INTEGRATED STORMWATER TREATMENT AND RE-USE SYSTEMS ... · considers the design, construction, operation and maintenance of integrated stormwater treatment and re-use systems. It also

INTEGRATED STORMWATER TREATMENT AND RE-USESYSTEMS - INVENTORY OF AUSTRALIAN PRACTICE

TECHNICAL REPORTReport 04/1June 2004

Belinda Hatt / Ana Deletic / Tim Fletcher

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H C E N T R E F O R C A T C H M E N T H Y D R O L O G Y

Hatt, Belinda, 1978-

Integrated Stormwater Treatment and Re-useSystems: Inventory of Australian Practice

Bibliography

ISBN 1 920813 07 1

1. Urban runoff - Australia. 2. Storm sewers - Australia. 3. Water reuse -Australia. 4. Water quality management. I. Deletic, Ana, 1965- . II.Fletcher, Tim, 1969- . III. Cooperative Research Centre for CatchmentHydrology. IV. Title. (Series : Report (Cooperative Research Centre forCatchment Hydrology); 04/1)

628.21

Keywords

Urban areasWater supplyStormwaterRunoffWater treatmentWater reuseInventoriesRecyclingGuidelinesWater qualityIntegrated systemsStorageCost benefit analysisDesign

© Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, 2004

i

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY

Preface

The current drought in much of Australia hashighlighted the need for improved management of theurban water cycle. In particular, there is nowrecognition that stormwater provides a potentialresource, that could help to reduce demand for potablewater supplies.

Clearly, utilisation of stormwater for water supplypurposes depends on the quality of that stormwater,and the integration of treatment and utilisation systemsis therefore critical. Monash University has embarkedon a major project to develop new technologies for thecollection, treatment, storage and distribution ofstormwater for water supply.

In order to underpin this research, a review of existingpractice in Australia was conducted. The reviewconsiders the design, construction, operation andmaintenance of integrated stormwater treatment andre-use systems. It also provides information onregulations supporting (or impeding) adoption of suchsystems. Costs and benefits are examined, along withimplementation issues, and performance. Mostimportantly, current gaps are examined to set prioritiesfor future research.

There are many case studies presented in the review,and the authors would like to thank the numerouspeople who provided the information necessary todescribe these case studies.

Funding for this project was provided by the NSWEnvironment Protection Authority (through itsStormwater Trust), whilst Melbourne Water, CSIROUrban Water, Brisbane City Council and the VictorianEPA (through the Victorian Stormwater ActionProgram) provided in-kind support.

Tim FletcherDirector, Institute for Sustainable Water ResourcesProgram Leader, Urban Stormwater QualityCRC for Catchment Hydrology

IntegratedStormwaterTreatment and Re-use Systems -Inventory ofAustralian Practice

Belinda Hatt, Ana Deletic, Tim Fletcher

Technical Report 04/1June 2004


ii

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the NSW

Environment Protection Authority for funding this

research project, in particular Mike Sharpin. We

would also like to acknowledge in kind contributions

from Brisbane City Council, Melbourne Water, CSIRO

Land and Water, and the Victorian Environment

Protection Authority.

This review was also made possible by the assistance

of people associated with the studied stormwater re-

use schemes.

The authors would like to thank Sandy Booth

(University of Western Sydney), Andrzej Listowski

(Sydney Olympic Park Authority) and Keith Furniss

(HNJ Holdings P/L) for conducting site visits, for

providing information and valuable discussion.

The following people are also thanked for providing

information and discussions:

Leanne Dallmer Roach (Storm Consulting)

Peter Donley (South Sydney City Council)

Jake Matuzic (City of Canada Bay Council)

Joel Stewart (University of Western Sydney)

Christina Roman (Boyden and Partners P/L)

Daryl Edwards (Taronga Zoo)

Joanne Scarsbrick

Paul Smith (Manly Council)

Kaye Power (NSW Department of Health)

Peter Smith (Kogarah Council)

Greg Jackson (Queensland EPA)

David Mitchell (Charles Sturt University)

Anne Simi (City Design)

Lucy Peljo (Brisbane City Council)

Peter Scott (SA EPA)

Neil Kerby (Winkfield P/L)

Bill Mole (HNJ Holdings P/L)

Gary Spivak (City of Port Phillip Council)

Garry Kerans (Integrated Ecovillages)

Rebecca Brown (Hume City Council)

Ian Brown (Hobsons Bay City Council)

Sam Sampanthar (Hobsons Bay City Council)

Steering Group

Matt Francey, Melbourne Water

Tonia Giobbi, Brisbane City Council

Christine Grundy, GHD

Grace Mitchell, CSIRO Land and Water

Sean Moran, Victoria Environment ProtectionAuthority

Graham Rooney, Melbourne Water

Mike Sharpin, NSW Environment ProtectionAuthority

Matt Thwaites, Victoria Environment ProtectionAuthority


iii

Executive Summary

The use of water resources in many parts of Australiais approaching the limits of sustainability. Betterintegrated management of urban water (supply,wastewater and stormwater) is needed if the waterneeds of the expected population are to be met withoutfurther deterioration of the environment. A focal pointfor proposed national water conservation programmesis the use of both treated wastewater and urbanstormwater.

The aim of this research was to develop an inventoryof technologies for the collection, treatment, storage,and distribution of urban stormwater runoff and, wherecurrent knowledge allows, provide interim guidanceon stormwater re-use implementation. General urbanrunoff is defined as runoff generated from all urbansurfaces. Schemes that collect and re-use runoff fromroofs only are not considered in this study since thereis already a good deal of knowledge about this,whereas knowledge about harvesting and re-usinggeneral runoff is lacking.

This survey of existing stormwater re-use systemsfocussed primarily on non-potable water use (e.g.irrigation, non-potable in-house). An extensive reviewof existing national (focussing on the Eastern seaboardand South Australia) and international stormwater re-use systems was carried out and lessons learned fromthe selected case studies with respect to sizing,performance, operation, and integration into the totalwater cycle of re-use systems. Issues regardingoptimisation of their overall performance and keyfactors in their successes (or failures) were alsoexamined.

Regulation

The use of recycled water is governed by States andTerritories and regulatory stakeholders. While thereare specific statutory obligations under State health,environmental, agricultural or food legislation for re-use of wastewater, stormwater re-use is not regulated.It is generally recommended that guidelines forwastewater re-use be used to operate and evaluate

stormwater re-use schemes. However, both the supplyand quality of wastewater and stormwater are verydifferent, therefore applying wastewater guidelines toa stormwater recycling scheme is somewhatinadequate. New National Water RecyclingGuidelines are currently being developed as part of theFederal government’s National Water Initiative andwill address stormwater recycling, but not as a firstpriority.

System Components

At this stage, re-use of stormwater is largely restrictedto smaller scale sites, and is mainly used for purposeswith low potential for human contact (low risks), suchas irrigation. Collection and storage are still based onconventional methods. Treatment is mainly based onWater Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) techniques(swales, buffers and bio-filters, infiltration systems,wetland ponds and basins and lakes), howeveradvanced techniques along with disinfection areutilised if there is a higher health risk.

Design

Stormwater re-use system design should satisfy end-use requirements and address the multiple objectivesthese systems often have. Information was readilyavailable with respect to sizes and features of thevarious components incorporated into the studied re-use systems but very rarely on methods used for theirdetermination. However, it appears that the samedesign methods are used for re-use schemes as forstormwater pollution control alone (e.g. AustralianRainfall and Runoff, 2003). This may cause someproblems since the WSUD systems are not currentlydesigned to deliver high water quality; in particular thereliability of treatment may be an issue. Design ofsurface stores (such as ponds and urban lakes) is notwell defined which may present safety problems (largewater level variations, or deterioration of water qualityduring long dry weather spells).

Construction, Maintenance and Operation

Construction tolerances in integrated stormwatertreatment and re-use systems are generally finer thanin conventional systems. Further, maintenance is


iv

especially important for re-use systems in order toguarantee reliability of treated water quality.However, a number of studied sites appear to havebeen neglected since completion of construction.Clear specification of an operation and maintenanceprogram should be prepared during the design process.Without this, it is likely that the integrity of a numberof the systems studied is at risk, potentially impactingon public health and amenity.

Implementation Issues

Some of the most frequently encountered issues werelengthy and resource intensive negotiation, assessmentand approval processes. This is largely due to a lackof pertinent experience and policies on the part of thewater industry and relevant authorities. Many of there-use schemes were the result of a partnershipapproach, often between the various levels ofgovernment and a private developer. This was foundto be successful, since it enabled all parties’ skills,roles and experience to be combined. Involving otherparties, such as the design team and researchers, in thepartnership was also found to be beneficial. There issignificant public acceptance of domestic use ofrainwater. Government grants assist with project costs,however managing grants takes a lot of time andongoing effort. Reliable provisions and monitoringplans are fundamental elements of re-use projects,particularly given their experimental nature at thisstage.

Costs and Benefits

Stormwater re-use systems offer multiple benefits,including reduced demand for potable water supply,and delay or removal of the need for stormwaterdrainage infrastructure expansion. Other benefits arereduced stormwater flows, pollution control, habitatcreation, and protection/enhancement of downstreamwaterways. It has been accepted for a number of yearsthat, to correctly assess the worth of a water servicingoption, the cost of implementing a re-use scheme mustbe compared to the true costs of current supply anddisposal practices, however little progress has beenmade in developing such means of comparison.

Performance

Performance results were somewhat limited, partlybecause most projects are still very new and there isnot a lot of feedback available. In general though,developers, operators and regulators appear to besatisfied with the schemes’ initial performances, andthe public response has been positive.

Critique of Current Practices - Knowledge Gapsand Research Needs

Regulations and guidelines specific to stormwaterrecycling need to be developed to allow re-use systemsto be designed effectively. There is a clear need for thedevelopment of innovative techniques for thecollection, treatment and storage of stormwater.Performance modelling for evaluation purposes alsoneeds further research. Traditional cost benefits fail toadequately assess non-monetary benefits, therefore anovel approach with well structured methodologyshould be developed. If the costs and benefits of re-usesystems can be shown to compare favourably with thecosts and benefits of conventional practices, this willprovide a good deal of incentive to overcome otherobstacles to widespread adoption of stormwaterrecycling.


v

Preface i

Acknowledgements ii

Executive Summary iii

List of Figures viii

List of Tables ix

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.1.1 Recent Progress in the Field 1

1.2 Objectives and Scope of Study 2

1.3 Study Sites 3

2. Current Regulatory Environment Framework 5

2.1 Introduction 5

2.2 New South Wales 5

2.3 Victoria 5

2.4 Queensland 9

2.5 South Australia 10

2.6 Key Learnings 10

3. Integrated System Components 13

3.1 Introduction 13

3.2 Survey of the Components and End-Use Types 15

3.3 End-Use 17

3.4 Collection 18

3.5 Treatment 20

3.6 Storage 22

3.7 Distribution 24


4. Design 27

4.1 Introduction 27

4.2 Treatment 27

4.2.1 Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters 27

4.2.2 Infiltration and Filtration Systems 27

4.2.3 Wetlands 28

4.2.4 Ponds, Basins and Lakes 29

4.2.5 Litter and Sediment Traps 29

4.2.6 Advanced Treatment 29

4.3 Storage 30

4.3.1 Tanks 30

4.3.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 30



vi

5. Construction, Operation and Maintenance 33

5.1 Introduction 33

5.2 Construction 33

5.2.1 Current Practice 33

5.2.2 Key Learnings 33

5.3 Operation and Maintenance 33

5.3.1 Collection 34

5.3.2 Treatment 34

5.3.3 Storage 34

5.3.4 Distribution 34

5.3.5 Flood Protection 34

5.3.6 Key Learnings 35

6. Implementation Issues 37

6.1 Introduction 37

6.2 Integration into the Total Urban Water Cycle 37

6.3 Public Safety 38

6.4 Landscape Requirements 39

6.5 Site Amenity 39

6.6 Institutional and Other Issues 39


7. Costs and Benefits 43

7.1 Introduction 43

7.2 Costs 43

7.3 Benefits 43

7.4 Collected Data 43


8. Performance 49

8.1 Introduction 49

8.2 Monitoring 49

8.3 Assessment of Performance 49



vii

9. Critique of Current Practices- Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs 55

9.1 Regulation 55

9.1.1 Knowledge Gaps 55

9.1.2 Research Needs 55

9.2 Design 55



9.3 Costs and Benefits 56



9.4 Other 57



9.5 Synthesis of Key Learnings 57

10. Conclusions 59

References 61

Appendix A 67

Appendix B 79

Appendix C 167


viii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 The Main Functions of IntegratedStormwater Treatment and Re-use Systems 13

Figure 3.2 Frequency of End-Use Types 17

Figure 3.3 Influence of Catchment Size on the Frequency of End-Use Type 18

Figure 3.4 Frequency of Components Used for Collection Purposes 19

Figure 3.5 Influence of Catchment Size on CollectionComponent Frequency 19

Figure 3.6 Frequency of Components Used forTreatment 20

Figure 3.7 Influence of Catchment Size on TreatmentComponent Frequency 21

Figure 3.8 Influence of Re-use Type on TreatmentComponent Frequency 21

Figure 3.9 Frequency of Components Used for Storage Purposes 22

Figure 3.10 Influence of Catchment Size on StorageComponent Frequency 23

Figure 3.11 Influence of Re-use Type on StorageComponent Frequency 23

Figure 3.12 Frequency of Distribution Methods 24

Figure 3.13 Influence of Catchment Size on Distribution Methods 24

Figure 4.1 Influence of Evapotranspiration on Storage Type 30

Figure 4.2 Diagram of the Aquifer Storage andRecovery System at Parafield 31

Figure 6.1 Signs at Homebush Bay Inform the Publicabout the Use of Recycled Water 38

Figure 6.2 Stormwater Outlet Pipe at Ocean Beach in Manly and Pollution Warning Sign 40

Figure 6.3 Information Boards (at Manly Beach andSolander Park) 41

Figure 6.4 Art Work at Solander Park 42

Figure 7.1 Relationship Between Catchment Area and Capital Cost 45

Figure 8.1 Interlocking Pavers Installed in Smith StNorth create a Permeable Surface to Treat and Infiltrate Runoff from the Street Surface 53


ix

List of Tables

Table 2.1 The Quality of Different Classes of UrbanStormwater and Wastewater and theRequirements of Selected Urban WaterDemands 6

Table 2.2 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses through a Dual Reticulation System 7

Table 2.3 NWQMS Guidelines for Sewerage Systems: Use of Reclaimed Water 8

Table 2.4 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Use 9

Table 2.5 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses 10

Table 3.1 Summary of Components against Functions 16

Table 3.2 Identified Components of Stormwater Re-use Systems and their Functionality 25

Table 4.1 Summary of Wetland Components 28

Table 4.2 Summary of Pond Functions and Capacities 29

Table 4.3 Summary of Tank Storages 30

Table 7.1 Summary of Costs and Benefits Associated with Surveyed Stormwater Re-use Schemes 44

Table 7.2 Quantified Benefits Associated with Selected Stormwater Re-use Schemes 45

Table 7.3 Demonstrated Benefits of SelectedStormwater Re-use Schemes 46

Table 8.1 Summary of Water Quality MonitoringPrograms for Stormwater Re-use Systems 50

Table 8.2 Summary of Water Quantity and OtherMonitoring Programs for Stormwater Re-use Systems 51

Table 8.3 Summary of Performance 52


x


x

1


1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In recent years signs of environmental degradation,

manifesting through declining quality of surface and

ground water, have been observed in many parts of

Australia. For example, the rivers of the Murray-

Darling Basin and Hawkesbury-Nepean Basin have

deteriorated in part because of urban water demands

and polluted stormwater discharges (Anderson, 1996).

The use of water resources in many parts of Australia

is approaching, and in some urban centres exceeding,

the limits of sustainability. Better integrated

management of urban water (supply, wastewater and

stormwater) is needed if the water needs of the

expected population are to be satisfied without further

deterioration of the environment.

A focal point for proposed national water conservation

programmes is the re-use of both treated wastewater

and urban stormwater (Anderson, 1996; Thomas et al.,

1997; Coombes et al., 2002) A number of authors

(Thomas et al., 1997; Newton et al., 2001; Coombes et

al., 2002; Mitchell et al., 2002) have stated that there

is potential for stormwater re-use schemes to expand

limited primary water sources, prevent excessive

diversion of water from other uses, eliminate

discharges of untreated urban stormwater runoff, and

minimise urban water infrastructure costs. However,

this is still not widely practised in Australia, with

stormwater being particularly neglected (only 8% of

rainwater is used, while 14% of wastewater is

reclaimed, (CSIRO, 2003)). The average annual

volume of urban stormwater runoff in Australian cities

is almost equal to the average annual urban water

usage, of which at least 50% is for non-potable use

(Mitchell et al., 1999). Stormwater is usually of better

quality than untreated sewage or industrial discharge,

and has better public acceptance for utilisation. All

these factors make it a potentially valuable resource

for water supply substitution (particularly for non-

potable water applications).

The majority of stormwater re-use is practised as roofrainwater harvesting (Coombes et al., 2002), orstormwater runoff harvesting for groundwaterrecharging (Dillon et al., 1999). There are only a fewexamples of stormwater re-use systems that rely ongeneral urban runoff as a source and deliver water fora variety of uses (e.g. systems in Singapore andCanberra, (WBM Oceanics Australia, 1999)). One ofthe main reasons for this is a lack of clear designguidance for integrated systems that could effectivelycollect, treat, store, and distribute stormwater runofffor general use (Thomas et al., 1997; WBM OceanicsAustralia, 1999; Burkhard et al., 2000) In their nation-wide survey of water re-use, (Thomas et al., 1997)argued that stormwater runoff is neglected becauseinitial infrastructure for its treatment (that could bebuilt upon to provide re-use) is not in place (in contrastto wastewater treatment systems which are widelypresent). This is changing rapidly, and sustainablesystems for stormwater treatment are becomingcommon features in Australian urban areas (they are animportant part of Water Sensitive Urban Design –WSUD). Whether they are constructed wetlands,ponds, swales, or bio-filters, they all act as effectiveflood control measures, provide treatment of pollutedrunoff, and many have significant amenity potential(e.g. wetlands, swales and ponds). However, theirdesign could be improved further to allow effective re-use of treated runoff. It is important to achieve thisintegration between stormwater treatment and re-usenow, since WSUD technologies are being installed at arapid rate around Australian cities. In other words, ifthe proper technologies are developed and adapted forthe integrated stormwater treatment and re-use now,considerable environmental and economic benefits toAustralia will be assured.

1.1.1 Recent Progress in the Field

Although practised separately, stormwater treatmentand water re-use technologies have improvedsignificantly in recent years. Stormwater ponds,wetlands, bio-filters, and swales (to name some of theWSUD systems) have been installed at a rapid ratearound Australia. They have proven to be veryeffective in the removal of key stormwater pollutants,flood protection and landscape enhancement (Argue,

1



2

1998). Design manuals for these systems are now

widely available (WEF and ASCE, 1997 in the USA,

CIRIA, 2000 in the UK, and Victorian Stormwater

Committee, 1999, and IEAust, in prep in Australia).

The CRC for Catchment Hydrology recently launched

software for conceptual design and performance

evaluation of the WSUD systems for stormwater

pollution control, (named MUSIC, (CRCCH, 2002)).

Current design practice of the WSUD systems does not

always guarantee reliable stormwater treatment to

required quality standards. Such treatment even

stretches the capabilities of most traditional

clarification technologies used in treatment of potable

water. This paucity of technology for integrated urban

stormwater treatment and re-use is one of the main

challenges in efficient stormwater use. Existing

practice is far ahead of research, which may pose a

great danger to the future adoption of such measures.

Just one high profile case of public health or

environmental failure of a re-use project (conducted

without sound scientific backing) could undermine

public confidence in re-use nationally, costing our

society time and money in the much-needed adoption

of future re-use technologies.

If integrated systems are to be successful, they should

become a part of the sustainable management of the

total urban water cycle. The CSIRO Urban Water

research team has recently completed several studies

that considered both the total urban water system and

the alternative technologies that can be employed to

deliver sustainable solutions (Mitchell et al., 2002).

Tools such as PURRS (Coombes, 2002), Aquacycle

(Mitchell, 2000) and UVQ (Farley, 2000) have been

developed to aid the assessment of total water cycle

options.

It could be concluded that there are rapid

developments in the areas of stormwater treatment,

water re-use, and management of the total urban water

cycle. These areas are developing separately, although

there is a huge demand for their integration into a

reliable design of systems for collection, treatment,

storage, flood protection and re-use of general

stormwater runoff.

1.2 Objectives and Scope of Study

The aim of this project was to develop an inventory oftechnologies for collection, treatment, storage, anddistribution of general stormwater runoff and, wherecurrent knowledge allows, provide interim guidanceon stormwater re-use implementation. Generalstormwater runoff is defined as runoff generated fromall urban surfaces. The research focussed on generalrunoff and excluded schemes that collected and re-used roof runoff only, since much is already knownabout re-use of roof runoff, whereas there is a paucityof knowledge about general stormwater runoff re-use.The objectives of this research were to:

• Study Australian and international practices of re-use of general urban stormwater runoff;

• Identify the main components of integratedstormwater treatment and re-use systems withpotential for their application in Australia;

• Identify the components’ key design parameters,performance, current knowledge gaps, andobstacles to their implementation;

• Where possible, provide interim guidance on howto implement stormwater re-use (based on analysisof success factors and lessons learnt from the casestudies); and

• Prioritise the key research needs to overcome thegaps and impediments.

The required performance of the integrated stormwatersystems was determined in relation to water userdemands. The research focused primarily on non-potable water use (e.g. irrigation, non-potable in-house use). The water quality standards, volume anddynamics of water users, health issues/risks and otherissues associated with community acceptance werealso considered.

An extensive review of existing national andinternational stormwater re-use system was carried outand lessons learned from the selected case studies withrespect to sizing, performance, operation, andintegration into the total water cycle of re-use systems.Issues regarding optimisation of their overallperformance and key factors in their successes (orfailures) were also examined.


2


3

Use was made of both national and international casestudies and literature. An attempt was made to contactthe developer, operators and regulators of the existingsystems and learn from their successes and failures.Where appropriate, this also included an examinationof current practice in wastewater re-use and rainwaterharvesting, and traditional wastewater treatmenttechniques.

From the work described above, key learnings havebeen drawn for sizing, performance, operation andintegration into the total water cycle of re-use systems.However, the requirements to achieve successfulintegration of stormwater treatment and re-use are notbeing met by existing technologies at their presentlevel of development. Therefore, this review identifieskey design issues which require detailed investigationvia laboratory, modelling or field techniques.

1.3 Study Sites

The review focuses on re-use schemes along theeastern seaboard of Australia, and South Australia.Stormwater re-use schemes from New South Wales,Queensland, Victoria and South Australia wereidentified and studied. Tasmania was considered,however no operational stormwater re-use schemescould be found.

Appendix A.1 briefly summarises the stormwater re-use schemes that were studied in this review. Each ofthese sites was studied in detail by gathering as muchinformation as possible on their characteristics, design,construction, operation, maintenance, costs andbenefits, performance, and any other relevant issues.Appendix A.2 presents all the relevant details aboutthe stormwater re-use scheme at Figtree Place,Newcastle as an example1. Detailed tables ofinformation for all sites were compiled and arepresented in Appendix B.

Appendix A.3 summarises other water recyclingschemes that were identified during the course of thisreview but not studied in detail. Reasons for notstudying these sites varied:

• Not yet operational i.e. at design or constructionstage;

• Recycled roof runoff only;

• Not well documented; or

• Timely information could not be gathered.

Much of the information gathered was not found inpublished literature. Rather, we were heavily relianton communicating with the developer, operators andregulators of the systems for information. Thispresented some difficulties, although overall mostwere willing to contribute information. The majorobstacle to gathering information seemed to be a lackof documentation of the systems. Frequently, thereseemed to be a lack of knowledge about the systemand the existence of relevant reports.

1 This table was used to make the report writing process efficient. The required information was able to be quickly sourced for each section of the finalreport.


4

5


2. Current Regulatory EnvironmentFramework

2.1 Introduction

In order to understand the current regulatory

environment it is necessary to appreciate that there are

considerable differences in both the quality and

quantity of different water streams. It can be seen in

Table 2.1 that the quality of urban stormwater is very

different to the quality of wastewater. Nutrient

concentrations tend to be lower in stormwater

compared with greywater and wastewater, while

stormwater concentrations of metals and suspended

solids are generally higher. Stormwater is also very

different to wastewater in terms of quantity. While

wastewater supplies are relatively constant,

stormwater is a highly inconsistent water source.

A recent review of the National Plumbing and

Drainage Code and State plumbing regulations with

respect to urban water recycling (Workman et al.,

2003) identified the following inconsistencies between

the different regulations:

• Definition of Class A quality recycled water,domestic use and rainwater;

• Treatment of sewage and rainwater, and how thetwo systems are managed;

• Non-return values where multiple sources of waterare used (backflow prevention);

• Marking of pipes containing waters of differentquality;

• Provision in new house construction or extensionsto separate water supply and sewage pipes fromwaters uses within the house at least to the outsideof the house;

• Harnessing of rainwater tank supplies to houses;and

• Provision of multiple sources of water for the sameuse and how these will be interchanged (e.g.supply of laundry from tank with mains supply asa backup) (Workman et al., 2003).

2.2 New South Wales

New South Wales has a policy specific to the re-use ofroof runoff (NEHF, 1998) and specific guidelines forurban dual reticulation systems (Table 2.2).

State government is reviewing the guidelines availablefor water re-use, however re-use of general stormrunoff is currently not covered in any State guidelines.A reason given for the lack of guidelines andregulations for stormwater re-use is that there has beenno call to address this issue until recently (K Power,pers. comm.). This is somewhat surprising given thatNew South Wales appears to have the highest numberof stormwater re-use schemes, either alreadyoperational or being planned, in Australia (perhapswith the exception of South Australia), and certainlythe most prominent example of water recycling inAustralia at the site of the 2000 Olympic Games inHomebush Bay.

The Department of Health and the NSW EnvironmentProtection Agency recommend that the National WaterQuality Management Strategy (NWQMS) Guidelinesfor Sewerage Systems: Use of Reclaimed Water beused as a guide for stormwater re-use schemes basedon the final use of the water (ARMCANZ et al., 2000),presented in Table 2.3.

2.3 Victoria

Permits or authorisations for stormwater re-useschemes are not required from the VictorianEnvironment Protection Authority (VicEPA).However, the general requirement that water re-usemust not result in pollution applies. If stormwater isbeing supplied for re-use by a person or agency theTrade Practices Act may apply. VicEPA recommends(but does not require) that their Guidelines forEnvironmental Management: Use of Reclaimed Water(2002), which are specific to treated effluent, be usedas a guide to evaluate and operate stormwater re-useschemes (Table 2.4).

In addition to water quality requirements, theguidelines inform about the statutory framework forre-use schemes, risk identification and riskassessment, obligations of the suppliers and users,


6

Roo

f R

unof

fR

ain

Tan

kSt

orm

wat

erU

ntre

ated

Gre

ywat

erU

ntre

ated

Was

tew

ater

Tre

ated

Was

tew

ater

Pot

able

Supp

ly

Urb

an G

arde

nW

ater

ing,

Toi

let

Flu

shin

g,C

arW

ashi

ng

The

rmot

oler

ant c

olif

orm

s,cf

u/10

0 M

L<1

–124

0-10

0–6

x10

56–

8 x

106

8 x

106

0<1

0

Vir

uses

, org

/50L

<2

Para

site

s, o

rg/5

0L<1

BO

D5,

mg/

L3–

7390

–290

100–

500

8–80

pH5.

35-5

.99

4.9-

6.1

6.7–

8.5

6.6–

8.7

6.5–

86.

9–8.

76.

5–8.

56.

5–8.

0

Tota

l dis

solv

ed s

olid

s, m

g/L

78-1

024-

168

44–2

0828

4–17

0025

0–85

052

0–49

4050

0

Susp

ende

d so

lids,

mg/

L0.

75–2

040.

4-17

813

–162

245

–330

100–

500

11–2

50<5

Tur

bidi

ty, N

TU

0.75

–6.5

12–3

420

–>20

05

<2

Cad

miu

m, m

g/L

0.1–

4<2

0.2–

46<1

00–

22

Cop

per,

mg/

L0.

002–

0.32

0.00

5–0.

560.

018–

0.39

0.00

1–0.

20.

001–

0.12

10.

2

Iron

, mg/

L<0

.01

<0.0

1-0.

12.

4–7.

30.

094–

4.37

0.3

0.03

–1.6

0.3

1.0

Lea

d, m

g/L

0.00

2–0.

32<0

.01

0.00

7–2.

04<0

.05–

0.15

0.05

0–0.

030.

010.

2

Man

gane

se, m

g/L

0.04

–0.1

10.

014-

0.07

50.

0003

0.02

–0.0

80.

10.

2

Sodi

um, m

g/L

4.4-

12.9

3.17

-16.

512

–116

29–2

3070

–300

41–1

540

180

Zin

c, m

g/L

0.02

–1.1

0.4-

5.3

0.02

6–2.

4<0

.01–

0.44

0.05

50.

0–0.

263

3

Tota

l pho

spho

rus,

mg/

L0.

034–

0.49

0.04

9–2.

140.

6–27

.34–

30

Tota

l nitr

ogen

, mg/

L0.

65–2

.84

0.3-

3.6

0.50

–12.

62.

1–31

.5 (

TK

N)

20–8

5 (T

KN

)6.

1–44

.2

Nitr

ate,

mg/

L0.

1–0.

87<0

.05-

0.05

0.1–

6.2

<0.1

5–30

0.1–

19.5

50

cfu:

col

ony

form

ing

units

NT

U: N

ephe

lom

etri

c T

urbi

dity

Uni

tsT

KN

: Tot

al K

jeld

ahl N

itrog

en

Qua

lity

Par

amet

er

Cla

ss o

f St

orm

wat

eran

d W

aste

wat

er

Tabl

e 2.

1

The

Qua

lity

of D

iffe

rent

Cla

sses

of

Urb

an S

torm

wat

er a

nd W

aste

wat

er a

nd th

e R

equi

rem

ents

of

Sele

cted

Urb

an W

ater

Dem

ands

(M

itche

ll et

al.,

200

2)

Water Quality Objectives Suitable End-uses

Tertiary Treatment

• Faecal coliforms <1/100 ML

• Coliforms <10/100 ML (in 95% of samples)

• Virus <2/50 L

• Parasites <1/50 L

• Turbidity <2 NTU

• pH 6.5-8.0

• colour <15 TCU

• <0.5 mg/L Cl2 residual

• Open access urban and residential re-use e.g.

- irrigation

- toilet flushing

- car washing and similar outdoor uses

- firefighting

- water bodies for passive recreation (not involving water contact)

- ornamental water bodies

Secondary Treatment

• BOD <20 mg/L

• NFR <30 mg/L

• Municipal landscape watering

• Construction purposes e.g. dust suppression andsewer flushing

• Aquifer recharge


7

Table 2.2 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses Through a Dual Reticulation System (NSW RecycledWater Coordination Committee, 1993) - Non-potable In-house Use


8

Table 2.3 NWQMS Guidelines for Sewerage Systems: Use of Reclaimed Water (ARMCANZ et al., 2000) for UrbanNon-Potable Re-use

Re-use Type Level ofTreatment

Water QualityCriteria

Monitoring Controls

Residential

• irrigation

• toilet flushing

• car washing

• path/wall washing

Tertiarypathogenreduction

pH 6.5-8.5

≤2 NTU

1 mg/L Cl2 residualthermotolerantcoliforms <10 cfu/100 ML

pH weekly

BOD weekly

turbidity continuous

disinfection systemsdaily

thermotolerant coliforms daily

Plumbing controls

Toilet Flushing Closed Systems1


1 mg/L Cl2 residual or equivalent level of disinfection


thermotolerant coliforms daily

Plumbing controls

For non residentialusage, Legionellacontrols and biocidedosing may berequired

Municipal withUncontrolled PublicAccess

• irrigation openspaces, parks,sportsgrounds

• dust suppression

• construction sites

• ornamentalwaterbodies


pH 6.5-8.5

≤2 NTU

1 mg/L Cl2 residual or equivalent level of pathogen reduction

thermotolerantcoliforms <10 cfu/100 ML

pH weekly

BOD weekly

turbidity continuous


thermotolerant coliforms monthly

Colour reduction maybe necessary forornamental uses

Application rateslimited to protectgroundwater quality

Salinity should beconsidered forirrigation

Municipal withControlled PublicAccess

• irrigation openspaces, parks,sportsgrounds

• dust suppression

• construction sites

• mines

Secondarypathogenreduction

thermotolerantcoliforms <1000cfu/100 ML

pH monthly

SS monthly


thermotolerant coliforms monthly

Application rateslimited to protectgroundwater quality

Salinity should beconsidered forirrigation

Irrigation during timesof no public access

Withholding periodnominally 4 hours oruntil irrigated area isdry


9

treatment and distribution reliability, site selection andsite management practices, monitoring, reporting andauditing programs, and environment improvementplans, all of which are relevant to stormwater re-useschemes.

2.4 Queensland

Queensland Environmental Protection Agency(QEPA) takes a similar stance to Victoria with respectto stormwater recycling. In December 2003 the QEPAreleased a technical review draft of the Queensland

Guidelines for Water Recycling. These guidelines

explicitly support re-use of stormwater but do not

contain any detailed advice. Instead, proponents will

be encouraged to carry out a risk assessment and

prepare a Recycled Water Safety Plan for risk

management. Queensland EPA is proposing to

develop more detailed guidelines in the future working

with industry partners.

Table 2.4 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Use (Vic EPA, 2002)

Class Water Quality Objectives Suitable End-uses

A Indicative objectives

• <10 E.coli org/100 ML

• Turbidity <2 NTU

• <10/5 mg/L BOD/SS

• pH 6-9

• 1 mg/L Cl2 residual (or equivalentdisinfection)

• Residential e.g. irrigation, toilet flushing, third pipesystem

• Municipal with uncontrolled public access e.g.irrigation of open spaces, water for containedwetlands or ornamental ponds

• Fire protection systems

B • <100 E.coli org/100 ML

• pH 6-9

• <20/30 mg/L BOD /SS

• Municipal with controlled public access

C • <1000 E.coli org/100 ML

• pH 6-9

• <20/30 mg/L BOD /SS

• Municipal with controlled public access


10

2.5 South Australia

The Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management(2002), prepared by the Patawalonga CatchmentManagement Board, the Torrens CatchmentManagement Board and Planning SA, does addressstormwater re-use to a certain extent, although it doesnot outline specific water quality requirements. Ratherit maintains that water quality must be fit for purpose.The guidelines also contain more specificrequirements for particular end-uses; subject to theproposed use, origin and characteristics of thereclaimed water.

2.6 Key Learnings

Currently there are no legal requirements in Australiafor reclaimed water to be substituted for fresh water.However there is a generally agreed principle that highquality water should not be used for purposes that cantolerate a lower grade (ARMCANZ et al., 2000).

Water re-use is governed by States and Territories andregulatory stakeholders include water authorities,water retailers, local government municipalities,

environment protection authorities and healthdepartments (Workman et al., 2003). At this stagestormwater re-use does not appear to be regulated, inthat particular permits or authorisations are notrequired. In addition, there are no guidelines specificto stormwater re-use, however there does seem to be afew general rules that apply nationwide:

• re-use of stormwater must not result in pollution ofthe environment in any way;

• quality and quantity must be fit for purpose;

• it is unclear whether re-use of general storm runofffor potable purposes is permitted in urban areas (insome cases roof runoff is, reclaimed wastewater isnot); however it is envisaged that it would not beacceptable for potable re-use unless approved bythe authority.

It must be noted that, whilst the first generalrequirement appears perfectly reasonable, the analysisshould really consider the net pollutant load (and itstemporal distribution) under alternative managementscenarios, with the aim of achieving best achievableoutcome. For example, to preclude stormwater re-usein the situation where there was a small residual

Class Water Quality Criteria Suitable End-uses

A • < 10 E.coli/100 ML

• Turbidity < 2 NTU

• < 20 mg/L BOD

• Primary contact recreation

• Residential non-potable e.g. irrigation, toiletflushing, car washing, path/wall washing

• Municipal use with public access/adjoining premises

• Dust repression with unrestricted access

B • <100 E.coli org/100 ML

• < 20 mg/L BOD

• < 30 mg/L SS

• Secondary contact recreation

• Ornamental ponds with public access

• Municipal use with restricted access

• Dust suppression with restricted access

• Fire fighting

C • <1000 E.coli org/100 ML

• < 20 mg/L BOD

• < 30 mg/L SS

• Passive recreation

• Municipal use with restricted access

Table 2.5 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses (PCWMB et al., 2002)


11

pollutant load to receiving waters, when the alternativeof not re-using stormwater would result in a largerpollutant load being discharged, seems non-sensical.

