response to the Planning and Design Code- Phase 3. Water Sensitive SA has devoted considerable resources over the past three years to understand the changing urban form, the associated implications for communities and the environment and to develop suitable solutions at a range of scales to meet the strategic targets of the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. The focus of this submission is on the urban greening and stormwater management aspects of the Code. The recent amendments to the deemed-to-satisfy stormwater policy for small-scale development (Part 3 – Stormwater Management Overlay) will improve peak flow management performance of small-scale developments, which is an important step forward. This improvement did however come at the expense of the other performance criteria for water conservation and stormwater quality water quality management. We appreciate this is a balance act and offer in this submission the outcomes of modelling that attempts to find optimal lot scale solutions for stormwater management for your consideration. Attached is our detailed submission comprising: ▪ Policy and guideline recommendations ▪ Appendix A –Evidence base for recommendations We would welcome the opportunity to work with DPTI to assist in any refinement of policy and guidelines that support the Code. Water Sensitive SA can offer assistance with the development of design guidelines for built form typologies and allotment scale solutions. If you require any clarification of the comments raised as part of this submission, please contact the Program Manager, Mellissa Bradley at [email protected] or 0431 828 980. Yours sincerely Keith Downard Chair, Water Sensitive SA Steering Committee LIV ERB LE WRTER SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES. WATER SENSITIVE SA – Comment on Code amendments 4 November 2020 Submission to the Planning Commission on the Planning and Development Code – Phase 3 (the Code) November 2020 Revision OVERVIEW Urban infill provides governments and communities with the opportunity to regenerate our suburbs. Without suitable amendments to the Code and associated guideline development, there is a risk that poor quality infill will continue to degrade our suburbs. This submission provides the quantitative evidence of the water performance of differing rainwater harvesting, tank size and use options, site coverage and urban greening at the lot and scale, to inform the stormwater management and canopy cover policies within the Planning and Design Code Phase 3 November 2020 Update. Combined rainwater harvesting and reuse via retention and stormwater detention is provided in the policy as the means of meeting the performance objectives for small-scale development in the deemed-to-satisfy solutions in Part 3 – Stormwater Management Overlay. Incentives are provided to increase overall site permeability via discounting of minimum tank sizes, which is strongly supported as a means of demonstrating the importance of reduced site coverage. To ensure small-scale infill gives back to the local area and does not distract from streetscape amenity, modest changes to housing footprint (site coverage and layout) and design are required to accommodate greater dwelling density while retaining green space and permeability of outdoor spaces, and support greening, thereby contributing to stormwater management objectives. The deemed-to-satisfy criteria target absolute minimum standards and are expected to fall short of community expectations and state level targets for urban greening and stormwater management. Recommendation 1 - All allotments < 200m2 shall include a detention component as per the findings of BDO EconSearch (2020a) OPTIONS ANALYSIS: Costs and Benefits of Stormwater Management Options for Minor Infill Development in the Planning and Design Code. A Report to the Attorney-General’s Department, September 2020 and an analysis using the Water Sensitive SA Insite Water tool analysis. The inclusion of the detention component for all small-scale infill is needed, not just for those sites of 200m2 or greater, to sustain an acceptable level of service of local flood protection for the minor drainage system. This is consistent with the outcomes of the: ▪ BDO EconSearch report: BDO EconSearch (2020a) OPTIONS ANALYSIS: Costs and Benefits of Stormwater Management Options for Minor Infill Development in the Planning and Design Code. A Report to the Attorney-General’s Department, September 2020 (BDO EconSearch Options Analysis Stormwater Report) and ▪ Water Sensitive SA InSite Water Analysis (Refer to Appendix A Evidence for policy recommendations for more information that clearly states the cumulative impacts of infill development on peak flows are substantial and that onsite detention is a cost-effective method to manage these impacts. Suggested amendments to the Code (Phase 3) – Part 3 Stormwater Management Overlay are provided in red in Table 1. WATER SENSITIVE SA- Comment on Code amendments 4 November 2020 Table 1 Alternative deemed-to-satisfy solution to replace Code Phase 3 Part C - Stormwater Management Overlay PO 1.1 DTS/DPF 1.1 Residential development is Residential development comprising detached, semi-detached or row designed to capture