Prestige Worldwide - Environmental Plan With Eia Final Report

Environmental Plan with EIA
- Upgrade to Lower Brown

Hill Creek

11
th
April 2014

(This page is intentionally left blank)
Environmental Plan with EIA - Upgrade to Lower Brown Hill Creek

ii

Declaration
Business Trading Name:
Prestige Worldwide Engineering
ABN:
12 34 56 789
Company Address and Phone:
Mawson Lakes Boulevard
Mawson Lakes
South Australia 5095
(08) 8302 6611
Principal Contact:
Scott Lines
Project Manager
Linsh003@mymail.unisa.edu.au
Declaration Statement:
Prestige Worldwide declares this Environmental Plan with EIA document is accurate at the time of
printing.

Scott Lines Signed:
Project Manager Date: 11
th
April 2014

Belinda Lee Signed:
Assistant Project Manager/ Quality Manager Date: 11
th
April 2014



iii

Document History and Status
Revision Description Author Reviewed Approved Date
A Final Draft Prestige Worldwide BL SL 11/04/2014


iv

Executive Summary
An Environmental Plan with an Environmental Impact Assessment has been documented for the
Upgrade to Lower Brown Hill Creek Project. The aim of this project is to protect adjacent properties
from a 1 in 100 year flood event. The upgrade to Lower Brown Hill Creek within the Brown Hill Creek
catchment is located at the downstream side of Anzac Highway to the confluence with Keswick
Creek on the South-Eastern side of Adelaide Airport. Prestige Worldwide has developed five possible
design options for the upgrade.
The five design options considered include:
1. A fully lined rectangular concrete channel.
2. Fully constructed natural waterway.
3. Combination of a concrete lined channel and a constructed waterway.
4. Using the existing channel in conjunction with a semi-parallel culvert.
5. The use of the existing channel with various Water Sensitive Urban Design technologies in
conjunction with a semi-parallel culvert.
This document contains a description of the proposed project, environmental policy and legislation.
Environmental impacts have been assessed and explained in this document for all the proposed
design options. The methodology used to conduct the Environmental Impact Assessment is detailed
in this document as well. In addition, mitigation strategies have been suggested to alleviate potential
negative environmental impacts.
The main purpose of this document is to inform decision-makers of the likely effects of a proposed
development. The 5 design options are shown below in order of most environmentally friendly to
least.
1. Design option 2
2. Design option 5
3. Design option 3
4. Design option 4
5. Design option 1
It is recommended that other aspects apart from the environment have to be considered to ensure
that the design option selected for proposed development is feasible and sustainable.


v

Contents
Declaration ...................................................................................................................... ii
Document History and Status .......................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... iv
Contents .......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ viii
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ ix
1 Project Description .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Design Options .............................................................................................................. 2
2 Prestige Worldwides Environmental Policy ............................................................... 7
3 Environment Legislation ............................................................................................ 8
3.1 Environmental Acts, Regulations and Required Permits .................................................. 9
4 Environmental Impact Assessment .......................................................................... 11
4.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 11
4.3 Site Investigation ........................................................................................................ 12
Part 1 Anzac Highway to South Road ..................................................................... 13 4.3.1
Part 2 South Road to Birdwood Terrace ................................................................ 14 4.3.2
Part 3 Birdwood Terrace to Marion Road .............................................................. 18 4.3.3
Part 4 Marion Road to Keswick Creek .................................................................... 20 4.3.4
4.4 Environmental Issues .................................................................................................. 22
Water ........................................................................................................................ 23 4.4.1
Potential Issues ...................................................................................................................... 23 4.4.1.1
Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................................. 25 4.4.1.2
Land ........................................................................................................................... 26 4.4.2
Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 29 4.4.3
Flora .......................................................................................................................... 31 4.4.4

vi

Fauna ......................................................................................................................... 33 4.4.5
Community ................................................................................................................ 35 4.4.6
4.5 EIA Results and Evaluation........................................................................................... 38
5 References .............................................................................................................. 39
Appendix A EIA Matrix ................................................................................................. 40


vii

List of Tables
Table 1 - Levels of Impacts in EIA .......................................................................................................... 11
Table 2 - Receptors of Potential Impacts in EIA Matrix ........................................................................ 22
Table 3 - Mitigation Measures for Potential Impacts on Water ........................................................... 25
Table 4 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Land ............................................................... 28
Table 5 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Air Quality ...................................................... 30
Table 6 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Flora ............................................................... 32
Table 7 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Fauna ............................................................. 34
Table 8 - Mitigation Measures to Minimise Noise Pollution ................................................................ 37
Table 9 - Mitigation Measures for the Potential Impacts on Traffic ..................................................... 37
Table 10 - EIA Results ............................................................................................................................ 38
Table 11 - Design Option Preference .................................................................................................... 38