There are specific statutory obligations under health,environmental, agricultural or food legislation for re-use of wastewater (this varies from state to state). Thesuite of documents that comprise the NWQMS includeguidelines for use of reclaimed water, specific toeffluent arising from municipal wastewater plants(ARMCANZ et al., 2000), and most States either referto this for guidance on stormwater re-use or appear tohave based their own State guidelines on thisdocument. The NWQMS provides guidance forspecific reclaimed water applications in terms of typeof re-use, level of treatment, reclaimed water quality,reclaimed water monitoring, and controls. NewNational Water Recycling Guidelines are currentlybeing developed as part of the Federal Government’sNational Water Initiative and will address stormwaterrecycling but not as a first priority (G. Jackson, pers.comm.).


12

13


3. Integrated System Components

3.1 Introduction

There are a multitude of methods for stormwater re-use. In general, an integrated urban stormwater systemmust provide four core functions:

(a) collect stormwater runoff,

(b) treat runoff water,

(c) store the treated water,

(d) distribute water to the end-user.

In Figure 3.1, these functions are presented alongsidelists of possible techniques that could be utilised fortheir accomplishment. These techniques are definedas components of the integrated stormwater system.Wherever possible, each component of the systemshould perform more than one function (e.g. a largewetland could perform treatment, storage and floodcontrol, as well as provide amenity to the community).

In a similar way more than one component should be

used for each function (e.g. treatment could be

performed by a sequence of a bio-filter, wetland, fine

polishing filter, and disinfection unit).

The system should deliver water to the end-users

according to their needs, taking into account the

pattern of the supply (spatial and temporal distribution

of stormwater runoff) and flood protection

requirements. The system should be fully integrated

into the urban water cycle and the surrounding

environment (adding to the amenity value of the area),

and operated to protect urban waterways. Wherever

possible, it should use ‘natural’ processes for water

treatment and minimise utilisation of resources and

energy.

It is important to note that treatment measures are

really a ‘continuum’, and that hybrids and adaptations

of all the known treatments often occur. Treatment

trains should be based on principles of WSUD,

starting from the current practices (Wong, 2003).

Figure 3.1 The Main Functions of Integrated Stormwater Treatment and Re-use Systems(components that could be used for performing each function are listed)


14

Stormwater can be a highly inconsistent source ofwater. Storage is essential for smoothing the temporalvariability in availability of stormwater. Therefore, the‘easiest’ or most efficient end-uses are those thatinvolve regular (e.g. daily) demand, such as toiletflushing. In general, the potential for re-use dependson end-uses that can accept stormwater as a substitutefor mains water.

The components (mainly based on WSUD principles)that are usually employed in stormwater recyclingsystems are listed below.

1. Traps

Gross pollutant traps (GPTs) range from simplescreens to structures that straddle channels. GPTsremove gross pollutants using various combinations ofscreening, stalling flow, settlement, flotation and flowseparation, and are generally most effective for mid-range rainfall events. GPTs are generally not effectivein the removal of fine or dissolved pollutants.

Sediment traps prevent coarse sediment fromdischarging to downstream treatment measures. Theyrange from simple earthen or concrete basin designs tocomplex structures using vortices and secondaryflows. Sediment traps are generally not effective in theremoval of fine or dissolved pollutants.

2. Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters

Swales are open, vegetated channels, basically a longshallow linear depression with low sloping sides and abroad width-to-depth ratio. Swales are used to reducerunoff velocity and retain coarse sediments. Theireffectiveness in the removal of fine sediments anddissolved pollutants is variable. When used forstormwater collection for re-use they should notpromote infiltration, rather they should minimiseinfiltration, conveying inflows to downstreamreceiving waters and thereby maximising the volumeof water collected for re-use.

Buffer strips are grassed surfaces that reduce velocityof flow, infiltrate water and therefore remove sedimentand associated pollutants. Grass can also remove somesoluble pollutants.

Bio-filters are vegetated buffers on top of a filtrationmedium (e.g. sandy loam, sand and/or gravel). Theymay also incorporate sub-soil drainage pipes,geotextile layer separation and biologically engineeredsoils targeted to local pollution characteristics. Bio-filters facilitate flow attenuation, sediment andpollutant removal. As above, the ex-filtration shouldbe subdued.

3. Infiltration and Filtration Systems

Porous pavement systems consist of a porous surfaceoverlaying a filter layer (a bedding material), that isplaced on top of a sub-base (usually divided bygeotextile). The porous surface can be modular(unbound individual and non-porous blocks, laid downwith gaps in between), or monolithic (asphalt orconcrete without fine aggregate - the entire surface isporous). Some porous pavement includes a modularlattice arrangement, in which infiltration media isplaced, and grass then seeded. The sub-base shouldcontain a collection pipe for drainage. As above the ex-filtration should be subdued if used for collection ofstormwater for re-use.

Sand filters are effective in removal of sediment andadsorbed pollutants. They comprise collectionchambers, part filled with sand, through whichstormwater passes. A variety of different types of filtermedium may be employed to target specific pollutants.Sand filters require periodic maintenance throughremoval of the top layer of sand where oils andsediments are retained.

Biologically engineered soils are soils containingnaturally occurring and/or bio-engineered micro-organisms that degrade toxic pollutants (e.g. PCBs,hydrocarbons, organophosphates, herbicides andpesticides), and organic materials that removenutrients as stormwater infiltrates through the soil.

Infiltration basins (trenches) are detention basins thatincorporate seepage through the floor of the basin.They provide flood protection and reduce storm flowvelocities, and can retain pollutants includingsuspended solids, oxygen-demanding materials andnutrients. They represent a combination of infiltration


15

and retention systems. As in the case of other

infiltration systems, ex-filtration should be suppressed.

4. Wetlands

Wetlands, whether natural or constructed, offer water

quality improvement, landscape amenity, recreational

opportunities, habitat provision and flood retention.

They may be either free water surface or subsurface

flow wetlands. Free water surface wetlands are

essentially basins or channels with a subsurface barrier

to minimise seepage, and emergent vegetation to treat

water. The role of vegetation in wetland performance

is critical, and they can be quite effective in the

removal of fine sediment and dissolved pollutants.

Subsurface flow wetlands are channels or basins that

contain gravel or sand media that supports emergent

vegetation growth. Water flows through the root zone

of the wetland plants beneath the gravel surface.

5. Stormwater Ponds

Ponds and basins (settling ponds,detention/retention ponds) are constructed ponds

utilised to intercept and treat runoff. They are largely

open water bodies of several metres depth. Treatment

is achieved by a combination of sedimentation,

biological uptake, and exposure to ultra-violet (UV)

light.

Urban lakes, dams and reservoirs are also placed in

this category. They are typically artificial and are

constructed for the storage and treatment of

stormwater. They may also contribute local amenity

benefits e.g. aesthetic appreciation, habitat provision.

Treatment is achieved, as in ponds, by a combination

of sedimentation, biological uptake, and exposure to

UV light.

6. Other

Conventional drainage systems are traditional

gutter/channel/pipe systems. They are very commonly

used for collecting and conveying stormwater runoff

into the WSUD systems listed above. A channel may

be a concrete or non-lined channel, or a main trunk

drain.

Natural drains are natural depressions in the terrain

that convey runoff. They may include small creeks and

burns.

Advanced treatment includes microfiltration, reverse

osmosis, dissolved air flotation, electrolysis, aeration

and biological treatment. In general, where advanced

treatment is utilised, a number of methods are

incorporated in the treatment train.

Disinfection methods utilised by the case study sites

include chlorine and UV light disinfection.

Conventional water tanks are simple structures used

to store water (usually rain and roof runoff).

Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) involves

artificial recharge of suitable unconfined or confined

aquifers through surface spreading basins, infiltration

trenches, infiltration wells or direct injection wells.

The water is subsequently recovered for re-use. ASR

assists in reducing groundwater salinity, flood

mitigation and increasing potential for larger water

allocations from the aquifer.

3.2 Survey of the Components and End-UseTypes

A survey was carried out to determine which

components listed were used for the main functions of

the stormwater re-use systems (i.e. collection, treatment,

storage, and distribution), and how often. Similarly,

end-use types and the frequency of their occurrence

were determined. Table 3.1 presents the results of the

survey.

In this analysis other outdoor use is defined as car

washing, window washing, and use in water features,

ornamental ponds etc. Other use includes industrial re-

use, backup supply, bus washing and groundwater

recharge (without recovery).

The basic statistical analysis of the results presented in

Table 3.1 is discussed in the following five sections.

The effect of catchment size on the frequency of the

components is also discussed. Four different catchment

sizes were analysed: <5 ha (nine sites), 5-200 ha (four

sites), 200-500 ha (two sites), and >500 ha (two sites).


16

Bob

bin

Hea

d R

oad

Fig

tree

Pla

ce

Kog

arah

Tow

n Sq

uare

Man

ly S

TA

R

Pow

ells

Cre

ek

Tar

onga

Zoo

Bow

ies

Fla

t

Par

fitt

Squ

are

Alt

ona

Gre

en P

ark

Inke

rman

Oas

is

CSU

Thu

rgoo

na

Sola

nder

Par

k

Oak

land

s P

ark

Sant

a M

onic

a

Haw

kesb

ury

Hom

ebus

h B

ay

Par

afie

ld

Tot

al

End-Use

Irrigation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17

Firefighting 1 1 1 3

Environmental Flows 1 1 1 1 4

Other 1 1 1 1 4

Toilet Flushing 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Other Outdoor Use 1 1 1 1 1 5

Collection

Gutter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14

Pipe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

Natural Drainage 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Channel 1 1 1 1 1 5

Swales and Buffers 1 1 1 3

Infiltration Systems 1 1 1 3

Treatment

Litter and Sediment Traps 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Swales and Buffers 1 1 1 1 1 5

Wetlands 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Ponds, Basins Lakes 1 1 2

Infiltration Systems 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 10

Advanced Treatment 4 1 1 3 2 11

Disinfection 1 1 1 1 4

Storage

Tank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Ponds, Basins and Lakes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Aquifer 1 1 1 3

Wetlands 1 1

Distribution

Irrigation System 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Pumping 1 1 1 3

Dual Reticulation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Table 3.1 Summary of Components against Functions (the number indicates how many structures have beenimplemented for each function e.g. at Manly there are two different types of infiltration systems used fortreatment)


17

3.3 End-Use

Various end-uses for harvested stormwater wereidentified, each having particular quality and quantityrequirements, as discussed below.

Re-use for irrigation includes watering of residentialgardens, public open space, parks and sportsgrounds.Irrigation of private gardens will require water of ahigher quality than for irrigation of areas withcontrolled public access since primary contact is morelikely. A fundamental water quality consideration forall irrigation is salinity. Quantity requirements and thedistribution method employed will depend on factorssuch as scale, climate, vegetation type and provision ofa backup supply. Toilet flushing and other outdoorend-uses would require similar considerations as forresidential irrigation with respect to both quality andquantity.

The quality of stormwater re-used for firefightingwould not need to be as high as for residential non-potable use since the likelihood of primary contactoccurring is less. The most important concern forfirefighting end-uses is reliability of supply andsufficient water pressure.

Stormwater re-used for environmental flows wouldneed to be of a quality that would not cause detrimentto either the quality or the ecology of the water body towhich the stormwater is discharged. Re-use forgroundwater would require similar water qualityconsiderations. Required quantity is probably moreflexible for environmental flows than for other end-uses, in that many urban waterways are alreadystressed, especially in terms of flow and therefore anywater released to them as environmental flows is likelyto be beneficial.

The required quality and quantity of stormwater re-used in industrial processes will be largely dictated bythe particular process. A requirement common to allindustrial re-use would be water of a sufficient qualityto ensure machinery is not damaged or its lifespanshortened. Reliability of supply would be necessary tomaintain productivity unless a backup supply isincorporated into the system.

Figure 3.2 presents the frequency of a particular end-use type. It is clear that irrigation is the most commontype of end-use (44%), followed by toilet flushing(15%) and other outdoor uses (13%). Re-use for

Figure 3.2 Frequency of End-Use Types


18

environmental flows (10%) and other uses (10%) are

next, with re-use for firefighting least common (8%).

All these end-uses would require pathogen removal to

some extent, perhaps with the exception of

environmental flows. The level of pathogen reduction

required is determined by the degree to which public

access is controlled and thus the likelihood of primary

contact occurring.

Figure 3.3 displays the influence of catchment size on

the occurrence of the various re-use types. Although

the entire range of re-use types is largely employed

across all size classes (i.e. size does not seem to restrict

re-use types), it appears that re-use for irrigation

purposes is more present in smaller catchments than at

larger sites.

3.4 Collection

Figure 3.4 presents the frequency of application of

particular components for collection. The most

common method of collection utilised by the study

sites were conventional methods (70% of cases) i.e.

gutters, pipes and channels. Natural drainage (14%)

and elements of WSUD (14%) were not widely

utilised for collection purposes. This may be because

conventional pipes and gutters are well developed.

Further, they are hydraulically efficient and thus

deliver the maximum proportion of runoff to the

storage.

Figure 3.5 presents the distribution of components

according to their respective catchment sizes. Both

conventional drainage systems and WSUD elements

Figure 3.3 Influence of Catchment Size on the Frequency of End-Use Type


19

Figure 3.4 Frequency of Components Used for Collection Purposes

Figure 3.5 Influence of Catchment Size on Collection Component Frequency


20

were employed across all size classes. Natural

drainage tended to be utilised by systems with a

catchment area less than 200 ha.

3.5 Treatment

Figure 3.6 illustrates how frequently a particular

component was utilised for stormwater treatment,

while Figure 3.7 demonstrates the influence of

catchment size. Finally, Figure 3.8 presents the

distribution of components used for treatment

according to end-use type.

In general, all treatment methods were used to some

extent across all size classes. WSUD treatment

methods (litter and sediment traps, swales and buffers,

wetlands, ponds and basins, and infiltration systems)

were most common.

The use of wetland systems for treatment purposes was

more common among the larger scale systems. This is

not surprising given that, although wetlands are

scaleable, their maintenance costs as a percentage of

capital costs increase as size decreases. Wetlands may

therefore be a less feasible option for small sites.

Similarly, infiltration systems were more common at

smaller sites, since these systems are multifunctional

and therefore an efficient use of space.

The high occurrence of advanced methods of treatment

(20% of cases) is somewhat misleading, in that where

advanced treatment was utilised there were usually

several methods combined to form a treatment train.

For example, there are four methods of advanced

treatment in the 5-200 ha size class, however three of

these are part of the treatment train at the Santa

Monica site. Further, the relatively large proportion of

sites where advanced treatment was employed to treat

stormwater for irrigation purposes may seem

surprising, however, in such systems stormwater was

also re-used for toilet flushing. Disinfection is more

common if water is to be used for purposes where

human contact is more likely (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.6 Frequency of Components Used for Treatment


21

Figure 3.8 Influence of Re-use Type on Treatment Component Frequency

Figure 3.7 Influence of Catchment Size on Treatment Component Frequency


22

3.6 Storage

As shown in Figure 3.9, tanks were the most widely

utilised method of storage (45% of cases). Where

ponds and basins were used for storage purposes (32%

of cases), it was mostly in the form of larger dams and

reservoirs rather than smaller ponds. The use of

wetlands and aquifers for storage was infrequent and,

in the case of aquifers, restricted to South Australia

and New South Wales. The use of aquifers for storage

is likely to be constrained to areas with soils of high

permeability and easily accessible aquifers.

The use of tanks for storage decreases as the catchment

area increases (Figure 3.10). In the same way, the use

of ponds, basins, and lakes increases with the

catchment size. However, the scale of the stormwater

re-use scheme does not appear to preclude the use ofother storage methods.

With the exception of aquifer storage, all storagemethods are used for all re-use types, as shown inFigure 3.11. However, it appears that aquifer storageis only utilised where the end-use has the lowestexposure potential to humans i.e. irrigation, otheroutdoor use, and other use. This may be because theinteraction with another water source, namely, thegroundwater increases the potential for pollutionproblems, particularly if the groundwater is polluted.

On the other hand the use of ASR for recycled water isrelatively new and adoption of this technique maybecome more widespread with both furtherdevelopment and increased awareness.

Figure 3.9 Frequency of Components Used for Storage Purposes


23

Figure 3.10 Influence of Catchment Size on Storage Component Frequency

Figure 3.11 Influence of Re-use Type on Storage Component Frequency


24

3.7 Distribution

Figure 3.12 shows that irrigation systems are the most

common method employed for stormwater distribution

(50% of cases), followed by dual reticulation (35% of

cases). The use of irrigation systems was restricted to

the smaller scale re-use schemes (<200 ha). Dual

reticulation, where potable water is piped through the

usual mains and recycled water is distributed via a

separate pipe (lilac), is a viable distribution option for

re-use schemes from the neighbourhood scale and

upwards.

At present, irrigation systems are mainly used in small

scale schemes (Figure 3.13), while the use of dual

reticulation is more common for larger catchments.

Figure 3.12 Frequency of Distribution Methods

Figure 3.13 Influence of Catchment Size on Distribution Methods


25

3.8 Key Learnings

Table 3.2 presents possible components of re-use

systems and the particular functions that these

components perform.

From the survey results the following can be

concluded:

• At this stage, re-use of stormwater is largelyrestricted to smaller scale sites;

• Stormwater is mainly used for purposes with lowpotential for human contact (low risks), such asirrigation;

• Collection is largely based on traditional methods,such as gutter/channel/pipe systems;

• Treatment is mainly based on WSUD techniques,however advanced techniques alongside withdisinfection are utilised if there is higher healthrisk;

• Storage methods are still conventional, with watertanks being predominant; and

• The frequency of components presented is notnecessarily a reflection of the suitability of themethod, but in some cases may simply reflect thelimited awareness (and guidance) of the range ofapplicable techniques.

Table 3.2 Identified Components of Stormwater Re-use Systems and their Functionality

ComponentFunction

Collection Treatment Storage Distribution

Gutter P

Pipe P

Channel P

Natural Drainage P

Litter and Sediment Traps P

Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters P P

Infiltration Systems P P

Wetlands P P

Ponds and Basins and Lakes P P

Advanced Treatment P

Disinfection P

Tank P

Aquifer P

Irrigation System P

Pumping P

Dual Reticulation P


26

27


4. Design

4.1 Introduction

There are few examples of stormwater re-use systemsthat rely solely on general urban runoff as a source anddeliver water for a variety of uses (e.g. systems inSingapore and Canberra, WBM Oceanics Australia,1999). One of the main reasons for this is a lack ofclear design guidance for integrated systems that couldeffectively collect, treat, store, and distributestormwater runoff for general use (Thomas et al.,1997; WBM Oceanics Australia, 1999; Burkhard etal., 2000).

Stormwater treatment and water re-use technologieshave improved significantly in recent years.Stormwater ponds, wetlands, bio-filters and swaleshave been installed at a rapid rate around Australia.They have proven to be very effective in removal ofkey stormwater pollutants, flood protection andlandscape enhancement (Argue, 1998). Designmanuals for these systems are now widely available(WEF and ASCE, 1997 in the USA, CIRIA, 2000 inthe UK, and Victoria Stormwater Committee, 1999,and Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2003 in Australia).The Cooperative Resource Centre (CRC) forCatchment Hydrology has recently launched softwarefor conceptual design and performance evaluation ofthe WSUD systems (named MUSIC, (CRCCH,2002)), and others have developed a deterministicmodels of swale performance (e.g. Deletic, 2001).

In general, it was found that WSUD elementsincorporated in stormwater re-use systems were notdesigned differently compared with those designedexclusively for pollution control. The followingdescribes the design of components utilised for re-usethat differed from those for pollution control. Otherdetails of the designs of particular systems can befound in Appendix C. Information was readilyavailable with respect to sizes and features of thesystems but very rarely on methods used for theirdesign.

4.2 Treatment

4.2.1 Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters

From the limited information available, it may beconcluded that standard methods suggested for thedesign of swales, buffers and bio-filters for pollutioncontrol were utilised (Australian Runoff Quality,Wong, 2003). In order to collect as much water aspossible modifications may be made to limit ex-filtration from the systems. No specific mention ofsuch modifications was made in any of thedocumentation gathered on the relevant sites.However, it is understood that for the sites whereswales and bio-filters have been utilised, theunderlying soils have low permeability, hence it islikely that such modifications were not required.

Hybrids of swales and infiltration trenches are alsopossible. Infiltration trenches are briefly discussed inthe following section and more detailed informationcan be found in Appendix C.

4.2.2 Infiltration and Filtration Systems

From the evidence gathered, systems incorporatingporous pavements and infiltration basins/trenches aredesigned similarly for re-use or for stormwaterpollution control (see Appendix C.1-4). The use ofsand filters and biologically engineered soils is newand discussed in more detail below.

Sand Filters

• Bobbin Head Road – Appendix B.2

The system at Bobbin Head Road was designed to pre-treat runoff from the roadway through a sand filterprior to it entering the wetland system. The area of thefilter media bed required to treat flow ratescharacteristic of this particular catchment wasdetermined using Darcy’s law. While the sand filter isdesigned to allow for clogging (the top 50 mm layer ofsand requires periodic replacing), a trash basket andsedimentation chamber offer pre-treatment to delayclogging. Weep holes prevent stagnant water sitting inpits. In designing the filter the water quality volumewas considered rather than peak flow, since the systemwas designed primarily to treat any first flush that maybe present for the site.

Study Site

CatchmentArea (ha)

SurfaceArea(ha) SA/CA*

DetentionTime (h)

AnnualRainfall

(mm) Mac

roph

yte

Zon

e

Dee

p O

xida

tion

Pon

d

Sett

ling

Pon

d

Sub-

surf

ace

Flo

w

Aer

atio

n

Inkerman Oasis 1.223 0.04 0.033 657.3 P P

Parfitt Square 1.3 0.03 0.023 558.4 P

Bobbin Head Road 2 0.02 0.010 1068 P

CSU Thurgoona 87 715.2 P P P

Hawkesbury 415 5.5 0.013 14 807.1 P P P

Homebush Bay 760 8 0.010 921.3 P P

Parafield 1600 2 0.001 7-10 460.5 P


28

• Inkerman Oasis – Appendix B.8

Following treatment in the constructed wetland,

stormwater flows through a 100 m2 dosed aerobic sand

filter.

Medium to coarse sand should be used for sand filters

since fine sand tends to remobilise. The use of angular

sand granules is also successful in encouraging biofilm

growth. Other learnings relevant to sand filters

highlight the need for pre-treatment to delay clogging

of the sand bed. This may be achieved by

incorporating a litter basket and a sedimentation

chamber. Wrapping the sand filter in geotextile further

protects the pore spaces of the filter (Roman, 2003).

Biologically engineered soils

• Manly STAR – Appendix B.10 and Powells

Creek – Appendix B.14

Both the Manly STAR and Powells Creek systems

incorporate Atlantis Ecosoils® into their treatment

trains. These soils are comprised of expanded polymer

made from recycled plastics with sufficient strength to

carry normal pavement loadings, have a high cationexchange capacity and biofilm to remove bacteria.They act to degrade and remediate toxic pollutants andremove nutrients. At both sites runoff is treated priorto infiltration through the biologically engineeredsoils; through porous pavement at Manly and turf cellsat Powells Creek.

• Kogarah Town Square – Appendix B.9

Garden beds at the Kogarah Town Square containbiologically engineered soils to filter first flush generalrunoff. The stormwater is collected in a detentiontank, filtered through the biologically engineered soils,and then stored in another tank for re-use.

4.2.3 Wetlands

From the information gathered it appears that wetlandsare designed similarly, be they for re-use or forpollution control purposes. Table 4.1 summarises themain characteristics of the studied wetlands. It can beseen that they are very different in their design.Further details about the particular systems may befound in Appendix C.5.

Table 4.1 Summary of Wetland Components

*SA/CA – Surface Area / Catchment Area


29

Of all the wetland systems studied, only one site

(Homebush Bay) specifically incorporated storage of

treated stormwater into the design. To avoid public

safety issues, disruption to wetland processes and

unattractive edges, ponds were built for either draw

down or habitat provision/ornamental purposes.

Wetlands/ponds built for draw down are neither

visible to nor accessible by the public.

4.2.4 Ponds, Basins and Lakes

Table 4.2 summarises the main characteristics of the

ponds, basins and lakes studied. Further information

can be found in Appendix C.6.

Evaporation can be a storage issue in a period of

drought, hence the Surface Area / Volume ratio is

important in a pond designed for storage. At Oaklands

Park during times of low rainfall water is preferentially

stored in the dam with the lowest SA/Volume ratio.

It is apparent that in most situations, ponds are used for

storage only. They are not relied on to achieve the

required water quality treatment; other treatment

measures are generally used to deliver water of anacceptable quality to the pond for storage.

4.2.5 Litter and Sediment Traps

A range of GPTs and sediment traps have been utilisedby the stormwater re-use schemes surveyed. In quite afew cases, not enough detail was obtained to describetheir design; however it is supposed that in most cases“off the shelf” products would have been installed.Examples of the litter and sediment traps utilised canbe found in Appendix C.7.

GPTs and sediment traps can only ever provideprimary treatment (i.e. be the first stage in thetreatment train). They will not deliver the requiredwater quality for re-use without further treatment.

4.2.6 Advanced Treatment

The types of advanced treatment techniques(microfiltration, reverse osmosis, dissolved airflotation, electrolytic flocculation, aeration andbiological treatment) found in the stormwater re-useschemes studied were typical of those utilised bypotable water and wastewater treatment plants.

CatchmentArea (ha)

Capacity(ML)

Capacity/CA#

AnnualRainfall

(mm) Detention Treatment Storage

Bowies Flat 377 2.3 0.006 1146.6 P P P

Hawkesbury 415 175 0.422 807.1 P P P

CSU Thurgoona 87 56.5 0.649 715.2 P

Oaklands Park 174 49 0.282 547.8 P

Homebush Bay 760 490 0.645 921.3 P

Parafield 1600 100 0.062 460.5 P P

Table 4.2 Summary of Pond Functions and Capacities

#CA – Catchment Area


30

4.3 Storage

Figure 4.1 indicates that the selection of the storage

type for each re-use scheme is influenced to some

extent by evapotranspiration. For example, ponds and

basins are not used for storage in areas with higher

evapotranspiration. On the other hand, in areas with

the lowest evapotranspiration, ponds and basins are the

most frequently used storage method.

4.3.1 Tanks

Table 4.3 summarises the main characteristics of thestorage tanks studied. Further information can befound in Appendix C.8.

4.3.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Although the use of aquifers for water storage withsubsequent recovery is not exclusive to stormwater re-use, it is a relatively new technique and thereforewarrants some discussion. The following outlines theparticular details of each ASR system identified.

Flood CapacityCatchment Area

(ha)Capacity

(kL)Annual

Rainfall (mm) Capacity/CA*

Powells Creek 0.66 1.75 921.3 0.003

Taronga Zoo first flush 0.83 500 1219.8 0.602

Kogarah 1:3 month storm 1 511 1102.3 0.511

Inkerman Oasis first flush 1.223 45 657.3 0.037

Bobbin Head Road 1:50 yr storm 2 500 1068 0.265

Manly 3 400 1220.6 0.133

Altona Green 4 400 557.3 0.100

Santa Monica dry weather 42

Solander Park 1:20 yr storm 65 255 1102.4 0.004

* CA – Catchment Area

Table 4.3 Summary of Tank Storages

Figure 4.1 Influence of Evapotranspiration on Storage Type


31

• Figtree Place – Appendix B.5

At Figtree Place general runoff collects in the centraldry detention basin and then infiltrates through theunderlying sandy soil for storage in the aquifer.Geotechnical testing prior to site developmentconfirmed that groundwater at a depth of 3-4 m was ofa quality satisfactory for irrigation, however it showeddark discolouration due to the presence of iron andmanganese salts. A flownet model of the aquifer wasused to explore possible groundwater impacts. Thereis a submerged pump within the recharge basin at adepth of 10 m. Water stored in the aquifer is pumpedas required for re-use for irrigation and other outdooruses. There is a net excess recharge to the aquifer as aresult of high local rainfall. Recharged water excess tothe demands of on-site residents is extracted, treatedwith activated carbon to remove colour and distributedto the adjacent bus station for bus washing.

• Parfitt Square – Appendix B.13

At Parfitt Square four recharge wells are situated in theponding area at the end of the bio-filter. These boresare designed to inject up to 20 L/s of clean stormwaterto the Quaternary 1 saline aquifer that underlies mostof the Adelaide metropolitan area. The bore

headworks include a geotextile layer for final filtering.

The design annual recharge is approximately 1.7 ML;

the aquifer is estimated to have a storage capacity of

50,000 ML. The annual groundwater movement of the

underlying aquifer is approximately 12 m, hence the

discharge bore and pump is located 10 m downstream

of the nearest recharge bore. This allows the plug of

stormwater injected in winter to be centred around the

production bore in summer when extraction is

required. It is anticipated that the aquifer will show a

gradual reduction in salinity over time.

• Parafield – Appendix B.12

Clean stormwater, excess to the needs of local industry

is injected into the underlying saline limestone aquifer

at Parafield for recovery at times of low rainfall. There

are two wells in the well field, each around 190 m deep

and capable of injecting up to 35 L/s of water. The

design annual injection volume is approximately 650

ML. An initial buffer of 2,000 ML was incorporated as

a balancing storage to overcome yearly variations in

rainfall and hence recharge. Annually, 500 ML is

extracted from the aquifer for re-use.

Figure 4.2 Diagram of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery System at Parafield (source: CSIRO)


32

Although used infrequently in the three Eastern states(but often present in South Australia), this method canprovide a means of cheap and reliable storage. Keyissues are availability of a natural aquifer for safestorage and groundwater quality.

4.4 Key Learnings

Current design practice of WSUD systems does notalways guarantee reliable stormwater treatment torequired quality standards, since the design approachhas focussed on protection of aquatic ecosystems,requiring less stringent design standards than requiredfor re-use. Such treatment of stormwater, whosecharacteristics vary greatly, in quite short periods, evenstretches the capabilities of the most traditionalclarification technologies used in treatment of potablewater.

Storage of treated stormwater is another key issue.Water has to be safely stored over long periods ofdrought. It appears that the ratio of the volume ofpermanent water body to available storage volume isnot clearly specified in any of the systems studied.

It can be concluded that one of the main challenges inefficient stormwater use is a paucity of technology forintegrated urban stormwater treatment and re-use.Existing practice is far ahead of research, which maypose a danger to the future adoption of such measures.Just one high profile case of public health orenvironmental failure of a re-use project (conductedwithout sound scientific backing) could underminepublic confidence in re-use nationally, costing oursociety time and money in the much needed adoptionof future water re-use technologies.

33


5. Construction, Operation andMaintenance

5.1 Introduction

There was limited information pertaining toconstruction, operation and maintenance proceduresand issues for the cases studies. Perhaps this is notsurprising, given the previously reported (Taylor andFletcher, 2004) lack of information on construction,operation and maintenance of WSUD. Informationthat was available is summarised in this chapter, andkey learnings drawn.

5.2 Construction

5.2.1 Current Practice

From the limited information gathered regarding theconstruction of stormwater re-use systems, it appearsthat:

• Construction must comply with the relevant Stateagency requirements that apply to all constructionsites. For example, part of the planning processfor the constructed wetlands at Bowies Flat inBrisbane involved preparation of anEnvironmental Management Plan, including theconstruction phase. In addition, specificdocuments such as Brisbane City Council’sGuidelines on Sediment Basin Design,Construction and Maintenance also applied. AtOaklands Park in Melbourne, the requirements ofVic EPA’s “Construction Techniques for SedimentPollution Control” applied.

• Construction procedures for re-use are essentiallythe same as those for WSUD construction (e.g.Wong, 2003), although these too are not yetparticularly well documented. Production oftechnical manuals (Melbourne Water, in prep) willgo some way towards addressing this lack ofinformation.

• A number of the problems encountered were theresult of poor construction practices. For example,at Figtree Place the post-construction siteinspection found that underground rain tanks had

not been cleaned following construction, water inrecharge trenches flowed to the raintanks, firstflush pits were not constructed, covers had notbeen sealed allowing entry of debris into the storedwater, and ponding in the roof and gutter systemwas occurring (Coombes et al., 2000). Water inthe raintanks was subsequently of poor quality.

5.2.2 Key Learnings

During construction of Bowies Flat officialenvironmental audits were conducted weekly. As aresult, this process could alleviate only majorproblems and it was found that, without anenvironmental auditor permanently on-site to ensurecontrols were well-maintained and implemented, therewere times when the environmental controls were notsufficient (BCC, 2003).

Diverting water around a construction site is asuccessful way to meet water quality targets. Anotheroption, relevant to sites with ponds or wetlands is tostabilise a pond early in the construction phase for useas a sediment/treatment pond.

Sediment control during construction is critical;without it, the integrity and operation of the systemsinstalled can be threatened. This is particularly thecase for infiltration systems and filters, which aresusceptible to clogging during the construction period.

Construction tolerances in integrated stormwatertreatment and re-use systems are generally finer thanin conventional systems. It is important, therefore, toensure that contractors are well-briefed, and fullyunderstand the design intent of the system.

5.3 Operation and Maintenance

It is understood that operation and maintenancemanuals were developed for most of the studied re-useschemes, at the very least for the larger scale schemesor those with more complex treatment trains.Operation and maintenance requirements for re-useschemes do not appear to differ from requirements fortypical water supply nor other types of WSUD. Forexample, regular inspection and maintenance offilters, GPTs, pumps and pipes is required, but this is


34

also a requirement of both conventional water supplyand WSUD schemes. The major difference would bemore stringent monitoring schedules to ensure waterquality is adequate for the intended re-use purpose.The respective monitoring programs will be discussedin Chapter 8.

The following briefly describes examples of theoperation and maintenance practices of the re-useschemes that are specific to water re-use.

5.3.1 Collection

The scheme at Inkerman Oasis combines re-use ofgreywater with first flush stormwater. Since thecapacity of the collection, treatment and storagesystem is relatively small, when rainfall is detectedgreywater is diverted to the conventional seweragesystem. Once all the collected and treated stormwaterhas been re-used into the toilets, the system reverts tocollecting greywater.

5.3.2 Treatment

Constructed wetlands and ponds are designed to below maintenance, self-sustaining systems (overrelatively long-time periods, of at least 20 years). Thetype of maintenance required for these systems is notexclusive to wetlands and ponds incorporated into re-use schemes e.g. weed control and silt removal.However it is more likely that this maintenance willactually be carried out since it determines the healthand thus the performance of the system – and it iscritical that these systems function satisfactorily toensure water quality is adequate for safe re-use (asopposed to wetlands and ponds constructedspecifically to provide environmental flows ofimproved quality – maintenance of these systems maytend to be neglected, with less direct human impacts).

The advanced treatment tank at Inkerman Oasis isduplicated to permit maintenance on each individualmembrane module. This avoids the need for thesystem to revert to the conventional system (wheregreywater goes to the sewerage system and allstormwater to the drainage system) duringmaintenance periods.

5.3.3 Storage

Storage tanks, particularly those with provision formains supply as a backup, tend to be constantly drawndown to ensure tanks regularly have the storagecapacity available to accept runoff. This is alsoimportant if the system is going to have any flow-attenuation, or flood-mitigation function.

At Oaklands Park there is provision to pump betweenthe three storage dams. This has a number of benefits;a) it enables water levels in each dam to be maintainedabove the minimum level required for water quality, b) two of the dams have larger catchments and higherimpervious areas and therefore fill faster (water fromthese dams is pumped to the third dam to allowmaximum collection), and c) in times of low rainfall(when evaporation may be an issue) water can bestored in the dam with the lowest surface area: volumeratio (and thus lowest potential evaporation).

In the case of ASR schemes, consideration of potentialgroundwater impacts is essential. For example, atParfitt Square, recharge and retrieval volumes are keptapproximately in balance to avoid adverse pressurefluctuations. Operation of the ASR scheme at FigtreePlace includes monitoring of the watertable to ensurethat neither significant drawdown nor the formation ofa groundwater mound, which could lead to structuralproblems, occurs.

5.3.4 Distribution

The initial design of the re-use scheme at SantaMonica required the injection of a background level ofchlorine within the distribution line. However, it hasbeen found that algae grows almost everywhere withinthe advanced treatment facility, particularly in thestorage tank. As a result, the City is consideringadding chlorine earlier in the treatment train to reducealgal growth.

5.3.5 Flood Protection

Most neighbourhood scale sites have provision foroverflow to traditional stormwater drainage systems ornearby waterways when their design flood capacity isexceeded. For example, at Altona Green Park, if the


35

storage tank is at full capacity, runoff discharges alonga swale (hence some treatment may occur) beforeoverflowing into the conventional drainage system.Wetland systems generally have bypass channels tolower the risk of flood damage to macrophyte zonesand reduce the potential for export of pollutants causedby re-suspension of sediment during high flows (wellknown from the operation of wetlands used only forpollution control).

5.3.6 Key Learnings

The larger scale schemes or those with complextreatment systems tend to be controlled centrally. Forexample, the Parafield scheme is controlled by aSystem Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)system linked to a central control scheme at the City ofSalisbury offices. The advanced treatment plant atTaronga Zoo is also controlled centrally.