and re- dwellings, or less than 5 group dwell ings or dwellings w ithin a residential use stormw ater to: flat building: 1. maximise 1. includes rainwater tank storage: conservation of 1. connected to at least 80% of the roof area w ater resources 2. connected to either all toilets, laundry cold water outlets 2. manage peak or hot water service for sites less than 200m2 stormw ater runoff flows and volume to 3. connected to ~ all toilets and either the laundry cold ensure the carrying water outlets or hot water service for sites of 200m2 or capacities of greater downstream 4. with a minimum total capacity in accordance w ith Table 1 systems are not overloaded 5. where detention is required, includes a 20-25 mm diameter slow release orifice at the bottom of the 3. manage stormwater runoff quality. detention component of the tank 2. incorporates dwelling roof area comprising at least 80% of the site's impervious area Table 1: Ra inwater Tank Site size Minimum Minimum detention volume 2 (m ) retention (Litres) volume (Litres) <200 2000 NM,1000 200-400 2000 Site perviousness <30%: 1000 Site perviousness =30%: N/ A >401 4000 Site perviousness <35%: 1000 Site perviousness =35%: N/ A Recommendation 2 - Prior to the release of the Code (Phase 3), develop a guideline to support better choices for deemed-to-satisfy solutions for stormwater management for small-scale development Appendix A.1 provides an analysis of the performance of a range of allotment sizes, tank sizes and connected uses. Key take-home messages to be drawn from this work are: • The deemed-to-satisfy solution for allotments < 200m2 should be amended to be l000L retention + 1,000L detention storage, instead of 2,000L retention only. Page I 2 WATER SENSITIVE SA – Comment on Code amendments 4 November 2020 ▪ For a combined 1000 L detention and 1000 L retention tank the ranking in order of decreasing performance across all criteria is hot water service, laundry, all toilets, and a single toilet. ▪ One toilet alone provides minimal benefit due to the high efficiencies of modern toilets and associated limited rainwater use (draw down on the tank). Recommendation 3 – DO NOT delete the rainwater tank requirements from the National Construction Code The rainwater tank requirements within the National Construction Code (SA Amendment) (NCC) need to be retained, with minor amendments, if the deemed-to-satisfy pathway proposed in Part 3 of the Code has any chance of effective implementation. The recommended minor amendments to the NCC with respect to rainwater tanks is that the NCC should be silent on the size of the rainwater tank and the type of rainwater use connections (e.g. toilet, laundry cold tap or hot water service. Rather, it should define how the connections should be made. The Code (Phase 3) should specify the tank size and rainwater use connections. Recommendation 4 – Require compliance certificate prior to occupation for stormwater management that is inspected and deemed-to-satisfy the Code Further to Recommendation 3, the certificate of occupancy must include the installation of the rainwater (combined detention and retention) tank and connection to approved uses. The absence of this requirement both: ▪ undermines the entire Stormwater Management Policy in Part 3 Overlays, and ▪ brings into question why the Attorney-General’s Department would invest in the BDO EconSearch Options Analysis Stormwater Report to determine the most cost-effective solutions for stormwater management at the city scale,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity
    Biodiversity KEY5 FACTS as hunting), as pasture grasses or as aquarium species Introduced (in the case of some marine species). They have also • Introduced species are been introduced accidentally, such as in shipments of recognised as a leading Species imported grain or in ballast water. cause of biodiversity loss Introduced plants, or weeds, can invade and world-wide. compete with native plant species for space, light, Trends water and nutrients and because of their rapid growth rates they can quickly smother native vegetation. • Rabbit numbers: a DECLINE since Similarly to weeds, many introduced animals compete introduction of Rabbit Haemorrhagic with and predate on native animals and impact on Disease (RHD, also known as calicivirus) native vegetation. They have high reproductive rates although the extent of the decline varies and can tolerate a wide range of habitats. As a result across the State. they often establish populations very quickly. •Fox numbers: DOWN in high priority Weeds can provide shelter for pest animals, conservation areas due to large-scale although they can provide food for or become habitat baiting programs; STILL A PROBLEM in for native animals. Blackberry, for example, is an ideal other parts of the State. habitat for the threatened Southern Brown Bandicoot. This illustrates the complexity of issues associated •Feral camel and deer numbers: UP. with pest control and highlights the need for control •Feral goat numbers: DECLINING across measures to have considered specific conservation Weed affected land – Mount Lofty Ranges the State. outcomes to be undertaken over time and to be Photo: Kym Nicolson •Feral pig numbers: UNKNOWN.