viii

List of Figures
Figure 1 - Locality Plan (Tonkin Consulting 2014) ................................................................................... 1
Figure 2 - Concrete Channel Cross Section ............................................................................................. 2
Figure 3 - Cross Section of an Earth Channel (Tonkin Consulting 2013) ................................................. 3
Figure 4 - Locations of constructed waterway and concrete lined channel (Adapted from Tonkin
Consulting 2014) ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 5 - Location of Proposed Culverts (Adapted from Tonkin Consulting 2014). .............................. 5
Figure 6 - Layout of proposed elements of Option 5 (Adapted from Tonkin Consulting 2014) ............. 6
Figure 7 - Division of Parts for Site Investigation (Adapted from Google Maps 2014) ......................... 12
Figure 8 - Vegetated Banks along the Creek between Anzac Highway and South Road ...................... 13
Figure 9 - Protected Gum Tree Stump .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 10 - Concrete Lined Sections in Part 2 ....................................................................................... 14
Figure 11 - Part of Banks with Retaining Walls ..................................................................................... 14
Figure 12 - Location of Open Spaces and the Grassmere Reserve (Adapted from Google Maps 2014)
.............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 13 - Habitat observed within the Creek ..................................................................................... 15
Figure 14 - Soil Erosions within the Creek at Parts that are not retained ............................................ 16
Figure 15 - Foreign Waste Materials Observed within the Creek ......................................................... 16
Figure 16 - Vegetation at Grassmere Reserve ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 17 - Sparsely Vegetated Areas along the Concrete Lined Channel after Marion Road ............. 18
Figure 18 - End of Concrete Lined Channel after Marion Road ............................................................ 18
Figure 19 - Unlined Section of the Creek .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 20 - Banks Retained by Precast Concrete Blocks and Brick Layered Concrete Walls ................ 19
Figure 21 - Fully Concrete lined channel along Watson Avenue .......................................................... 20
Figure 22 - Vegetated Open Space between Watson Avenue and the Creek ...................................... 20
Figure 23 - Mature Tamarisks located between Debra Court and Fletcher Street............................... 21
Figure 24 - Trees located along Debra Court ........................................................................................ 21


ix

List of Abbreviations
ARI Average Recurrence Interval
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EP Environmental Plan
LBHC Lower Brown Hill Creek
SA South Australia
WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design


1

1 Project Description
Current focus of government policy is towards reducing the environmental and social impacts of new
infrastructure, a shift towards an increasing use of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
technologies, with an emphasis on constructing a more sustainable environment. Transitioning
South Australia and Adelaide to a water sensitive State and city is a key objective of the Government
and is articulated in the States water security plan, Water for Good. It is also an inherent objective
in the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide (Department of Planning and Local Government 2012).
This document focuses on the environmental aspects of the Lower Brown Hill Creek channel,
defined as the section of Brown Hill Creek from the downstream side of ANZAC Highway to the
convergence with Keswick Creek on the south eastern side of Adelaide Airport. This section is shown
below in Figure 1. The main objective of the proposed project is to protect is to protect adjacent
properties from a 1 in 100 year flood event by increasing the current creek capacity of 15 and
25m
3
/s to 60m
3
/s.

Figure 1 - Locality Plan (Tonkin Consulting 2014)

2

1.1 Design Options
This EP along with the EIA aims to detail the possible environmental implication that the
recommended design options may bring. The five proposed design options considered are as
follows:
1. A fully lined rectangular concrete channel.
According to the recommendation of the Stormwater Management Plan produced by Worley
Parsons in 2012, a fully concrete rectangular concrete channel can be adopted throughout the creek
to meet the design flow rate of 60m
3
/s. This design option will involve the enlargement of the
existing LBHC channel to accommodate the increased flow capacity. However, concrete lining does
not correspond to natural resource management principals, as this will result in high levels of
pollutant loading straight into Keswick Creek. A cross section of the proposed design option is shown
in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 - Concrete Channel Cross Section


3

2. Fully constructed natural waterway.
This design option involves a fully vegetated constructed natural waterway. To accommodate the
desired flow capacity, the existing channel will need to be enlarged greatly. The channel upgrade
may require upgrades to existing infrastructure, such as footbridges and car bridges. In addition, this
option will require extensive property reclamation along the majority of the channel due to the size
the creek. Such vegetation has the capacity to improve the quality of runoff collected into the creek.
An example of a fully constructed natural waterway is shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Cross Section of an Earth Channel (Tonkin Consulting 2013)


4

3. Combination of a concrete lined channel and a constructed waterway.
This option combines the usage of both types of channels, to achieve a flow of 60m
3
/s by using a
combination of concrete lining and constructed water way, strategic placement of each method
must be used. Sections of the creek that are more susceptible to flooding under storm events would
require the concrete lining; this includes areas such as high catchment runoff areas and narrow
areas in the channel. The constructed waterway areas will allow for infiltration thus having the
capacity to improve the quality of stormwater runoff. Designated locations of both types of channel
can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4 - Locations of constructed waterway and concrete lined channel (Adapted from Tonkin Consulting 2014)


5

4. Using the existing channel in conjunction with a semi-parallel culvert.
To meet the required design flow rate, the existing channel can be used in conjunction with a pair of
culverts running beneath the adjacent roads. The two culverts will be placed side by side beneath
the road. The culverts have the potential to carry the additional flow from the channel. A portion of
the runoff collected from the impervious areas can be diverted to the culvert, easing the load on the
channel further. This leads to the opportunity for a smaller channel while still maintaining the
desired flow discharge. This option allows for minimal upgrades to the existing channel. Only at
areas where degradation has occurred over time impeding the design flow will upgrades need to be
maintained to the original condition. Figure 5 shows the proposed location of the culvert.

Figure 5 - Location of Proposed Culverts (Adapted from Tonkin Consulting 2014).