There are a number of sites studied that appear to havebeen neglected since completion of construction.Further the subsequent planned stages of at least oneproject appear not to have been completed, potentiallyjeopardising the integrity of the original design intent.It appears that a lack of adequate monitoring andmaintenance is particularly a problem for the smaller-scale sites, where there are inadequate resourcesand/or expertise to undertake the requiredmaintenance. This definitely needs to be taken intoaccount when planning, designing and regulatingstormwater re-use systems.

Some sites do not have defined operation andmaintenance programs as such; rather it is a “wait andsee” situation. For example, at Kogarah Town Squareit is expected that screen filters on the pumps will needto be cleaned once a year and the storage and headertanks approximately every 5-6 years. In another case,an operation and maintenance schedule for the ManlySTAR project was meant to be developed, howeverthis seems to have been considered a low prioritysince, at this stage, it has not occurred. Currently, theextent of the operation and maintenance is regularstreet sweeping to reduce pollution, maintenance ofpumps as required and, according to manufacturerspecifications, once every 10 years the biologicallyengineered soils should be harvested and accumulated

pollutants extracted (although there is currently nodefined feedback mechanism to determine whetherthis frequency is adequate).

The operation and maintenance of a stormwater re-usesystem may be contracted out e.g. maintenance ofpumps and the ring main at Taronga Zoo is carried outby a contractor, and the maintenance of the re-usescheme at Homebush Bay is contracted to theconstruction company for 25 years. In the case ofsubdivision type developments, the body corporate isgenerally responsible for the operation andmaintenance of the re-use scheme.

The principal lesson is that clear specification of anoperation and maintenance program should beprepared during the design process. This specificationshould include clear identification of the responsibleentity, and a realistic assessment of whether that entityis capable of taking on the operation and maintenanceresponsibly. Without this, it is likely that the integrityof a number of the systems studied is at risk,potentially impacting on public health and amenity.

Operation and maintenance of stormwater re-useschemes must be controlled centrally and managedstrictly, at the authority level rather than privately.


36

37


6. Implementation Issues

6.1 Introduction

Essential considerations for implementation ofstormwater re-use systems, other than costs andpricing, include ecological responses, environmentalimpacts, social consequences, technical feasibility andflexibility (Mitchell et al., 1999).

This chapter provides a discussion of implementationissues and how the re-use schemes address theseconcerns.

6.2 Integration into the Total Urban Water Cycle

The urban water cycle is typically defined by the threeurban water streams i.e. potable water, wastewater andstormwater. Traditionally the approach has been tomanage each water stream separately. However, ifintegrated systems are to be successful, they shouldbecome a part of the sustainable management of thetotal urban water cycle. The following is a discussionof how this has been addressed at a number of sites.

Two of the study sites also incorporated greywater re-use into their water recycling schemes. At CSUThurgoona, greywater is treated in intermittent-flowconstructed wetlands (separate from the stormwaterwetlands) and is then mixed with the treatedstormwater in the storage reservoirs for subsequent re-use. Greywater is also collected from about half of theunits at Inkerman Oasis. It is passed through adifferent primary treatment method before joining thestormwater for treatment in the wetlands and tertiarytank.

A number of sites collect, treat and recycle wastewaterin addition to stormwater. Reclaimed wastewater isthe primary source of recycled water at Hawkesburyand Homebush Bay. At Hawkesbury, wastewaterundergoes advanced treatment at the RichmondSewerage Treatment Plant, polishing in a differentwetland system and storage in a separate dam from thestormwater. At Homebush Bay, wastewater from

Newington, the sporting venues and showgrounds isreclaimed and passed through an advanced treatmentplant. Clean stormwater from the brickpit storage isused to supplement this supply prior to distributionaround the site. Excess treated wastewater is stored ina 7 ML buffer underground storage tank at thetreatment plant as well as in the brickpit storage. AtOaklands Park each individual lot has a wastewatertreatment system to produce water suitable forirrigation. Wastewater from animal cage hose-downsat Taronga Zoo is mixed with stormwater at the inflowto the treatment plant.

Six sites collect, treat and re-use roof runoff separatelyfrom general runoff. These sites tend to use the roofrunoff, which is generally cleaner than general runoff(particularly lower in sediment concentration), forpurposes where the risk of human contact is higher.For example, roof runoff at Figtree Place is passedthrough first flush devices, stored in five centralunderground tanks, and re-used for toilet flushing andhot water systems. Re-use of the general runoff, on theother hand, is restricted to irrigation and other outdooruses. At CSU Thurgoona, it is a similar situation, withraintanks incorporated into the walls of the buildingsstoring roof runoff for re-use for laundry, cooling andinsulation purposes. The stadiums and showgroundsat Homebush Bay collect their own roof runoff, storeit in underground tanks and re-use it to irrigate theplaying fields etc. Oaklands Park differs from all otherstudied sites in that roof runoff from individual lots iscollected, passed through first flush devices,undergoes natural sedimentation processes inindividual storage tanks and is re-used for potable andother in-house uses. Interestingly, at Oaklands Park,there is no clearly defined charge for the use ofcollected general stormwater runoff for gardenirrigation. Instead it is included in body corporatefees, potentially giving little incentive for saving waterresources.

The incorporation of additional supplies as backupduring periods of low rainfall was almost universal. Inmost cases, this was in the form of connection of themains supply to the storage. This also provides a watersupply of reliable quality should the stormwaterquality fall below accepted levels. Oaklands Park does


38

not have access to mains water, however it has

provisions for pumping from nearby Deep Creek to

supplement storage. This will also more than

compensate for any future loss of catchment area

(some is external to the site). In addition, there is a

minimum house size to ensure adequate collection for

potable re-use.

Other initiatives that have been adopted by various

schemes to integrate the system into the total urban

water cycle include the use of water efficient fittings

and appliances, incorporation into an integrated

environmental precinct, and the promotion of

maintenance of good water quality.

6.3 Public Safety

There are various issues to consider in terms of

ensuring public safety and a range of techniques have

been implemented to address these.

To some extent, most schemes carried out risk

assessment as part of their design process. Part of the

planning of the re-use scheme at Hawkesbury was the

development of an Environmental Management Plan

(based upon ISO 14000 processes), including a

preliminary risk assessment and an ongoing program

to develop effective risk communication andmanagement strategies.

With respect to minimising risks associated withirrigation with recycled water, various approacheswere taken. At Figtree Place irrigation occurs onlyduring night hours (thus minimising the risk of humancontact), while at Hawkesbury shelterbelts have beenplanted along the edges of pastures to prevent thepublic from coming into contact with spray drift. AtManly the mains supply is also linked to an irrigationsystem and is mixed with the treated stormwater as arisk management precaution (and to supplement thesupply in extended dry periods).

A survey of residents at Figtree Place found that 48%of the respondents use water from the hot tap forcooking. As a result, the rainwater used in hot watersystems must be compliant with drinking waterguidelines.

All re-use schemes must also provide flood protection.Most systems divert to conventional drainage systemsonce the design flood capacity of the collection systemis exceeded. There is also usually some means of flowcontrol for the treatment system. For example, atKogarah Town Square surge tanks regulate water flowin periods of high stormwater flow. Storages alsogenerally have provision for overflow.

Figure 6.1 Signs at Homebush Bay Inform the Public About the Use of Recycled Water


39

Other public safety issues:

• Schemes utilising ponds and wetlands as part of

their re-use system must address mosquito

management;

• The use of signage informing the public about the

use of recycled water is also widely used (Figure

6.1);

• A number of sites had contaminated soils as a

result of previous land use (e.g. Homebush Bay

and Figtree Place); this was required to be

remediated during the initial construction stages.

• Storage tanks and ASR headworks are either

underground or have restricted access to ensure

public safety. If ponds and basins are utilised for

storage purposes only, access is restricted.

However, it is generally not known what, if any,

safety precautions have been incorporated into the

design of ponds that are open to the public i.e.

barriers, maximum gradings, shelving margins.

6.4 Landscape Requirements

Landscape requirements for stormwater re-use

systems include:

• Consideration of the need for soil treatment to

prevent groundwater accessions and to aid in plant

establishment in constructed wetlands;

• Community expectations for provision of open

space for active and passive recreation;

• Other needs of the surrounding community;

• Irrigation requirements of vegetation (most sites

encourage the use of locally native plant species;

Powells Creek also incorporated specific

vegetation types with high evapotranspiration rates

into the re-use scheme);

• If the site is a major tourist destination (e.g.

Manly), it should be taken into account that

intensive developments with high transient

populations give rise to greater than normal

amounts of vehicles and litter;

• Changes in topography, and hence wind shearcontrol was a landscape issue for the Parafieldscheme;

6.5 Site Amenity

Major amenity issues that have been found at thestudied sites include:

• Interaction with major public infrastructure. Forexample, issues that needed to be resolved in thedevelopment of the Parafield re-use schemeincluded possible disruption to airport activitiesand ensuring access to the re-use system (sinceairports are secure areas). In addition, anEmergency Response Plan was developed for theproject in order to ensure effective and efficientresponses to incidents that may threaten toadversely impact the project.

• Limited space, as at Powells Creek. In these cases,the utilisation of subsurface systems can free upspace.

• Improvement of visual amenity. For example theredevelopment of Solander Park improved thevisual amenity. All elements of the re-use systemwere integrated into a total management approachand do not obstruct the aesthetics or useability ofthe park.

• A couple of re-use schemes with multifunctionalponds and lakes allowed recreation on and aroundthe water storage, however this was restricted topassive recreation (i.e. non-contact activities suchas boating).

6.6 Institutional and Other Issues

During the development phase of the re-use scheme atCSU Thurgoona, the option of potable re-use wasexplored, however, following risk consideration, theUniversity required water for human consumption,personal hygiene and some other domestic uses to beprovided by an authorised supplier (Mitchell et al.,2001).

Significant delays, caused by approval agencies, wereexperienced during the development stage of Figtree


40

Place. This was largely due to the lack of institutional

frameworks regarding WSUD design principles,

maintenance requirements and costs (Coombes et al.,

1998). To avoid these problems, a detailed technical

and legal assessment of the Parafield project was

undertaken to ensure that regulatory approvals were

received in time to keep to schedule.

The development of Inkerman Oasis required rezoning

of the land and Council acceptance of building heights

and unit density. This was a straightforward process

since Council was a project partner. However, the

relevant water authority would not agree to any

reduction in infrastructure charges and an alternative

means of reducing costs could not be agreed upon.

The development at Bobbin Head Road did not make

it past the design stage. While the application was

supported by Council, it could not be approved

because the State government declared that the type of

development (SEPP5) was no longer allowed in the

area. In a similar way Oaklands Park reportedly had

little support or involvement from relevant institutions.

The initial motivation for the Manly STAR project was

a call from the community in regard to removal of

stormwater pipes from the beachfront (Figure 6.2).

Relocating these outlet pipes would have been an

expensive exercise and would not have offered any

improvement in stormwater quality, hence it was

decided to implement the treatment and re-use scheme.

However, the community still wants the stormwater

pipes removed, indicating they are more concerned

with visual pollution than water quality issues. This is

supported by the strong public acceptance of

permeable pavers, despite initial hesitation by the

community, which have visual appeal as well as

reducing surface flows.

It appears that the key lesson is that all organisations

with regulatory responsibility should be brought in as

key stakeholders early on in a project’s development.

There is a need to identify a ‘champion’ for the project,

within each organisation, to “smooth its path” through

regulatory requirements. Until regulations have

‘caught up’ with stormwater re-use, this type of case-

by-case facilitation approach will be needed.

Figure 6.2 (a) Stormwater Outlet Pipe at Ocean Beach in Manly and (b) Pollution Warning Sign


41

Other issues included:

• Minimisation of avifauna at the two sites that areon or near airports (Hawkesbury and Parafield) toreduce the risk of bird strike; and

• Indigenous heritage issues e.g. at Parafield

6.7 Key Learnings

Many learnings and recommendations with respect toimplementation issues have arisen from thedevelopment and operation of the stormwater re-useschemes surveyed.

One of the most frequently encountered issues werelengthy and resource intensive negotiation, assessmentand approval processes. This is largely due to a lackof pertinent experience and policies on the part of thewater industry and relevant authorities. In manyinstances, regulatory and legal reforms were tested.The overwhelming recommendation with respect togaining project approval is to involve the relevantapproval agencies at an early stage.

A key learning identified by the Kogarah Council isthat, while it is worthwhile incorporating both wasteand stormwater recycling initiatives in planningcontrols and especially public projects, it is essentialthat the objectives are clearly identified and that thereis flexibility with respect to the outcome. Further, thestandard of design documentation for innovative

practices must be above average (Coombes et al.,1998). Evaluation of the whole process (from designall the way through) is also essential.

Many of the re-use schemes were the result of apartnership approach, often between the various levelsof government and a private developer. This wasfound to be successful, since it enabled all parties’skills, roles and experience to be combined. Involvingother parties, such the design team and researchers, inthe partnership was also found to be beneficial. It iscrucial that all stakeholders are kept informed.

Kogarah Council found that some developers can seethe long term benefit of learning how to apply anddemonstrate best practice design as part of a long-termbusiness strategy to be seen as “green”. Further, thetenderers and the design teams all responded well tothe environmental objectives of this project. Coombesalso advocated involving a constructing contractorwho is supportive of the project innovations early inthe development stage (Coombes et al., 1998).

Communicating the innovations to the buyers andwider community is important. Two examples ofcommunication to the general public are shown inFigure 6.3. Kogarah Council reflected that consultingwith the community early in the development stagewould have reduced costs and greatly reducedtimeframes associated with the implementation of theKogarah Town Square water re-use project. Some

Figure 6.3 Information Boards (at Manly Beach and Solander Park) are Effective Ways to Communicate WaterRecycling Innovations to the General Public


42

schemes have also incorporated artwork into thefacility (Figure 6.4). Many re-use schemes have foundthat community consultation and interpretive artworkhas resulted in interest and ownership of the scheme byboth the local and wider community.

Other learnings to have arisen from theimplementation of the re-use schemes studied include:

• There is significant public acceptance of domesticuse of rainwater;

• Stormwater re-use systems should be developedwithin a broader landscape management plan andlandscape architects should be part of the designprocess;

• Government grants assist with project costs,however managing grants takes a lot of time andongoing effort (for which funding is often notavailable); and

• Reliable provisions and monitoring plans arefundamental elements of re-use projects,particularly given the experimental nature of themat this stage (Coombes et al., 1998).

Figure 6.4 Art Work at Solander Park (source: (SSCC, 2002))

43


7. Costs and Benefits

7.1 Introduction

One of the main attributes of every stormwater re-use

scheme is their multiple objectives. Stormwater re-use

reduces demand for traditional potable water supply

while diminishing environmental problems caused by

elevated and polluted stormwater runoff arising from

urbanization. However, it can be very costly.

Assessing the costs and benefits of any water recycling

project is a complex process. The traditional

cost/benefit approach uses the discounted cash flow

method to compare the cost of a development against

the benefits realised (Wong, 2003). However, this

method is inadequate since water re-use schemes also

offer non-monetary social and environmental benefits

and disadvantages. Methods for objectively and

consistently assessing these are not yet well

developed.

The following sections describe the types of costs

associated with implementing a stormwater re-use

scheme, the potential benefits that may be achieved

and new key learnings.

7.2 Costs

Costs involved in developing a stormwater re-use

system are:

• Capital costs: the cost of design, approval, and

construction (often called total acquisition costs);

• Operating costs: including maintenance and

energy requirements;

• Actual total cost is the sum of capital and operating

costs;

• A user price may apply where recycled stormwater

is provided by a central agency; this may be higher

or lower than the actual cost.

7.3 Benefits

The potential benefits of stormwater re-use schemes

are:

• Provision of water supply (a potable water

substitute) where water resources are constrained

or non-existent;

• Reduced demand for potable water (particularly

peak flows), which offers savings through the

reduced need to develop other water resources

(and therefore helps in their conservation) or

expand water supply infrastructure (therefore

delay or remove the need for enhanced water

supply reticulation and stormwater drainage

infrastructure);

• Reduction in volume and peak of stormwater

flows, protecting downstream waterways, and

reducing the need for downstream stormwater

infrastructure;

• Reduction in stormwater pollution, which may

lead to protection/enhancement of downstream

waterways as well as savings resulting from the

reduced need for downstream pollution mitigation

measures;

• Multi-functionality of waterways for recreation,

environmental enhancement and stormwater

storage and recycling purposes, which generally

manifests itself in greater property values.

7.4 Collected Data

Table 7.1 summarises the known costs and qualitativebenefits of each re-use scheme studied.

In interpreting these costs, some important issues must

be taken into account:

• It can be seen that only limited information about

operating costs and user prices was available. This

is not due to reluctance on the part of the

developers/operators to divulge this information.

Rather it seems that, in most cases at least, these

costs have not been formally considered as part of

the project design process. Future projects should

have a disciplined costing analysis undertaken.


44

• Public grants have been used to help the

implementation of many of the systems, which

reduced the user price e.g. approximately 60% of

the costs for WSUD elements at Inkerman Oasis

were funded by a Commonwealth Urban

Stormwater Initiative grant.

In interpreting the qualitative benefits, there are also a

number of important considerations:

• Where it was deemed appropriate, benefits have

been assessed relative to other schemes and rated

accordingly e.g. for reduced demand of potablesupply, the schemes that provide the largestrelative reduction have been given three ticks,while those that offer the smallest relativereductions in demand have one tick.

• Categories have only been ticked ifreports/conversations have specifically stated thatthis is a benefit. For example, even though onlythree schemes have listed habitat provision as abenefit, this may very well be an incidental benefitof other schemes.

Year

Costs Benefits

Cap

ital

Cos

t ($

)‘00

0s

Ope

rati

ng (

c/kL

)

Use

rP

rice

(c/

kL)

Red

uced

Dem

and

for

Pot

able

Sup

ply

Red

uced

Dis

char

ge t

oW

ater

way

s/oc

ean

Red

uced

Dis

char

ge t

oSe

wag

e Sy

stem

Del

ays

need

for

Dra

inag

eIn

fras

truc

ture

Upg

rade

Pol

luti

on C

ontr

ol

Env

iron

men

tal F

low

of

Impr

oved

Qua

lity

Aba

tem

ent

of F

orm

erF

lood

ing

Pro

blem

Ntu

rien

t R

ecyc

ling

Hab

itat

Pro

visi

on

Oth

er3

Altona Green 2003 250 n/a P P P P

Bowies Flat 2002 24001 n/a P P P P P P

CSU Thurgoona 1999 n/a PP PPP PPP P P P P

Figtree Place 1998 109.9 PPP PP P P

Hawkesbury 2003 39002 PPP PPP PP P P P P

Homebush Bay 2000 158002 180 77.5 PPP PPP PP P P P P

Inkerman Oasis 2003 4342 PPP P P P P P

Kogarah 2003 629 PP P P P

Manly STAR 2001 1300 n/a P P P

Oaklands Park 1997 73 PPP PPP PPP P

Parafield 2003 4500 30 PPP P PP P P P P P

Parfitt Square 1997 n/a P PP P P P

Powells Creek 1998 400 n/a P P P P P

Santa Monica 2001 16600 212 PP n/a P

Solander Park 2001 615 n/a P PP P P P

Taronga Zoo 1996 22002 n/a PP PP P P

Table 7.1 Summary of Costs and Benefits Associated with Surveyed Stormwater Re-use Schemes

1 Capital cost of total redevelopment i.e. not just re-use component2 Includes capital costs for both stormwater and wastewater recycling 3 Other benefits: CSU Thurgoona – part of the campus is unsewered; Parafield – provides local job opportunities and economic stability (cost of potable waterin South Australia high enough that industry was considering relocation); Parfitt Square – aquifer recharge


45

It can be seen in Figure 7.1 that capital cost is only

partly determined by the size of the catchment (and

therefore usually the system size). Other factors that

influence capital cost would include treatment method

(type and complexity), storage type, and physical

characteristics of the land (e.g. slope, which would

have a large influence on the type of collection and

distribution methods selected). Capital cost may also

be influenced by the degree of external benefits (e.g.

public amenity facilities) which are integrated into thesystems.

Table 7.2 lists selected quantitative benefits ofstormwater re-use schemes as reported. Note thatalthough pollution control was a specifically statedbenefit of all re-use systems (Table 7.1) it wasquantified in only two instances. This furtherhighlights the need for data collection to be undertakenas part of stormwater re-use projects.

Reduced PotableDemand

Pollution Control Reduced Runoff Volume

Figtree Place 40-45% 83% of runoff up to 1:50 year ARIstorm event

Hawkesbury 28% 50% of annual runoff (400 ML)

Homebush Bay 50% all runoff up to 1:100 year ARI stormevent (with some release asenvironmental flows)

Inkerman Oasis 30% ~14 tonnes P and Nremoved year1

first flush (until wetland is full)

Kogarah 17% 6375 kL year

Oaklands Park 6.9 ML year 75 ML year

Parafield 1500 ML year removes 90% of nutrientand pollutant loads

all runoff up to 1:10 year ARI stormevent

Figure 7.1 Relationship Between Catchment Area and Capital Cost

Table 7.2 Quantified Benefits Associated with Selected Stormwater Re-use Schemes

1 Figure is for pollution removal from greywater and stormwater combined


46

Due to lack of available data, a simple analysis wasundertaken to demonstrate the costs and benefits of thestudied systems. Table 7.3 demonstrates two possiblebenefits of selected stormwater re-use schemes;reduced potable water demand and pollution control.All capital costs are taken as reported. Mean annualrunoff is calculated from annual rainfall and estimatedrunoff coefficient. The percentage of collected andused runoff was either taken as reported or estimatedfrom the qualitative data available. Potable watersavings are then simply estimated as the volume of there-use water multiplied by the cost of potable waterproduction, as supplied by Melbourne Water (0.3 $/kL).

The benefits of the pollution control were assessed asthe ‘equivalent cost’ of nitrogen removal only (basedon data provided by Melbourne Water). This was donebecause the resultant benefits, such as environmentalprotection and nutrient recycling, cannot be reliablycosted, particularly given the different (and unknown)conditions at each site, and their downstream

environments. The mass of nitrogen removed from

stormwater is assessed as the volume of re-used

stormwater (that is never to reach streams in its state)

multiplied by the concentration of total nitrogen (TN)

in stormwater. The calculation is done for lower (TN =

0.7 mg/L) and upper (TN= 6 mg/L) wet weather

concentrations (Fletcher et al., 2003). Finally, the total

cost of nitrogen removal was calculated using the

estimated cost of $787 per kg of TN removal (as

supplied by Melbourne Water). The costings provided

indicate an equivalent cost which would be required to

remove this level of nitrogen, using typical stormwater

treatment wetlands.

It must be noted that this demonstration is most likely

an underestimate of potential benefits because it

estimates only the benefits of the portion of

stormwater collected for re-use only. For example, the

WSUD elements incorporated into the systems offer

additional treatment of non-collected stormwater, but

inadequate data were available to estimate these.

Capital Cost ($)1

MeanAnnualRunoff(ML)

%Collected

Volumeof

RunoffCollected

(ML)

PotableWater

Savings ($)

Pollution Control

Quantity TNRemoved

(kg)3 Cost Range ($)

Inkerman Oasis 434,000 7.6 202 1.52 456 1.1 - 9.1 837 - 7,200

Figtree Place 109,900 6.3 831 5.2 1,569 3.7 - 31 2,900 - 24,700

Kogarah 629,000 9.4 851 8.0 2,397 5.6 - 48 4,400 - 37,700

Oaklands Park 73,000 75 1002 75 22,500 53 - 450 41,300 - 354,200

Hawkesbury 3,900,000 8001 501 400 120,000 280 - 2,400 220,400 - 1,888,900

Homebush Bay 15,800,000 1,179 1002 1,179 353,700 825 - 7,074 649,500 - 5,567,200

Parafield 4,500,000 2,210 1002 2,210 663,120 1,547 - 13,262 1,217,700 - 10,437,500

Table 7.3 Demonstrated Benefits of Selected Stormwater Re-use Schemes. Note: cost of potable water production = 0.3 $/kL(Melbourne Water), lower wet weather TN conc = 0.7 mg/L and upper wet weather TN conc = 6 mg/L(Fletcher et al., 2003), cost of nitrogen removal = $787/kg (Melbourne Water)

1 As reported2 Conservative estimates based on qualitative data3 Quantity removed = concentration x volume collected


47

7.5 Key Learnings

While it has been accepted for a number of years that,to correctly assess the worth of a water servicingoption, the cost of implementing a re-use scheme mustbe compared to the true costs of current supply anddisposal practices, little progress has been made indeveloping such means of comparison. Thedifficulties in defining boundaries of potential benefits(externalities) appear to have discouraged attempts tofully quantify costs and benefits of stormwater re-useschemes. The lack of attention to this area isconcerning, given the (often) high levels of publicfunding which has gone into these systems.

An extensive study was conducted at the aluminiumsmelter at Portland, Victoria, to develop a strategy forretrofitting the plant with improved water managementpractices. The smelter uses more than 500 ML ofmains water annually. This water is supplied by thelocal council, which is under pressure to expand itssupply system to meet the demand of a growingcommunity. The study found that conservation-oriented water management practices have thepotential to reduce present mains water use at the plantby 80%. In addition, significant pollution control andsubsequent environmental protection was likely to beachieved since the plant collected and dischargedstormwater (with process effluents) to sea using aconventional drainage system. As a result of thestudy’s recommendations, steps to improve processefficiencies through increased maintenance (e.g.finding and repairing leakages etc.) wereimplemented. However, although it was planned tointroduce stormwater collection to supplement mainswater used in industrial processes, management couldnot be convinced of the need for what would be anexpensive capital outlay, particularly since the price ofmains water is so inexpensive.

The developers of Inkerman Oasis identified the lackof developer front-end incentives as the most difficultissue associated with water recycling. The high capitalcost for WSUD practices is unable to be recompensedat any time in the project since market demand forWSUD is not compensated by the prices units can sell for.

The lack of attention to collecting lifecycle cost dataon most of these projects is also of concern; the lack ofdata reduces the ability to develop reliable predictionsof costs for systems being proposed.

Other key learnings:

• The developers of the Santa Monica recyclingfacility considered that the additional costs ofincorporating art into public works was minisculecompared to the long term public educationalbenefits and the public acceptance of a treatmentfacility near a major tourist attraction.

• Some buyer reluctance at Oaklands Park wasinitially experienced due to concerns abouteconomic viability, however persistence on thepart of the developer paid off as all lots have beensold and many developed.

• Of all the re-use schemes surveyed, the FigtreePlace development has had the most extensivecost/benefits analysis conducted. Coombes et al.,(2000) suggested an alternative way to adequatelycompare re-use schemes with conventional watersupply and disposal practices without having toaddress the difficulties of costing in social andenvironmental benefits. A novel approach withwell structured methodology should be developedto resolve these issues (that is based on soundscience, such as Australian Standard for LifecycleCost analysis, Australian Standards, 1999). TheCRC for Catchment Hydrology is currentlyundertaking a project to this end, with resultsexpected towards the end of 2004.

The main key learning is that there is inadequatedevelopment of methodology to objectively assess thecosts and benefits of water re-use systems, and thislack will hold back both their assessment, and theirimplementation.


48

49


8. Performance

8.1 Introduction

Performance results are somewhat limited at this stage,partly since most of the stormwater re-use schemesstudied are still very new and thus there is not a lot offeedback available. In general though, developers,operators and regulators appear to be satisfied with there-use schemes’ initial performances, and the publicresponse has been positive.

The following sections describe the monitoringprograms and performance of the various stormwaterre-use schemes.

8.2 Monitoring

Tables 8.1 and 8.2 summarise the monitoringschedules developed for various stormwater re-useschemes for which we were able to gather information.This table contains details for only half of the studiedsites. Water quality is not currently being monitored aspart of the stormwater re-use scheme at Kogarah TownSquare. It is planned to monitor water quality to someextent, but this is not considered critical because theend-use type is non-contact (P. Smith, pers. comm.).At Bowies Flat, ambient and post-storm event waterquality monitoring occurs, however this is part of themonitoring program to evaluate the water qualityimprovement efficiency of the wetlands and is notspecific to re-use. It is understood that long term waterquality monitoring is taking place at Parfitt Square,however no further details could be obtained. Nodetails about the monitoring programs for CSUThurgoona and Oaklands Park were gathered, howeverit is understood that they do exist.

From Tables 8.1 and 8.2 it is clear that the larger thescale of the scheme, the higher the public profile, orthe more personal the re-use type, the more extensivethe monitoring program is. Conversely, the simplerthe scheme and the less personal the re-use type, thesmaller the monitoring schedule is.

It must be noted that in almost all cases the NWQMSand relevant State guidelines for water recycling

comprehensively outline monitoring parameters andsuggested monitoring frequencies. The fact that thesesuggestions are not always incorporated into the re-useschemes further highlights the need for regulations(rather than guidelines) specifically targetingstormwater re-use.

8.3 Assessment of Performance

Performance was generally assessed against whetherthe system met its overall objectives, whether relevantwater quality guidelines were achieved and whetherthe system adequately supplied demand.Unfortunately, only limited data, mostly qualitativeassessment, were available (as noted earlier, it wasdifficult to obtain information regarding performanceachievements).

Table 8.3 summarises, where possible, how eachscheme is meeting its performance objectives; a tickmeans that the systems met that particular objective. Ifa particular criterion is not ticked, it may not be that ithasn’t been achieved, rather it may not have been aspecific performance goal. Further, it also may be dueto lack of a monitoring program that allowed it to beassessed.

The data were gathered for 13 schemes (Table 8.3).Performance of the re-use scheme at Altona Greencannot be assessed yet; the system has been brieflyoperational but is currently not due to problems withpumps. The system at Bowies Flat is also difficult toassess given that it is not specifically designed for re-use and monitoring is aimed at assessing how thewetland system treats water for flows of improvedquality and addresses flood abatement; it does notexplicitly target quality of water for re-use.

The scheme at Figtree Place has been successful withrespect to both water quality and quantity. There hasbeen no overflow to the conventional system in thefirst two years of operation, infiltration rates in the drydetention basin have been more than adequate to dealwith general runoff and, overall, water qualitycomplies with Australian Drinking Water Guidelines(although some parameters were found to occasionallyexceed recommended levels).


Table 8.1 Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Programs for Stormwater Re-use Systems

Parameters

Alt

ona

Gre

en

Bow

ies

Fla

t

Fig

tree

Pla

ce

Haw

kesb

ury

Hom

ebus

h B

ay

Inke

rman

Oas

is

Man

ly S

TA

R

Par

afie

ld

Pow

ells

Cre

ek

Sant

a M

onic

a

Sola

nder

Par

k

Tar

onga

Zoo

ComponentsMonitored

storage P P P P P P Ptreatment P P P P Phot water service Ppotable supply Prunoff/inlet P P P P P Psoil P P Pother1 P P

Water QualityParameters

quality2 P P P PTSS P P P P P P PTS P PVSS Pturbidity P P PTN P P P P PNOx P PNH4+ PTP P P P P P PFRP PpH P P P P P P PDO PEC P P Ptemp P P PBOD P P Psalinity/TDS P P Pchlorides Pcolour Pbacteria P P P P P Pviruses Pchlorophyll a Pchlorine residual Pheavy metals P P P P Ptoxicants P Pother3 P P P

SamplingMethod

in situ sensors P Pautosampler P Pmanually P P P

MonitoringFrequency

continuous P P6 hourly Pweekly Pmonthly P P Pduring/after events P P P Phalf yearly P Pyearly P

1 Homebush Bay: 20 monitoring points throughout system plus all other significant ponds and wetlands; Taronga Zoo:overflow from the treatment plant’s inlet detention tank

2 Know water quality monitoring occurs but don’t know specific parameters3 Hawkesbury: Na, K, Mg, Ca, Cl, SO4-, HCO3, CO3; Santa Monica: oil and grease; Taronga Zoo: oil and grease50


51

Parameters

Alt

ona

Gre

en

Bow

ies

Fla

t

Fig

tree

Pla

ce

Haw

kesb

ury

Hom

ebus

h B

ay

Inke

rman

Oas

is

Man

ly S

TA

R

Par

afie

ld

Sola

nder

Par

k

Tar

onga

Zoo

ComponentsMonitored

quantity1 P P

storage (volume) P P P P

water use P P P

recharge basin P

infiltration rates P P

inflow/runoff quantity P P P

watertable P P

outflow P

SamplingMethod

in situ sensors P P P

meter P P

MonitoringFrequency

6 hourly P

weekly P

monthly P

during/after events P

Other maintenance P

economic viability P

social acceptance P

ecological studies P P

groundwater P

other P

1 Know water quantity is monitored but don’t know specific components

Table 8.2 Summary of Water Quantity and Other Monitoring Programs for Stormwater Re-use Systems


52

Against Objectives Quality Quantity

Dec

reas

e P

otab

le W

ater

Usa

ge

Pro

tect

ion

of D

owns

trea

mW

ater

way

s (p

ollu

tion

)

Dec

reas

e F

requ

ency

and

Seve

rity

of

Dis

char

ges

Red

uce

Sew

age

Dis

char

ge

Dem

onst

rate

Via

ble

Stor

mw

ater

Re-

use

Show

case

Bes

t W

ater

Man

agem

ent

Pra

ctic

es

Oth

er1

Pol

luta

nt R

emov

al

Com

plie

s w

ith

Rel

evan

tSt

anda

rds

Gro

undw

ater

Qua

lity

Mai

ntai

ned/

Impr

oved

Ade

quat

e St

orag

eC

apac

ity/

Supp

ly

Figtree Place 65% P P P

Hawkesbury P P P P P P

Homebush Bay 50% P >90% P P P P P

Inkerman Oasis 30% P P P P P

Kogarah 17% P P P

Manly STAR P P P P P P

Oaklands Park P P P

Parafield P P P P P 90% P P P

Parfitt Square P P P P P P

Powells Creek P P P 90%

Santa Monica 4% P P P

Solander Park P P P P >90%

Taronga Zoo P P P P P

Table 8.3 Summary of Performance

1 Other objectives: • develop community awareness (Hawkesbury, Kogarah, Santa Monica, Solander Park), • provide recreational areas (Hawkesbury, Powells Creek), • ensure compliance with environmental undertakings committed to as part of bid for Olympic Games (Homebush Bay), • secure regional economic development (Parafield), • aquifer replenishment (Parfitt Square), and• provide wildlife habitat (Powells Creek).


53

At Homebush Bay approximately 40 tonnes of litterwas removed from Haslams Creek in 2000 by floatingbooms and physical cleaning of banks, and there hasbeen no need to revert to the backup supply in the firstthree years of operation.

The Manly STAR project collects 70% of surfacerunoff and, as yet, the storage tank has not beenemptied, although monitoring has not confirmedwhether the tank has overflowed.

At Oaklands Park, backup pumping from Deep Creekhas only been made use of once, to fill the storagedams during the establishment period.

Timely information about performance of the re-usescheme at CSU Thurgoona was not able to beobtained. However, from the information that wasgathered, it appears that all is going well.

8.4 Key Learnings

Experience gained from the Figtree Place developmentrevealed opportunities for improved design in the formof reduced plumbing, elimination of backflow

prevention devices, exclusion of redundant elementsand more efficient construction practices (Coombes etal., 2000). Some of these options are currently beinginvestigated at an existing housing allotment in asuburb of Newcastle, although re-use at this site islimited to roof runoff.

Although the quality of water for re-use at HomebushBay is compliant with guidelines, high nutrient levelsare present in the brickpit storage and there is visiblealgal growth. Options for nutrient removal from thisstorage are currently being investigated.

A key learning resulting from the Inkerman Oasisdevelopment is, since stormwater is of a higher qualitythan greywater, it is intended to keep these two streamsseparate and use stormwater for hot water supply infuture developments.

A second component of the Manly STAR projectinvolved the installation of Rocla Ecoloc® permeablepavers in Smith St North (Figure 8.1). Thiscomponent of the project aimed to treat and infiltraterunoff from the street surface to the underlying soil; itdid not involve direct re-use. This infiltration

Figure 8.1 Interlocking Pavers Installed in Smith St North Create a Permeable Surfaceto Treat and Infiltrate Runoff from the Street Surface


54

component has been deemed more successful than there-use component. The problem with the re-usecomponent is that it concentrates pollutants to onepoint before passing through the treatment system,resulting in decreased treatable flow rates andincreased maintenance requirements (P. Smith, pers.comm.). The infiltration component using permeablepavers in Smith St North is regarded as more efficientbecause it infiltrates water where it lands.

At Oaklands Park the water supply has been more thanadequate for non-potable requirements to date; noresidents have used their full 150 kL annual allocation.It will be interesting to see whether the water supplycontinues to be adequate in the future when allallotments have been developed. Finally, GH Michelland Sons Australia, the primary users of thestormwater collected by the Parafield scheme, are verypleased with the quality of the water (250 mg/Lsalinity (TDS) recycled stormwater is considerablyless than the salinity of water from the Murray River(>400 mg/L)).