    [Show full text]
  • OPEN SPACE and PLACES for PEOPLE GRANT PROGRAM 2019/20 - Metropolitan Councils
    OPEN SPACE AND PLACES FOR PEOPLE GRANT PROGRAM 2019/20 - Metropolitan Councils OPEN SPACE AND PLACES FOR PEOPLE GRANT PROGRAM 2019/20 - Metropolitan Councils PROJECT NAME Whitmore Square/ Iparrityi Master Plan - Stage 1 Upgrade (City of Adelaide) COST AND FUNDING CONTRIBUTION Council contribution $1,400,000 Planning and Development Fund contribution $900,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Council is seeking funding to deliver the first stage of the master plan to establish pleasant walking paths and extend the valued leafy character of the square from its centre to its edges. This project involves: Safety improvements to the northern tri-intersection at Morphett and Wright Streets. Greening and paths that frame the inner edges of the square. The Northern tri-intersection will commence first, followed by the greening and pedestrian connections. TIMELINE OF THE WORKS Construction work to begin May and be completed by December 2020. Masterplan perspective PROJECT NAME Moonta Street Upgrade (City of Adelaide) COST AND FUNDING CONTRIBUTION Contribution Source Amount Council contribution TBC Planning and Development Fund contribution $2,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,000,000* PROJECT DESCRIPTION Council is seeking funding to establish Moonta Street as the next key linkage in connecting the Central Market to Riverbank Precinct through north-south road laneways. The project involves: • the installation of quality stone paving throughout and the installation of landscaping to position Moonta Street as a comfortable green promenade and a premium precinct for evening activity. TIMELINE OF WORKS • The first stage of this project is detailed design prior to any works on ground commencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Groundwater Recharge Estimates for the Catchments of the Western Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area
    TECHNICAL NOTE 2008/16 Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ESTIMATES FOR THE CATCHMENTS OF THE WESTERN MOUNT LOFTY RANGES PRESCRIBED WATER RESOURCES AREA Graham Green and Dragana Zulfic November 2007 © Government of South Australia, through the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation 2008 This work is Copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cwlth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission obtained from the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be directed to the Chief Executive, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, GPO Box 2834, Adelaide SA 5001. Disclaimer The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation and its employees do not warrant or make any representation regarding the use, or results of the use, of the information contained herein as regards to its correctness, accuracy, reliability, currency or otherwise. The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation and its employees expressly disclaims all liability or responsibility to any person using the information or advice. Information contained in this document is correct at the time of writing. Information contained in this document is correct at the time of writing. ISBN 978-1-921218-81-1 Preferred way to cite this publication Green G & Zulfic D, 2008, Summary of groundwater recharge estimates for the catchments of the Western
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Ecosystem Condition Reports
    Water quality Information Sheet Aquatic ecosystem condition reports 2011 panel assessment of creeks and rivers in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region Issued September 2012 EPA984/12: This information sheet describes the outcome of the panel assessment of creeks and rivers in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, NRM region based on monitoring data collected in 2011. Introduction The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) coordinates a monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MER) program on the aquatic ecosystem condition of South Australian creeks and rivers. This MER program is designed to meet several objectives: • Providing a statewide monitoring framework for creeks and rivers that revolves through the NRM regions with sufficient frequency to allow for State of the Environment Reporting purposes. • Describing aquatic ecosystem condition for broad general public understanding. • Identifying the key pressures and management responses to those pressures. • Providing a useful reporting format that can support environmental decision making within government, community and industry. This information sheet provides a summary of the scientific work used in assessing monitoring data from creeks and rivers. Aquatic ecosystem science is not always rigid and precise; it is often open to different interpretations in several respects. Therefore, the EPA has decided that the best way to assess the condition of streams is through an expert panel deliberation that uses a consistent descriptive modelling approach. The panel members comprised an environmental consultant, a biologist from the biomonitoring team at the Australian Water Quality Centre (AWQC), and two biologists from the EPA (the authors of this assessment). All have at least 10 years experience in monitoring and assessing a range of streams across South Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Hydraulic Head, Chloride and Electrical Conductivity Data to Distinguish Between Mountain-Front and Mountain-Block Recharge to Basin Aquifers
    Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1629–1648, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1629-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Using hydraulic head, chloride and electrical conductivity data to distinguish between mountain-front and mountain-block recharge to basin aquifers Etienne Bresciani1,2, Roger H. Cranswick1,3, Eddie W. Banks1, Jordi Batlle-Aguilar1,4, Peter G. Cook1, and Okke Batelaan1 1National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, School of the Environment, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia 2Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Seoul, 02792, Republic of Korea 3Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Government of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia 4Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66047, USA Correspondence: Etienne Bresciani (etienne.bresciani@flinders.edu.au) Received: 8 June 2017 – Discussion started: 31 July 2017 Revised: 10 January 2018 – Accepted: 29 January 2018 – Published: 2 March 2018 Abstract. Numerous basin aquifers in arid and semi-arid data indicate that not only the Quaternary aquifers but also regions of the world derive a significant portion of their the deeper Tertiary aquifers are recharged through MFR and recharge from adjacent mountains. Such recharge can ef- not MBR. It is expected that this finding will have a signif- fectively occur through either stream infiltration in the icant impact on the management of water resources in the mountain-front zone (mountain-front recharge, MFR) or sub- region. This study demonstrates the relevance of using hy- surface flow from the mountain (mountain-block recharge, draulic head, chloride and EC data to distinguish between MBR).
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia - Part 1 - Background, Status and Review of Approach to Marine Biodiversity Conservation in South Australia
    Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia - Part 1 - Background, Status and Review of Approach to Marine Biodiversity Conservation in South Australia K S Edyvane May 1999 ISBN 0 7308 5237 7 No 38 The recommendations given in this publication are based on the best available information at the time of writing. The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) makes no warranty of any kind expressed or implied concerning the use of technology mentioned in this publication. © SARDI. This work is copyright. Apart of any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the publisher. SARDI is a group of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources CONTENTS – PART ONE PAGE CONTENTS NUMBER INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction…………………………………..…………………………………………………………1 1.1 The ‘Unique South’ – Southern Australia’s Temperate Marine Biota…………………………….…….1 1.2 1.2 The Status of Marine Protected Areas in Southern Australia………………………………….4 2 South Australia’s Marine Ecosystems and Biodiversity……………………………………………..9 2.1 Oceans, Gulfs and Estuaries – South Australia’s Oceanographic Environments……………………….9 2.1.1 Productivity…………………………………………………………………………………….9 2.1.2 Estuaries………………………………………………………………………………………..9 2.2 Rocky Cliffs and Gulfs, to Mangrove Shores -South Australia’s Coastal Environments………………………………………………………………13 2.2.1 Offshore Islands………………………………………………………………………………14 2.2.2 Gulf Ecosystems………………………………………………………………………………14 2.2.3 Northern Spencer Gulf………………………………………………………………………...14
    [Show full text]
  • U.2.5 New Modelling Capability to Target Stormwater Interventions That Support Seagrass Health Along Adelaide's Coast | I
    New modelling capability to target stormwater interventions that support seagrass health along Adelaide's coast Project U.2.5 Karen Rouse, Dennis Gonzalez, Milena Fernandes, Jos van Gils, Shiroma Maheepala, Ying He, Fareed Mirza, Rob Daly, Susan Cuddy Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 16/9 www.goyderinstitute.org Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series ISSN: 1839-2725 The Goyder Institute for Water Research is a partnership between the South Australian Government through the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, CSIRO, Flinders University, the University of Adelaide, the University of South Australia and ICE WaRM (The International Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Management). The Institute will