6

5. The use of the existing channel with various Water Sensitive Urban Design technologies in
conjunction with a semi-parallel culvert.
In order to achieve the design flow rate, the use of the existing channel with the addition of two
parallel culverts and WSUD features is a viable option. This option will require the minimal
alterations of the existing channel when compared with the first three design options. With the
addition of WSUD features such as permeable paving, swales, bio-retention features, the flow
capacity can be distributed amongst more elements, thus creating a safety net if one element were
to fail during a storm event. The WSUD also incorporates an environmentally friendly element,
opportunities for recreational amenities and innovation into the design. In addition, two potential
sites have been identified that are able to facilitate a two constructed wetland. A constructed
wetland can provide recreational amenities and opportunities for the public. The elements involved
in this option are shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 - Layout of proposed elements of Option 5 (Adapted from Tonkin Consulting 2014)


7

2 Prestige Worldwides Environmental Policy
Prestige Worldwide recognises the need for urban development and emphasises that developments
should be done sustainably. The company is committed in providing appropriate solutions to
development problems to minimise potential environmental implications. It is Prestige Worldwides
goal to provide development solutions that are economically, socially and environmentally
sustainable.
The key strategies to achieve the above statement are as follows:
1. Ensure that all employees adhere to the companys environmental policy.
2. Ensure that employees are trained and equipped with the necessary skills to come out with
innovation and sustainable solutions.
3. All employees shall strive to minimise environmental harm across all company activities and
adopt solutions that have minimal adverse effect on the environment.
4. All employees are required to adhere to all state and local environmental policies and
legislation.
5. Ensure that all significant environmental impacts relevant the proposed development are
identified and propose solutions for mitigation.


8

3 Environment Legislation
The list below encompasses many of the required Environmental Legislative requirements at
Prestige Worldwide. This list is not all encompassing however the most pivotal pieces of legislation
appropriate for this upgrade are shown below:
1. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC)
2. Australian Governments central piece of environmental legislation providing a legal
framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important vegetation,
fauna, ecological communities and heritage places
3. National Environmental Protection Council Act 1994
4. National Environmental Protection Measures (Implementation) Cat 19998
5. National Water Commission Act 2004
6. National Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997
7. Water Act 2007
8. Native Vegetation Act 1991 (SA)
9. Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2007
10. Environmental Protection Regulations 2009
11. Environmental Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003
12. Environmental Protection (Site Contamination) Amendment Act 2007 (SA)
13. Environmental Protection (Air Quality) Policy 1994
14. Environmental Protection (Air Quality) Policy 994 (SA)
15. Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA)
16. Heritage Places Act 1993 (SA)
17. Native Title Act 1993


9

3.1 Environmental Acts, Regulations and Required Permits
Before any construction or demolition works can begin there are several approvals and permits
which must be granted. These approvals have been put in place by the governmental authorities to
ensure that upgrades and construction such as this project are in line with the local authorities and
environmental legislation. These approvals are to be obtained, granted and kept up to date by the
contractor along with all other necessary registrations and permits, whilst ensuring 100%
compliance with all relevant legislation. All works and activities carried out by Prestige Worldwide in
regards to the Upgrade of LBHC will comply with the relevant provisions of all legislations related to
the upgrade. Below is a guide to the main permits and approvals that may cause a delay in the
project timeline if not granted.
1. Development Act 1993
The objective of this Act is to provide for proper, orderly and efficient planning and development in
the State and to establish objectives and principles of planning and development, to establish a
system of strategic planning governing development and to enhance the proper conservation, use
and management of land. This act also facilitates sustainable development and the protection of the
environment and encourages the management of the natural and constructed environment in an
ecologically sustainable manner. Approval will be required to undertake the upgrade/development
and if removal of any significant trees is required this will also need to be sent for approval before
any alterations can be made on site.
2. Environmental Protection Act 1993
The object of this Act is to promote several principles of ecologically sustainable development as
listen in Part 2, 10. This act will govern all aspects of the development and will ensure that all
reasonable and practical measures are taken to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the
environment having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. Prestige
Worldwide will follow and apply for the appropriate approvals from Part 6: Environmental
authorisations and development authorisations.


10

3. Natural Resources Management Act 2004
This Act assists in the achievement of ecologically sustainable development in the State by
establishing an integrated scheme to promote the use and management of natural resources in
relation to both land and water resources. Chapter 7, Part 2, Division 3 and Part 3 Division 1, 3 and 4
details the numerous approvals and permits that are required to be obtained before construction
can commence.


11

4 Environmental Impact Assessment
4.1 Purpose
The objective of the feasibility study is to ensure that the proposed project is constructible, able to
meet operational requirements, identify opportunities to enhance the environment and lastly
decrease adverse environmental impacts. The purpose of conducting an EIA is to ensure that the
design options proposed for the upgrade of LBHC does not have significant negative impacts on the
surrounding environment.
4.2 Methodology
In order to access the significance of identified potential impacts, a matrix has been developed. The
adopted matrix focuses on identified parameters that will be impacted during three different project
phases; construction, operation and post-operation. The potential receptors are listed in column
located at the far left of the matrix while the remaining columns represent each project phase.
Under each project phase column are numbers that will indicate the level of impacts. The levels are
shown in the table below.
Table 1 - Levels of Impacts in EIA
Impact Scores Description
High 4 Unacceptable high impact.
Medium
3 Significant impact.
2 Significant impact that can be reduced if mitigated measures are undertaken.
Low 1 Low impact.
Positive
-1 Beneficial impact.
-2 Significant beneficial impact.