55


9. Critique of Current Practices -Knowledge Gaps and ResearchNeeds

Although some progress has been made in the field ofstormwater re-use, there are many knowledge gapsthat need to be filled before it can be efficiently andsafely integrated into the urban water cycle on awidespread scale.

At present, the largest obstacles to implementingstormwater re-use are:

• lack of regulation and design criteria;

• lack of clear design guidelines; and

• lack of a method to adequately assess costs andbenefits of re-use systems against conventionalpractices.

Knowledge gaps and research needs may be arrangedinto four main categories: regulation, design, costs andbenefits, and other. Issues related to performance,construction, operation, maintenance, implementation,etc. are directly related to the existing problems in thefour listed categories. The four main categories arethemselves also highly interrelated. For example,without clear design criteria re-use systems cannotefficiently perform. Further, without knowledge ofperformance, benefits cannot be quantified.

9.1 Regulation

9.1.1 Knowledge Gaps

Stormwater recycling is not effectively regulated atthis stage. There are only a few general guidingprinciples that apply:

• re-use of stormwater must not result in pollution ofthe environment in any way;

• the quality and quantity of the treated stormwatermust be fit for the intended purpose;

• it is unclear whether re-use of general storm runofffor potable purposes is permitted (in some casesroof runoff is, reclaimed wastewater is not);

however it is envisaged that it would not be

acceptable for potable re-use unless approved by

the relevant authorities, most likely on a case-by-

case basis.

There are specific, State government level statutory

obligations under health, environment, agricultural,

and food legislation for re-use of wastewater, and it is

generally recommended that these be referred to as

guides to evaluate and operate stormwater re-use

schemes. However, the characteristics of stormwater

and wastewater are very different, therefore these

guidelines are only adequate to a certain extent.

New National Water Recycling Guidelines are

currently being developed as part of the federal

government’s National Water Initiative and will

address stormwater recycling but not as a first priority

(G. Jackson, pers. comm.).

9.1.2 Research Needs

Given the potential for stormwater re-use in Australia,

higher priority should be given to development of

specific guidelines to facilitate appropriate

implementation and to allow re-use systems to be

designed effectively. If stormwater re-use can be

implemented via a well defined, step-by-step process

which is backed by research (rather than the lengthy,

complicated procedures currently experienced) it

follows that developers will be more inclined to

incorporate stormwater re-use schemes.

9.2 Design


Re-use of stormwater is currently largely restricted to

smaller scale sites. This is not surprising, given that

stormwater re-use is still very much at an experimental

stage and system complexity increases with size,

particularly with respect to collection and distribution

methods. Further, stormwater is primarily used for

purposes with the lowest risk of human contact (e.g.

irrigation) suggesting a lack of confidence in treatment

and storage reliability.


56

While collection and storage are still based onconventional methods, treatment is mainly based oncurrent stormwater treatment techniques. Currentdesign practice for stormwater treatment systems doesnot always guarantee reliable stormwater treatment torequired quality standards, since the design approachfocusses on the protection of aquatic ecosystems,which requires less stringent design standards thanrequired for re-use. There doesn’t seem to be anydifference in design of techniques for re-use comparedwith for pollution control. This may pose a weakness,in that consistently producing treated stormwater of aquality suitable for re-use may not adequatelyaddressed by such designs.

Designing a stormwater storage for safe and efficientre-use is also a challenge (spatial and temporalvariability of runoff is one of the main challenges insound stormwater re-use). The optimal andeconomical type and size of the store is unclear,particularly for open surface stores (e.g. ponds/urbanlakes). It is well known that water quality in such asystem will be affected by its size, detention time, andlevel variations. Safety and aesthetics will also behighly influenced by the design of its banks andmaximum level variations. However, there is littleevidence of how these factors are taken into account atpresent.

When treating stormwater, is it best to direct runoff toone point or treat it where it lands? While directingrunoff to one point for treatment concentratespollutants and therefore increases efficiency, it alsodecreases treatable flow rates and increasesmaintenance requirements.

It can be concluded that one of the main challenges inefficient stormwater use is a paucity of technology, andguidance in their design, for integrated urbanstormwater treatment and re-use. Existing stormwaterre-use practice is far ahead of research, in that there areno technologies designed specifically for stormwaterre-use, rather technologies designed for pollutioncontrol are frequently utilised. Such technologies arenot necessarily applicable to stormwater re-use andmay pose a danger to the future adoption ofstormwater re-use measures.


There is a clear need for the development of innovativetechniques for the collection, treatment and storage ofstormwater. Until this knowledge gap is addressedstormwater re-use will most likely be limited tosmaller scale, less complex systems. Design standardsfor stormwater treatment for the purposes of re-use,based on targeted research, are also needed. Thedesign standards should be published as part of an“Integrated Stormwater Treatment and Re-use DesignManual”.

Performance modelling for design evaluation purposesalso needs further research, to adapt it to therequirements of integrated stormwater treatment andre-use. Reliable models should be developed that arecapable of predicting the treatment efficacy of newtechnologies, or water quality changes in storages.Existing models, such as MUSIC (CRCCH, 2002),Aquacycle (Mitchell, 2000), or PURRS (Mitchell,2000), could be used as a starting point for theirdevelopment. Designing efficient systems would thenbe more readily accessible to the industry.

9.3 Costs and Benefits


The lack of developer front-end incentives is a difficultissue associated with water recycling. A key learningfrom the Inkerman Oasis project is that the high capitalcost for WSUD practices is unable to be recompensedat any time in the project since market demand forWSUD is not compensated by the prices developmentscan sell for. At this stage, there is inadequatedevelopment of methodology to objectively assess thecosts and benefits of re-use systems, and this will holdback both their assessment, and their implementation.

Assessment of benefits which are not easily measured,such as environmental flows, conservation and newhabitat creation, is one of the main challenges.However, the scope of this challenge (and the time itmay take to solve) means that a simple, morepragmatic approach may be required, undertaking theanalysis on readily-obtainable cost and benefit data.


57


It has been accepted that, to correctly assess the worthof a water servicing option, the cost of implementing are-use scheme must be compared to the true costs ofcurrent supply and disposal practices. However, littleprogress has been made in developing such means ofcomparison. The difficulties in defining boundaries ofpotential benefits (externalities) appear to havediscouraged attempts to fully quantify costs andbenefits of stormwater re-use schemes. A novelapproach with well structured methodology should bedeveloped to resolve these issues (that is based onsound science, such as Australian Standard forLifecycle Cost Analysis, Australian Standards, 1999).If the costs and benefits of re-use systems can beshown to be compare favourably with the costs andbenefits of conventional practices, this will provide agood deal of incentive to overcome other obstacles towidespread adoption of stormwater recycling.

9.4 Other


Construction, Operation and Maintenance

The fundamental knowledge gap with respect toconstruction, operation and maintenance is the lack ofclear specification of an operation and maintenanceprogram. There are a number of sites studied thatappear to have been neglected since completion ofconstruction. It appears that a lack of adequatemonitoring and maintenance is particularly a problemfor the smaller-scale sites, where there are inadequateresources and/or expertise to undertake the requiredmaintenance. An operation and maintenance programshould be prepared during the design process andinclude clear identification of the responsible entity,and a realistic assessment of whether that entity iscapable of taking on the operation and maintenanceresponsibly. Without this, it is likely that the integrityof a number of the systems studied is at risk,potentially impacting on public health and amenity.

Implementation Issues

One of the most frequently encountered issues duringthe implementation of the studied re-use schemes was

lengthy and resource intensive negotiation, assessmentand approval processes. This is largely due to a lackof pertinent experience and policies on the part of thewater industry and relevant authorities. Also lacking isa clearly defined process to involve community,developers, and regulators. Informing and involvingall relevant parties is instrumental in ensuring thesuccessful adoption of new ideas.

Partitioning of Re-use Sources

When recycling different water streams, is it best tocombine or separate them? This question has arisen asa result of performance assessment where differentwater streams are re-used and is yet to be answered.Greywater and wastewater are more regular withrespect to both quality and supply, making collection,treatment and re-use more straightforward than forirregular stormwater. Since stormwater is variable interms of quality and supply, it may be more useful as abackup supply to supplement other recycled water intimes of high demand. However, stormwater isgenerally of a higher quality than wastewater andtherefore is likely to have higher public acceptance formore personal re-use e.g. in hot water systems.


Other issues that require further research to resolveinclude:

• Development of well defined guidelines withrespect to construction, operation and maintenanceto ensure adequate information is available toallow successful operation;

• Development of a clear process, supported byregulation, that involves all concerned parties i.e.regulators, developers, design team, communityfrom the initial stages of a project; and

• The previously mentioned development of clearregulations and appropriate design guidelines,based on appropriate research, would also behelpful in overcoming implementation issues.

9.5 Synthesis of Key Learnings

There is a need for a clear framework for developingnew water servicing approaches. Veldkamp et al.,


58

(1997) proposed the following decision network forchoosing the best combination of techniques forintegrated urban water management:

1. Problem definition – key factors includedevelopment type, quality and quantity ofstormwater, and existing facilities;

2. Technologies – consideration of possibilities ofdifferent technologies for treatment and storage ofstormwater;

3. Selection procedure – assessing appropriateness oflikely alternatives;

4. Combination – development of scenarios bycombining potential technologies;

5. Ranking by sustainability – assessment ofscenarios according to their sustainability; and

6. Costs – integrated urban water management is farmore likely to be implemented on a widespreadscale if it is economically feasible (Veldkamp etal., 1997).

Veldkamp et al., (1997) briefly describes each step ofthis decision network, with more detailed discussion ofthe selection procedure and sustainability ranking.

The key learnings from our survey of existingstormwater re-use systems were combined with theabove step-by-step approach, resulting in thefollowing decision support framework:

• Problem definition: this step should address themultiple objectives of integrated watermanagement i.e. human health, environmentalprotection (flow management and pollution loads),water demand, economic feasibility, site amenity,and social acceptance (Mitchell, 2002);

• Selection procedure: the selection of possibletechnologies will be influenced by the drivers forstormwater re-use for a particular system i.e. watertrading (water shortages), disconnection ofimpervious surfaces from urban streams(environmental protection), and runoff controlwith respect to both volume and pollution(drainage infrastructure, environmentalprotection). Other important factors (that at least

partly determine system complexity) are scale(allotment, neighbourhood, catchment) andwhether the system is centralised or de-centralised;

• Combination: including a risk assessment in thedesign process offers a way around the current lackof regulation of stormwater re-use i.e. this maysimplify the approval process;

• Ranking by sustainability: ideally a stormwaterre-use system should mimic natural drainageprocesses. Of particular importance isconsideration of environmental flows foroverstressed urban rivers. A stormwater re-usesystem cannot be considered sustainable unless aportion of the water collected is released towaterways as environmental flows; and

• Costs: can be reduced if the total water cycle ismanaged, particularly if the re-use project is at agreenfields site i.e. infrastructure is not initiallythere.

Interestingly, the use of small-scale solutions(allotment scale) is advocated by Veldkamp et al.,(1997). It is likely that de-centralising a stormwaterre-use system will greatly contribute to improvedpublic understanding of stormwater processes(through increased visibility of the system). De-centralisation will also simplify the re-use system,particularly in terms of collection and distributionprocesses, thus reducing the risk of cross-connectingdifferent pipelines. However, this must be balancedwith economic feasibility and it is suspected that re-use efficiency and thus cost viability improves withscale.

59


10. Conclusions

Stormwater re-use is not effectively regulated at thisstage. Given the potential for stormwater re-use inAustralia, higher priority should be given todevelopment of specific guidelines to facilitateappropriate implementation and to allow re-usesystems to be designed effectively. If stormwater re-use can be implemented via a well defined, step-by-step process (rather than the lengthy, complicatedprocedures currently experienced) it follows thatdevelopers will be more inclined to incorporatestormwater re-use schemes.

Methods employed for the collection and storage ofstormwater intended for re-use are based onconventional methods while treatment methods aremainly based on current stormwater treatmenttechniques (which are primarily designed for pollutioncontrol). There is a paucity of technologies, andguidance in their design, specific to integratedstormwater treatment and re-use. There is a clear needfor the development of innovative technologies (oradaptation of existing technologies) for the collection,treatment and storage of stormwater. Until thisknowledge gap is addressed stormwater re-use willmost likely be limited to smaller scale, less complexsystems. Design standards for stormwater treatmentfor the purposes of re-use are also needed.

Performance modelling for design evaluation purposesalso needs further research, to adapt it to therequirements of integrated stormwater treatment andre-use. Reliable models should be developed that arecapable of predicting the treatment efficacy of newtechnologies, or water quality changes in storages.Existing models, such as MUSIC, Aquacycle, orPURRS, could be used as a starting point for theirdevelopment. Designing efficient systems would thenbe more readily accessible to the industry.

Currently, there is inadequate methodology toobjectively assess the costs and benefits of re-usesystems. It has been accepted that, to correctly assessthe worth of a water servicing option, the cost ofimplementing a re-use scheme must be compared to

the true costs of current supply and disposal practices.However, little progress has been made in developingsuch means of comparison, and getting agreement onthis method. A novel approach with well structuredmethodology, based on sound science, should bedeveloped to resolve these issues. If the costs andbenefits of re-use systems can be shown to comparefavourably with the costs and benefits of conventionalpractices this will provide a good deal of incentive toovercome other obstacles to widespread adoption ofstormwater recycling.

Other key learnings and research needs:

• It appears that a number of studied sites have beenneglected since completion of construction. Thedevelopment of well defined guidelines withrespect to construction, operation and maintenanceto ensure adequate information is available toallow successful operation is required. Withoutthis, it is likely that the integrity of a number of thesystems is at risk, with potential impacts for publichealth and amenity;

• The involvement of all concerned parties i.e.regulators, developers, the design team and thecommunity, is a key factor in determining thesuccess (or failure) of a re-use project. A clearprocess, supported by regulation, that facilitatesthis involvement from the initial stages of a projectshould be developed; and

• The previously suggested development of clearregulations and appropriate design guidelineswould also be helpful in overcoming many of theimplementation issues encountered by theproponents of the studied re-use schemes.

Notwithstanding the limitations described above, thereis a great potential for the integration of stormwatertreatment and re-use in Australia. The combination ofclimate and relative availability of space, means thatre-use of stormwater could provide significant benefitsin both protection of receiving waters from pollution,and reduction in potable water demand. Ongoingcommitment by the water management industry to thisarea is warranted.


60

61


References

(1997). "Gorillas and Recycled Water." WaterJuly/August 1997: 27-28.

(2000). A pollution solution that has it all.Hawkesbury Graduate.

AC (2003). Atlantis Corporation.www.atlantiscorp.com.au

AGP Consulting (1994). Report on Water Supply andDrainage for Oaklands Park Village Farm.

Amaro, J. (2001). SMURFF leads the way to a cleanerbay. Splash. Stormwater Program, City of LosAngeles. 2.

Anderson, J. (1996). "Potential for water recycling inAustralia - expanding our horizons." Desalination106(1-3): 151-156.

Anderson, J. M. (1996). "Current water recyclinginitiatives in Australia: scenarios for the 21st century."Water Science and Technology 33(10-11): 37-43.

Antich, A., H. R. Gobas and J. Salgaonka (2002). "TheSanta Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility andthe Sustainable Environment." Stormwater.

Argue, J. R. (1998). Demonstration project in "sourcecontrol" technology: Theory and practice. HydraStorm'98, Adelaide, September 1998.

ARMCANZ, ANZECC and NHMRC (2000).Guidelines for sewerage systems. Use of reclaimedwater. National Water Quality Management Strategy,Agriculture and Resource Management Council ofAustralia and New Zealand, Australian and NewZealand Environment and Conservation Council,National Health and Medical Research Council.

ATS (2003). Australian Technology Showcase.ats.business.gov.au/aws/NSW_010/

Australian Standards (1999). AS/NZS 4536:1999 Life-cycle Costing - An Application Guide, StandardsAustralia, Homebush, NSW.

BCC (2003). (in draft) Bridgewater Creek Water

Quality Improvement Project, Final Report, prepared

by City Design, for Brisbane City Council.

BCC (2003). (in draft), SQIDS Monitoring Program

Stage 6, prepared by Water and Environment, City

Design, for Brisbane City Council.

Booth, C. A., R. Attwater, C. Derry and B. Simmons

(2003). "The Hawkesbury Water Reuse Scheme."

Water August 2003: 42-44.

Booth, S. and P. Adcock Richmond Water Re-use

Project, Accompanying Notes for Re-configured

Concept Design.

Burkhard, R., A. Deletic and C. Anthony (2000).

"Techniques for water and wastewater management: a

review of techniques and their integration in

planning." Urban Water 2: 197-221.

Charles Sturt University (2003). www.csu.edu.au

Clean Up Australia (2000). Richmond Water Reuse

Project - Project Summary.

Coombes, P., G. Kuczera, J. D. Kalma and J. R. Argue

(2002). "An evaluation of the benefits of source control

measures at the regional scale." Urban Water 4: 307-

320.

Coombes, P. J. (2002). On-site Water Balance

Modelling using PURRS (Probablistic Urban

Rainwater and wastewater Reuse Simulator), School

of Civil Engineering. Queensland University of

Technology.

Coombes, P. J. (2002). Rainwater Tanks Revisited:

new opportunities for urban water cycle management.

Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental

Engineering. Newcastle, University of Newcastle.

Coombes, P. J., J. R. Argue and G. Kuczera (2000).

"Figtree Place: A Case Study in Water Sensitive Urban

Development." Urban Water Journal 4(1): 335-343.


62

Coombes, P. J., G. Kuczera, J. J. Argue and J. R. Argue

(1998). Water Sensitive Urban Redevelopment: The

"Figtree Place" Experiment. HydraStorm '98,

Adelaide, September 1998.

Coombes, P. J., G. Kuczera, J. R. Argue, F. Cosgrove,

D. Arthur, H. A. Bridgeman and K. Enright (1999).

Design, monitoring and performance of the water

sensitive urban redevelopment at Figtree Place in

Newcastle. Eighth International Conference on Urban

Stormwater Drainage, Sydney, The Institution of

Engineers, Australia.

CPP (2003). City of Port Phillip.

www.portphillip.vic.gov.au

CPP (2003). 'Inkerman Oasis' Development at the

former Municipal Depot Site, St Kilda, a joint venture

residential development between the City of Port

Phillip and Inkerman Developments Pty Ltd -

Sustainable Design Features.

CRCCH (2002). MUSIC - Model for Urban

Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation - User

Manual 1.

CS Stormwater Recycling through Wetlands in the

City of Salisbury, South Australia.

CS (2003). City of Salisbury, South Australia.

www.salisbury.sa.gov.au

CSIRO (2003). http://www.clw.csiro.au/priorities/

urban/reclamation/faq.html

Dallmer, L. (2002). "SQIRTS - an on-site stormwater

treatment and reuse approach to sustainable water

management in Sydney." Water Science and

Technology 46(6-7): 151-158.

Dallmer Roach, L. (2001). S.Q.I.R.T.S: An On-site

Stormwater Treatment and Reuse Approach to

Sustainable Water Management in Sydney. IWA 2001

World Water Congress, Berlin.

DEH (2003). Australian Government Department of

the Environment and Heritage. www.ea.gov.au

Deletic, A. (2001). "Modelling of water and sediment

transport over grassed areas." Journal of Hydrology

248: 168-182.

Dillon, P., P. Pavelic, X. Sibenaler, N. Z. Gerges and R.

Clark (1999). "Development of new water resources by

aquifer storage and recovery using stormwater

runoff." Intl. Water and Irrigation 19(2): 22-28.

Farley, T. F. N. (2000). Contaminant Balance

Component of the Urban Water Volume and Quality

(UVQ) Model - Technical Description, CSIRO Land

and Water.

Fletcher, T. D., H. P. Duncan, P. Poelsma and S. D.

Lloyd (2003). "Stormwater flow and quality and the

effectiveness of non-proprietary stormwater treatment

measures: review and gap analysis."

Foster, J. (2000). Ecologically sustainable design:

Development achievements and opportunities -

Oaklands Park, Tract Consultants Pty Ltd.

HBCC Altona Green Park, Altona Meadows. prepared

by Hobsons Bay City Council.

Innovation Online (1999). Recycling Frogs and Water

- Part of Today's Olympics, CSIRO. 8.

Innovation Online (2000). Engineers Turn Sewerage

Into Art, CSIRO. 13.

KMC Kogarah Town Square - A Sustainable

Development, perpared by Ransce Salan, ESD

Strategist, for Kogarah Municipal Council.

KMC (2003). Kogarah Municipal Council.

www.kogarah.nsw.gov.au

Local Government Focus (2000). St Kilda

Breakthrough in Water Sensitive Urban Design.

October 2000.

Local Government Focus (2000). Stormwater reuse for

Manly's Norfolk Pines. October 2000.

Local Government Focus (2001). Landmark Project

for Water Sensitive Urban Design. January 2001.


63

Local Government Focus (2002). Manly Council's

innovative treatment and reuse of stormwater. June

2002.

McRae, B. (2002). "Managing Manly Beach from

Source to Sea." Water March 2002: 99-101.

Melbourne Water (2003). Water Sensitive Urban

Design. www.wsud.melbournewater.com.au

Melbourne Water (in prep). Water Sensitive Urban

Design Engineering Procedures: Stormwater.

Mitchell, D. S., I. Croft, T. Harrison and M. Webster-

Mannison (2001). Water management on the

Thurgoona campus of Charles Sturt University. On-

site '01 Conference: Advancing On-site Wastewater

Systems, University of New England, Lanfax

Laboratories, Armidale.

Mitchell, V. G. (2000). Aquacycle User Manual, CRC

for Catchment Hydrology, Monash University.

Mitchell, V. G. (2002). Developing and assessing new

approaches to urban water service provision. Second

National Conference on Water Sensitive Urban

Design, Brisbane, 2-4 September 2002.

Mitchell, V. G., R. G. Mein and T. A. McMahon

(1999). The Reuse Potential of Urban Stormwater and

Wastewater. Melbourne, Cooperative Research Centre

for Catchment Hydrology.

Mitchell, V. G., R. G. Mein and T. A. McMahon

(2002). "Utilising Stormwater and Wastewater

Resources in Urban Areas." Australian Journal of

Water Resources 6(1): 31-43.

Mitchell, V. G., R. J. Shipton and S. G. Gray (2002).

Heathwood/Brazil Development Study: Stage 3

Summary Report, CSIRO Urban Water.

Mouritz, M. (2000). Water Sensitive Urban Design -

Where to now? Water Sensitive Urban Design

Workshop, 30-31 August 2000, Melbourne.

NEHF (1998). National Guidelines for the Use of

Rainwater Tanks. National Environmental Health

Forum Monograph, prepared by David A. Cunlifee for

the National Environmental Health Forum.

Newton, P. W., S. Baum, K. Bhatia, S. K. Brown, A. S.

Cameron, B. D. Foran, T. Grant, S. L. Mak, P. C.

Memmott, V. G. Mitchell, K. L. Neate, A. Pears, N.

Smith, R. J. Stimson, S. N. Tucker and D. Yencken

(2001). Human Settlements Theme Report, Australian

State of the Environment Report 2001, CSIRO

Publishing on behalf of the Department of

Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

NSW EPA (2003). Environment Protection Authority

of New South Wales. www.epa.nsw.gov.au

NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee

(1993). NSW Guidelines for Urban and Residential

Use of Reclaimed Water.

OCA (1998). Environment Report 1998 Summary,

produced for the Olympic Co-ordination Authority.

OCA (1999). Environment Report Summary 1999,

produced by Designate for the Olympic Co-ordination

Authority.

OCA (2000). Environment Report 2000, produced by

the Olympic Co-ordination Authority.

PCWMB, TCWMB and Planning SA (2002).

Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management,

prepared by Patawalonga Catchment Water

Management Board, Torrens Catchment Water

Management Board and Planning SA.

Pitman, C. (2003). Stormwater Harvesting and

Utilisation. Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National

Conference, Brisbane.

Radcliffe, J. (2003). An Overview of Water Recycling

in Australia - Results of the recent ATSE Study. Water

Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference,

Brisbane.


64

Robinson, V. (1999). An Alternative TreatmentTechnique for Stormwater Runoff. StormwaterIndustry Association 1999 Conference, HomebushBay, Sydney.

Rocla (2003). Rocla Pipeline Products.www.pipe.rocla.com.au

Roman, C. (2003). The Role of Sand Filters inStormwater Harvesting and Reuse Schemes. WaterRecycling Australia, 2nd National Conference,Brisbane.

Savewater (2003). www.savewater.com.au

Scarsbrick, J. (2002). Stormwater ManagementMeasures to Existing Development to PreventPollution and Attenuate Runoff. IPWEA NSWDivision Annual Conference 2002.

SIA (2003). Stormwater Industry Association.www.stormwater.asn.au

SOPA (2002). 2001/2002 State of EnvironmentReport, Sydney Olympic Park, prepared by the SydneyOlympic Park Authority.

SOPA (2003). Sydney Olympic Park Authority.www.sopa.nsw.gov.au

Spivak, G. and G. Kerans (2001). A Local Governmentand Private Developer Experience - the 'InkermanOasis' Development, St Kilda. The Future of WaterRecycling Seminar.

SSCC (2002). S.Q.I.R.T.S at Solander Park, IPWEAExcellence Awards 2002. prepared by South SydneyCity Council.

Stewart, J., M. White, B. Simmons, S. Riley and S.Shrestha (2003). Modelling Stormwater Quantity andQuality for Stormwater Use. ICaM 2003 - NationalConference on Integrated Catchment Management,Parramatta, NSW.

Taylor, A. C. and T. D. Fletcher (2004). Estimatinglife-cycle costs of structural measures that improveurban stormwater quality. International WSUDConference ("Cities as Catchments"), Adelaide, 21-25November 2004.

Thomas, J. F., J. Gomboso, J. E. Oliver and V. A.

Ritchie (1997). Wastewater re-use stormwater

management and the national water reform agenda,

CSIRO Land and Water.

TZ (2003). Taronga Zoo. www.zoo.nsw.gov.au

United KG (2003). www.unitedkg.com.au

UWRC (2003). Urban Water Resources Centre,

University of South Australia. www.unisa.edu.au/

uwrc/uwrc.htm

Veldkamp, R. G., T. Hermann, V. Colandini, L. Terwel

and G. D. Geldof (1997). "A decision network for

urban water management." Water Science and

Technology 36(8-9): 111-115.

Vic EPA (2002). Guidelines for Environmental

Management: Use of Reclaimed Water.

WBM Oceanics Australia (1999). Stormwater

Recycling Background Study.

Winkfield Pty. Ltd. (2002). Oaklands Park, Non-

potable Water Reticulation, Valve Operation

Masterplan.

Winkfield Pty. Ltd. (2003). Oaklands Park, Optimising

Water Storage Operations.

Wong, T. H., P. F. Breen, N. L. G. Somes and S. D.

Lloyd (1998). Managing Urban Stormwater Using

Constructed Wetlands, Cooperative Research Centre

for Catchment Hydrology and Cooperative Research

Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Monash University,

Victoria.

Wong, T. H. F., Ed. (2003). Draft Australian Runoff

Quality Guidelines. Australian Runoff Quality

Symposium. Albury, Institution of Engineers,

Australia.

Workman, G., R. Herbert and G. Tink (2003).

Overview of plumbing legislation reform needed for

urban water recycling. Water Recycling Australia 2nd

National Conference, Brisbane.


65

APPENDICES


66

Appendix A

67


A.1

S

um

ma

ry

of

sto

rm

wa

ter r

e-u

se s

ch

em

es

stu

die

d

Sit

e S

tate

C

on

tact

S

ize

(h

a)

Oth

er

wate

r?

Trea

tmen

t m

eth

od

R

e-u

se t

yp

e A

RI

Ev

en

t

Cap

aci

ty

Mo

nit

ore

d?

Hom

ebu

sh B

ay

NS

W

An

drz

ej L

isto

wsk

i S

yd

ney

Oly

mp

ic P

ark

Auth

ori

ty

760

y

GP

Ts

swal

es &

buff

ers

wet

lan

ds

infi

ltra

tion s

yst

em

advan

ced

d

isin

fect

ion

irri

gat

ion

fire

figh

tin

g

envir

on

men

tal

flo

ws

toil

et f

lush

ing

oth

er o

utd

oo

r u

se

1:1

00

yr

y

Fig

tree

Pla

ce

NS

W

Pet

er C

oom

bes

U

niv

ersi

ty o

f N

ewca

stle

1

.1

n

infi

ltra

tio

n s

yst

em

irri

gat

ion

o

ther

outd

oo

r u

se

oth

er u

se

1:5

0 y

r y

Ta

ron

ga

Zo

o

NS

W

Dary

l E

dw

ard

s

Tar

onga

Zoo

0.8

3

y

litt

er &

sed

imen

t tr

aps

advan

ced

tre

atm

ent

dis

infe

ctio

n

irri

gat

ion

toil

et f

lush

ing

oth

er o

utd

oo

r

y

Ha

wk

esb

ury

Wate

r

Re-

use

Sch

eme

NS

W

San

dy B

ooth

U

niv

ersi

ty o

f W

este

rn

Sydney

10

0

y

wet

lan

ds

po

nd

s &

bas

ins

irri

gat

ion

envir

on

men

tal

flo

ws

oth

er u

se

y

Po

wel

ls C

reek

East

N

SW

J

ak

e M

atu

zic

Cit

y o

f C

anad

a B

ay

0.6

6

n

infi

ltra

tio

n s

yst

em

irri

gat

ion

en

vir

on

men

tal

flo

ws

oth

er u

se

y

Kogora

h T

ow

n S

qu

are

N

SW

P

eter

Sm

ith

K

ogar

ah C

oun

cil

1.0

n

in

filt

rati

on s

yst

em

irri

gat

ion

to

ilet

flu

shin

g

oth

er o

utd

oo

r u

se

1:

3 m

th

n

Man

ly C

ou

nci

l

NS

W

Jo

an

ne

Sca

rsb

rick

Pau

l S

mit

h

Man

ly C

ou

nci

l

3

n

litt

er &

sed

imen

t tr

aps

infi

ltra

tio

n s

yst

ems

irri

gat

ion

y

Ch

arl

es S

turt

Un

iver

sity

, T

hu

rgoo

na

NS

W

David

Mit

chell

C

har

les

Stu

rt U

niv

ersi

ty

87

y

swal

es &

buff

ers

wet

lan

ds

irri

gat

ion

y

A.1

Sum

mar

y of

Sto

rmw

ater

Re-

use

Sche

mes

Stu

died


68

Sit

e S

tate

C

on

tact

S

ize

(h

a)

Oth

er

wate

r?

Trea

tmen

t m

eth

od

R

e-u

se t

yp

e A

RI

Ev

en

t

Cap

aci

ty

Mo

nit

ore

d?

So

lan

der

Park

N

SW

L

ean

ne

Dall

mer

-Roach

S

torm

Co

nsu

ltin

g

Pet

er D

on

ley

So

uth

Syd

ney

Cit

y

Co

un

cil

65

n

li

tter

& s

edim

ent

trap

s in

filt

rati

on s

yst

ems

advan

ced

tre

atm

ent

irri

gat

ion

1

:20

yr

y

Bob

bin

Hea

d R

oad

N

SW

C

hri

stin

a R

om

an

B

oyd

en a

nd

Par

tner

s P

ty

Ltd

2

y

litt

er &

sed

imen

t tr

aps

infi

ltra

tio

n s

yst

ems

wet

lan

ds

irri

gat

ion

fire

fig

hti

ng

n

Bo

wie

s F

lat

Wet

lan

d

Qld

A

nn

e S

imi

Cit

y D

esig

n

37

7

n

po

nd

s &

bas

ins

irri

gat

ion

1

:2 y

r y

Para

fiel

d/M

ich

ell

Pro

ject

SA

C

oli

n P

itm

an

C

ity o

f S

alis

bu

ry

16

00

n

w

etla

nd

s ir

rigat

ion

o

ther

use

1

:10

yr

y

Parf

itt

Sq

uare

S

A

David

Pez

zan

iti

Univ

ersi

ty o

f S

ou

th

Au

stra

lia

1.3

n

li

tter

& s

edim

ent

trap

s sw

ales

& b

uff

ers

wet

lan

ds

infi

ltra

tio

n s

yst

ems

irri

gat

ion

1

:10

0

y

Alt

on

a G

reen

Pa

rk

VIC

Ia

n B

row

n

Ho

bso

ns

Bay

Cit

y

Co

un

cil

4

n

bio

filt

er

irri

gat

ion

y

Ink

erm

an

Oasi

s V

IC

Ga

ry S

piv

ak

C

ity o

f P

ort

Phil

lip

1.2

23

y

litt

er &

sed

imen

t tr

aps

wet

lan

ds

infi

ltra

tio

n s

yst

ems

advan

ced

tre

atm

ent

dis

infe

ctio

n

irri

gat

ion

toil

et f

lush

ing

firs

t fl

ush

y

Oa

kla

nd

s P

ark

V

IC

Bil

l M

ole

H

NJ

Ho

ldin

gs

Pty

Ltd

Nei

l K

erb

y

Win

kfi

eld

Pty

Ltd

17

4

n

swal

es &

buff

ers

irri

gat

ion

fi

refi

gh

tin

g

toil

et f

lush

ing

oth

er o

utd

oo

r u

se

1:1

00

y

San

ta

Mon

ica

Urb

an

Ru

noff

cRecycli

ng

Faci

lity

US

A

1

74

n

li

tter

& s

edim

ents

tra

ps

advan

ced

tre

atm

ent

dis

infe

ctio

n

irri

gat

ion

toil

et f

lush

ing

dry

wea

ther

y

A.1

Sum

mar

y of

Sto

rmw

ater

Re-

use

Sche

mes

Stu

died

...C

ontin

ued


A.2

E

xa

mp

le o

f d

eta

iled

ta

ble

Sit

e In

form

ati

on

Sit

e N

am

e F

igtr

ee P

lace

Co

nta

ct N

am

e P

eter

Co

om

bes

Lo

cati

on

H

amil

ton, N

ewca

stle

, N

SW

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s N

ewca

stle

Cit

y C

ou

nci

l

Bu

ild

ing B

ette

r C

itie

s P

rogra

m (

fed

eral

go

ver

nm

ent)

NS

W D

epar

tmen

t o

f H

ou

sin

g

Ref

eren

ces

(C

oo

mb

es e

t al

., 1

99

8)

(Co

om

bes

et

al.,

19

99

)

(Co

om

bes

et

al.,

20

00

)

(Co

om

bes

, 2

00

2)

(UW

RC

, 2003)

(Mel

bou

rne

Wat

er, 2

00

3)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e 2

7 s

mal

l- a

nd

med

ium

-siz

e in

ner

cit

y h

ousi

ng v

entu

re

Siz

e 1.1

ha

(Ham

ilto

n B

us

Sta

tion s

ite

area

= 3

.0 h

a)

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

A

pri

l 1

99

5 (

conce

pt

inves

tigat

ion

an

d d

esig

n)

Red

evel

op

men

t o

pen

ed o

n 2

1 J

une

19

98

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

S

tree

tsca

pe

and

all

otm

ent

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

1141.9

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

133.0

1 y

r in

ten

sity

Mea

n d

ail

y ev

ap

ora

tio

n (

mm

)