enhance the South Australian Government’s capacity to develop and deliver science-based policy solutions in water management. It brings together the best scientists and researchers across Australia to provide expert and independent scientific advice to inform good government water policy and identify future threats and opportunities to water security. The following Associate organisation contributed to this report: Enquires should be addressed to: Goyder Institute for Water Research Level 4, 33 King William Street Adelaide, SA, 5000 tel: +61 8-8236 5200 e-mail: [email protected] Citation Rouse K, Gonzalez D, Fernandes M, van Gils J, Maheepala S, He Y, Mirza F, Daly R, Cuddy SM (2016) New modelling capability to target stormwater interventions that support seagrass health along Adelaide's coast, Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 16/9, Adelaide, South Australia Copyright © 2016 CSIRO. To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.
    [Show full text]
  • Condition of Freshwater Fish Communities in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Management Region
    Condition of Freshwater Fish Communities in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Management Region Dale McNeil, David Schmarr and Rupert Mathwin SARDI Publication No. F2011/000502-1 SARDI Research Report Series No. 590 SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2 Hamra Avenue West Beach SA 5024 December 2011 Survey Report for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board Condition of Freshwater Fish Communities in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Management Region Dale McNeil, David Survey Report for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board Schmarr and Rupert Mathwin SARDI Publication No. F2011/000502-1 SARDI Research Report Series No. 590 December 2011 Board This Publication may be cited as: McNeil, D.G, Schmarr, D.W and Mathwin, R (2011). Condition of Freshwater Fish Communities in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Management Region. Report to the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2011/000502-1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 590. 65pp. South Australian Research and Development Institute SARDI Aquatic Sciences 2 Hamra Avenue West Beach SA 5024 Telephone: (08) 8207 5400 Facsimile: (08) 8207 5406 http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au DISCLAIMER The authors warrant that they have taken all reasonable care in producing this report. The report has been through the SARDI Aquatic Sciences internal review process, and has been formally approved for release by the Chief, Aquatic Sciences. Although all reasonable efforts have been made to ensure quality, SARDI Aquatic Sciences does not warrant that the information in this report is free from errors or omissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Managed Aquifer Recharge Frequently Asked Questions
    Managed Aquifer Recharge Frequently Asked Questions Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Using recycled water is a viable option to reduce water shortages. Recycling water through managed aquifer recharge (MAR) is emerging in Australia and abroad as an innovative and environmentally friendly treatment option. What is Managed Aquifer How does MAR work? Infiltration galleries: buried trenches (containing polythene cells or slotted Recharge (MAR)? In Australia a variety of methods pipes) in permeable soils that allow Managed Aquifer Recharge is the are used for MAR: infiltration through the unsaturated zone process of adding a water source such Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR): to an unconfined aquifer (for example as recycled water to aquifers under injection of water into a well for storage Floreat Park, WA, see figure 1). controlled conditions for withdrawal and recovery from the same well. This is Soil aquifer treatment (SAT): treated at a later date, or used as a barrier to useful in brackish aquifers, where storage sewage effluent is intermittently prevent saltwater or other contaminants is the primary goal and water treatment infiltrated through infiltration ponds from entering the aquifer. Water can is a smaller consideration (for example to vary the amount of oxygen present be recharged by a number of methods Grange golf course, South Australia). including infiltration via basins or galleries and facilitate nutrient and pathogen or by the use of injection wells. Aquifer storage, transfer and recovery removal during passage through the (ASTR): involves injecting water into a unsaturated zone before recovery by well for storage, and recovery from a wells after residence in the unconfined What sort of water can different well.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Will Discuss the Primary Issues Relating to the Introduction of the Concept of Smps
