Skip to the record
The only place to find full transcripts.

Original source · versioned page text

Attachment 4 - Stormwater Managment Plan

of 90

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Very large file: it may take a few minutes

The original of this document is very large (17.2 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.

Plans and drawings

This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).

Log in to see the plans as drawn
SQIDEP Evaluation                                                   SPEL Basin, Sippy Downs


Cherry Picking of Storm Events
SQIDEP v1.3 does not explicitly require that sequential storm events be monitored and
reported. None the less, the Independent Evaluators have checked for evidence of cherry
picking.

We have reviewed all storms that were excluded from the data set. Dr Drapper included in
his Detailed Report a summary of the rainfall and storms that occurred during the monitoring
period. This table is extracted and shown below:




Figure 5 Reported rainfall and monitoring records.

The chart shows that there were 6 recorded storm events, intense events with an average
depth of about 50mm which failed to capture more than 80% of the hydrograph and were
therefore discarded. There are also a number of events where either the inlet or outlet
sample was not obtained presumably due to mechanical or some kind of equipment failure
or simply because no outflow occurred. These are credible events and are considered
typical of any monitoring dataset noting that flow and quality monitoring equipment is
notoriously unreliable.

Analysis of the spread of reported events also indicates some events where performance
was high and equally some events where performance was not great. A “cherry picked”
dataset would, by definition, only include events with good performance. The duration of the
monitoring period, which is considered relatively short at 13 months, is indicative of a study
which did not wait for high performing events to occur.

At the request of the Evaluators, Dr Drapper also provided data logs for storm events which
were excluded and these demonstrated that there was a failure of equipment to record for
example the first 100mm of rainfall. It is noted this is not a fully independent data analysis
however it adds to the body of evidence to demonstrate cherry picking was not undertaken.
                                                                                            27
Log in to download the original file

Attachment 4 - Stormwater Managment Plan.pdf · 17.2 MB (very large file)

Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.