Geolo

gy

San

d t

o d

epth

of

10

m,

sub

stra

te o

f cl

ay,

bed

rock

at

25

m

Aq

uif

er

Wa

tert

able

2

-2.5

m,

var

ies

seas

on

ally

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t ~

4 m

/yr

Oth

er

Pri

or

to r

emed

iati

on

, gro

und

wat

er a

t 3

-4 m

dep

th s

ho

wed

dar

k d

isco

lou

rati

on

du

e to

pre

sence

of

iro

n a

nd

man

gan

ese

salt

s

69

A.2

Exa

mpl

e of

Det

aile

d Ta

ble


Sit

e H

isto

ry

Pre

vio

usl

y u

sed

as

a tr

ansp

ort

atio

n c

entr

e si

nce

the

earl

y 1

90

0s,

init

ial

use

by t

ram

s, m

ore

rec

entl

y b

use

s; r

esu

lted

in m

ajor

con

tam

inat

ion

ho

t sp

ots

of

PA

H,

TP

H,

hea

vy m

etal

s, p

esti

cides

, o

il a

nd

gre

ase

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

To

ret

ain

sto

rmw

ater

on

-sit

e an

d r

educe

po

tab

le w

ater

co

nsu

mpti

on

To d

emon

stra

te t

hat

norm

al u

rban

liv

ing c

ou

ld b

e purs

ued

wit

h s

ignif

ican

tly l

ess

pota

ble

wat

er c

on

sum

pti

on

than

use

d i

n

con

ven

tio

nal

dev

elo

pm

ents

Pla

nn

ing i

nd

icat

ed t

hat

suff

icie

nt

wat

er c

ou

ld b

e h

arves

ted

on

sit

e to

mee

t 5

0%

in

-ho

use

nee

ds,

100

% d

om

esti

c ir

rigat

ion

n

eeds,

10

0%

bu

s-w

ash

ing d

eman

d

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Ass

esse

d a

gai

nst

Aust

rali

an D

rinkin

g W

ater

Gu

idel

ines

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

R

un

off

fro

m p

aved

are

as, la

wn

s an

d g

arden

s p

asse

s to

cen

tral

Det

enti

on

Bas

in R

echar

ge

Are

a

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Inte

rnal

ker

bed

ro

adw

ays

Des

ign

flo

od

cap

acit

y i

s 8

3%

of

run

off

fo

r al

l ev

ents

up

to

and

in

c 1

in

50

yea

r ev

ent

Hig

h i

nfi

ltra

tion r

ates

of

sandy s

oil

explo

ited

to m

inim

ise

over

flo

ws

fro

m t

he

bas

in

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

In

filt

rate

d t

hro

ugh

bas

e of

dry

det

enti

on b

asin

; 2

50

sq.m

gra

ssed

dep

ress

ion

, o

ver

lays

750

mm

lay

er o

f gra

vel

en

close

d i

n

geo

fab

ric

bel

ow

30

0m

m t

opso

il l

ayer

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

U

nco

nfi

ned

aqu

ifer

(A

SR

)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Flo

wn

et m

od

el o

f aq

uif

er s

yst

em u

sed

to

ex

plo

re p

oss

ible

gro

un

dw

ater

im

pac

ts

70

A.2

Exa

mpl

e of

Det

aile

d Ta

ble

...c

ontin

ued


71

Sto

rage

con

t…

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

No s

torm

wat

er o

ver

flo

w f

rom

sit

e u

p t

o 2

000

an

d a

max

imum

dep

th o

f p

on

din

g i

n t

he

det

enti

on

bas

in o

f 2

60

mm

wit

h a

re

sid

ence

tim

e of

6 h

ou

rs h

as b

een

ex

per

ien

ced

Re-

use

W

hat

Gar

den

an

d o

pen

spac

e ir

rigat

ion

, b

us

was

hin

g a

t ad

jace

nt

dep

ot

Ho

w

Su

bm

erged

p

um

p

wit

hin

re

char

ge

bas

in at

d

epth

o

f 1

0 m

, p

um

ped

as

re

qu

ired

, d

ual

re

ticu

lati

on

, o

pti

onal

ly tr

eate

d

(act

ivat

ed c

arb

on)

for

colo

ur

rem

oval

Capaci

ty (

ML

) m

ax 2

00

0 k

L/y

r su

pp

lied

to b

us

dep

ot

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Pre

lim

inar

y s

tudie

s of

wat

er a

vai

labil

ity f

rom

roof

and g

ener

al r

un

off

in

dic

ated

am

ple

su

pply

fo

r d

om

esti

c u

ses

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) R

ain

tan

k c

apac

itie

s ra

nge

fro

m 9

to

15

kL

(if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

sep

ara

tely

) (

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

S

torm

wat

er p

ipes

Tre

atm

ent

Fir

st-f

lush

pit

s se

par

ate

firs

t 2

mm

of

rain

fall

; re

info

rced

co

ncr

ete

box

pla

ced

over

fib

re r

einfo

rced

co

ncr

ete

pip

e, b

ox

co

nta

ins

a sc

reen

to f

ilte

r deb

ris

and

a b

affl

e to

sep

arat

e fi

rst

flu

sh f

rom

in

flo

w t

o r

ainta

nk,

wat

er r

etai

ned

upst

ream

of

baf

fle

infi

ltra

tes

thro

ugh

ho

les

in b

ase

of

bo

x t

o p

ipe

and

so

il

Sto

rag

e F

ive

cen

tral

ised

un

der

gro

und

tan

ks;

rei

nfo

rce

con

cret

e ra

inta

nks,

co

nta

in i

nle

t fr

om

fir

st f

lush

pit

, cl

ean

out

cham

ber

for

slu

dge

rem

oval

, lo

w w

ater

lev

el m

on

itor,

ou

tlet

fo

r d

om

esti

c su

pp

ly a

nd

over

flo

w p

ipe

to a

rec

har

ge

tren

ch

Re-

use

P

um

ps

wit

h p

ress

ure

cel

ls s

up

ply

rai

nw

ater

fro

m t

anks

to h

ot

wat

er s

yst

ems

and

for

toil

et f

lush

ing,

fail

-saf

e sy

stem

s in

clu

de

seco

nd

pu

mp

in

cas

e of

fail

ure

an

d s

ole

no

id t

o s

wit

ches

to m

ain

s su

pp

ly i

f in

adeq

uat

e w

ater

pre

ssu

re,

elec

tric

ity

fa

ilure

or

low

wat

er l

evel

is

det

ecte

d;

du

al r

etic

ula

tio

n,

bac

kfl

ow

pre

ven

tio

n d

evic

es u

sed

to

iso

late

fro

m m

ain

s su

pp

ly

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

A.2

Exa

mpl

e of

Det

aile

d Ta

ble

...c

ontin

ued


72

Gre

yw

ate

r co

nt…

C

oll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er

Wa

ter

for

Re-

use

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Pro

vis

ion

mad

e fo

r co

nver

sio

n t

o c

on

ven

tio

nal

pra

ctic

es (

i.e.

can

rev

ert

to m

ain

s su

pp

ly)

sho

uld

wat

er q

ual

ity f

all

bel

ow

ac

cep

ted

lev

els

or

dro

ugh

t o

ccu

r

Det

enti

on

bas

in p

rovid

es a

n o

pen

spac

e re

crea

tio

n a

rea

duri

ng d

ry s

pel

ls

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Irri

gat

ion o

ccurs

duri

ng n

ight

hours

to m

inim

ise

risk

of

inges

tion

Su

rvey

of

resi

den

ts f

ou

nd

th

at 4

8%

of

resp

ond

ents

use

d w

ater

fro

m t

he

ho

t ta

p f

or

coo

kin

g;

rain

wat

er i

n h

ot

wat

er s

yst

ems

mu

st b

e th

eref

ore

com

pli

ant

wit

h d

rin

kin

g w

ater

sta

nd

ard

s

Bac

kfl

ow

pre

ven

tio

n d

evic

es i

sola

te r

ecycl

ed w

ater

sup

ply

fro

m p

ota

ble

su

pp

ly

La

nd

sca

pe

Req

uir

emen

ts

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

W

ater

sav

ing a

pp

lian

ces

are

use

d

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Pote

nti

al f

or

un

det

ecte

d c

onta

min

ants

bei

ng r

elea

sed

in

to t

he

gro

un

dw

ater

an

d p

oll

uti

ng t

he

resi

den

ts' i

rrig

atio

n s

up

ply

an

d

mo

vin

g t

o l

oca

tio

ns

do

wn

stre

am w

her

e o

ff-s

ite

use

rs o

f th

e re

sourc

e m

ay a

lso

be

affe

cted

. S

olu

tio

n:

If g

rou

nd

wat

er q

ual

ity

fall

s b

elo

w a

ccep

tab

le l

evel

s, r

ainta

nk o

ver

flo

w a

nd

ru

no

ff a

rriv

ing a

t ce

ntr

al r

ech

arge

area

are

div

erte

d t

o t

he

Bu

s S

tati

on

d

rain

age

syst

em

Poss

ibil

ity t

hat

wat

er r

eten

tion p

ract

ices

mig

ht

pro

duce

a g

roundw

ater

mound a

dver

sely

aff

ecti

ng t

he

footi

ngs

of

hom

es, as

w

ell

as cr

eati

ng u

nac

cepta

bly

w

et co

nd

itio

ns

in lo

cal

bac

kyar

ds

and

gar

den

s.

C

on

ver

sely

, d

isp

erse

d

rech

arge

wit

h

extr

acti

on f

rom

a c

entr

al w

ell

may

lea

d t

o s

ignif

ican

t dra

wdow

n o

f gro

undw

ater

nea

r ex

trac

tion p

oin

t.

Solu

tion:

model

lin

g

inves

tigat

ion

sh

ow

ed t

hat

ex

isti

ng g

rou

nd

wat

er l

evel

s w

ou

ld b

e p

rese

rved

exce

pt

at r

echar

ge

regio

n w

her

e d

raw

do

wn

may

b

e ex

per

ience

d d

uri

ng s

um

mer

P

ote

nti

on

al f

or

dro

ugh

t co

nd

itio

ns

cau

sin

g s

erio

us

dis

rupti

on

to i

n-h

ouse

su

pp

lies

. S

olu

tio

n:

bac

ku

p c

on

nec

tion t

o p

ota

ble

w

ater

suu

ply

P

oss

ibil

ity o

f ex

trem

e ra

infa

ll c

ausi

ng s

ever

e fl

oodin

g o

f re

siden

tial

unit

s on t

he

site

. S

olu

tion:

floods

of

gre

ater

mag

nit

ude

than

1:5

0 y

r ev

ent

flo

w o

ver

lan

d t

o n

ort

her

n b

ou

nd

ary o

f dev

elo

pm

ent

and

co

nven

tio

nal

dra

inag

e sy

stem

A.2

Exa

mpl

e of

Det

aile

d Ta

ble

...c

ontin

ued


73

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

con

t…

Ind

oor

wat

er c

onsu

mpti

on

an

d p

rop

ort

ion

that

is

use

d f

or

ho

t w

ater

an

d t

oil

et f

lush

ing u

nkn

ow

n f

or

the

regio

n;

pre

sente

d

dif

ficu

ltie

s in

det

erm

inin

g t

he

vo

lum

es o

f ta

nks

and

cap

acit

y o

f p

um

ps

to d

eliv

er r

ain

wat

er t

o t

he

dw

elli

ngs

Pote

nti

al f

or

hea

lth

pro

ble

ms

resu

ltin

g f

rom

in

ges

tio

n o

f un

san

itar

y w

ater

co

llec

ted

fro

m r

oo

fs a

nd

use

d i

n h

ot

wat

er

syst

ems.

S

olu

tio

n:

roof

wat

er s

amplin

g pro

ject

concl

uded

that

roof

runoff

was

vir

tual

ly e

quiv

alen

t to

rai

nw

ater

qual

ity a

par

t fr

om

hig

h T

SS

an

d a

sh c

on

tent;

fai

l-sa

fe p

rovis

ion

s in

clu

de:

if

hea

lth

sta

ndar

ds

not

met

, h

ot

wat

er s

yst

em c

on

ver

ts t

o m

ains

sup

ply

, si

gn

age

at h

ot

wat

er t

aps,

ten

ant

educa

tio

n

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Sig

nif

ican

t d

elay

s d

uri

ng d

evel

op

men

t st

age

cau

sed

by a

pp

roval

agen

cies

- c

on

cern

s th

at p

roje

ct n

ot

econ

om

ical

ly v

iab

le,

du

al r

etic

ula

tio

n w

as n

ot

com

pli

ant

wit

h A

ust

rali

an S

tan

dar

ds

and t

hat

co

nta

min

atio

n o

f m

ain

s su

pp

ly c

ou

ld o

ccu

r; n

o

inst

ituti

on

al f

ram

ewo

rk f

or

acce

pta

nce

of

WS

UD

des

ign p

rin

cip

les,

lo

ng-t

erm

mai

nte

nan

ce r

equ

irem

ents

an

d c

ost

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Del

iver

y m

eth

od

pla

ys

cruci

al r

ole

in

succ

ess

or

fail

ure

of

inn

ovat

ive

pro

ject

s

Imp

erat

ive

that

sta

nd

ard

of

des

ign

do

cum

enta

tio

n f

or

no

vel

tec

hn

iques

be

abo

ve

aver

age

Ear

ly i

nvo

lvem

ent

of

con

stru

ctin

g c

ontr

acto

r w

ho

is

sym

pat

het

ic t

o p

roje

ct i

nn

ovat

ions

Ear

ly i

nvolv

emen

t o

f ap

pro

val

agen

cies

Surv

ey o

f te

nan

ts r

evea

led

sig

nif

ican

t ac

cep

tance

of

in-h

ou

se u

se o

f ra

inw

ater

co

llec

ted f

rom

ro

ofs

Fai

l-sa

fe p

rovis

ion

s an

d o

n-g

oin

g m

on

itori

ng p

rogra

m v

ital

ele

men

t o

f th

e p

roje

ct a

nd r

efle

cts

its

exper

imen

tal

nat

ure

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Wat

er l

evel

s in

rai

nta

nks

use

d t

o s

up

ply

toil

et f

lush

ing a

nd

ho

t w

ater

use

s co

nst

antl

y d

raw

n d

ow

n;

ensu

res

tan

ks

regu

larl

y

hav

e st

ora

ge

cap

acit

y a

vai

lab

le t

o a

ccep

t ro

of

run

off

Who

New

mac

q C

om

mu

nit

y H

ou

sin

g C

om

pan

y m

anag

es s

ite,

New

cast

le C

ity C

ou

nci

l an

d t

he

NS

W S

torm

wat

er T

rust

fu

nd

s p

rogra

m t

o m

on

itor

per

form

ance

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wate

r quali

ty

Rai

nw

ater

tan

ks,

ho

t w

ater

syst

ems

and p

ota

ble

su

pp

ly m

anu

ally

mo

nit

ore

d m

on

thly

fo

r fa

ecal

co

lifo

rms,

tota

l co

lifo

rms,

het

erot

rophic

pla

te c

ounts

, pse

udom

ona

s sp

ecie

s, D

O, t

empe

ratu

re, p

H, B

OD

, EC

, colo

ur,

TP

, NO

x, c

hlo

rides

, sal

init

y, tota

l solids,

gia

rdia

, cr

yp

tosp

ori

diu

m

Rai

nw

ater

tan

k q

ual

ity a

uto

mat

ical

ly m

on

itore

d e

ver

y s

ix h

ours

for

pH

, te

m,

EC

, D

O a

nd

turb

idit

y

Gro

un

dw

ater

qu

alit

y (

colo

ur

and c

onta

min

ant

level

s) r

egu

larl

y m

on

ito

red

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Wat

er u

se

Pre

ssu

re s

enso

rs i

n r

ain

wat

er t

ank a

dja

cen

t to

rec

har

ge

bas

in m

easu

re w

ater

dep

th e

ver

y s

ix h

ours

Pre

ssu

re s

enso

rs i

n b

ore

s m

on

ito

r w

ater

tab

le e

ver

y s

ix h

ou

rs

A.2

Exa

mpl

e of

Det

aile

d Ta

ble

...c

ontin

ued


74

Mo

nit

ori

ng c

on

t…

Pre

ssu

re s

enso

rs a

t ce

ntr

al r

ech

arge

area

an

d r

ech

arge

tren

ch d

eter

min

e in

filt

rati

on

rat

es a

nd

qu

anti

ty o

f ru

noff

Oth

er

Auto

mat

ed m

on

itori

ng s

yst

em (

trig

ger

ed b

y r

ain

even

ts)

in a

dd

itio

n t

o m

anual

sam

pli

ng p

rogra

m

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Eco

nom

ic v

iabil

ity

So

cial

acc

epta

nce

(via

qu

esti

onn

aire

of

26

ten

ants

)

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Imp

roved

tan

kw

ater

qu

alit

y w

ill

resu

lt f

rom

sep

arat

ion

of

firs

t fl

ush

rai

nfa

ll f

rom

in

flo

w t

o r

ain

tan

ks

Ho

t w

ater

syst

ems

op

erat

e at

tem

per

ature

s su

ffic

ient

to p

astu

eriz

e ta

nkw

ater

to

pro

duce

qu

alit

y c

om

pli

ant

wit

h A

ust

rali

an

Dri

nkin

g W

ater

Guid

elin

es

Wat

er t

reat

men

t pro

cess

es o

f fl

occ

ula

tio

n,

sett

lem

ent

and

bio

reac

tio

n a

ppea

r to

oper

ate

in r

ain

wat

er t

anks

Sig

nif

ican

t te

nan

t ac

cepta

nce

(9

5%

) of

the

use

of

roo

f ru

noff

for

irri

gat

ion

, to

ilet

flu

shin

g,

ho

t w

ater

syst

ems,

clo

thes

w

ash

ing a

nd

co

okin

g.

Mo

der

ate

acce

pta

nce

(7

0%

) of

the

poss

ible

use

of

roo

f ru

no

ff f

or

dri

nkin

g p

urp

ose

s.

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Mea

sure

men

t of

inte

rnal

wat

er u

se s

ho

wed

a 6

5%

red

uct

ion i

n p

ota

ble

wat

er c

on

sum

pti

on

du

rin

g t

he

per

iod J

un

e to

D

ecem

ber

199

8

Wate

r quali

ty

Gro

un

dw

ater

: co

mp

lies

wit

h A

ust

rali

an D

rinkin

g W

ater

Sta

nd

ard

s fo

r al

l p

aram

eter

s ex

cep

t p

H;

acce

pta

ble

fo

r ir

rigat

ion

an

d b

us

was

hin

g p

urp

ose

s

Ro

of

run

off

: occ

asio

nal

ly e

xce

eded

guid

elin

e val

ues

fo

r am

mo

nia

, p

H,

iro

n a

nd

lea

d;

ove

rall

sam

ple

s fr

om

tan

ks

and

hot

wat

er s

yst

ems

wer

e fo

und

co

mp

lian

t w

ith

ch

emic

al a

nd

met

al p

aram

eter

s in

th

e A

ust

rali

an D

rin

kin

g W

ater

Gu

idel

ines

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Infi

ltra

tio

n b

asin

: m

axim

um

obse

rved

em

pty

ing t

ime

less

than

that

det

erm

ined

to

in

dic

ate

acce

pta

ble

per

form

ance

Rai

nta

nks:

11

-44

% r

educt

ion

in m

ain

s w

ater

use

(d

iffe

rence

s at

trib

uta

ble

to

co

nst

ruct

ion

err

ors

with

resp

ect

to

firs

t fl

ush

pits

- l

ower

val

ues

bec

ause

pit

s se

par

atin

g t

oo

mu

ch r

un

off

); d

egre

e o

f re

du

ced

mai

ns

wat

er u

se a

nd

roo

f w

ater

ut

ilis

atio

n de

pend

ent o

n th

e volu

me

of

rain

wat

er t

ank s

tora

ge,

ro

of

area

an

d w

ater

use

per

per

son

, an

d t

he

pro

port

ion

of

ro

of a

rea

to r

ainw

ater

tan

k volu

me

Ass

emen

t m

etho

ds

Rai

nta

nks:

per

form

ance

ass

esse

d u

sin

g m

eter

rea

din

gs,

rai

nfa

ll d

ata

and

tan

k l

evel

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

impro

ved

des

ign i

n t

he

form

of

red

uce

d p

lum

bin

g,

elim

inat

ion

of

bac

kfl

ow

pre

ven

tio

n d

evic

es,

excl

usi

on

o

f re

du

nd

ant

elem

ents

an

d m

ore

eff

icie

nt

const

ruct

ion

pra

ctic

es

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

A

nal

ysi

s su

gges

ts t

hat

the

redev

elo

pm

ent

is c

ost

-eff

ecti

ve

wh

en c

on

sid

ered

as

a co

mp

on

ent

of

"bey

on

d c

apac

ity"

urb

an

infr

astr

uct

ure

(c

ost

s/kL

) T

he

exis

tin

g d

esig

n d

etai

ls c

an b

e fu

rth

er i

mp

roved

wit

h c

on

seq

uen

t lo

wer

cost

s

Use

r pri

ce

Pay

bac

k p

erio

d f

or

WS

UD

ele

men

ts w

ou

ld b

e lo

nger

than

th

e an

tici

pat

ed l

ife

of

the

pro

ject

A.2

Exa

mpl

e of

Det

aile

d Ta

ble

...c

ontin

ued


75

Ben

efi

ts

Red

uced

d

ema

nd

fo

r p

ota

ble

sup

ply

Ov

eral

l re

du

cti

on

in

po

tab

le w

ater

dem

and

of

~6

0%

(4

0-4

5%

by

res

iden

ts)

com

par

ed w

ith

co

nv

enti

on

al d

evel

op

men

ts

Hig

h r

ain

fall

en

sure

s n

et e

xce

ss a

qu

ifer

rec

har

ge,

wate

r n

ot

req

uir

ed t

o m

eet

on

-sit

e d

em

and

s u

sed

by

ad

jace

nt

bu

s-w

ash

ing

faci

lity

(m

ax 2

00

0 k

L/y

r)

F

low

ma

na

gem

ent

Des

ign

ed t

o c

on

tain

s 8

3%

of

run

off

fo

r all

ev

ents

up

to

an

d i

ncl

ud

ing

a 1

in

50

year

ev

ent

(su

rface

ru

no

ff f

rom

sev

en u

nit

s

in N

E c

orn

er p

asse

s d

irect

ly t

o c

on

ven

tio

nal

dra

inag

e sy

stem

); f

loo

ds

of

gre

ater

mag

nit

ud

e w

ill

flo

w o

ver

lan

d t

o s

tree

t at

no

rth

ern

bo

un

dar

y a

nd

pas

s in

to c

on

ven

tio

nal

dra

inag

e s

yst

em

Rain

tan

k o

ver

flo

w d

irecte

d t

o s

oak

away

s (g

rav

el

tren

ches

) v

ia s

torm

wate

r p

ipes

an

d r

ech

arg

ed t

o t

he

aqu

ifer

; tr

ench

es 7

50

mm

dee

p a

nd

10

00

mm

wid

e la

yer

s o

f g

rav

el e

nclo

sed

in

geo

fab

ric

belo

w 3

00

mm

to

pso

il l

ayer

, o

ver

flo

w f

rom

rai

nta

nk

s

dis

trib

ute

d w

ith

in t

ren

ches

by

slo

tted

pip

es

P

oll

uti

on

co

ntr

ol

In

fra

stru

ctu

re

Sto

rmw

ate

r d

isch

arg

e a

lmo

st c

om

ple

tely

eli

min

ate

d,

red

uced

do

wn

stre

am f

loo

d p

eak

an

d r

edu

ced

str

ain

on

sto

rmw

ate

r

infr

astr

uct

ure

, in

clu

din

g p

oll

uti

on

co

ntr

ol

inst

all

atio

ns

E

nvi

ron

men

tal

flo

w

A.2

Exa

mpl

e of

Det

aile

d Ta

ble

...c

ontin

ued


76

A.3 Summary of water re-use sites not studied

Site State Contact General

Runoff

Other

water?

Treatment type Re-use type

Lake Ginninderra John

Knight Park

ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation

Tuggeranong Park ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation

Gungahlin Golf Course ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation

Gold Creek Golf Course ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation

Conder Sports Ground ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation

Southwell Park Sewer

Mining Facility

ACT

Fyshwick Wastewater

Treatment Plan pilot plant

ACT

Allambie Heights Water

Quality Control Pond

NSW y

Alumy Creek and Eyre St

Wetlands, Grafton

NSW Peter Adcock y wetlands

Bells Creek, Blacktown NSW

Blue Hills Wetlands,

Glenmore Park, Penrith


Broken Head Coastal

Retreat

NSW GeoLINK waste irrigation

Cattle Saleyards, Casino NSW GeoLINK y sedimentation anaerobic digestion biological oxidation disinfection

irrigation yard washdown

Cellulose Valley Technology

Park, Lismore

NSW Peter Adcock y sediment ponds wetlands

infiltration

Cox's Creek Reserve

Wetlands

NSW

Domain Creek Innovative

Technologies Project

NSW Holroyd City Council

infiltration irrigation

Duffy Avenue Wetland,

Westleigh

NSW

Lake Pillans, Lithgow NSW

Model Farms High School,

Baulkham Hills

NSW Joe D'Aspromonte Peter Morrison

Moore Reserve Wetland,

Kogarah


Mullet Creek, Wollongong NSW CUSI y irrigation

Rouse Hill, Sydney NSW irrigation toilet flushing

Surveyors Creek, Glenmore

Park

NSW

Sutherland Shire Council NSW

North Lakes Golf Course Qld Lindsay McCleod y y irrigation

Carrara Catchment Qld Allan Lush

Forest Lake, Brisbane Qld John Maclean irrigation

Melvin St Qld Anne Simi y bioretention system irrigation

BP Clean Fuels Refinery Qld

A.3 Summary of Water Re-use Sites not Studied


77


Runoff

Other

water?


Hervey Bay Qld Wide Bay Water detention basins

advanced treatment

irrigation

Ace Chemicals SA PCWMB

Banksia Park Water Re-use

Scheme

SA y irrigation

Christie Walk SA irrigation

toilet flushing

New Haven Village,

Osborne

SA Terry Chuah

Graeme Hill

y advanced treatment

disinfection

toilet flushing

irrigation

St Elizabeth Church

Carpark

SA UWRC y grass-pave filter

gravel filled trenches

geotextile fabric

irrigation

Brighton TAS Warren Lee y advanced treatment irrigation

Kangaroo Bay Rivulet

Constructed Wetland

TAS Adrian Tanner GPTs

constructed wetland

up to 10% of

annual flow from

wetland used to

irrigate Rosny

Golf Course

Anglesea Golf Course VIC Peter Byrnes y y wetlands ??? irrigation

City of Kingston VIC Brian Trower

Dow Chemical, Altona VIC Land Energy irrigation

Ford Geelong VIC y settling pond ??? industrial re-use

irrigation

Northern Memorial Park,

Fawkner

VIC Ecological

Engineering

y irrigation

Ross House rooftop garden,

Flinders Lane

VIC Terry White irrigation

toilet flushing

Sunbury-Melton Recycled

Water Pipeline

VIC Western Water irrigation

Underground Gas Storage

Plant, Port Campbell

VIC Peter Adcock,

Australian

Wetlands

y wetlands

Sharland Park Estate, Bell

Post Hill

VIC John Maxwell

Bayswater, Perth WA

Byford Village Multiple Tier

WSUD

WA Caversham P/L,

Shire of Serpentine-

Jarrahdale

swales

artificial creeks

wetlands

aeration

irrigation

Henley Annex Land

Division

WA City of Charles

Sturt

y

Roof runoff only

Carindale Pines, Brisbane Qld roof only

Heritage Mews, Castle Hill NSW Peter Coombes both roof and general runoff collected, however only roof runoff is

re-used; general runoff is collected and treated prior to slow release

King St estate, Prahran VIC Dino Kalivas roof runoff stored in old fire service water tank in building's

basement, filtered, used in subsurface drip irrigation

A.3 Summary of Water Re-use Sites not Studied ...continued


78


Runoff

Other

water?


Lightning Ridge Public

School, DPWS

NSW Northrop roof only Rocla ecoRain filter UV filter

irrigation toilet flushing

New Brompton SA UWRC roof only irrigation aquifer recharge

Northern Adelaide Plans SA Gerry Davies roof only irrigation

Ormond Road, Elwood VIC Louise Barbon-Elliott

roof only toilet flushing

Rockdale Council Chambers NSW Michael Casteleyn roof only irrigation toilet flushing

International

Henderson Valley NZ City of Waitakere y

Waitakere Hospital NZ Waitakere City Council

general runoff flows into swales & ponds for treatment prior to release into local creek; roofwater collected for toilet flushing

BHP Steel, Glenbrook,

Auckland

NZ

Lower Seletar/Bedok Sing

Village Homes, Davis USA

Prairie Crossings, near

Chicago

USA

At development stage

Bexley Municipal Golf

Course, Bardwell Creek

NSW Bill Woodcock y n irrigation

Urban Environment Centre,

Chipping Norton

NSW Liverpool City Council

wetlands irrigation

Victoria Park, Zetland,

Sydney

NSW Reid Butler John Dahlenburg

y n swales filtration wetlands GPTs

water feature aquifer recharge irrigation

Wyong Public School NSW Martin Lynch y GPT Rocla ecoRain filter

irrigation

Heathwood/Brazil

Development

Qld Ralph Woolley

Edinburgh Parks - Holden

Stormwater Management

Project

SA Colin Pitman y wetlands re-use at Holden, irrigation

Atherton Gardens, Fitzroy VIC Dino Kalivas; EcoEng

y y oil removal swale

irrigation

Aurora, Epping North VIC

Bergins Green Initiative VIC Matt Francey Grace Mitchell

Yet to be decided Yet to be decided

Portland Smelter VIC John Hill

Racing Victoria VIC Melbourne Water engaged Connell Wagner to conduct detailed assessment of 12 racecourses around Melbourne, plan to undertake demonstration project at Cranbourne track

Royal Park Wetland &

Water Re-use Project

VIC City of Melbourne

A.3 Summary of Water Re-use Sites not Studied ...continued

79


Appendix B

B.1

A

lto

na G

reen

Park

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Co

nta

ct N

am

e S

am S

ampan

thar

, Ia

n B

row

n

Lo

cati

on

A

lto

na

Mea

do

ws,

VIC

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s H

ob

sons

Bay

Cit

y C

ou

nci

l

Ref

eren

ces

(HB

CC

)

S.

Sam

pan

thar

, per

sonal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

I. B

row

n,

per

son

al c

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

edev

elo

pm

ent

Siz

e 4

ha

spo

rts

fiel

d +

30

ho

use

s

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

S

ub

-cat

chm

ent

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

55

7.3

(M

L)

22

.3

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

14

4.5

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

)

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

14

00

-15

00

Geo

logy

Aq

uif

er

Wa

tert

able

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

and

kee

pin

g l

oca

l b

each

es a

nd

wat

erw

ays

clea

n

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

B.1

Alto

na G

reen

Par

k


80

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

G

utt

er, p

ipe,

nat

ura

l dra

inag

e

Ro

of

run

off

co

llec

ted

in

gu

tter

ing o

f n

ew h

om

es a

lon

g t

wo

str

eets

dra

ins

into

a p

iped

syst

em t

hat

cr

oss

es u

nder

th

e st

reet

; gen

eral

run

off

co

llec

ted

by s

tree

t gu

tter

s d

irec

ted

th

rou

gh

ch

ute

open

ings

in t

he

ker

b;

run

off

fro

m s

port

s o

val

s al

so d

rain

s in

to c

oll

ecte

d a

rea

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

B

iofi

lter

G

rass

ed s

wal

e d

rain

(re

mo

ves

lit

ter

and

sil

t), ce

ntr

al f

ilte

r zo

ne

(bio

logic

al t

reat

men

t zo

ne

rem

oves

fin

e o

il p

arti

cles

, d

isso

lved

org

anic

mat

ter

and

nutr

ien

ts)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

U

nd

ergro

un

d s

tora

ge

tan

k m

ade

up o

f sm

all

cell

s

Atl

anti

s ta

nk,

mo

du

les,

po

lyp

rop

yle

ne

wra

p

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 0

.4

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

of

sport

s o

val

s

Ho

w

Sp

rin

kle

r sy

stem

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

B.1

Alto

na G

reen

Par

k ..

.con

tinue

d


81

Re-

use

co

nt…

K

ey L

earn

ing

s H

as b

een

oper

atio

nal

, cu

rren

tly n

ot

du

e to

ele

ctri

cal

pro

ble

ms

wit

h p

um

ps

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

If s

tora

ge

tan

k i

s at

fu

ll c

apac

ity,

run

off

sti

lls

dis

char

ges

alo

ng g

rass

ed s

wal

e an

d o

ver

flo

ws

into

ex

isti

ng s

tree

t dra

inag

e

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

B.1

Alto

na G

reen

Par

k ..

.con

tinue

d


82

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Fil

ters

an

d p

um

ps

(as

requ

ired

)

Wh

o

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Sen

sors

in

pit

s w

her

e w

ater

is

pu

mp

ed

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Sen

sors

for

mo

nit

ori

ng t

ank l

evel

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$2

50

,000

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le s

up

ply

R

edu

ctio

n i

n d

eman

d f

or

mai

ns

wat

er t

o i

rrig

ate

the

sport

ing f

ield

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Lim

itin

g p

oll

uta

nts

and

lit

ter

ente

rin

g P

ort

Phil

lip B

ay

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

R

edu

ce t

he

amo

un

t o

f st

orm

wat

er e

nte

rin

g t

he

mai

n d

rain

age

syst

em

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.1

Alto

na G

reen

Par

k ..

.con

tinue

d


83

B.2

B

ob

bin

Hea

d R

oa

d

Con

tact

In

form

ati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e C

hri

stin

a R

om

an

Lo

cati

on

T

urr

amu

rra,

Syd

ney

, N

SW

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s

Ref

eren

ces

(Ro

man

, 20

03)

C.

Ro

man

, per

son

al c

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

eta

ils:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e G

reen

fiel

ds,

med

ium

den

sity

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

66

un

its

Siz

e 2

ha

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

D

id n

ot

get

bey

on

d p

lan

nin

g s

tage

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

S

ub

-div

isio

n?

& A

llo

tmen

t?

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

10

68

.0

(

ML

) 2

1.4

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

12

1.3

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 4

81

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rta

ble

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Dec

reas

e p

ota

ble

wat

er u

sage

Dec

reas

e p

oll

uta

nts

Dec

reas

e in

tro

duct

ion

of

wee

d s

pec

ies

Dec

reas

e fr

equen

cy a

nd s

ever

ity o

f d

isch

arges

Dec

reas

e er

osi

on

an

d s

couri

ng

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

B.2

Bob

bin

Hea

d R

oad


84

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Wh

o

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

en

efit

s

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.2

Bob

bin

Hea

d R

oad

...co

ntin

ued


85

B.3

B

ow

ies

Fla

t W

etl

an

d

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e A

nne

Sim

i

Lo

cati

on

B

ow

ies

Fla

t, C

oo

rpar

oo

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s W

ater

Res

ou

rces

- U

rban

Man

agem

ent

Cit

y D

esig

n

Pip

elin

es -

Bri

sban

e C

ity W

ork

s

Lo

cal

Ass

et S

ervic

es

Ref

eren

ces

L.

Pel

jo, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

A.