The EIA Matrix is shown in Appendix A of this document.

12

4.3 Site Investigation
A site investigation was conducted to observe and study the current ecology and environment of
LBHC. This has been identified to be an essential component to ensure that the development of the
project keeps in line with the South Australian Environment Protection legislation and the
Environmental Protection Act from 1993. In addition, disturbing the ecology of the area would
definitely receive negative views from the public and the local residents. Thus, a site investigation
could determine a proper assessment of the area for the development of this project.
This site investigation was done in 4 parts as shown in Figure 7 below. The factors which were
typically considered during this investigation are as follows:
1. Flora
2. Fauna
3. Soils
4. Existing Waste Management
5. Existing Creek Structures
6. Open Spaces

Figure 7 - Division of Parts for Site Investigation (Adapted from Google Maps 2014)


13

Part 1 Anzac Highway to South Road 4.3.1
This stretch is fully unlined with its base made up of rubbles and cobblestones and the banks are
fully lined with retaining walls made up of concrete brick walls. No vegetation has been observed to
be growing from the base however; the trees growing on the banks provide full cover of the creek
making this stretch a densely vegetated area. The trees are a predominantly introduced species
aside from one large Red Gum. The creek is generally straight and there are no permanent water
pools. Thus, it has been assumed that the creek does not support any growth of aquatic species
throughout the length of the creek. This stretch of the creek runs along a protected gum tree stump
and the historic Ashford House.

Figure 8 - Vegetated Banks along the Creek between Anzac Highway and South Road

Figure 9 - Protected Gum Tree Stump

14

Part 2 South Road to Birdwood Terrace 4.3.2
This stretch consists of both unlined and concrete lined sections. The base is mostly made up of
gravel and cobblestones. A large Eucalyptus tree that provides moderate habitat value to the creek
is located at 20 metres downstream of South Road. Some parts of the banks consists of retaining
walls made of precast concrete and brick walls while most of the banks along this stretch are contain
exposed natural clays. Exotic tree species and native riparian plantings are present in this section as
well.

Figure 10 - Concrete Lined Sections in Part 2

Figure 11 - Part of Banks with Retaining Walls


15

Three open spaces have been identified within this stretch with one beside Daly Street which has the
potential to be acquitted as a private property. The other two open spaces identified are located
along Birdwood Terrace and between Garfield Avenue and Cross Terrace; also known as the
Grassmere Reserve. The creek; though dry most of the time; has been observed to accommodate to
some habitats such as ducks when pools are created at the more hydraulically diversified parts.

Figure 12 - Location of Open Spaces and the Grassmere Reserve (Adapted from Google Maps 2014)

Figure 13 - Habitat observed within the Creek


16

While the Grassmere Reserve has been observed to be sparsely vegetated, the creek between Gray
Street and Daly Street is densely vegetated. Soil erosions shown in Figure 14 have been observed
within this area and could potentially pose as a hazard to the residents within this vicinity. Foreign
materials and waste has also been observed within the area of this creek.

Figure 14 - Soil Erosions within the Creek at Parts that are not retained

Figure 15 - Foreign Waste Materials Observed within the Creek


17

In Grassmere Reserve itself there are four large and significant Eucalyptus trees, which provide
benefits to the local wildlife as well as good cover and shade for the amenities found there such as
the playground and the guide hall. These trees have been identified and listed as significant and hold
a number of habitats within the area. In addition, there are large River Red Gum trees located in the
Grassland Reserve as well.
Grassmere Reserve provides a place for local residents to gather and relax in an outdoor
environment in which the upgrade project has the potential to improve this public recreational
space.

Figure 16 - Vegetation at Grassmere Reserve


18

Part 3 Birdwood Terrace to Marion Road 4.3.3
The only area that is vegetated within this stretch runs from the start of Packard Street till about 50
metres away from Birdwood Terrace. There is an Ancacia melanoxylon tree which is less than 10
years old that provides little habitat value. This stretch consists of both unlined and concrete lined
section which ends about 140 metres from Marion Road. In addition, tree cover is sparse and
dominated by exotic species thus providing minimal fauna habitat value.

Figure 17 - Sparsely Vegetated Areas along the Concrete Lined Channel after Marion Road

Figure 18 - End of Concrete Lined Channel after Marion Road


19

The unlined section consists of gravel and cobble stones as its base and some parts of the banks are
supported by precast concrete blocks and brick walls. Most parts of the bank are not retained and
left as earth made up of natural clays.

Figure 19 - Unlined Section of the Creek

Figure 20 - Banks Retained by Precast Concrete Blocks and Brick Layered Concrete Walls


20

Part 4 Marion Road to Keswick Creek 4.3.4
This section of the creek consists of a fully concrete lined channel shown in Figure 21, thus, no
ecological aspects have been observed to exist within the creek. On the contrary, the areas
surrounding the creek consist of a certain degree of ecology. An identified area along Watson
Avenue shown in Figure 22 holds a vegetated open space between the road and the creek for
potential amenities. While the trees in the area have not been listed as significant trees, it has the
opportunity to improve as a ecological habitat.