    STORMWATER 2010 National Conference of the Stormwater Industry Association Conference Proceedings STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA THEIR EVOLUTION AND THEIR FUNCTION Author/s: Mr Christopher Wright, Water Projects Officer, Water Management Services, Adelaide & Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board Bill Lipp, Principal Stormwater Engineer, SA Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure Abstract Stormwater Management Plans (SMP) are intended to become the major tool in determining the planning and investment strategies for all things related to urban stormwater in SA. Ultimately it is intended that all applications for funding from the Stormwater Management Authority must be supported by a SMP that has been formally endorsed by the relevant Natural Resources Management Board. This is intended to ensure that planning for stormwater infrastructure is done on a catchment or whole of town basis and that there is degree of uniformity in the plans produced. The SMP has to set objectives for stormwater management and to focus on flood risk, water quality and reuse. It also has to allow for the way in which urban land use will affect stormwater in future years. This paper will discuss the primary issues relating to the introduction of the concept of SMPs. It will highlight the problem areas experienced in preparing these plans and how they were overcome. The paper will conclude with some proposals to provide better guidance in the development of future SMPs 1. Introduction Stormwater Management Plans (SMPs) in South Australia are intended to become the major tool in determining the planning and investment strategies for all urban stormwater actions and measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for South Australia – Version 3.3
    Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for South Australia – Version 3.3 Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for South Australia This document outlines the Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services provided by the Commonwealth of Australia through the Bureau of Meteorology for the State of South Australia in consultation with the South Australian Flood Warning Consultative Committee. Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for South Australia Published by the Bureau of Meteorology GPO Box 1289 Melbourne VIC 3001 (03) 9669 4000 www.bom.gov.au With the exception of logos, this guide is licensed under a Creative Commons Australia Attribution Licence. The terms and conditions of the licence are at www.creativecommons.org.au © Commonwealth of Australia (Bureau of Meteorology) 2020. Cover image: Flood waters crossing the ford, Onkaparinga River at Oakbank, July 2010. Photo taken by the Bureau of Meteorology. i Service Level Specification for Flood Forecasting and Warning Services for South Australia Table of Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 2 Flood Warning Consultative Committee .......................................................................... 5 3 Bureau flood forecasting and warning services ............................................................... 6 4 Level of service and performance reporting
    [Show full text]
  • ACWS Technical Report No.3 Prepared for the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee, July 2005
    Stage 2 Research Program 2003 - 2005 Technical Report No. 3 July 2005 Audit of contemporary and historical quality and quantity data of stormwater discharging into the marine environment, and field work programme Audit of contemporary and historical quality and quantity data of stormwater discharging into the marine environment, and field work programme Authors Jeremy Wilkinson, John Hutson, Erick Bestland and Howard Fallowfield Flinders University of South Australia GPO Box 2100, Adelaide SA 5001 Copyright © 2005 South Australian Environment Protection Authority This document may be reproduced in whole or in part for the purpose of study or training, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source and to its not being used for commercial purposes or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those given above requires the prior written permission of the Environment Protection Authority. Disclaimer This report has been prepared by consultants for the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the EPA. The EPA cannot guarantee the accuracy of the report, and does not accept liability for any loss or damage incurred as a result of relying on its accuracy. ISBN 1 876562 86 2 July 2005 Reference This report can be cited as: Wilkinson, J., Hutson, J., Bestland, E. and H. Fallowfield. (2005). “Audit of contemporary and historical quality and quantity data of stormwater discharging into the marine environment, and field work programme”. ACWS Technical Report No.3 prepared for the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Steering Committee, July 2005. Department of Environmental Health, Flinders University of South Australia. Acknowledgement This report is a product of the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study.
    [Show full text]