Sim

i, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

(BC

C, 2003)

(BC

C, 2003)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

etro

fit

Siz

e 3

77

ha

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

M

ay 2

00

2

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

11

46

.4

(M

L)

43

22

.0

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

12

2.0

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 1

29

7

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rta

ble

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

No

n-s

alin

e

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Fu

lly d

evel

op

ed c

atch

men

t, p

red

om

inan

tly r

esid

enti

al l

and

use

, fl

oo

din

g p

rob

lem

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Red

uce

sto

rmw

ater

po

llu

tio

n, sp

ecif

ical

ly f

ine

sed

imen

ts a

nd

nu

trie

nts

, en

teri

ng t

he

Bri

sban

e R

iver

an

d M

ore

ton

Bay

B.3

Bow

ies

Flat

Wet

land


86

Ob

ject

ives

con

t…

En

han

ce t

he

eco

logic

al v

alu

es o

f B

rid

gew

ater

Cre

ek a

nd d

ow

nst

ream

rec

eivin

g w

ater

s

En

han

ce t

he

vis

ual

am

enit

y a

nd

rec

reat

ion

al v

alu

es o

f B

ow

ies

Fla

t an

d i

ts s

urr

ou

nds

Imp

rove

com

mu

nit

y a

war

enes

s, w

hil

e p

rovid

ing e

du

cati

on

al a

nd r

esea

rch

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

loca

l,

regio

nal

an

d n

atio

nal

sta

keh

old

ers,

in

clu

din

g l

oca

l sc

hoo

ls,

rese

arch

in

stit

uti

on

s an

d s

torm

wat

er

ind

ust

ries

E

nsu

re r

isks

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

th

e p

roje

ct s

uch

as

flo

od

ing,

pu

bli

c sa

fety

an

d m

osq

uit

oes

are

m

inim

ised

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

G

utt

er, p

ipe,

chan

nel

C

on

ven

tio

nal

sto

rmw

ater

co

llec

tio

n s

yst

em, fl

ow

s in

to a

co

ncr

ete

lin

ed o

pen

ch

ann

el (

Bri

dgew

ater

C

reek

) to

th

e po

nd

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 2

.3 M

L p

on

d

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 1

00

% r

uno

ff p

asse

s th

rou

gh

th

e p

on

d;

pro

po

rtio

n s

tore

d d

epen

ds

on

siz

e o

f st

orm

even

t

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

G

PT

s at

tw

o m

ajor

inle

ts t

o t

he

pon

d,

sed

imen

tati

on

in t

he

sett

ling p

on

d

Capaci

ty (

ML

) A

RI

3 m

on

th

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Hyd

rau

lic

per

form

ance

key

in

flu

ence

in

des

ign

pro

cess

- w

ant

to m

axim

ise

trea

tmen

t per

form

ance

b

ut

no

t ex

acer

bat

e u

pst

ream

flo

od

ing

Ed

ges

bet

wee

n t

urf

an

d p

lan

tin

g a

reas

des

ign

ed a

s m

ow

ing s

trip

s fo

r ea

se o

f m

ainte

nan

ce

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Em

ban

km

ent

slo

ps

sho

uld

be

gen

tle

to e

nco

ura

ge

pla

nt

esta

bli

shm

ent

and

fo

r ea

se o

f m

ain

ten

ance

Sto

rag

e H

ow

In

th

e po

nd

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 2

.3 M

L

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 0

.17%

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

B.3

Bow

ies

Flat

Wet

land

...c

ontin

ued


87

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

of

par

kla

nd

Ho

w

Pum

ped

fro

m p

on

d w

ith a

port

able

pum

p

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) S

mal

l p

rop

ort

ion

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

B.3

Bow

ies

Flat

Wet

land

...c

ontin

ued


88

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Pub

lic

can

acc

ess

po

nd

an

d m

acro

ph

yte

zo

ne

ho

wev

er g

rate

s p

reven

t u

nau

tho

rise

d a

cces

s to

in

let

and

outl

et s

truct

ure

s

"All

wea

ther

" ped

estr

ian

cro

ssin

g o

f m

ain

wat

erw

ay

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Op

erat

ion

an

d m

ain

ten

ance

man

ual

dev

elo

ped

du

rin

g d

esig

n p

has

e, d

etai

ls r

eco

mm

ended

m

ain

ten

ance

su

ch a

s re

gu

lar

insp

ecti

on

an

d c

lean

ing o

f G

PT

s, w

eed

rem

oval

Inte

nsi

ve

mai

nte

nan

ce d

uri

ng p

lan

t es

tab

lish

men

t per

iod

Who

L

oca

l A

sset

Ser

vic

es -

Cust

om

er a

nd

Com

mun

ity S

erv

ices

Key

lea

rnin

gs

On

go

ing c

ost

s m

ay b

e m

inim

ised

by i

nvo

lvin

g m

ain

ten

ance

sta

ff e

arly

in

th

e d

esig

n p

roce

ss

Saf

ety o

f m

ainte

nan

ce s

taff

sh

ou

ld b

e ad

dre

ssed

in

the

des

ign a

nd

inst

alla

tio

n o

f h

yd

rau

lic

stru

ctu

res

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

TS

S,

TN

, T

P,

VS

S a

fter

sto

rm e

ven

ts, as

par

t o

f w

etla

nd

mo

nit

ori

ng p

rogra

m (

rath

er t

han

for

re-

use

wat

er q

ual

ity)

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Su

cces

s ag

ain

st p

erfo

rman

ce c

rite

ria

to b

e m

easu

red

over

fir

st f

ive

yea

rs o

f as

par

t o

f B

CC

's

SQ

UID

s M

on

itori

ng P

rogra

m

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Eff

ecti

ve

at r

emo

vin

g c

oar

se s

ilt

and

fin

e sa

nd

, b

ut

dep

enden

t o

n t

he

size

of

the

storm

even

t an

d

the

char

acte

rist

ics

of

the

infl

ow

ing p

arti

cle

size

dis

trib

uti

on

and

co

nce

ntr

atio

n

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s K

ey l

earn

ings

An

on

-sit

e re

pre

senta

tive

to o

ver

see

envir

on

men

tal

con

tro

ls a

nd

per

form

ance

(u

nd

er t

he

sup

ervis

ion

of

the

En

vir

on

men

tal

Au

dit

or)

is

likel

y t

o i

ncr

ease

en

vir

on

men

tal

com

pli

ance

wit

h

bo

th t

he

lice

nce

co

nd

itio

ns

and

Gen

eral

En

vir

on

men

tal

Du

ty

Ass

emb

lin

g t

he

full

des

ign

pro

ject

tea

m e

arly

in

th

e det

aile

d d

esig

n p

has

e al

low

s al

l d

isci

pli

nes

to

feed

sim

ult

aneo

usl

y i

nto

th

e des

ign

pro

cess

an

d i

nfl

uen

ce t

he

wet

lan

d's

per

form

ance

B.3

Bow

ies

Flat

Wet

land

...c

ontin

ued

g

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Wat

er c

an b

e so

urc

ed f

rom

mai

ns

sup

ply

du

rin

g d

ry p

erio

ds


89

Per

form

an

ce c

on

t…

Wat

er q

ual

ity s

ho

uld

be

mo

nit

ore

d f

rom

pri

or

to p

lanti

ng t

o e

stab

lish

a b

asel

ine

for

eval

uat

ing t

he

trea

tmen

t p

erfo

rman

ce o

f w

etla

nd

veg

etat

ion

Go

od

des

ign

an

d t

reat

men

t per

form

ance

are

su

bsi

dia

ry f

acto

rs i

n t

he

eyes

of

com

mu

nit

y.

Thei

r p

rim

ary c

on

cern

is

the

dir

ect

imp

act

of

the

pro

ject

on

th

eir

life

style

or

pro

per

ty v

alu

e (p

roje

ct

man

ager

)

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$2

.75

m

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Sm

all

red

uct

ion

ach

ieved

, p

ark o

nly

irr

igat

ed d

uri

ng 1

2 m

on

th e

stab

lish

men

t p

erio

d,

curr

entl

y n

ot

irri

gat

ed

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t A

dd

ress

es f

orm

er f

lood

ing p

rob

lem

in

the

area

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Rem

oval

of

litt

er,

sed

imen

t an

d n

utr

ien

ts p

rio

r to

do

wn

stre

am r

elea

se

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

H

abit

at p

rovis

ion

, fl

ow

s o

f im

pro

ved

qual

ity

B.3

Bow

ies

Flat

Wet

land

...c

ontin

ued


90

B.4

C

ha

rle

s S

turt

Un

iversi

ty,

Th

urgoo

na

Ca

mp

us

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e D

avid

Mit

chel

l

Lo

cati

on

1

0 k

m N

E A

lbu

ry

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s

Ref

eren

ces

(Mit

chel

l et

al.

, 2

001

)

D.

Mit

chel

l, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

(Ch

arle

s S

turt

Un

iver

sity

, 2

003

)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e G

reen

fiel

ds

Siz

e 8

7 h

a

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

Ja

nuar

y 1

99

9

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

S

ub

-cat

chm

ent

(7 a

cross

sit

e, 3

init

iall

y d

evel

op

ed)

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

71

5.2

(

ML

) 6

22

.2

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

97

.1

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 1

86

.7

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

No

su

pp

lies

of

gro

un

dw

ater

ap

pea

r to

be

pre

sen

t

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Lan

d p

revio

usl

y u

sed

over

pas

t 1

50

yea

rs f

or

var

iou

s fo

rms

of

agri

cult

ure

; m

ost

of

the

ori

gin

al

wo

od

lan

d c

lear

ed a

nd

rep

lace

d b

y p

oor

qu

alit

y p

astu

re

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

En

vir

on

men

tall

y e

ffic

ient,

on

-sit

e m

anag

emen

t of

wat

er r

eso

urc

es (

and

oth

er n

atu

ral

reso

urc

es)

in

an u

ndev

elo

ped

, gre

en f

ield

sit

e

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

B.4

Cha

rles

Stu

rt U

nive

rsity

, Thu

rgoo

na C

ampu

s


91

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

con

t…

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t P

oss

ibil

ity o

f usi

ng r

ainw

ater

for

hum

an c

onsu

mpti

on i

nves

tigat

ed b

ut

consi

der

ed t

o p

ose

u

nac

cepta

ble

ris

ks

to p

erso

nnel

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

N

atura

l d

rain

age,

sw

ales

Dir

ecte

d b

y c

onto

ur

ban

ks

to s

wal

es

Capaci

ty (

ML

) S

ub

catc

hm

ent

1:

av a

nn

ual

yie

ld o

f 7

.5 M

L,

1:1

0 y

r yie

ld o

f 1

1 M

L

Su

bca

tch

men

ts 2

& 3

: co

mbin

ed a

v a

nn

ual

yie

ld o

f 42

.7 M

L,

1:1

0 y

r yie

ld o

f 6

1 M

L

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Sw

ales

mea

nd

er o

ver

lan

dsc

ape

to c

on

tro

l er

osi

on

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

In

-str

eam

tre

atm

ent

wet

lan

ds

in e

ach s

wal

e

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Obje

ctiv

es:

sed

imen

tati

on

of

par

ticu

late

mat

ter,

ret

enti

on

of

pla

nt

nutr

ients

, ae

rati

on

of

infl

ow

ing

wat

er,

and

sel

f-su

stai

nin

g a

nd

sel

f-o

pti

mis

ing

aq

uat

ic e

cosy

stem

s P

osi

tio

n o

n s

wal

e se

lect

ed w

ith c

on

sid

erat

ion g

iven

to

eff

ecti

ven

ess

of

trea

tmen

t fu

nct

ion

, ae

sth

etic

app

eal.

N

um

ber

of

wet

lan

ds

dep

ends

on

len

gth

of

swal

e an

d l

ikel

y q

ual

ity o

f ru

noff

.

Ro

ck-b

ased

wat

erfa

ll a

t p

oin

t o

f in

flo

w f

or

aera

tio

n,

sed

imen

tati

on

po

ol

at l

east

4 m

dee

p w

ith

st

eep

sid

es,

bec

om

es m

ore

shal

low

to

~0

.5m

over

dis

tan

ce o

f 5

-10

m a

s d

eter

min

ed b

y s

lope

of

lan

d,

shal

low

are

a p

lan

ted

wit

h e

mer

gen

t aq

uat

ic p

lants

wit

h d

ecre

asin

g t

ole

ran

ce t

o w

ater

dep

th t

o

form

mar

sh a

rea

wh

ere

nutr

ient

upd

ate

is m

axim

ised

an

d f

urt

her

sed

imen

tati

on

occ

urs

.

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

S

ub

catc

hm

ent

1:

rese

rvo

ir

Su

bca

tch

men

ts 2

& 3

: T

hre

e in

terc

on

nec

ted

res

ervo

irs

at b

ott

om

of

site

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 5

6.5

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 3

0%

D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Siz

ed s

o t

hat

th

e n

atu

ral

sup

ply

of

rain

fall

wil

l ex

ceed

req

uir

emen

ts a

t le

ast

once

ever

y f

ive

yea

rs,

to r

educe

bu

ild-u

p o

f sa

lts

in s

tora

ges

B.4

Cha

rles

Stu

rt U

nive

rsity

, Thu

rgoo

na C

ampu

s ..

.con

tinue

d


92

Sto

rage

con

t…

Sal

init

y c

on

tro

l: R

eser

vo

ir i

n s

ub

catc

hm

ent

1 d

esig

ned

to o

ver

flo

w e

ver

y y

ear

into

ro

adsi

de

dra

ins

and

sew

ers

pre

vio

usl

y c

on

stru

cted

by c

ivic

au

thori

ties

. T

hre

e in

terc

on

nec

ted

res

ervo

irs

des

ign

ed

to d

isch

arge

wat

er i

n y

ears

of

hig

h r

ain

fall

in

to n

earb

y c

reek

.

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

, so

me

rele

ased

into

wet

lan

d s

yst

em t

o k

eep

th

e sy

stem

ali

ve

Ho

w

Wat

er f

rom

the

low

est

stora

ge

rese

rvo

ir i

s p

um

ped

to t

urk

ey n

est

dam

s at

th

e to

p o

f th

e si

te v

ia a

w

ind

mil

l an

d a

so

lar

ener

gy p

ow

ered

pu

mp

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e 4

3 b

uil

din

g-i

nte

gra

ted

rai

nw

ater

tan

ks

Re-

use

L

aun

dry

, sp

ray-m

ist

coo

ling s

yst

em

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Inte

rmit

tent-

flo

w c

on

stru

cted

wet

lan

ds

Sto

rag

e Jo

ins

storm

wat

er i

n t

hre

e re

serv

oir

syst

em a

t b

ott

om

of

site

B.4

Cha

rles

Stu

rt U

nive

rsity

, Thu

rgoo

na C

ampu

s ..

.con

tinue

d


93

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se c

on

t…

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Acc

ess

to a

dd

itio

nal

sup

pli

es o

f w

ater

mai

nta

ined

so

th

at e

ssen

tial

req

uir

emen

ts c

an b

e m

et d

uri

ng

per

iod

s w

hen

nat

ura

l p

reci

pit

atio

n i

s lo

w

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Wat

er t

o b

e re

-use

d m

ust

mee

t th

e cr

iter

ia r

equ

ired

fo

r th

at f

orm

of

re-u

se

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l w

ate

r c

ycle

D

evel

op

men

t pri

nci

ple

: re

cycl

e w

ater

wh

erev

er p

oss

ible

Wat

er o

n c

amp

us

is c

ircu

late

d a

nd s

tore

d i

n w

ays

that

are

aes

thet

ical

ly p

leas

ing a

nd

pro

mo

te

mai

nte

nan

ce o

f go

od

wat

er q

ual

ity

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Hig

h s

ecu

rity

wat

er f

or

hu

man

co

nsu

mp

tio

n, p

erso

nal

hygie

ne

and

so

me

oth

er d

om

esti

c u

ses

req

uir

es p

ota

ble

wat

er f

rom

an

auth

ori

sed

su

pp

lier

(A

lbu

ry C

ity C

ou

nci

l)

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Wet

lan

ds

const

ruct

ed a

s lo

w m

ain

ten

ance

syst

ems.

In

vad

ing p

lan

ts h

and

-wee

ded

bef

ore

they

fl

ow

er a

nd

est

abli

sh a

see

d b

ank.

Acc

um

ula

ted

sed

imen

t in

sed

imen

t p

oo

l re

mo

ved

wit

h a

m

ech

anic

al s

ho

vel

an

d i

nco

rpo

rate

d i

nto

so

il a

t a

suit

able

sit

e.

Wh

o

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Gre

yw

ater

wet

lan

ds

mon

ito

red

at

thre

e m

on

thly

in

terv

als

for

coli

form

bac

teri

a, B

OD

, T

N, T

P,

tem

p, pH

, D

O, E

C a

nd t

urb

idit

y

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Gre

yw

ater

wet

lan

ds

per

form

ed w

ell

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

B.4

Cha

rles

Stu

rt U

nive

rsity

, Thu

rgoo

na C

ampu

s ..

.con

tinue

d

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a


94

Per

form

an

ce c

on

t…

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

n/a

?

Ben

efit

s

Red

uce

d d

ema

nd

for

po

tab

le

sup

ply

A

ll w

ater

on

the

site

is

har

ves

ted

; p

ota

ble

wat

er p

urc

has

ed f

rom

Alb

ury

Cit

y C

ou

nci

l o

nly

for

dri

nkin

g,

coo

kin

g,

lau

nd

ry a

nd

per

sonal

hygie

ne

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t P

oll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

N

ort

her

n p

art

of

cam

pus

un

sew

ered

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

D

evel

op

men

t of

eco

logic

ally

su

stai

nab

le,

nat

ura

l, a

qu

atic

eco

syst

ems

enco

ura

ged

B.4

Cha

rles

Stu

rt U

nive

rsity

, Thu

rgoo

na C

ampu

s ..

.con

tinue

d


95

B.5

F

igtr

ee

Pla

ce

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Co

nta

ct N

am

e P

eter

Co

om

bes

Lo

cati

on

H

amil

ton, N

ewca

stle

, N

SW

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s N

ewca

stle

Cit

y C

ou

nci

l

Bu

ild

ing B

ette

r C

itie

s P

rogra

m (

fed

eral

go

ver

nm

ent)

NS

W D

epar

tmen

t o

f H

ou

sin

g

Ref

eren

ces

(Co

om

bes

et

al.,

19

98

)

(Co

om

bes

et

al.,

19

99

)

(Co

om

bes

et

al.,

20

00

)

(Co

om

bes

, 2

00

2)

(UW

RC

, 2

00

3)

(M

elb

ou

rne

Wat

er, 2

00

3)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e 2

7 s

mal

l- a

nd

med

ium

-siz

e in

ner

cit

y h

ousi

ng v

entu

re

Siz

e 1.1

ha

(Ham

ilto

n B

us

Sta

tion s

ite

area

= 3

.0 h

a)

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

A

pri

l 1

99

5 (

conce

pt

inves

tigat

ion

an

d d

esig

n)

Red

evel

op

men

t o

pen

ed o

n 2

1 J

une

19

98

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

S

tree

tsca

pe

and

all

otm

ent

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

11

41

.9

(

ML

) 1

2.6

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

13

3.0

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 6

.3

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

16

00

-17

00

Geo

log

y

San

d t

o d

epth

of

10

m,

sub

stra

te o

f cl

ay,

bed

rock

at

25

m

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

2

-2.5

m,

var

ies

seas

on

ally

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t ~

4 m

/yr

Oth

er

Pri

or

to r

emed

iati

on

, gro

und

wat

er a

t 3

-4 m

dep

th s

ho

wed

dar

k d

isco

lou

rati

on

du

e to

pre

sence

of

iro

n a

nd m

angan

ese

salt

s

B.5

Figt

ree

Plac

e


96

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Pre

vio

usl

y u

sed

as

a tr

ansp

ort

atio

n c

entr

e si

nce

th

e ea

rly 1

90

0s,

in

itia

l u

se b

y t

ram

s, m

ore

rec

entl

y

bu

ses;

res

ult

ed i

n m

ajor

con

tam

inat

ion

ho

t sp

ots

of

PA

H,

TP

H, h

eavy m

etal

s, p

esti

cides

, o

il a

nd

gre

ase

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

To

ret

ain

sto

rmw

ater

on

-sit

e an

d r

educe

po

tab

le w

ater

co

nsu

mpti

on

To

dem

onst

rate

th

at n

orm

al u

rban

liv

ing c

ou

ld b

e p

urs

ued

wit

h s

ign

ific

antl

y l

ess

pota

ble

wat

er

con

sum

pti

on

than

use

d i

n c

on

ven

tio

nal

dev

elo

pm

ents

Pla

nn

ing i

nd

icat

ed t

hat

su

ffic

ien

t w

ater

co

uld

be

har

ves

ted

on

sit

e to

mee

t 5

0%

in

-ho

use

nee

ds,

1

00

% d

om

esti

c ir

rigat

ion

nee

ds,

10

0%

bus-

was

hin

g d

eman

d

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Ass

esse

d a

gai

nst

Aust

rali

an D

rinkin

g W

ater

Gu

idel

ines

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

R

un

off

fro

m p

aved

are

as, la

wn

s an

d g

arden

s p

asse

s to

cen

tral

Det

enti

on

Bas

in R

echar

ge

Are

a

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Inte

rnal

ker

bed

ro

adw

ays

Des

ign

flo

od

cap

acit

y i

s 8

3%

of

run

off

fo

r al

l ev

ents

up

to

and

in

c 1

in

50

yea

r ev

ent

Hig

h i

nfi

ltra

tio

n r

ates

of

san

dy s

oil

ex

plo

ited

to

min

imis

e o

ver

flo

ws

fro

m t

he

bas

in

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

In

filt

rate

d t

hro

ugh

bas

e o

f d

ry d

eten

tio

n b

asin

; 2

50

sq

.m g

rass

ed d

epre

ssio

n, o

ver

lays

75

0m

m l

ayer

o

f gra

vel

en

clo

sed

in

geo

fab

ric

bel

ow

30

0m

m t

opso

il l

ayer

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rage

Ho

w

Un

con

fined

aqu

ifer

(A

SR

)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

B.5

Figt

ree

Plac

e ..

.con

tinue

d


97

Sto

rage

con

t…

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Flo

wn

et m

od

el o

f aq

uif

er s

yst

em u

sed

to

ex

plo

re p

oss

ible

gro

un

dw

ater

im

pac

ts

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

No

sto

rmw

ater

over

flo

w f

rom

sit

e up

to

20

00 a

nd

a m

axim

um

dep

th o

f p

on

din

g i

n t

he

det

enti

on

b

asin

of

26

0m

m w

ith

a r

esid

ence

tim

e o

f 6

hou

rs h

as b

een e

xper

ience

d

Re-

use

W

ha

t G

ard

en a

nd o

pen

spac

e ir

rigat

ion

, b

us

was

hin

g a

t ad

jace

nt

dep

ot,

oth

er o

utd

oo

r u

se

Ho

w

Su

bm

erged

pu

mp

wit

hin

rec

har

ge

bas

in a

t d

epth

of

10 m

, p

um

ped

as

req

uir

ed,

dual

ret

icu

lati

on

, o

pti

on

ally

tre

ated

(ac

tivat

ed c

arbo

n)

for

colo

ur

rem

oval

Capaci

ty (

ML

) M

ax 2

00

0 k

L/y

r su

pp

lied

to b

us

dep

ot

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Pre

lim

inar

y s

tud

ies

of

wat

er a

vai

lab

ilit

y f

rom

ro

of

and g

ener

al r

un

off

in

dic

ated

am

ple

su

pply

fo

r d

om

esti

c u

ses

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

(if

tre

ate

d a

nd

use

d s

epa

rate

ly)

Capaci

ty (

ML

) R

ainta

nk c

apac

itie

s ra

nge

fro

m 9

to

15

kL

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

S

torm

wat

er p

ipes

T

reatm

ent

Fir

st-f

lush

pit

s se

par

ate

firs

t 2

mm

of

rain

fall

; re

info

rced

co

ncr

ete

box

pla

ced

over

fib

re r

ein

forc

ed

con

cret

e p

ipe,

bo

x c

onta

ins

a sc

reen

to f

ilte

r deb

ris

and

a b

affl

e to

sep

arat

e fi

rst

flush

fro

m i

nfl

ow

to

rai

nta

nk,

wat

er r

etai

ned

upst

ream

of

baf

fle

infi

ltra

tes

thro

ugh

ho

les

in b

ase

of

bo

x t

o p

ipe

and

so

il

Sto

rag

e F

ive

cen

tral

ised

und

ergro

un

d t

anks;

rei

nfo

rce

con

cret

e ra

inta

nks,

con

tain

in

let

fro

m f

irst

flu

sh p

it,

clea

n o

ut

cham

ber

fo

r sl

ud

ge

rem

oval

, lo

w w

ater

lev

el m

on

ito

r, o

utl

et f

or

do

mes

tic

sup

ply

an

d

over

flo

w p

ipe

to a

rec

har

ge

tren

ch

Re-

use

P

um

ps

wit

h p

ress

ure

cel

ls s

upp

ly r

ainw

ater

fro

m t

anks

to h

ot

wat

er s

yst

ems

and

for

toil

et f

lush

ing,

fail

-saf

e sy

stem

s in

clu

de

seco

nd

pu

mp

in c

ase

of

fail

ure

an

d s

ole

no

id t

o s

wit

ches

to m

ain

s su

pp

ly i

f in

adeq

uat

e w

ater

pre

ssure

, el

ectr

icit

y f

ailu

re o

r lo

w w

ater

lev

el i

s det

ecte

d;

dual

ret

icula

tion,

bac

kfl

ow

pre

ven

tio

n d

evic

es u

sed

to

iso

late

fro

m m

ain

s su

pp

ly

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

B.5

Figt

ree

Plac

e ..

.con

tinue

d


98

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Pro

vis

ion

mad

e fo

r co

nver

sio

n t

o c

on

ven

tio

nal

pra

ctic

es (

i.e.

can

rev

ert

to m

ain

s su

pp

ly)

sho

uld

w

ater

qual

ity f

all

bel

ow

acc

epte

d l

evel

s o

r d

rou

gh

t o

ccu

r

Det

enti

on

bas

in p

rovid

es a

n o

pen

spac

e re

crea

tio

n a

rea

duri

ng d

ry s

pel

ls

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Irri

gat

ion o

ccurs

duri

ng n

igh

t hours

to m

inim

ise

risk

of

inges

tion

Su

rvey

of

resi

den

ts f

ou

nd

th

at 4

8%

of

resp

onden

ts u

sed

wat

er f

rom

th

e h

ot

tap

for

coo

kin

g;

rain

wat

er i

n h

ot

wat

er s

yst

ems

must

be

com

pli

ant

wit

h d

rinkin

g w

ater

sta

nd

ard

s

Bac

kfl

ow

pre

ven

tio

n d

evic

es i

sola

te r

ecycl

ed w

ater

sup

ply

fro

m p

ota

ble

su

pp

ly

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

W

ater

sav

ing a

pp

lian

ces

are

use

d

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Pote

nti

al f

or

und

etec

ted c

onta

min

ants

bei

ng r

elea

sed

in

to t

he

gro

un

dw

ater

an

d p

oll

uti

ng t

he

resi

den

ts' i

rrig

atio

n s

up

ply

an

d m

ovin

g t

o l

oca

tio

ns

do

wn

stre

am w

her

e o

ff-s

ite

use

rs o

f th

e re

sou

rce

may

als

o b

e af

fect

ed.

So

luti

on

: If

gro

un

dw

ater

qual

ity f

alls

bel

ow

acc

epta

ble

lev

els,

rai

nta

nk

over

flo

w a

nd

ru

no

ff a

rriv

ing a

t ce

ntr

al r

ech

arge

area

are

div

erte

d t

o t

he

Bu

s S

tati

on

dra

inag

e sy

stem

P

oss

ibil

ity t

hat

wat

er r

eten

tion p

ract

ices

mig

ht

pro

duce

a g

roundw

ater

mound a

dver

sely

aff

ecti

ng

the

footi

ngs

of

hom

es, as

wel

l as

cre

atin

g u

nac

cepta

bly

wet

co

nd

itio

ns

in l

oca

l bac

kyar

ds

and

gar

den

s. C

on

ver

sely

, d

isp

erse

d r

ech

arge

wit

h e

xtr

acti

on

fro

m a

cen

tral

wel

l m

ay l

ead

to s

ign

ific

ant

dra

wdow

n o

f gro

undw

ater

nea

r ex

trac

tion p

oin

t. S

olu

tion:

model

ling i

nves

tigat

ion s

how

ed t

hat

ex

isti

ng g

rou

nd

wat

er l

evel

s w

ou

ld b

e p

rese

rved

exce

pt

at r

echar

ge

regio

n w

her

e d

raw

do

wn

may

be

exp

erie

nce

d d

uri

ng s

um

mer

B.5

Figt

ree

Plac

e ..

.con

tinue

d


99

Poss

ible

prob

lem

s…

Pote

nti

on

al f

or

dro

ugh

t co

nd

itio

ns

causi

ng s

erio

us

dis

rupti

on

to

in

-ho

use

su

pp

lies

. S

olu

tio

n:

bac

ku

p c

on

nec

tio

n t

o p

ota

ble

wat

er s

uu

ply

P

oss

ibil

ity o

f ex

trem

e ra

infa

ll c

ausi

ng s

ever

e fl

oodin

g o

f re

siden

tial

unit

s on t

he

site

. S

olu

tion:

flo

od

s of

gre

at m

agn

itu

de

than

1:5

0 y

r ev

ent

flo

w o

ver

lan

d t

o n

ort

her

n b

ou

nd

ary o

f d

evel

op

men

t an

d c

on

ven

tio

nal

dra

inag

e sy

stem

In

do

or

wat

er c

on

sum

pti

on

and

pro

port

ion

that

is

use

d f

or

ho

t w

ater

an

d t

oil

et f

lush

ing u

nkn

ow

n f

or

the

regio

n;

pre

sente

d d

iffi

cult

ies

in d

eter

min

ing t

he

volu

mes

of

tan

ks

and

cap

acit

y o

f pum

ps

to

del

iver

rai

nw

ater

to

th

e d

wel

lin

gs

Pote

nti

al f

or

hea

lth

pro

ble

ms

resu

ltin

g f

rom

in

ges

tio

n o

f u

nsa

nit

ary w

ater

co

llec

ted

fro

m r

oo

fs a

nd

u

sed

in

ho

t w

ater

syst

ems.

S

olu

tio

n:

roo

f w

ater

sam

pli

ng p

roje

ct c

on

clu

ded

th

at r

oo

f ru

no

ff w

as

vir

tual

ly e

qu

ival

ent

to r

ain

wat

er q

ual

ity a

par

t fr

om

hig

h T

SS

an

d a

sh c

on

ten

t; f

ail-

safe

pro

vis

ion

s in

clu

de:

if

hea

lth s

tand

ard

s no

t m

et,

hot

wat

er s

yst

em c

on

ver

ts t

o m

ain

s su

pp

ly,

sign

age

at h

ot

wat

er t

aps,

ten

ant

edu

cati

on

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Sig

nif

ican

t d

elay

s d

uri

ng d

evel

op

men

t st

age

cau

sed

by a

ppro

val

agen

cies

- c

on

cern

s th

at p

roje

ct

no

t ec

ono

mic

ally

via

ble

, d

ual

ret

icu

lati

on

was

not

com

pli

ant

wit

h A

ust

rali

an S

tan

dar

ds

and

th

at

con

tam

inat

ion

of

mai

ns

supp

ly c

ou

ld o

ccur;

no

in

stit

uti

on

al f

ram

ewo

rk f

or

acce

pta

nce

of

WS

UD

d

esig

n p

rin

cip

les,

lo

ng-t

erm

mai

nte

nan

ce r

equ

irem

ents

an

d c

ost

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Del

iver

y m

eth

od

pla

ys

cruci

al r

ole

in

succ

ess

or

fail

ure

of

inn

ovat

ive

pro

ject

s

Imp

erat

ive

that

sta

nd

ard

of

des

ign

do

cum

enta

tio

n f

or

no

vel

tec

hn

iques

be

abo

ve

aver

age

Ear

ly i

nvo

lvem

ent

of

con

stru

ctin

g c

ontr

acto

r w

ho

is

sym

pat

het

ic t

o p

roje

ct i

nn

ovat

ions

Ear

ly i

nvo

lvem

ent

of

app

roval

agen

cies

Surv

ey o

f te

nan

ts r

evea

led

sig

nif

ican

t ac

cep

tance

of

in-h

ou

se u

se o

f ra

inw

ater

co

llec

ted f

rom

ro

ofs

F

ail-

safe

pro

vis

ion

s an

d o

n-g

oin

g m

on

ito

rin

g p

rogra

m v

ital

ele

men

t o

f th

e p

roje

ct a

nd r

efle

ct i

ts

exp

erim

enta

l nat

ure

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Wat

er l

evel

s in

rai

nta

nks

use

d t

o s

upp

ly t

oil

et f

lush

ing a

nd

hot

wat

er u

ses

const

antl

y d

raw

n d

ow

n;

ensu

res

tan

ks

regu

larl

y h

ave

stora

ge

cap

acit

y a

vai

lab

le t

o a

ccep

t ro

of

runo

ff

Wh

o

New

mac

q C

om

mu

nit

y H

ou

sin

g C

om

pan

y m

anag

es s

ite,

New

cast

le C

ity C

ou

nci

l an

d t

he

NS

W

Sto

rmw

ater

Tru

st f

un

ds

pro

gra

m t

o m

on

ito

r per

form

ance

Key

lea

rnin

gs

B.5

Figt

ree

Plac

e ..

.con

tinue

d


100

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Rai

nw

ater

tan

ks,

hot

wat

er s

yst

ems

and

pota

ble

su

pp

ly m

anu

ally

mo

nit

ore

d m

onth

ly f

or

faec

al

coli

form

s, t

ota

l co

lifo

rms,

het

erotr

op

hic

pla

te c

ou

nts

, p

seud

om

onas

spec

ies,

DO

, te

m,

pH

, B

OD

, E

C,

colo

ur,

TP

, N

Ox

, ch

lori

des

, sa

lin

ity,

tota

l so

lid

s, g

iard

ia,

cryp

tosp

ori

diu

m

Rai

nw

ater

tan

k q

ual

ity a

uto

mat

ical

ly m

on

itore

d e

ver

y s

ix h

ours

for

pH

, te

m,

EC

, D

O a

nd

turb

idit

y

Gro

un

dw

ater

qu

alit

y (

colo

ur

and c

onta

min

ant

level

s) r

egu

larl

y m

on

itore

d

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Wat

er u

se

Pre

ssu

re s

enso

rs i

n r

ain

wat

er t

ank a

dja

cen

t to

rec

har

ge

bas

in m

easu

re w

ater

dep

ths

ever

y s

ix h

ours

Pre

ssu

re s

enso

rs i

n b

ore

s m

on

ito

r w

ater

tab

le e

ver

y s

ix h

ou

rs

Pre

ssu

re s

enso

rs a

t ce

ntr

al r

ech

arge

area

an

d r

ech

arge

tren

ch d

eter

min

e in

filt

rati

on

rat

es a

nd

q

uan

tity

of

run

off

Oth

er

Auto

mat

ed m

on

itori

ng s

yst

em (

trig

ger

ed b

y r

ain

even

ts)

in a

dd

itio

n t

o m

anual

sam

pli

ng p

rogra

m

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Eco

no

mic

via

bil

ity

So

cial

acc

epta

nce

(via

qu

esti

onn

aire

of

26

ten

ants

) K

ey l

earn

ings

Imp

roved

tan

kw

ater

qu

alit

y w

ill

resu

lt f

rom

sep

arat

ion

of

firs

t fl

ush

rai

nfa

ll f

rom

in

flo

w t

o

rain

tan

ks

Hot

wat

er s

yst

ems

oper

ate

at t

emper

ature

s su

ffic

ient

to p

astu

eriz

e ta

nkw

ater

to p

rod

uce

qual

ity

com

pli

ant

wit

h A

ust

rali

an D

rin

kin

g W

ater

Gu

idel

ines

W

ater

tre

atm

ent

pro

cess

es o

f fl

occ

ula

tio

n,

sett

lem

ent

and

bio

reac

tio

n a

ppea

r to

oper

ate

in r

ain

wat

er

tanks

Sig

nif

ican

t te

nan

t ac

cepta

nce

(9

5%

) o

f th

e u

se o

f ro

of

run

off

fo

r ir

rigat

ion

, to

ilet

flu

shin

g,

ho

t w

ater

syst

ems,

clo

thes

was

hin

g a

nd

coo

kin

g.

Mo

der

ate

acce

pta

nce

(7

0%

) of

the

po

ssib

le u

se o

f ro

of

run

off

fo

r dri

nkin

g p

urp

ose

s.

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Mea

sure

men

t of

inte

rnal

wat

er u

se s

ho

wed

a 6

5%

red

uct

ion

in

pota

ble

wat

er c

on

sum

pti

on

du

rin

g

the

per

iod

Ju

ne

to D

ecem

ber

19

98

W

ate

r q

uali

ty

Gro

un

dw

ater

: co

mp

lies

wit

h A

ust

rali

an D

rin

kin

g W

ater

Sta

ndar

ds

for

all

par

amet

ers

exce

pt

pH

; ac

cep

tab

le f

or

irri

gat

ion

an

d b

us

was

hin

g p

urp

ose

s R

oo

f ru

noff

: o

ccas

ion

ally

ex

ceed

ed g

uid

elin

e val

ues

for

amm

on

ia,

pH

, ir

on

an

d l

ead

; o

ver

all

sam

ple

s fr

om

tan

ks

and

hot

wat

er s

yst

ems

wer

e fo

un

d c

om

pli

ant

wit

h c

hem

ical

an

d m

etal

p

aram

eter

s in

the

Au

stra

lian

Dri

nkin

g W

ater

Gu

idel

ines

W

ate

r q

ua

nti

ty

Infi

ltra

tio

n b

asin

: m

axim

um

obse

rved

em

pty

ing t

ime

less

th

an t

hat

det

erm

ined

to

in

dic

ate

acce

pta

ble

per

form

ance

B.5

Figt

ree

Plac

e ..

.con

tinue

d


101

Per

form

an

ce c

on

t…

Rai

nta

nks:

11

-44%

red

uct

ion

in

mai

ns

wat

er u

se (

dif

fere

nce

s at

trib

uta

ble

to

co

nst

ruct

ion e

rro

rs w

rt

firs

t fl

ush

pit

s -

low

er v

alues

bec

ause

pit

s se

par

atin

g t

oo

much

run

off

); d

egre

e of

red

uce

d m

ains

wat

er u

se a

nd r

oof

wat

er u

tili

sati

on

dep

end

ent

on

th

e vo

lum

e of

rain

wat

er t

ank s

tora

ge,

roof

area

an

d w

ater

use

per

per

son

, an

d t

he

pro

po

rtio

n o

f ro

of

area

to r

ain

wat

er t

ank v

olu

me

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s R

ain

tan

ks:

per

form

ance

ass

esse

d u

sin

g m

eter

rea

din

gs,

rai

nfa

ll d

ata

and

tan

k l

evel

s K

ey l

earn

ings

Opport

unit

ies

for

impro

ved

des

ign i

n t

he

form

of

reduce

d p

lum

bin

g, el

imin

atio

n o

f bac

kfl

ow

p

reven

tio

n d

evic

es, ex

clu

sio

n o

f re

du

nd

ant

elem

ents

and

mo

re e

ffic

ient

con

stru

ctio

n p

ract

ices

The

exis

tin

g d

esig

n d

etai

ls c

an b

e fu

rth

er i

mp

roved

wit

h c

on

seq

uen

t lo

wer

cost

s

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$2

.7m

bas

ic d

evel

op

men

t, $

10

9,9

00

fo

r W

SU

D e

lem

ents

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

A

nal

ysi

s su

gges

ts t

hat

the

red

evel

op

men

t is

co

st-e

ffec

tive

wh

en c

onsi

der

ed a

s a

com

po

nen

t o

f "b

eyo

nd

cap

acit

y"

urb

an i

nfr

astr

uct

ure

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Pay

bac

k p

erio

d f

or

WS

UD

ele

men

ts w

ou

ld b

e lo

nger

than

th

e an

tici

pat

ed l

ife

of

the

pro

ject

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Over

all

red

uct

ion

in p

ota

ble

wat

er d

eman

d o

f ~

60

% (

40

-45%

by r

esid

ents

) co

mpar

ed w

ith

con

ven

tio

nal

dev

elo

pm

ents

Hig

h r

ain

fall

en

sure

s n

et e

xce

ss a

qu

ifer

rec

har

ge,

wat

er n

ot

req

uir

ed t

o m

eet

on

-sit

e dem

and

s u

sed

by a

dja

cent

bus-

was

hin

g f

acil

ity (

max

2000 k

L/y

r)

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t D

esig

ned

to

co

nta

ins

83

% o

f ru

no

ff (

surf

ace

run

off

fro

m s

even

un

its

in N

E c

orn

er p

asse

s d

irec

tly t

o

con

ven

tio

nal

dra

inag

e sy

stem

) fo

r al

l ev

ents

up

to

an

d i

ncl

ud

ing a

1 i

n 5

0 y

ear

even

t; f

lood

s o

f gre

ater

mag

nit

ud

e w

ill

flo

w o

ver

lan

d t

o s

tree

t at

no

rth

ern

bo

un

dar

y a

nd

pas

s in

to c

on

ven

tio

nal

d

rain

age

syst

em

Rai

nta

nk o

ver

flo

w d

irec

ted

to

so

akaw

ays

(gra

vel

tre

nch

es)

via

sto

rmw

ater

pip

es a

nd

rec

har

ged

to

th

e aq

uif

er;

tren

ches

75

0 m

m d

eep

an

d 1

00

0 m

m w

ide

layer

s o

f gra

vel

en

close

d i

n g

eofa

bri

c b

elo

w

30

0 m

m t

op

soil

lay

er,

over

flo

w f

rom

rai

nta

nks

dis

trib

ute

d w

ith

in t

ren

ches

by s

lott

ed p

ipes

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

S

torm

wat

er d

isch

arge

alm

ost

co

mp

lete

ly e

lim

inat

ed, re

du

ced

do

wn

stre

am f

loo

d p

eak a

nd

red

uce

d

stra

in o

n s

torm

wat

er i

nfr

astr

uct

ure

, in

cludin

g p

oll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

inst

alla

tions

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.5

Figt

ree

Plac

e ..