Figure 21 - Fully Concrete lined channel along Watson Avenue

Figure 22 - Vegetated Open Space between Watson Avenue and the Creek

21

Another identified area that is heavily vegetated is located between Debra Court and Fletcher Street.
The Mature Tamarisks are planted along the sides of the creek. A small number of habitats have
been observed to reside within this vegetation. Importantly, there is one large river gum tree located
at the end of Debra Court that can potentially provide habitat to native fauna. The creek along this
stretch has also been identified to be unable to hold any aquatic plants and/or fauna due to the
creeks function of not holding water within.

Figure 23 - Mature Tamarisks located between Debra Court and Fletcher Street

Figure 24 - Trees located along Debra Court


22

4.4 Environmental Issues
Identified potential receptors that are considered in this study are listed in Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Receptors of Potential Impacts in EIA Matrix
Receptors of Potential Impacts
P
H
Y
S
I
C
A
L

WATER
Runoff Quality
Groundwater Quality
Drainage
LAND
Landform
Soil Quality
Slope Stability
AIR Quality
B
I
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L
FLORA
Habitat
Native
Exotic
FAUNA
Native Mammals
Land Animals
Birds
Fish
S
O
C
I
A
L
-
E
C
O
N
O
M
I
C

COMMUNITY
Aboriginal Heritage
Non - Aboriginal Heritage
Noise
Visual Landscape
Vehicular Traffic
Pedestrians
Public Transport
Amenity (Facilities)


23

Water 4.4.1
Throughout LBHC there are three key environmental issues taken into consideration for water,
which include:
1. Water Quality
2. Groundwater
3. Drainage
Whenever construction near a water course is undertaken careful attention must be paid in order to
reduce the risk of pollution, specifically high levels of pollutants may be present in stormwater
runoff as well as a result from littering and debris located within close proximity to the creek.
Groundwater pollution is typically the result of poor environmental care and practice. Additionally
groundwater can be susceptible to pollution through incorrect waste disposal. Whereas the main
purpose of proper drainage is flood control and flood mitigation throughout the length of LBHC; it is
an essential aspect that requires careful planning to ensure no unforseen problems arise.
Potential Issues 4.4.1.1
The main environmental concern in the water aspect of this upgrade is the quality of stormwater
runoff that will eventually end up in Keswick Creek. Groundwater quality and drainage have been
taken into consideration throughout this study as well.
Construction Phase
During the construction stage water quality can be negatively impacted with contamination a
possibility from machinery leaks and chemicals used throughout construction as well as general
rubbish and litter. Furthermore groundwater pollution is a concern due to the long lasting negative
effects associated with groundwater pollution, while providing adequate drainage during
construction is considered paramount to avoid potential flooding. Design option 1 was considered
the poorest with a significant impact on water quality, while design option 2 and 3 are considered
more beneficial due to the lower amount of construction taking place and the increased levels of
flora. As design option 4 and 5 involve minimal interaction with the existing creek structure it is
predicted the construction phase will have minimal impact on water quality and groundwater.
Furthermore drainage would still be allowed to flow through the existing structure during the
construction phase.

24

Operation Phase
During the operation phase it is forecasted that the upgrade to LHBC will have a positive impact,
supporting the local flora and fauna. Specifically design options 2 and 3 contain large sections of
flora along the length of the creek, while design option 5 contains several constructed wetlands to
provide additional flora. The extra flora and constructed wetlands will greatly aid in the removal of
pollutants from the water for the duration of the operational phase assuming proper maintenance.
The drainage system provided by design options 4 and 5 will also have a positive impact allowing a
much smaller flow to go through the creek which will mitigate flood damage as a result. The main
negative impact is associated with design option 1, by having the entire creek as a concrete channel
allows for a high level of pollutants and an increased concentrated flow requiring more ongoing
maintenance as a result.
Post-Operation Phase
Post-Operation removing any concrete structure will require extensive machinery. As a result water
quality and groundwater will be negatively impacted with potential contamination hazards present
throughout this stage. Furthermore drainage will need to be diverted with the potential of serious
flooding during this stage in the event it is poorly controlled. The removal of culverts for design
options 4 and 5 will require significant work with the potential for groundwater pollution.


25

Mitigation Measures 4.4.1.2
Improving stormwater quality runoff is one of the main objectives of the proposed upgrade. Table 3
details recommended mitigation measures to reduce the impact on water quality and improve the
quality of water at receiving water bodies.
Table 3 - Mitigation Measures for Potential Impacts on Water
Project Phase Mitigation Measures
Construction and Post-Operation
1. Ensure that construction and demolition activities do not
pollute the aquatic environment.
2. Physical barriers should be used when works are being
done at close proximity to the creek.
3. Carry out re-vegetation after construction and demolition
works to allow vegetation to act as filters to improve water
quality.
Operation
1. Regularly monitor water quality and take actions that are
necessary to improve water quality.
2. Reduce opportunities for people to throw litter into the
creek.
3. Carry out re-vegetation works to allow vegetation to act as
a filter to improve water quality.