.con

tinue

d


102

B.6

H

aw

kesb

ury

Wa

ter R

e-u

se S

ch

em

e

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e S

and

y B

oo

th

Lo

cati

on

G

om

ebee

ree

En

vir

on

s, U

niv

ersi

ty o

f W

este

rn S

yd

ney

, H

awkes

bu

ry C

amp

us

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s U

niv

ersi

ty o

f W

este

rn S

yd

ney

Syd

ney

Wat

er C

orp

ora

tio

n

Ric

hm

on

d T

AF

E

Haw

kes

bu

ry C

ity C

ou

nci

l

Cle

an U

p A

ust

rali

a

Ref

eren

ces

(Bo

oth

and

Ad

cock

)

(Bo

oth

et

al.,

20

03)

(Ste

war

t et

al.

, 20

03)

(Cle

an U

p A

ust

rali

a, 2

00

0)

(20

00)

S.

Bo

oth

, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

J. S

tew

art,

per

son

al c

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e D

evel

opin

g i

nte

gra

ted e

nvir

onm

enta

l pre

cinct

focu

sing o

n l

ong-t

erm

iss

ues

of

sust

ainab

ilit

y

Siz

e 4

15

ha

catc

hm

ent

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

80

7.1

(M

L)

43

22

.0

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

11

4.8

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 1

29

7

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

Ter

tiar

y s

edim

ents

~20 m

thic

k w

ith l

ow

poro

sity

Com

ple

men

tary

res

earc

h r

egar

din

g s

oil

sust

ainab

ilit

y a

nd m

onit

ori

ng

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rta

ble

~

7 m

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

B.6

Haw

kesb

ury

Wat

er R

e-us

e Sc

hem

e


103

Aq

uif

er c

on

t…

Oth

er

Gro

un

dw

ater

gen

eral

ly o

f lo

w q

ual

ity,

no

t co

nsi

der

ed s

ign

ific

ant

as a

sup

ply

, sa

lin

ity ~

5 x

hig

her

th

an t

reat

ed e

fflu

ent,

mu

ch h

igh

er t

han

sto

rmw

ater

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Par

tly u

rban

ised

, ru

ral

catc

hm

ent;

un

iver

sity

cam

pu

s h

as h

isto

ry o

f ag

ricu

ltu

ral

and

ho

rtic

ult

ura

l st

ud

ies

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

To

sh

ow

case

an

inte

gra

ted

ap

pro

ach

to

eff

luen

t an

d s

torm

wat

er r

e-u

se a

nd

co

nst

ruct

ed w

etla

nd

te

chn

olo

gie

s, a

nd

pro

vid

e a

focu

s fo

r co

mm

un

ity a

war

enes

s o

f th

e p

ote

nti

al b

enef

its

of

wat

er r

e-u

se

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

R

elia

ble

su

pp

ly o

f b

oth

har

ves

ted

sto

rmw

ater

an

d t

reat

ed e

fflu

ent

O

per

ati

on

al

En

vir

on

men

tal

Man

agem

ent

Pla

n p

rep

ared

as

tech

nic

al r

efer

ence

, b

uil

ds

on

th

e A

S/N

ZS

IS

O 1

40

00

se

ries

gu

idel

ines

R

isk

ass

essm

ent

Init

ial

risk

ass

essm

ent

iden

tifi

ed t

he

pre

lim

inar

y r

isk m

anag

emen

t n

eeds

of

the

bro

ad r

ang o

f st

aff,

co

ntr

acto

rs, st

uden

ts a

nd g

ener

al p

ubli

c w

ho u

tili

se t

he

cam

pus

faci

liti

es

Oth

er

Gra

nt

com

mit

men

ts f

or

Maj

or

Infr

astr

uct

ure

:

(a)

dec

reas

e p

oll

uti

on

load

s to

Ric

kab

ys

Cre

ek

(b)

dev

elo

p s

ust

ain

able

and

inte

gra

ted

eff

luen

t an

d u

rban

sto

rmw

ater

man

agem

ent

and

dis

po

sal

bes

t p

ract

ices

(c

) p

ilo

t an

d s

ho

wca

se v

iab

le r

epu

tab

le u

rban

an

d r

ura

l st

orm

wat

er a

nd

tre

ated

sew

age

effl

uen

t re

-u

se

(d)

har

ves

t an

d s

tore

sto

rmw

ater

flo

ws

for

re-u

se p

artl

y a

s h

igher

qu

alit

y e

nvir

on

men

tal

flow

s

(e)

dev

elo

p s

ust

ain

able

sto

rmw

ater

man

agem

ent

and

dis

po

sal

bes

t pra

ctic

es

(f)

pil

ot

and

sho

wca

se v

iab

le a

nd

rep

uta

ble

urb

an a

nd

ru

ral

storm

wat

er r

e-u

se

Gra

nt

com

mit

men

ts f

or

Com

mu

nit

y A

war

enes

s an

d E

duca

tio

n

(a)

a ce

ntr

al f

ocu

es f

or

pas

sive

recr

eati

on

act

ivit

ies

(b)

pro

vid

e a

piv

ota

l an

d m

ean

ingfu

l li

nk w

ith

th

e S

torm

wat

er T

rust

fu

nd

ed Y

ello

w F

ish

Ro

ad

Pro

gra

m i

n R

ichm

ond

(c)

dev

elo

p c

om

mu

nit

y a

war

enes

s an

d e

duca

tio

n t

hro

ugh

sig

nag

e an

d e

du

cati

on

act

ivit

ies

(d)

pro

vid

e o

ngo

ing f

ocu

s fo

r st

orm

wat

er a

nd e

fflu

ent

re-u

se r

esea

rch

, ed

uca

tio

n a

nd

tra

inin

g

thro

ugh

UW

S a

nd

Ric

hm

on

d C

oll

ege

of

TA

FE

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

R

un

off

fro

m u

niv

ersi

ty c

amp

us

and

res

iden

tial

are

as o

f R

ich

mo

nd

to

wn

ship

co

llec

ted

via

co

nven

tio

nal

gu

tter

and

pip

e sy

stem

in

to o

pen

gra

ssed

chan

nel

s, c

oll

ecte

d i

n S

torm

wat

er D

eten

tio

n

Bas

in a

t ju

nct

ion

of

two

mai

n s

torm

wat

er d

rain

s

B.6

Haw

kesb

ury

Wat

er R

e-us

e Sc

hem

e ..

.con

tinue

d


104

Coll

ecti

on

co

nt…

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) 6

0 (

Bas

in),

40

0 M

L s

torm

wat

er/y

r

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) ~

50%

D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Mo

del

led

by P

hD

stu

den

t (J

oel

Ste

war

t),

ver

ifie

d t

hro

ugh

co

llec

ted

dat

a; s

ever

al f

eatu

res

fro

m

exis

tin

g m

od

els

com

bin

ed t

o c

reat

e a

spre

adsh

eet

mo

del

to

rep

rese

nt

the

har

ves

tab

le y

ield

an

d

asso

ciat

ed w

ater

qu

alit

y;

seri

es o

f su

rfac

e m

ois

ture

sto

res,

lo

g-n

orm

ally

dis

trib

ute

d E

MC

po

llu

tan

t d

istr

ibuti

on

dat

a K

ey L

earn

ings

Sto

rmw

ater

qual

ity f

rom

th

e ca

tch

men

t co

mpar

ativ

ely l

ow

in

SS

, av

erag

e in

TN

, h

igh

in

TP

lo

ads;

m

od

el i

nd

icat

es t

hat

a r

elat

ivel

y s

mal

l p

art

of

the

catc

hm

ent

may

be

resp

onsi

ble

for

hig

h T

P l

evel

s,

repre

sen

tin

g a

go

od

op

po

rtu

nit

y f

or

inte

rven

tio

n o

n a

sm

all

scal

e to

pro

du

ce l

arge

pote

nti

al b

enef

it

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

P

um

ped

fro

m d

eten

tion b

asin

thro

ugh

fou

r w

etla

nds

(co

nst

ruct

ion

nea

ring c

om

ple

tio

n,

sto

rmw

ater

cu

rren

tly p

um

ped

dir

ectl

y f

rom

det

enti

on

bas

in t

o s

tora

ge

dam

) to

Set

tlin

g P

on

d w

her

e fi

ne

sed

imen

ts s

ettl

e o

ut

Capaci

ty (

ML

) W

etla

nd

s: 1

ha

area

eac

h,

15

0m

m a

ver

age

dep

th f

or

no

rmal

op

erat

ing l

evel

, 9

50

mm

to

p w

ater

lev

el,

8 M

L s

tora

ge

cap

acit

y o

f ea

ch w

etla

nd

ab

ove

mai

nte

nan

ce l

evel

s, 3

00

mm

fre

ebo

ard

Set

tlin

g p

on

d:

1.5

ha

area

, 2

.1 m

aver

age

dep

th,

31

.5 M

L t

ota

l st

ora

ge

capac

ity,

25

ML

eff

ecti

ve

stora

ge

cap

acit

y,

16

.5 M

L n

orm

al o

per

atin

g l

evel

, 1

5 M

L n

orm

al f

reeb

oar

d c

apac

ity

15

ML

des

igned

fre

eboar

d f

or

com

bin

ed w

etla

nd

syst

em a

nd

set

tlin

g p

on

d

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Alt

ern

atin

g s

erie

s of

shal

low

wet

lan

ds

area

s an

d d

eep

er o

xid

atio

n p

on

ds,

7 d

ays

tran

sit

tim

e th

rou

gh

w

etla

nd

s, 1

4 d

ays

tota

l tr

eatm

ent

tim

e (i

ncl

udin

g d

eten

tio

n i

n S

ettl

ing P

ond)

Set

tlin

g p

on

d p

rovid

es f

inal

tre

atm

ent

and

sto

rage

capac

ity f

or

trea

ted

sto

rmw

ater

fro

m t

he

wet

lan

ds

for

envir

on

men

tal

flo

ws

to R

ickab

ys

Cre

ek a

nd

sto

rage

in t

he

Tu

rkey

Nes

t D

am

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Des

ign a

llo

ws

a m

ult

itude

of

wet

land f

illi

ng a

nd h

old

ing s

cenar

ios,

this

wil

l al

low

fo

r fu

ture

co

mp

arat

ive

stu

die

s to

be

mad

e fo

r a

wid

e ra

nge

of

man

agem

ent

and

oth

er f

acto

rs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

C

urr

entl

y w

ater

in

th

e D

eten

tio

n B

asin

is

pum

ped

in

to a

Sto

rmw

ater

Turk

ey N

est

Dam

; on

ce t

he

wet

lands

are

com

ple

te, poli

shed

sto

rmw

ater

wil

l be

lift

ed f

rom

Hold

ing P

ond t

o T

urk

ey N

est

Dam

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 9

0 M

L

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Sto

rage

model

ling, ce

ntr

ed o

n a

wat

er a

nd

mas

s b

alan

ce, h

as b

een

uti

lise

d t

o d

escr

ibe

the

cap

ture

, tr

eatm

ent

and

sto

rage

of

storm

wat

er f

rom

th

e ca

tch

men

t.

Act

ivit

ies

wit

hin

th

e ca

tch

men

t (i

ncl

ud

ing

catc

hm

ent

man

agem

ent

op

tio

ns)

an

d t

he

imp

act

on s

torm

wat

er q

ual

ity c

an b

e in

ves

tigat

ed t

hro

ugh

m

od

el v

aria

ble

s as

soci

ated

wit

h p

oll

uti

on

gen

erat

ion

rat

es a

nd

th

e o

per

atio

n o

f th

e st

orm

wat

er r

e-u

se i

nfr

astr

uct

ure

.

B.6

Haw

kesb

ury

Wat

er R

e-us

e Sc

hem

e ..

.con

tinue

d


105

Sto

rage

con

t…

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t E

nvir

on

men

tal fl

ow

s, s

up

ply

Ric

hm

on

d T

AF

E's

irr

igat

ion

req

uir

emen

ts (

wh

ere

it g

oes

thro

ugh

its

o

wn

ser

ies

of

stora

ges

an

d f

ilte

rs),

bac

ku

p s

up

ply

fo

r tr

eate

d e

fflu

ent

(use

d t

o i

rrig

ated

pla

yin

g

fiel

ds,

pas

ture

s an

d R

ich

mo

nd g

olf

clu

b)

Ho

w

Irri

gat

ion

: S

han

die

d w

ith t

reat

ed e

fflu

ent

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Har

ves

tin

g a

nd

re-

use

mo

del

led

by P

hD

stu

den

t (J

oel

Ste

war

t)

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) 2

.5 (

aver

age

dai

ly f

low

), 9

27

(av

erag

e an

nual

pro

du

ctio

n)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

R

ich

mo

nd

ST

P

Tre

atm

ent

Tri

ckli

ng f

ilte

r te

chno

logy,

dis

infe

ctio

n (

new

in

term

itte

nt

dec

ante

d a

ero

bic

lag

oo

n p

lan

t to

be

com

ple

ted

in

lat

e 2

004

);

wet

wea

ther

flo

ws

from

ST

P c

aptu

red

an

d t

reat

ed i

n w

etla

nd

s p

rior

to

pu

mp

ing t

o s

tora

ge.

Sto

rag

e 93 M

L E

fflu

ent

Turk

ey N

est

Dam

, 84 M

L H

ort

icult

ure

Dam

, 76 M

L H

ills

ide

Dam

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

B.6

Haw

kesb

ury

Wat

er R

e-us

e Sc

hem

e ..

.con

tinue

d


106

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se c

on

t…

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Sp

oil

mat

eria

l fr

om

Set

tlin

g P

on

d s

pre

ad o

n i

mm

edia

tely

ad

jace

nt

area

cre

atin

g ~

5 h

a su

itab

le f

or

pas

sive

com

mu

nit

y r

ecre

atio

n

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Shel

terb

elts

at

edge

of

pas

ture

s to

pre

ven

t publi

c fr

om

com

ing i

nto

conta

ct w

ith s

pra

y d

rift

Envir

onm

enta

l M

anag

emen

t P

lan (

bas

ed u

pon I

SO

14000),

pre

lim

inar

y r

isk a

sses

smen

t an

d a

n

on

go

ing p

rogra

m t

o d

evel

op

eff

ecti

ve

risk

co

mm

un

icat

ion

an

d m

anag

emen

t st

rate

gie

s

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Co

nsi

der

atio

n o

f th

e n

eed

fo

r so

il t

reat

men

t to

pre

ven

t gro

und

wat

er a

cces

sio

ns

and

to

aid

pla

nt

esta

bli

shm

ent

in w

etla

nd

s

Co

mp

lem

enta

ry r

esea

rch

into

poss

ible

gro

und

wat

er i

mp

acts

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

R

e-use

of

har

ves

ted

sto

rmw

ater

inte

gra

ted

wit

h u

se o

f tr

eate

d e

fflu

ent

Sch

eme

is p

art

of

a d

evel

op

ing i

nte

gra

ted

en

viro

nm

enta

l p

reci

nct

as

a h

ub

fo

r w

ide

ran

gin

g a

spec

ts

of

pra

ctic

al m

anag

emen

t, r

esea

rch

an

d c

om

mu

nit

y o

utr

each

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

RA

AF

bas

e nea

rby, in

crea

sed b

irdli

fe a

s a

resu

lt o

f co

nst

ruct

ed w

etla

nds,

min

imis

atio

n o

f av

ifau

na

inco

rpora

ted

in

wet

lan

ds

des

ign

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

The

Un

iver

sity

an

d T

AF

E a

re e

ach

res

po

nsi

ble

for

mai

nta

inin

g p

ipin

g a

nd

rel

ated

in

fras

truct

ure

(w

hic

h i

s fi

xed

to a

nd

sit

uat

ed o

n l

and

ow

ned

or

occ

up

ied b

y i

t) i

n g

oo

d w

ork

ing o

rder

and

con

dit

ion

Init

ial

pro

po

sed

pro

ject

lif

e is

10 y

ears

Wee

d m

anag

emen

t V

aria

ble

nat

ure

of

storm

wat

er h

arves

tin

g r

efle

cted

in

all

ow

ed w

etti

ng a

nd

dry

ing o

f w

etla

nd

s, a

nd

d

evel

op

ing e

nvir

on

men

tal

flo

w r

egim

e ab

ove

smal

l d

isch

arges

i.e

. m

imic

kin

g n

atu

ral sy

stem

of

swam

p a

nd

abso

rbin

g s

mal

ler

flo

ws

and

on

ly d

isch

argin

g a

bo

ve

this

Wh

o

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Mea

sure

d a

t ta

ps

loca

ted

on

outf

low

pip

es f

rom

maj

or

wat

er s

tora

ges

Wee

kly

: fa

ecal

co

lifo

rms,

enet

eroco

cci,

pH

, T

DS

, E

C,

DO

, B

OD

, tu

rbid

ity,

tem

, 2

54/5

10

nm

B.6

Haw

kesb

ury

Wat

er R

e-us

e Sc

hem

e ..

.con

tinue

d


107

Mo

nit

ori

ng c

on

t…

Mo

nth

ly:

TN

, T

P, T

SS

, C

hl

a, c

hlo

rin

e re

sid

ual

Hal

f-yea

rly:

Na,

K,

Mg,

Ca,

Cl,

SO

4,

HC

O3,

CO

3

Yea

rly:

hea

vy m

etal

s (A

s, C

d,

Cr,

Hg, P

b),

pes

tici

des

So

il a

nd

gro

un

dw

ater

im

pac

ts

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Wee

kly

: st

ora

ge

dep

ths,

wat

er f

low

s F

low

met

er a

t en

d o

f tr

ansf

er p

ipe

fro

m t

he

un

iver

sity

to

the

TA

FE

; w

ater

su

pp

ly r

eco

rded

on

a

mo

nth

ly b

asis

Gro

un

dw

ater

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

Co

nsi

der

able

ad

dit

ion

al i

nfr

astr

uct

ure

in

th

e fo

rm o

f p

ipes

an

d p

um

ps

pro

vid

ed a

s in

-kin

d

con

trib

uti

ons

by a

ran

ge

of

ind

ust

ry a

nd b

usi

nes

s par

tner

s

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

) U

ser

pri

ce

Use

rs a

re n

ot

char

ged

per

kL

, h

ow

ever

Ric

hm

on

d T

AF

E c

on

trib

ute

to

cap

tial

in

fras

tru

cture

co

sts

and

mee

t a

shar

e o

f th

e o

ngo

ing o

per

atio

nal

co

sts,

wo

uld

be

inte

rest

ing t

o k

no

w i

f th

is l

eads

to

exce

ss w

ater

use

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Red

uce

d d

eman

d o

n p

ota

ble

wat

er s

up

pli

es

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Min

imis

ing i

mp

acts

of

effl

uen

t d

isch

arges

into

Haw

kes

bu

ry-N

epea

n R

iver

syst

em

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

N

utr

ient

recy

clin

g,

har

ves

tin

g a

nd

use

for

agri

cult

ura

l pro

duct

ion

E

nvi

ron

men

tal

flo

w

So

me

sto

rmw

ater

rel

ease

d t

o R

ickab

ys

Cre

ek a

s en

vir

on

men

tal

flo

ws

of

imp

roved

wat

er q

ual

ity

H

arves

ted

sto

rmw

ater

cri

tica

l bu

ffer

wit

hin

Sch

eme

B.6

Haw

kesb

ury

Wat

er R

e-us

e Sc

hem

e ..

.con

tinue

d


108

B.7

H

om

eb

ush

Bay

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e A

nd

rzej

Lis

tow

ski

Lo

cati

on

S

ydney

, N

SW

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s S

yd

ney

Oly

mp

ic P

ark A

uth

ori

ty

Ref

eren

ces

A.

Lis

tow

ski,

per

son

al c

om

mu

nic

atio

n

(SO

PA

, 2

00

3)

(Mel

bou

rne

Wat

er, 2

00

3)

(Un

ited

KG

, 2

00

3)

(OC

A,

19

98

)

(OC

A,

19

99

)

(OC

A,

20

00

)

(SO

PA

, 2

00

2)

(DE

H, 2003)

(In

no

vat

ion

On

lin

e, 1

99

9)

(In

no

vat

ion

On

lin

e, 2

00

0)

(Ro

cla,

20

03)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

edev

elopm

ent

(res

iden

tial

est

ate,

sta

te s

po

rtin

g f

acil

itie

s, b

usi

nes

s p

ark a

nd

open

spac

e)

Siz

e 7

60

ha,

~4

00

of

wh

ich

is

par

kla

nd

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

W

ork

on

WR

P a

nd

WT

P c

om

men

ced

in S

epte

mb

er 1

99

9,

WR

AM

S c

om

men

ced

27

July

20

00

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t an

d a

llo

tmen

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

92

1.3

(M

L)

33

49

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

10

6.4

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 6

14

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

12

00

-13

00

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

B.7

Hom

ebus

h B

ay


109

Aq

uif

er c

on

t…

Oth

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Fo

rmer

ly u

sed

for

lan

dfi

ll,

abb

ato

irs

and

a n

avy a

rmam

ent

dep

ot

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

En

sure

co

mp

lian

ce w

ith

th

e en

vir

on

men

tal

und

erta

kin

gs

mad

e b

y t

he

NS

W G

over

nm

ent

in

Syd

ney

's B

id d

ocu

men

t, T

he

En

vir

on

men

tal

Gu

idel

ines

for

the

Su

mm

er O

lym

pic

Gam

es

(Sep

tem

ber

19

93

) E

nco

ura

ge

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

inn

ovat

ive

and

eff

ecti

ve

was

tew

ater

tre

atm

ent

tech

no

logie

s an

d

man

agem

ent

pra

ctic

es

Posi

tio

n t

he

NS

W G

over

nm

ent

in a

lea

din

g r

ole

by d

emo

nst

rati

ng s

ou

nd,

sust

ain

able

wat

er r

eso

urc

e m

anag

emen

t in

a h

igh p

rofi

le p

roje

ct

Red

uce

dem

and

for

pota

ble

wat

er f

rom

Syd

ney

Wat

er's

syst

ems

Red

uce

sew

age

dis

char

ge

to S

yd

ney

Wat

er's

syst

ems.

Imp

rove

the

qu

alit

y o

f st

orm

wat

er e

nte

rin

g H

om

ebu

sh B

ay a

nd

th

e P

arra

mat

ta R

iver

fro

m t

he

site

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

N

SW

Rec

ycl

ed W

ater

Co-o

rdin

atio

n C

om

mit

tee

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Oly

mp

ic C

oo

rdin

atio

n A

uth

ori

ty A

ct 1

995

Pro

tect

ion

of

the

En

vir

on

men

t O

per

atio

ns

Act

19

97

En

vir

on

men

tal P

lan

nin

g a

nd A

sses

smen

t A

ct 1

99

7

Sta

te E

nvir

on

men

t P

lann

ing P

oli

cy N

o 3

8 -

Oly

mp

ic G

ames

Pro

ject

s

Syd

ney

Reg

ion

al E

nv

iro

nm

enta

l P

lann

ing P

oli

cy N

o 2

4 -

Ho

meb

ush

Bay

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

G

utt

er a

nd

pip

e sy

stem

for

hig

h t

raff

ic a

reas

, sw

ales

in

lo

w t

raff

ic a

reas

E

xte

nsi

ve

use

of

per

mea

ble

pav

ers

(Ro

cla

Eco

Tri

hex

) an

d e

ngin

eere

d s

oil

s (t

hat

pre

ven

t co

mp

acti

on

) th

rou

gh

out

urb

an d

om

an a

reas

to

max

imis

e ra

inw

ater

abso

rpti

on

for

larg

e am

enit

y

tree

s

Som

e sp

ort

ing v

enu

es c

oll

ect

ow

n r

oo

f ru

no

ff

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

B.7

Hom

ebus

h B

ay .

..con

tinue

d


110

Co

llec

tio

n c

on

t…

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

P

rio

r to

sto

rage:

GP

Ts,

sw

ales

, co

nst

ruct

ed w

etla

nds

Ru

no

ff d

irec

ted

to

lit

ter

and

sed

imen

t co

ntr

ol

dev

ices

(G

PT

s, s

wal

es)

and

to

co

nst

ruct

ed w

etla

nd

s

3 w

ater

qu

alit

y c

on

tro

l p

ond

s co

llec

t fi

rst

flush

, al

low

sed

imen

ts t

o s

ettl

e an

d a

bso

rb n

utr

ien

ts v

ia

aqu

atic

pla

nts

Post

sto

rage:

mic

rofi

ltra

tio

n,

rever

se o

smosi

s, c

hlo

rin

e d

isin

fect

ion

, dec

hlo

rin

atio

n

Capaci

ty (

ML

) T

reat

men

t p

lant:

7M

L/d

ay

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Gab

ion

wal

ls e

nsu

re a

reas

of

op

en w

ater

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

L

ow

er l

evel

s o

f d

isu

sed

bri

ckp

it

Wet

lands

along H

asla

ms

Cre

ek s

tore

sto

rmw

ater

fro

m a

dja

cent

Par

kal

nds,

New

ingto

n a

nd t

he

Hil

l ro

ad c

ar p

ark (

seco

ndar

y s

tore

); s

epar

ate

pond

s fo

r dra

wd

ow

n a

nd

orn

amen

tal/

bio

div

ersi

ty

con

serv

atio

n p

urp

ose

s

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 3

50

ML

bri

ckp

it,

140

ML

wet

lan

ds

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Bri

ckpit

sto

rage

is c

orn

erst

one

of

sch

eme,

sto

rage

capac

ity f

ar g

reat

er t

han

irr

igat

ion

req

uir

emen

ts,

low

est

level

dra

wn

do

wn

to i

s ~

55

% d

uri

ng s

um

mer

02/0

3

Syst

em o

per

atio

nal

fo

r 3

yea

rs, n

o t

op

up

wit

h p

ota

ble

wat

er r

equ

ired

so

far

H

igh

nu

trie

nts

lev

els

in b

rick

pit

sto

re,

vis

ible

alg

al g

row

th,

curr

entl

y i

nves

tigat

ing o

pti

on

s fo

r n

utr

ien

t re

mo

val

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

, w

ater

fea

ture

s an

d o

ther

ou

tdo

or

use

s, t

oil

et f

lush

ing,

fire

fig

hti

ng,

envir

on

men

tal

flo

ws

Ho

w

Dual

ret

icu

lati

on

, 3

0 k

m o

f d

istr

ibuti

on

pip

elin

es

Lo

w v

olu

me

irri

gat

ion

syst

ems

inst

alle

d w

her

e p

oss

ible

; se

par

ate

irri

gat

ion

syst

ems

in s

om

e ar

eas

for

flex

ible

irr

igat

ion

(e.

g.

tree

s ca

n b

e w

ater

ed w

hil

e gra

ssed

are

as r

emai

n d

ry)

Capaci

ty (

ML

) u

p t

o 2

.5 M

L/d

ay,

on

aver

age

the

sch

eme

uti

lise

s 7

00 M

L o

f se

wag

e an

d 2

00 M

L o

f st

orm

wat

er p

er

yea

r

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 3

5%

tota

l w

ater

use

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Car

efu

l in

spec

tio

n o

f du

al r

etic

ula

tio

n s

yst

em h

as r

esu

lted

in

on

ly 2

cro

ss-c

on

nec

tio

ns,

nei

ther

in

re

sid

enti

al d

wel

lin

gs

B.7

Hom

ebus

h B

ay .

..con

tinue

d


111

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

R

un

off

fro

m s

tad

ium

an

d s

ho

wgro

un

d r

oofs

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e U

nd

ergro

un

d t

anks

Re-

use

Ir

rigat

ion

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) 2

.2 M

L/d

ay

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

) 3

0

Co

llec

tion

S

ewer

min

ing f

rom

New

ingto

n V

illa

ge,

sport

ing v

enues

and s

how

gro

unds

Tre

atm

ent

Rec

lam

atio

n p

lan

t: B

NR

, U

V d

isin

fect

ion

, se

con

dar

y e

fflu

ent,

cap

acit

y =

2.2

ML

sew

age/

day

T

reat

men

t p

lant:

mix

ed w

ith

sto

rmw

ater

fro

m b

rick

pit

, m

icro

filt

rati

on

, R

O,

chlo

rin

e d

isin

fect

ion

, d

ech

lori

nat

ion

, ca

pac

ity =

7M

L/d

ay

Sto

rag

e F

oll

ow

ing t

reat

men

t, (

sola

r p

ow

ered

) pu

mp

ed i

nto

dis

trib

uti

on

net

wo

rk f

or

re-u

se a

rou

nd t

he

site

; W

TP

has

7 M

L/d

ay u

nd

ergro

und

sto

rage

tan

k w

hic

h p

rovid

es b

uff

er s

tora

ge

du

rin

g s

um

mer

per

iod

; ex

cess

tre

ated

eff

luen

t st

ore

d i

n b

rick

pit

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

45

0 h

a o

f p

arkla

nd

s in

corp

ora

te c

onse

rvat

ion

of

hab

itat

of

an e

nd

anger

ed f

rog s

pec

ies

and

oth

er

fau

na

B.7

Hom

ebus

h B

ay .

..con

tinue

d


112

Sit

e A

men

ity c

on

t…

Pro

vis

ion

mad

e fo

r co

nver

sio

n t

o m

ain

s su

pp

ly f

or

emer

gen

cy/i

nfr

equen

t ev

ents

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

21

0 h

a id

enti

fied

as

conta

min

ated

so

ils;

rec

laim

ed a

nd

tre

ated

pri

or

to c

onst

ruct

ion

act

ivit

ies

Ou

tsid

e ta

ps

are

sign

ed

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

L

ow

-wat

er t

ole

rant

lan

dsc

ape

spec

ies

R

ehab

ilit

atio

n o

f m

ore

th

an 1

00 h

a of

wat

erw

ays

and

wet

lan

ds,

mo

st o

f w

hic

h w

ere

in a

deg

rad

ed

stat

e pri

or

to d

evel

opm

ent.

M

ore

than

1.4

mil

lion c

ubic

met

res

of

was

te r

emoved

and p

lace

d i

n a

co

nta

inm

ent

area

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

W

ater

cycl

e m

anag

emen

t co

nsi

der

s p

ota

ble

wat

er,

sew

erag

e se

rvic

es,

coll

ecti

on

, st

ora

ge

and

use

of

storm

wat

er f

or

irri

gat

ion

, re

clam

atio

n o

f w

ater

fro

m s

ewer

min

ing,

pro

vis

ion

of

GP

Ts

and

wat

er

qu

alit

y p

on

ds

and

wet

lan

ds

to m

ain

tain

sto

rmw

ater

qual

ity,

and

the

Wat

er R

ecla

mat

ion

and

Man

agem

ent

Sch

eme

(WR

AM

S)

Wat

er s

avin

g a

pp

lian

ces

are

use

d (

redu

ce w

ater

co

nsu

mpti

on

by 3

0%

co

mp

ared

to

tra

dit

ional

fi

ttin

gs)

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

wat

er q

ual

ity p

rob

lem

s in

sto

rage

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Dev

elo

ped

En

vir

on

men

tal

Man

gag

emen

t S

yst

em t

hat

co

mp

lies

wit

h I

SO

14

00

1;

the

EM

S r

equ

ired

E

nvir

on

men

tal M

anag

emen

t P

lans

for

all

dev

elo

pm

ent

stag

es f

or

all

ven

ues

an

d f

acil

itie

s

WR

AM

S o

per

ates

sew

age

trea

tmen

t h

ow

ever

Syd

ney

Wat

er c

oll

ects

mo

ney

for

this

ser

vic

e

Init

iall

y E

PA

wan

ted

war

nin

g s

ign

s o

n t

oil

ets

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Hig

h l

evel

of

pu

bli

c ap

pro

val

, su

rvey

in

dic

ates

no

sal

es o

f u

nit

s at

New

ingto

n l

ost

du

e to

rec

ycl

ed

wat

er

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Lit

tle

det

ail

avai

lab

le a

bo

ut

O&

M, h

ow

ever

syst

em a

ud

its

of

pro

ject

s u

nd

erta

ken

to d

eter

min

e ap

pro

pri

aten

ess

of

EM

S p

roce

dure

s

GP

Ts

and

po

lluti

on

boo

ms

Who

U

nit

ed K

G (

envir

on

men

tal

engin

eeri

ng c

om

pan

y),

for

25

yea

rs

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Mo

nit

ore

d c

onti

nu

ousl

y;

recy

cled

wat

er (

met

als,

nutr

ients

, b

acte

ria,

vir

use

s) a

nd

str

eam

s

20

mo

nit

ori

ng p

oin

ts p

lus

all

oth

er s

ignfi

can

t p

on

ds

and

wet

lan

ds

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Eco

logic

al s

tud

ies

of

salt

mar

sh, b

enth

ic i

nver

tebra

tes,

bir

ds,

mo

squ

ito

es,

the

Gre

en a

nd

Gold

en B

ell

Fro

g,

fish

an

d a

qu

atic

pla

nts

Ind

epen

den

t re

vie

ws

un

der

taken

by t

hre

e org

anis

atio

ns

B.7

Hom

ebus

h B

ay .

..con

tinue

d


113

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Com

pli

ance

rep

ort

s an

d c

erti

fica

tes

Au

dit

rep

ort

s

Mo

nth

ly a

nd

qu

arte

rly e

nvir

on

men

tal

rep

ort

s

Co

mp

end

ium

of

ES

D i

nit

iati

ves

an

d o

utc

om

es

En

vir

on

men

t re

port

s W

ate

r q

uali

ty

Red

uct

ion

in T

N, T

P, T

SS

in s

torm

wat

er p

assi

ng t

hro

ugh

wat

er q

ual

ity p

on

ds

~40 t

onnes

of

litt

er r

emoved

fro

m H

asla

ms

Cre

ek d

uri

ng 2

000 b

y b

oom

s an

d p

hysi

cal

clea

nin

g o

f b

anks

Duri

ng 2

00

1/2

00

2 a

tota

l of

148

to

nn

es o

f li

tter

, se

dim

ent

and v

eget

atio

n w

as c

oll

ecte

d f

rom

GP

Ts

and

po

lluti

on

bo

om

s

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s R

egula

tory

co

mp

lian

ce a

nd

en

vir

on

men

tal

per

form

ance

rep

ort

ed i

n q

uar

terl

y e

nvir

on

men

tal

rep

ort

s K

ey l

earn

ings

To

dat

e, a

ll w

ater

qu

alit

y m

on

ito

rin

g d

ata

of

the

recy

cled

wat

er c

om

pli

es w

ith

Au

stra

lian

wat

er

qu

alit

y s

tand

ard

s

Rec

entl

y r

ecei

ved

app

roval

to

use

rec

ycl

ed w

ater

in w

ash

ing m

ach

ines

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

WR

AM

S b

ud

get

$1

5.8

8m

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

$

30

m o

ver

25 y

ears

(o

per

atio

n a

nd

mai

nte

nan

ce)

(c

ost

s/kL

) $

1.8

0/k

L

Use

r pri

ce

77

.5 c

/kL

(se

t at

15

c/k

L c

hea

per

than

pota

ble

wat

er),

"sm

all

qu

arte

rly s

ervic

e ch

arges

"

Ben

efit

s

Red

uce

d d

ema

nd

for

po

tab

le

sup

ply

~5

0%

(u

p t

o 8

50

ML

) re

duct

ion

in a

nnu

al c

on

sum

pti

on o

f p

ota

ble

wat

er

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t C

apac

ity:

1 i

n 1

0 y

ear

even

t, c

onst

ruct

ed w

etla

nd

s o

ff H

asla

ms

Cre

ek a

ct a

s b

yp

ass

chan

nel

an

d

incr

ease

cap

acit

y u

p t

o 1

in

100

yea

r ev

ent

Gre

ater

than

90%

red

uct

ion

in t

he

dis

char

ge

of

sew

age

effl

uen

t to

wat

erw

ays

and

the

oce

an f

rom

th

e ar

ea s

erved

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Rec

eivin

g w

ater

s pro

tect

ed f

rom

sto

rmw

ater

an

d w

aste

wat

er d

isch

arges

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

R

edu

ced

volu

me

of

dis

char

ge

to S

yd

ney

's s

ewer

age

syst

em

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

H

abit

at f

or

thre

aten

ed f

lora

an

d f

auna

spec

ies

pro

tect

ed a

nd

en

han

ced

B.7

Hom

ebus

h B

ay .