26

Land 4.4.2
Large construction projects can have a significant impact on the land and the environment, it is
essential that proper care is taken to ensure that any damage is minimised with safety a principal
concern. Due to the construction involved in the LBHC project such aspects that must be monitored
throughout the lifecycle of the project include:
1. Landforms
2. Soil quality
3. Slope stability
The landforms located along the length of the creek will be inadvertently affected in the event
construction takes place, however the effects can be mitigated with proper planning. Slope stability
protects against erosion and ensures the safety of the creek banks. Moreover, the slope stability is
closely linked to nearby residential land use and infrastructure.
Soil quality is another aspect that will require continuous monitoring. The soil type located near
LBHC is predominately clay with a low level of permeability and moderate to high levels of plasticity.
Without proper management soil quality can deteriorate due to pollution.
Construction Phase
During the construction phase due to the restructuring of the existing creek, design options 1, 2 and
3 negatively impact on landforms, soil quality and slope stability. Removing large quantities of soil
will further destabilise areas of the creek, allowing higher levels of erosion to occur with the
potential for contamination. Design options 4 and 5 have a lesser impact on landforms and slope
stability due to the fact there are no significant landforms along the path of the culverts. While slope
stability is an issue during construction for design options 4 and 5 this is minimised as construction
progresses, by reinforcing sections along the creek and completing sections of the culverts.


27

Operation Phase
The land features will typically remain constant over the operation phase of the project, however it
must be noted that design options 2 and 3 are superior relating to the fact that they provide large
areas of flora. This leads to a decrease in erosion, while increasing slope stability and soil quality.
Moreover design option 5 provides WSUD technologies to allow water infiltration and pollutant
removal as added benefits. All of the design options would have minimal impacts on landforms
during the operational phase.
Post-Operation there is a high risk for contamination to occur with the increased level of pollution
due to the extensive works that would take place. Particularly design options 1, 4 and 5 as there will
be a greater exposure involved. As a result soil quality and slope stability would have to be
monitored throughout the process. Design option 2 is considered superior in the deconstruction
phase due to the lower level of machinery required as well as the extra flora that would aid in slope
stability.


28

It is important to ensure that possibilities of soil contamination and erosion during all 3 phases of the
project are kept at the minimum. Table 4 contains mitigation measures to prevent those events from
occurring.
Table 4 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Land
1. Barriers should be put up to restrict public access to work
site.
2. Wastes should be stored in bins or sealed containers while
waiting for proper removal.
3. Recycle and reuse products when possible.
4. Frequent checks should be undertaken to ensure that
machinery is not leaking.
5. Carry out re-vegetation after construction and demolition
works to prevent erosion from occurring.
Operation
1. Monitor regularly on soil quality and take necessary action
immediately to clean up contaminated soil as soon as
possible.
2. Carry out re-vegetation on exposed areas to prevent
erosion from happening.
3. Maintain erosion and sediment control structures.
4. Ensure that wastewaters do not enter drainage lines.


29

Air Quality 4.4.3
Any large project has the potential to create unwanted dust emissions that can cause a nuisance to
local residents while having a negative impact on the environment due to contamination issues
associated with high levels of air pollution.
Construction Phase
The initial construction phase will produce the highest amount of dust emissions and other air
emissions such as exhaust fumes. Due to the high level of activity that will take place during this
phase, ensuring that equipment is maintained will help reduce the level of exhaust fumes. Across all
design options there is significant level of construction taking place.
Operational Phase
The operational phase will typically see minimal impact on air quality. However as design option 2
has a larger amount of flora the air quality is considered to have a more positive impact throughout
the lifecycle of the project, while the other design options may have a low level of dust emissions
throughout the duration of the project.
Post-Operational Phase
The deconstruction will result in extensive works being undertaken, a high level of activity will lead
to a higher level of emissions and air pollution which will in turn lower the air quality for the
duration.


30

Air pollution is expected to occur during the operation of heavy machinery. However, mitigation
measures should be undertaken during construction and post-operation to reduce the emission of
air pollutants. Table 5 contains recommended mitigation measures to reduce air pollution during
construction and post-operation. Mitigation measures are not listed during operation activities as
there will only be low levels of air pollution.
Table 5 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Air Quality
1. Ensure that service roads to work site are sealed and
sediments are frequently removed from road surfaces.
2. Ensure that equipment is maintained to reduce exhaust
gas emissions.
3. Use environmentally friendly equipment that meets
current emission standards.
4. Ensure heavy vehicles and machines are cleaned before
entering or leaving work site.
5. Cover stockpile materials as a dust control measure.
6. Carry out re-vegetation works after construction and
demolition works to prevent wind from dispersing
sediments.


31

Flora 4.4.4
Flora in the environment is not only aesthetically pleasing to look at but it promotes biodiversity as
well. From the site investigation, the presence of flora is scarce along the creek and surrounding
areas. In addition, the creek supports minor riparian vegetation. Of the entire native flora present,
the large gum tree has the potential to provide habitat values. However, as it is isolated it has less
potential to provide for fauna habitat. It is recommended that the upgrade should involve in
restoring flora through revegetation. Overall, the current conditions at the creek provide poor
quality conditions for both native and exotic flora.
Construction Phase
During construction, soil compaction can be the result of the weight of vehicles and machinery or
when materials are stockpiled on soil surfaces. In addition, soil compaction can restrict plant roots
from growing as well as result in poor soil drainage. Construction might also lead to vegetation
removal. Within the area of interest of the upgrade, there are many native flora varieties that are at
risk during construction. Design options 2 and 3 involves a large amount of vegetation in the design,
identified native and exotic flora present can be worked around to prevent any major impacts like
total removal. Design options 4 and 5 are located further away from the creek compared to design
options 1, 2 and 3. Lesser impacts are expected from design options 4 and 5 on flora. Design option 1
will involve removing flora from current earth channels and banks resulting in the highest impact to
flora compared to the other options
Operation Phase
During operation, design options that include the use of vegetation will have the capacity to
enhance biodiversity. Design option 2 will have significant beneficial impact on flora due to heavy
revegetation required for the design. The next in line would be design option 5 that involves the use
of WSUD elements like wetlands which can enhance the quality of conditions for flora to sustain. It is
not as beneficial as design option 2 because design option 5 involves lesser revegetation
requirements to meet the design flow rate. Concrete culverts in design options 4 and 5 will not be as
environmentally friendly for flora compared to design option 2. Design option 1 will pose
unacceptable significant impacts on flora as the whole channel will be fully concrete. This prevents
revegetation opportunities for restoration of aquatic flora.

32

Post-operation activities will results in removing large quantities of flora; this will be highly
unacceptable as it will create significant negative impacts in biodiversity. Demolishing design options
2, 3, 4 and 5 which involves in revegetation which will destroy fauna habitat. Post-operation works
for design option 1 will not be as significant as the other options because it does not focus on
revegetation.
Table 6 contains the list of recommended measures to minimise negative impacts on all flora
varieties throughout all three phases of the project to protect native habitats for fauna.
Table 6 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Flora
6. Conduct a survey of current populations of flora around
areas that are going to involve construction or demolition
works.
7. Minimise disturbance to local flora and protect all floral
that were not identified for removal.
entering work area to avoid contamination.
9. Avoid parking vehicles and machinery on vegetation.
10. Avoid stockpiling materials on vegetation or against tree
trunks; use cleared land for stockpiling.
11. Carry out re-vegetation works after construction and
demolition works to restore or enhance biodiversity.
Operation

5. Monitor regularly on flora population.
6. Carry out weed control by hand pulling or digging.
7. Carry out re-vegetation work to further enhance
biodiversity.


33

Fauna 4.4.5
The majority of the flora has been lost in this creeks channel and bed areas thus diminishing the
amount of fauna in the area. The large red river gum trees are currently the only native vegetation
that provides any significant amount of housing for wildlife in the area. They are able to provide the
habitat requirements of wildlife such as mammals, birds and insects.
Currently, there is poor habitat quality for frogs, as well as snakes, which are attracted to cool dense
flora along with other fauna to eat such as mice. This lack of habitat quality is due to an absence of
water pools. Currently, native fish species are only present in fragmented population and are scarce.
An absence in quality and quantity of flora for mammals such as koalas and possums also means that
they live in a poor quality habitat, as the red river gum trees are the only significant flora able to
provide a habitat for these native creatures. Also, being the only type of large native tree, native
birds such as magpies and kookaburras, suffer from a lack of variety of shelter and food sources. The
absence of open water, reed beds and shallow muddy banks were unbeneficial to waterbirds
present in the area.
Overall, the current conditions at the creek provide poor quality habitat for all fauna.

Due to the scarcity of fauna within the creek and surrounding area, it is essential and critical to
ensure that the upgrade of LBHC does not degrade the current environmental conditions further.
Construction Phase
In relation to fauna, construction work involves earthworks which may invade native animal
habitats. Animals will potentially be at risk by earthmoving equipment. Loud noises produced by
heavy machinery have the potential to cause distress to fauna present at the surroundings.
Construction works for design options 1, 2 and 3 are located nearer to the existing creek. Therefore,
the level of potential negative impacts on fauna will be higher than design options 4 and 5. Design
option 2 will involve the highest amount of earthworks as the size of the existing creek will have to
be enlarged greatly to meet the required design flow rate. However, since design option 2 is a
constructed natural waterway mitigation measures can be made to alleviate negative impacts on

34

surrounding fauna. Overall, the largest impact on fauna during the construction phase will be from
design option 1 as it involves concrete pouring processes that will result in destroying habitats
permanently.
Operation Phase
Like flora, design options that include the use of vegetation will have the capacity to enhance
biodiversity. Design option 2 will have significant beneficial impact on fauna as the entire upgrade is
vegetated. Significant impact on fauna would be during the operation of design option 1, the fully
concrete channel does not support aquatic habitat for fauna like frogs, fish and waterbirds.
Similarly to the construction phase, earthworks and heavy machinery will put surrounding fauna at
high risk. By post-operation, there would be very minimal fauna to start with in design option 1.
Therefore, the level of impact on fauna is critical as it will be all that is left in the area compared to
the other options.

Table 7 contains the list of recommended measures to minimise negative impacts on all fauna
varieties throughout all three phases of the project.
Table 7 - Mitigation Measure for Potential Impacts on Fauna
1. Conduct a survey of current populations of fauna around
areas that are going to involve construction or demolition
works.
2. Minimise disturbance to local fauna if relocation of habitat
is required.
entering work area to avoid contamination.
4. Avoid native habitat.
5. Carry out re-vegetation work to restore native habitat.
Operation
1. Monitor regularly on fauna population.
2. Carry out re-vegetation work to further enhance native
habitat.


35

Community 4.4.6
Community acceptance will be taken into serious consideration during the decision making process
on which design option to undertake. The receptors of potential impact in the community aspects:
1. Aboriginal Heritage
2. Non-Aboriginal Heritage
3. Noise
4. Visual Landscape
5. Vehicular Traffic
6. Pedestrians
7. Public Transport
8. Amenity

Construction Phase
The construction phase will be disruptive to the community. Currently, there are no recorded
aboriginal heritage sites within the project location. It should be noted that land within 200 metres
of a watercourse may contain Aboriginal object or significant site. According to historical records,
the creek was more of a floodplain connecting to wetlands instead of being an actual creek. Hence,
throughout all 5 options, there will be low impact Aboriginal Heritage unless discovered. Mitigation
plans will be available to ensure that such sites will be protected if found. In terms of non-aboriginal
heritage, there is the Historic Ashford House along with the protected gum tree stump, a Mature
Oak Tree and Birdwood Terrace Railway Corridor. Across all 5 design options, there would be
significant impacts that can be reduced if mitigation measures are undertaken to work around these
important landmarks. It will be the same for noise pollution as well. The visual landscape of
construction works will not be aesthetically pleasing thus causing a significant impact across all 5
design options. Design option 2 will have the greatest impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
public transport. This is due to the large amount of land that has to be excavated to meet the design
flow rate. Design option 1 will have the least impact on traffic as works will only be focused on the
creek itself. Mitigation methods will be recommended for the remaining design options that might
pose a significant impact on traffic. In terms of amenity, construction will have an overall significant

36

impact, but mitigation measures like traffic detours and temporary foot paths have the potential to
allow the public to get access to amenities.
Operation Phase
The operation phase will be when the public have opportunity to enjoy amenities and recreational
activities as well as aesthetically pleasing landscapes from design options 2, 3, 4 and 5. Design option
2 will be significantly beneficial compared to the mentioned design options as it is a large
constructed natural waterway. There will be minimal noise pollution across all design options as
well. In terms of heritage, impacts of Aboriginal sites will have low impact regardless of the option
selected till an actual site has been located within the project area. Activities during the operational
phase will not pose significant impacts on the listed heritage sites. Design option 2 has the potential
to enhance the aesthetic value of nearby heritage sites as well.
Like construction, post-operation will be disruptive to the community. The impacts on heritage sites
and any form of transportation will be similar to the construction phase. Likewise level of impact of
noise will be the same across for all design options as construction. However, demolishing
established recreational amenities at design option 2, 3 and 5 will be significantly impacted.


37

Table 8 - Mitigation Measures to Minimise Noise Pollution
1. Select quiet equipment or adopt noise reducing equipment
for site work.
2. Ensure that neighbours are notified when operating noisy
equipment.
3. Refrain from operating heavy machinery outside normal
operating hours.

Table 9 - Mitigation Measures for the Potential Impacts on Traffic
1. Ensure that detours are set up to for vehicular traffic to
access surrounding properties.
2. Set up temporary walkways to ensure that pedestrians
have property access to their target destination.
3. Ensure that there are temporary bus stops for public
transport.
Operation 1. Ensure maintenance on vehicular and pedestrian bridges.


38

4.5 EIA Results and Evaluation
The aim of this document is to facilitate the decision-makers with information to make the final
decision on design option. The results from the EIA are showed in Table 10.
Table 10 - EIA Results
Total Scores for Each Design Option (Highest Score = Highest Environmental Impact)
Design Option 1 147
Design Option 2 90
Design Option 3 113
Design Option 4 122
Design Option 5 102

The scores have indicated that design option 1 will have the highest environmental impact on all the
identified receptors. A fully concrete lined channel provides no opportunities for environmental
enhancement and recreational amenities. At the same time, the decrease in channel roughness does
not comply with natural resource management principles. The most environmental friendly design
option with the lowest score will be design option 2; a fully constructed natural waterway. Although
constructing such a waterway will require extensive enlargement of the creek, the environmental
and amenity values it offers are highly considerable. The preferred option in terms of environmental
benefits is listed in Table 11 below.
Table 11 - Design Option Preference
Design Option Preferences - Environmental
1
st
Choice Design Option 2
2
nd
3
rd
4
th
5
th

It should be noted that during the decision making process, aspects other than environmental have
to be considered to ensure that the entire proposed development is feasible and sustainable.


39

5 References
Department of Planning and Local Government 2012, The 30 Year plan for Greater Adelaide,
Government of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
Ecological Associates 2013, Brown Hill Creek Ecological Risks Stage 1, Ecological Associates Pty Ltd,
Unley, South Australia
Tonkin Consulting 2012, Lower Brown Hill Creek Upgrade Project, Tonkin Consulting, 1 April 2014,
<http://www.westtorrens.sa.gov.au/files/d8cde1c2-b937-4e39-894f-
a1d300a2f4a9/Lower_Brown_Hill_Creek_upgrade_project_web.pdf>
Transport SA, 2001, Environmental Awareness for civil construction projects, EnviroManagement Pty
Ltd, Norwood, South Australia.
Worley Parsons, 2012, Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project, Worley Parsons Resource &
Energy, Adelaide Australia


40

Appendix A EIA
Matrix


Prestige Worldwide - Environmental Plan With Eia Final Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prestige Worldwide - Environmental Plan With Eia Final Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Environmental Plan with EIA

- Upgrade to Lower Brown

S-ar putea să vă placă și