..con

tinue

d


114

B.8

In

kerm

an

Oa

sis

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e G

ary S

piv

ak

Lo

cati

on

3

3 I

nker

man

St,

St

Kil

da,

VIC

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s C

ity o

f P

ort

Ph

illi

p

Inker

man

Dev

elo

pm

ents

Pty

Ltd

Wil

liam

s B

oag

Inte

gra

ted

eco

-Vil

lages

En

vir

on

men

t A

ust

rali

a

Nat

ional

Her

itag

e T

rust

So

uth

Eas

t W

ater

Ref

eren

ces

(Mel

bou

rne

Wat

er, 2

00

3)

(DE

H, 2003)

(CP

P, 2003)

(Sav

ewat

er, 2

00

3)

(CP

P, 2003)

(20

00)

(Sp

ivak

an

d K

eran

s, 2

00

1)

G.

Sp

ivak

, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

G.

Ker

ans,

per

son

al c

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e

Red

evel

op

men

t (p

ub

lic-

pri

vat

e p

artn

ersh

ip t

o d

evel

op

23

7-u

nit

co

mm

un

ity-p

rivat

e h

ousi

ng

dev

elo

pm

ent)

Siz

e 1

.22

3 h

a

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

S

tage

1 c

om

ple

ted

Au

gu

st 2

00

2, S

tage

2 c

om

ple

ted

Au

gu

st 2

00

3 (

not

sure

if

this

is

tru

e fo

r S

tage

2)

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

S

ub

-div

isio

n a

nd

all

otm

ent

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

65

7.3

(M

L)

8.0

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

14

7.0

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 7

.6

B.8

Inke

rman

Oas

is


115

Rain

fall

con

t…

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

3.4

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Fo

rmer

Cit

y o

f S

t K

ild

a M

un

icip

al D

epo

t si

te

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Pro

ject

to

pro

vid

e:

(a)

mix

ed p

rivat

e an

d c

om

mu

nit

y h

ousi

ng

(b)

hig

h q

ual

ity u

rban

des

ign

an

d a

rch

itec

ture

, in

clu

din

g i

nte

gra

ted a

rtw

ork

s

(c)

bes

t pra

ctic

e ec

olo

gic

ally

su

stai

nab

le d

esig

n

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Dev

elo

per

sub

contr

acte

d d

esig

n o

f w

ater

rec

ycli

ng s

trat

egy a

nd

neg

oti

atio

n o

f re

gu

lato

ry a

pp

roval

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

(a

) G

utt

er a

nd p

ipe

(All

fir

st f

lush

roof

and

gro

un

d r

un

off

)

(b)

Nat

ura

l dra

inag

e (w

ater

see

pag

e o

ff l

and

scap

ed a

reas

ret

urn

s to

wet

land

s an

d t

erti

ary t

reat

men

t ta

nk,

ensu

rin

g c

lose

d l

oo

p s

yst

em)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

(a

) G

PT

(b)

pri

mar

y t

reat

men

t in

con

stru

cted

wet

lan

d

(c)

tert

iary

tre

atm

ent

by K

ub

ota

tan

k

po

st s

tora

ge:

UV

dis

infe

ctio

n

Cap

aci

ty

0.0

4 h

a w

etla

nd

, 1

0.8

kL

ter

tiar

y t

reat

men

t ta

nk

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

GP

T o

n b

oth

en

ds

of

the

wet

land

B.8

Inke

rman

Oas

is .

..con

tinue

d


116

Tre

atm

ent

con

t…

Pri

mar

y:

filt

rati

on

thro

ugh

so

il-g

ravel

med

ium

an

d a

bso

rpti

on

by w

etla

nd

s p

lants

to

rem

ove

par

ticl

es a

nd

nutr

ien

ts

Wet

land d

esig

ned

for

both

ver

tica

l an

d h

ori

zonta

l su

b-s

urf

ace

flow

s to

enco

ura

ge

full

uti

lisa

tion o

f m

edia

surf

ace

area

Ter

tiar

y:

mem

bra

ne

bio

-rea

ctor

tan

k -

aer

ob

ic s

and

fil

ter,

mem

bra

ne

mic

rofi

ltra

tio

n

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

C

om

bin

ed s

torm

wat

er a

nd

bat

hro

om

gre

yw

ater

hel

d i

n s

tora

ge

tan

k

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 0

.04

5

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 0

.60%

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t S

ub

-su

rfac

e gar

den

irr

igat

ion

, to

ilet

flu

shin

g

Ho

w

reti

cula

ted

by t

wo

co

nst

ant

pre

ssure

pu

mp

s

Ca

pa

city

2

50

0 s

q.m

. la

ndsc

aped

are

as

All

toil

ets

wit

hin

the

dev

elopm

ent

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Irri

gat

ion

: co

ntr

oll

ed t

o r

elea

se w

ater

to

dry

are

as t

hro

ugh

582

5m

of

slo

w r

elea

se d

rip

per

pip

ing b

y

12

so

leno

ids

trig

ger

ed b

y a

co

mp

ute

r an

d m

ois

ture

sen

sors

To

ilet

: el

ectr

ical

ly p

ow

ered

pu

mp

wh

ich

dis

trib

ute

s w

ater

th

rou

gh

the

rin

g m

ain

syst

em,

mai

ns

pre

ssure

fed

hea

der

tan

k a

s b

ack u

p

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Fir

st g

rey w

ater

rec

ycl

ing o

f it

s kin

d i

n V

icto

ria

and

the

on

ly p

roje

ct c

om

bin

ing s

torm

wat

er a

nd

gre

y w

ater

in

Au

stra

lia

of

this

typ

e an

d i

n t

his

den

sity

of

ho

usi

ng

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

B.8

Inke

rman

Oas

is .

..con

tinue

d


117

Wa

stew

ate

r co

nt…

C

oll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 1

40

of

the

237

un

its

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

G

reyw

ater

fro

m b

athro

om

s

Tre

atm

ent

Hai

r an

d l

int

trap

s, p

rim

ary t

reat

men

t in

15

kL

aer

atio

n b

alan

ce t

ank t

o r

emo

ve

susp

end

ed s

oli

ds,

th

en j

oin

s st

orm

wat

er f

or

tert

iary

tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Un

its

gen

eral

ly h

ave

an e

ner

gy s

tar

rati

ng o

f b

etw

een

3.5

and

4.5

sta

rts

thro

ugh

mat

eria

ls s

elec

tio

n,

un

it d

esig

n a

nd

enco

ura

gem

ent

of

low

en

ergy

/res

ourc

e ef

fici

ent

app

lian

ces

and

fix

ture

s

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Co

nta

min

ated

so

ils

req

uir

ed r

emed

iati

on

pri

or

to d

evel

op

men

t

Pea

k s

torm

wat

er f

low

s d

iver

ted

to c

on

ven

tio

nal

dra

inag

e sy

stem

Gre

yw

ater

div

erte

d t

o c

on

ven

tio

nal

sew

age

syst

em w

hen

rai

nfa

ll i

s d

etec

ted

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

P

rim

aril

y n

ativ

e an

d i

nd

igen

ou

s p

lant

spec

ies

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

R

oo

f gar

den

s o

ver

24

0 c

ar s

ub

-bas

emen

t ca

r p

ark

Do

mes

tic

gre

yw

ater

fro

m ~

50%

of

un

its

recy

cled

; re

duce

d s

ewer

lo

adin

gs

into

Bay

via

ST

P

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Lan

d r

ezon

ed f

rom

Pu

bli

c P

urp

ose

-Lo

cal

Go

ver

nm

ent

to M

ixed

Use

Co

un

cil

acce

pta

nce

of

bu

ild

ing h

eigh

ts a

nd

un

it d

ensi

ty

Unab

le t

o r

each

an

agre

emen

t w

ith

lo

cal

wat

er a

uth

ori

ty i

n t

erm

s of

red

uce

d w

ater

sup

ply

an

d

dra

inag

e ch

arges

Oth

er

Un

der

too

k c

om

mu

nit

y c

onsu

ltat

ion

Key L

earn

ings

Som

e ori

gin

al E

SD

fea

ture

s (e

.g. in

tensi

ve

roof

gar

den

s, s

ola

r pow

er)

om

itte

d f

rom

pla

n b

ecau

se

they

wer

e n

ot

com

mer

cial

ly v

iab

le w

hil

e o

ther

fea

ture

s w

ere

enh

ance

d (

e.g.

wat

er r

e-u

se)

B.8

Inke

rman

Oas

is .

..con

tinue

d


118

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

con

t…

Pro

ject

ach

ieves

quad

ruple

bott

om

lin

e su

stai

nab

ilit

y:

soci

al, en

vir

onm

enta

l, e

conom

ic a

nd c

ult

ura

l T

he

val

ue

of

a jo

int

ven

ture

bet

wee

n l

oca

l go

ver

nm

ent

and

a p

rivat

e d

evel

op

er t

o a

chie

ve

a b

est

pra

ctic

e p

roje

ct a

cro

ss a

ran

ge

of

area

s -

hav

e b

een

ab

le t

o c

om

bin

e b

oth

par

ties

' skil

ls,

role

s an

d

exp

erie

nce

Lac

k o

f w

ater

in

du

stry

/au

tho

rity

exp

erie

nce

an

d p

oli

cies

. F

or

pio

nee

rin

g p

roje

cts,

th

e n

ego

tiat

ion

, as

sess

men

t an

d a

pp

roval

pro

cess

is

extr

emel

y s

low

an

d r

eso

urc

e in

tensi

ve.

L

ack o

f d

evel

op

er f

ron

t-en

d i

nce

nti

ves

. C

apit

al c

ost

s fo

r W

SU

D i

s u

nab

le t

o b

e re

com

pen

sed

at

any t

ime

in t

he

pro

ject

sin

ce m

arket

dem

and f

or

WS

UD

is

no

t co

mpen

sate

d b

y t

he

pri

ces

un

its

can

se

ll f

or.

Lea

rnin

g e

xp

erie

nce

in

ter

ms

of

ho

w W

SU

D d

ovet

ails

wit

h t

he

con

stru

ctio

n p

roce

ss a

nd

co

nst

ruct

ion r

equ

irem

ents

- i

.e.

sched

uli

ng c

on

stru

ctio

n o

f th

e w

etla

nds

and

ass

oci

ated

co

nst

ruct

ion

m

anag

emen

t is

sues

, giv

en a

gen

eral

unfa

mil

iari

ty w

ith c

on

stru

ctin

g W

SU

D f

eatu

res.

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Gre

yw

ater

div

erte

d t

o c

on

vet

ion

al s

ewag

e sy

stem

wh

en r

ainfa

ll i

s d

etec

ted.

Aft

er a

ll t

he

trea

ted

st

orm

wat

er h

as b

een r

e-use

d i

nto

th

e to

ilet

s, t

he

syst

em r

ever

ts t

o c

oll

ecti

ng g

reyw

ater

agai

n.

Ter

tiar

y t

reat

men

t ta

nk i

s d

up

lica

ted

to

per

mit

mai

nte

nan

ce o

n e

ach

in

div

idu

al m

emb

rane

mo

du

le

wit

ho

ut

the

syst

em r

ever

tin

g t

o a

co

nven

tio

nal

syst

em (

wh

ere

was

te g

oes

to

th

e se

wer

age

syst

em)

Who

B

od

y c

orp

ora

te r

esp

on

sib

le f

or

lon

g-t

erm

mai

nte

nan

ce a

nd

ser

vic

ing o

f th

e p

lan

t an

d e

qu

ipm

ent

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Cu

rren

tly m

on

ito

rin

g o

ut

of

trea

tmen

t sy

stem

an

d s

oil

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Pla

n t

o m

on

ito

r fl

ow

at

five

po

ints

th

rou

gh

syst

em

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s K

ey l

earn

ings

Pla

n t

o k

eep s

torm

wat

er a

nd

gre

yw

ater

sep

arat

e in

futu

re d

evel

op

men

ts, st

orm

wat

er i

s o

f hig

her

q

ual

ity,

wan

t to

use

fo

r h

ot

wat

er s

up

ply

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$5

0 m

, $

434

,000

for

WS

UD

ele

men

ts

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

m

ainte

nan

ce c

ost

~$25/y

r/re

sid

ent

B.8

Inke

rman

Oas

is .

..con

tinue

d


119

Cost

s co

nt…

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s

Red

uce

d d

ema

nd

for

po

tab

le

sup

ply

~4

0%

in s

um

mer

, ~

20%

in w

inte

r

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t O

nce

fir

st f

lush

sto

rmw

ater

fil

ls w

etla

nd, cl

ean f

low

s ar

e dir

ecte

d t

o c

onven

tional

sto

rmw

ater

dra

ins

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Nat

ura

l fe

rtil

isat

ion o

f gar

den

s fr

om

nutr

ients

in t

reat

ed w

aste

wat

er a

nd p

reven

tion o

f m

anufa

cture

d

fert

ilis

er a

ppli

cati

ons

~14 t

onnes

of

nit

rogen

and p

hosp

hat

es w

ill

be

pre

ven

ted f

rom

ente

ring P

ort

Phil

lip B

ay p

er y

ear

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

R

educe

d l

oad

ing o

n t

he

sew

age

syst

em a

nd r

educe

d s

ewer

load

ings

goin

g t

o P

ort

Ph

illi

p B

ay

Pre

ven

tio

n o

f th

e n

eed

for

pip

ing i

nfr

astr

uct

ure

to b

e u

psi

zed

as

wo

uld

oth

erw

ise

be

req

uir

ed i

n a

co

nven

tio

nal

dev

elo

pm

ent

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.8

Inke

rman

Oas

is .

..con

tinue

d


120

B.9

K

ogara

h T

ow

n S

qu

are

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e P

eter

Sm

ith

Lo

cati

on

K

ogar

ah,

Syd

ney

, N

SW

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s K

ogar

ah M

un

icip

al C

ou

nci

l

Syd

ney

Wat

er

Inst

itute

fo

r S

ust

ain

able

Futu

res

Hig

h T

rade

Pty

Ltd

Ref

eren

ces

(DE

H, 2003)

(KM

C,

20

03)

P.

Sm

ith

, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

(Mou

ritz

, 2

000

)

(Lo

cal

Go

ver

nm

ent

Fo

cus,

20

01)

(KM

C)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

edev

elo

pm

ent

Mix

ed-u

se c

om

ple

x:

reta

il a

nd

co

mm

erci

al s

pac

e, 1

90

apar

tmen

ts, li

bra

ry,

un

der

gro

un

d p

arkin

g

Siz

e 1

ha

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

ea

rly 2

00

3

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

su

b-c

atch

men

t? (

tow

n s

qu

are)

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

11

02

.4

(

ML

) 1

1.0

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

12

9.4

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 9

.4

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

B.9

Kog

arah

Tow

n Sq

uare


121

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Sit

uat

ed o

n t

he

rid

ge

bet

wee

n t

he

den

sely

urb

anis

ed c

atch

men

ts o

f th

e C

oo

ks

Riv

er a

nd

th

e G

eorg

es

Riv

er t

hat

flo

w i

nto

Bo

tan

y B

ay.

Bo

th r

iver

s h

ave

deg

rad

ed w

ater

qu

alit

y a

nd

are

su

bje

ct to

p

ress

ure

s fr

om

in

crea

sin

g u

rban

co

nso

lidat

ion

, tr

affi

c d

ensi

ties

an

d i

nd

ust

rial

act

ivit

ies.

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Q

uan

tity

- a

vo

idan

ce o

f fl

oo

din

g a

nd

th

e re

quir

emen

t fo

r sy

stem

am

pli

fica

tio

n d

ow

nst

ream

Q

ual

ity -

all

wat

er d

isch

argin

g f

rom

the

site

sh

ou

ld h

ave

min

imal

im

pac

t o

n r

ecei

vin

g w

ater

C

on

serv

atio

n -

tak

e ad

van

tage

of

the

rain

wat

er t

o r

educe

th

e dem

and f

or

pota

ble

mai

ns

wat

er

Aes

thet

ic/s

oci

al -

th

e w

ater

syst

em s

ho

uld

be

inco

rpora

ted

into

th

e ae

sthet

ic e

lem

ent

of

the

des

ign

an

d p

rovid

e an

opp

ort

un

ity f

or

the

com

mu

nit

y t

o g

ain a

n e

nhan

ced

app

reci

atio

n o

f w

ater

as

an

esse

nti

al e

lem

ent

of

the

urb

an e

nvir

on

men

t

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

U

nd

ergro

un

d p

ipes

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 85%

of

7500 k

L o

f ra

inw

ater

fal

ling o

n s

ite

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Fir

st f

lush

ru

noff

div

erte

d

Su

rge

tan

k h

and

les

hig

h s

torm

wat

er f

low

s

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

G

ard

en b

eds

wit

h b

iolo

gic

ally

en

gin

eere

d s

oil

Ele

ctro

mag

net

ic f

ilte

r fu

rther

tre

ats

wat

er u

sed i

n w

ater

fea

ture

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

U

nd

ergro

un

d s

tora

ge

tan

ks

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 3

hea

der

tan

ks,

tota

l d

eten

tio

n:

0.1

28

; 3

sto

rage

tan

ks,

tota

l st

ora

ge:

1.3

1

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 1

5%

B.9

Kog

arah

Tow

n Sq

uare

...c

ontin

ued


122

Sto

rage

con

t…

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t T

oil

et f

lush

ing,

car

was

hin

g,

wat

er f

eatu

res,

irr

igat

ion

Ho

w

Capaci

ty (

ML

) S

up

pli

es a

t le

ast

70

% o

f th

e to

ilet

flu

shin

g d

eman

d

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Re-

use

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

B.9

Kog

arah

Tow

n Sq

uare

...c

ontin

ued


123

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se c

on

t…

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

In p

erio

ds

of

hig

h s

torm

wat

er f

low

, su

rge

tanks

regu

late

th

e w

ater

flo

w

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

W

ater

eff

icie

nt

fitt

ings

and

ap

pli

ance

s

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

It i

s w

ell

wo

rth

try

ing t

o i

nco

rpo

rate

th

ese

types

of

init

iati

ves

in

pla

nn

ing c

ontr

ols

an

d e

spec

iall

y

pu

bli

c p

roje

cts,

but

yo

u n

eed

to s

pel

l o

ut

yo

ur

ob

ject

ives

, but

be

flex

ible

ab

out

the

solu

tio

n

The

ten

der

ers

and

thei

r d

esig

n t

eam

s al

l re

spon

ded

wel

l to

the

envir

on

men

tal

obje

ctiv

es o

f th

is

pro

ject

So

me

dev

elo

per

s ca

n s

ee t

he

lon

g t

erm

ben

efit

of

lear

nin

g h

ow

to

ap

ply

an

d d

emo

nst

rate

bes

t p

ract

ice

des

ign a

s p

art

of

a lo

ng-t

erm

bu

sin

ess

stra

tegy t

o b

e se

en a

s "g

reen

"

Yo

u n

eed

to

get

th

e w

ho

le o

f th

e C

ou

nci

l, p

lus

the

staf

f to

su

pp

ort

the

inn

ovat

ion

, an

d s

ee t

hat

th

ey

hav

e a

role

to

pla

y i

n m

akin

g i

t h

app

en

A p

artn

ersh

ip a

ppro

ach

nee

ds

to b

e ad

opte

d b

etw

een

th

e dev

elo

per

, th

eir

des

ign

tea

m a

nd

th

e C

ou

nci

l -

it i

s a

lear

nin

g e

xp

erie

nce

If y

ou

can

get

gra

nts

to

hel

p w

ith $

$$

that

is

go

od

, b

ut

don

't fo

rget

th

at m

anag

ing g

ran

ts t

akes

lots

o

f ti

me

and

eff

ort

(so

met

hin

g v

ery f

ew d

evel

op

ers

wo

uld

bo

ther

wit

h)

A p

artn

ersh

ip a

ppro

ach

wit

h k

ey a

gen

cies

and

res

earc

her

s h

elp

s (i

n t

his

cas

e S

yd

ney

Wat

er a

nd

Inst

itute

fo

r S

ust

ain

able

Futu

res)

Co

mm

un

icat

ing t

he

inno

vat

ion

s to

th

e b

uyer

s an

d t

he

wid

er c

om

mun

ity i

s im

po

rtan

t

Sta

rt w

ith

tal

kin

g t

o t

he

com

mu

nit

y:

this

wo

uld

hav

e re

duce

d c

ost

s to

co

unci

l an

d g

reat

ly r

edu

ced

ti

mef

ram

es a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

the

pro

ject

's i

mp

lem

enta

tio

n

Tra

nsp

aren

cy:

it i

s cr

uci

al t

hat

all

sta

keh

old

ers

are

kep

t in

form

ed

Tho

rou

gh

nes

s: e

val

uat

ing t

he

wh

ole

pro

cess

(fr

om

des

ign a

ll t

he

way

thro

ugh

) is

ess

enti

al

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

No f

orm

al m

ainte

nan

ce p

lan

, h

ave

taken

a "

wai

t an

d s

ee"

app

roac

h;

exp

ect

that

fil

ters

on

pum

ps

wil

l n

eed

to b

e cl

eaned

an

nu

ally

an

d t

anks

wil

l n

eed

to b

e em

pti

ed a

nd

cle

aned

ever

y 5

-6 y

ears

B.9

Kog

arah

Tow

n Sq

uare

...c

ontin

ued


124

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce c

on

t…

Who

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Ori

gin

ally

pla

nn

ed f

or

Syd

ney

Wat

er t

o c

arry

ou

t an

eval

uat

ion

of

the

pro

ject

an

d m

on

itor

wat

er u

se

as w

ell

as w

ater

qual

ity

No

cu

rren

tly m

on

ito

rin

g,

pla

n t

o b

ut

con

sid

er n

on

-cri

tica

l b

ecau

se r

e-use

is

non

-co

nta

ct

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$1

.6m

tota

l pro

ject

, $6

29

00

0 u

rban

sto

rmw

ater

in

itia

tives

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

) In

corp

ora

ted

into

bo

dy c

orp

ora

te f

ee

Use

r pri

ce

WS

UD

ele

men

ts a

dd

$1

00

0/a

par

tmen

t to

pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

C

on

ven

tio

nal

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

com

par

able

siz

e an

d n

um

ber

of

un

its

wo

uld

hav

e a

tota

l w

ater

d

eman

d o

f ~

33

,00

0 k

L f

or

inte

rnal

use

and

car

was

hin

g -

cap

turi

ng a

nd

reu

sin

g ~

5,7

00

kL

of

storm

wat

er e

qu

ates

to a

~17

% s

avin

g o

f m

ain

s w

ater

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Red

uct

ion

in p

oll

ute

d s

torm

wat

er e

nte

rin

g t

he

Co

oks

Riv

ers,

Geo

rge

Riv

er a

nd

Bo

tan

y B

ay p

rote

cts

and

enh

ance

s co

asta

l an

d m

arin

e w

ater

qual

ity

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.9

Kog

arah

Tow

n Sq

uare

...c

ontin

ued


125

B.1

0

Ma

nly

Sto

rm

wa

ter T

rea

tmen

t a

nd

Re-u

se (

ST

AR

) P

ro

ject

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e Jo

anne

Sca

rsb

rick

, P

aul

Sm

ith

Lo

cati

on

M

anly

Bea

ch &

Sm

ith

St

No

rth

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s M

anly

Co

un

cil

En

vir

on

men

t A

ust

rali

a

Un

iver

sity

of

New

So

uth

Wal

es

Ref

eren

ces

(DE

H, 2003)

(AC

, 2

00

3)

J. S

cars

bri

ck,

per

sonal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

P.

Sm

ith

, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

(Lo

cal

Go

ver

nm

ent

Fo

cus,

20

02)

(Lo

cal

Go

ver

nm

ent

Fo

cus,

20

00)

(Sca

rsbri

ck,

20

02)

(McR

ae, 2

00

2)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e P

ilo

t pro

ject

, st

orm

wat

er m

anag

emen

t fo

r M

anly

Oce

an B

each

/Pin

e S

tree

t ca

tch

men

t

Siz

e 3

ha

catc

hm

ent

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

su

b-c

atch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

12

20

.6

(M

L)

36

.6

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

13

3.1

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 2

7.5

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

san

dy s

oil

s

Aq

uif

er

Wa

tert

able

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

B.1

0 M

anly

Sto

rmw

ater

Tre

atm

ent a

nd R

e-us

e (S

TAR

) Pr

ojec

t


126

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Full

y d

evel

op

ed u

ltra

-urb

an s

ub

urb

wit

h a

hig

h p

op

ula

tio

n d

ensi

ty a

nd

lar

ge

nu

mb

ers

of

touri

sts,

u

rban

run

off

co

nta

ins

rela

tivel

y h

igh

lev

els

of

po

llu

tant

load

ing

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Pro

tect

and

im

pro

ve

surf

ace

wat

er q

ual

ity b

y d

evel

op

ing s

ub

-cat

chm

ent

pro

gra

ms

that

purs

ue

the

foll

ow

ing o

bje

ctiv

es:

* R

edu

ce t

he

po

llu

tio

n l

oad

an

d c

on

cen

trat

ion

in

sto

rmw

ater

* A

tten

uat

e th

e fl

ow

to

red

uce

flo

od

ing

* I

nfi

ltra

te s

torm

wat

er t

o g

roun

d w

ater

* T

reat

, co

llec

t an

d r

e-u

se s

torm

wat

er

* R

edu

ce t

he

tran

spo

rtat

ion

of

po

llu

tan

ts

* F

ind

a c

ost

eff

ecti

ve

and

eco

logic

ally

su

stai

nab

le w

ay t

o a

chie

ve

thes

e o

utc

om

es

* D

evel

op

pro

toty

pe

mo

del

fo

r use

els

ewh

ere

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t In

itia

l ri

sk a

sses

smen

t su

gges

ted t

he

hea

lth

ris

k a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

sto

rmw

ater

re-

use

was

bel

ow

th

e gen

eral

ly a

ccep

ted

lim

its

for

the

re-u

se o

f w

ater

Mai

ns

sup

ply

lin

ked

to i

rrig

atio

n s

yst

em a

s a

risk

man

agem

ent

pre

cauti

on

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

5

00

m s

ecti

on

No

rth

Ste

yn

e ca

ptu

res

storm

wat

er f

rom

eas

tern

cam

ber

of

adja

cen

t ro

ad a

nd c

ar p

ark

catc

hm

ent

Capaci

ty (

ML

) "h

igh

flo

ws"

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Ro

adb

ase

is s

imil

ar t

o n

orm

al t

ransp

ort

auth

ori

ty s

tand

ard

s ex

cep

t fo

r th

e lo

wer

per

cen

tage

of

mat

eria

l th

at i

s le

ss t

han

1m

m i

n s

ize

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

P

erm

eab

le p

avem

ent,

160

m2 (

500

x0

.32

m),

Atl

anti

s A

qu

a P

ave

Scr

een

s, b

oth

exte

rnal

(ca

ptu

re l

itte

r an

d s

edim

ent)

an

d i

nte

rnal

(ca

ptu

re o

ils,

fin

e se

dim

ents

an

d

gre

ase)

B.1

0 M

anly

Sto

rmw

ater

Tre

atm

ent a

nd R

e-us

e (S

TAR

) Pr

ojec

t ...

cont

inue

d


127

Tre

atm

ent

con

t…

Atl

anti

s E

coso

ils

- ex

pan

ded

po

lym

er m

ade

fro

m r

ecycl

ed p

last

ics

des

ign

ed w

ith

su

ffic

ient

stre

ngth

to

car

ry n

orm

al p

avem

ent

load

s, c

on

tain

s n

atu

rall

y o

ccu

rrin

g a

nd

bio

-en

gin

eere

d m

icro

org

anis

ms

to

bio

logic

ally

deg

rad

ed a

nd

rem

edia

te t

ox

ic c

hem

ical

s

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Soil

has

hig

h c

atio

n e

xch

ange

cap

acit

y,

bio

film

to

rem

ove

bac

teri

a K

ey L

earn

ings

Co

nce

ntr

atin

g p

oll

uta

nts

to o

ne

po

int

bef

ore

ru

nn

ing t

hro

ugh

tre

atm

ent

syst

em d

ecre

ases

tre

atab

le

flo

w r

ate

and

incr

ease

s m

ainte

nan

ce r

equ

irem

ents

Sto

rag

e H

ow

S

torm

wat

er i

nfi

ltra

tes

thro

ugh

Eco

soil

s in

to A

tlan

tis

Eco

logic

al C

han

nel

s fr

om

wh

ich

th

e w

ater

p

asse

s in

to A

tlan

tis

Eco

logic

al T

anks

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 0

.4

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 1

.4%

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Ex

cess

wat

er o

ver

flo

ws

and p

erco

late

s th

rou

gh

the

exis

tin

g s

and

y s

oil

s to

rec

har

ge

gro

un

dw

ater

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

of

Norf

olk

Isl

and

pin

es a

nd p

rom

enad

e ar

ea a

lon

g t

he

fore

shore

H

ow

M

ixed

wit

h m

ain

s su

pp

ly,

spra

y i

rrig

atio

n u

sing a

pu

mp

syst

em

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

B.1

0 M

anly

Sto

rmw

ater

Tre

atm

ent a

nd R

e-us

e (S

TAR

) Pr

ojec

t ...

cont

inue

d


128

Wa

stew

ate

r co

nt…

T

reatm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Fo

ur

storm

wat

er d

rain

s o

n O

cean

Bea

ch, re

mo

val

of

thes

e p

ipes

hig

h o

n c

om

mu

nit

y a

gen

da

in t

erm

s o

f vis

ual

po

lluti

on

, re

loca

tin

g p

ipes

aw

ay f

rom

bea

ch w

ou

ld b

e o

ver

$32

mil

lion (

does

not

off

er

storm

wat

er t

reat

men

t)

Sm

ith

St

No

rth

: m

ajor

issu

e fo

r a

traf

fic

per

mea

ble

su

rfac

e is

a s

uit

able

su

bsu

rfac

e dra

inag

e sy

stem

u

nd

ern

eath

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Mai

ns

sup

ply

als

o l

inked

to i

rrig

atio

n s

yst

em, to

wn w

ater

mix

ed w

ith t

reat

ed s

torm

wat

er a

s ri

sk

man

agem

ent

pre

cauti

on

an

d t

o s

up

ple

men

t su

pp

ly i

n e

xte

nded

dry

per

iod

s

Ex

cess

sto

rmw

ater

byp

asse

s to

co

nven

tio

nal

dra

inag

e sy

stem

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

M

ajor

touri

st d

esti

nat

ion

; in

tensi

ve

dev

elo

pm

ents

wit

h h

igh

tra

nsi

ent

po

pu

lati

on

s giv

e ri

se t

o g

reat

er

than

no

rmal

am

ou

nt

of

veh

icle

s an

d l

itte

r P

avin

g s

yst

em m

ust

be

stro

ng a

nd d

ura

ble

eno

ugh

to

han

dle

tra

ffic

are

as w

hil

e re

tain

ing i

nfi

ltra

tio

n

cap

acit

y

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

S

mit

h S

t N

ort

h:

Rocl

a E

colo

c p

erm

eab

le p

aver

s; c

on

cret

e in

terl

ock

ing p

aver

s th

at p

rovid

e d

rain

age

(in

filt

rati

on

>2

00

mm

/hr)

vo

ids

bet

wee

n p

aver

s o

n a

bas

e of

clea

n 5

mm

aggre

gat

e; n

o-f

ines

ro

adb

ase

enab

les

sto

rmw

ater

to i

nfi

ltra

te t

hro

ugh

to s

and

y s

ub

gra

de

bel

ow

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Imp

lica

tio

ns

for

pla

nn

ing r

egu

lati

on

, u

rban

des

ign

an

d c

om

mu

nit

y i

nvo

lvem

ent

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Co

mm

un

ity c

all

wan

t st

orm

wat

er p

ipes

rem

oved

fro

m t

he

bea

chfr

ont

(vis

ual

po

llu

tio

n)

B.1

0 M

anly

Sto

rmw

ater

Tre

atm

ent a

nd R

e-us

e (S

TAR

) Pr

ojec

t ...

cont

inue

d


129

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

con

t…

Pub

lic

acce

pta

nce

of

per

mea

ble

pav

ers

stro

ng

du

e to

th

e re

duct

ion i

n s

urf

ace

flo

ws

and

vis

ual

ap

pea

l

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Man

ufa

cture

r sp

ecif

icat

ion

: o

nce

ever

y 1

0 y

ears

eco

soil

s sh

ou

ld b

e har

ves

ted

an

d a

ccu

mu

late

d

po

llu

tants

ex

trac

ted

W

ho

M

ain

ten

ance

pro

gra

m s

up

pose

d t

o b

e dev

ised

by e

xte

rnal

bod

y i

nc.

tre

atab

le f

low

rat

es a

s a

fun

ctio

n

of

catc

hm

ent

load

s, t

o d

ate

this

has

n't

bee

n d

one

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Ther

e is

curr

entl

y n

o d

efin

ed f

eed

bac

k m

ech

anis

m t

o d

eter

min

e w

het

her

th

e m

ain

ten

ance

fre

qu

ency

fo

r th

e ec

oso

ils

is a

deq

uat

e

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

UN

SW

's W

ater

Res

earc

h L

abo

rato

ry a

nd

Syd

ney

Wat

er

Co

mp

arat

ive

sub

-cat

chm

ent

wat

er q

ual

ity m

on

ito

rin

g a

nd

an

alysi

s b

etw

een

th

e tr

eate

d a

nd u

ntr

eate

d

catc

hm

ents

Mo

nit

ori

ng o

f th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of

inte

rven

tion

s u

sed

Mo

nit

ori

ng o

f th

e se

dim

ents

coll

ecte

d

Fae

cal

conta

min

atio

n i

n s

tora

ge

tan

k,

20

0-6

00

cfu

/?

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Infi

ltra

tio

n r

ates

Surf

ace

runo

ff

Oth

er

Curr

entl

y a

co

nst

ruct

ion

sit

e d

irec

tly a

cro

ss f

rom

Oce

an B

each

dew

ater

ing;

pro

vid

es a

n o

pp

ort

un

ity

to a

sses

s sy

stem

eff

icie

ncy

; w

ater

pu

mp

ed t

o t

reat

men

t ta

nk,

kn

ow

n d

isch

arge

vo

lum

e, 5

min

ute

sa

mpli

ng r

egim

e -

only

mis

sin

g p

oll

ute

d w

ater

! i

.e. under

lyin

g g

roundw

ater

of

good q

ual

ity, so

ca

n't

mea

sure

po

llu

tan

t re

mo

val

rat

e, h

ave

det

ecte

d s

ligh

t d

ecre

ase

in s

alin

ity

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Only

1 s

amp

ling p

oin

t to

mea

sure

qu

alit

y o

f ru

no

ff,

no

mon

itori

ng o

f o

utf

low

, p

oss

ibly

a s

ensi

tive

po

int

- co

un

cil

dis

sati

sfie

d w

ith m

on

itori

ng p

rogra

m &

may

be

takin

g t

his

furt

her

M

on

itori

ng p

rogra

m f

or

tan

ks

con

sider

ed i

nad

equ

ate

in t

erm

s of

sam

pli

ng f

req

uen

cy a

nd

co

nsi

der

atio

n o

f se

ason

al v

aria

nce

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Mo

nit

ori

ng p

aram

eter

s ar

e w

ithin

ex

pec

ted

lim

its

for

urb

an s

urf

ace

flo

ws

Bo

re h

ole

-tes

tin

g r

esu

lts

sho

w t

hat

th

ere

is n

o c

han

ge

in a

nal

yte

s an

d c

on

tam

inat

ion

is

wit

hin

ris

k

level

s

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Su

rfac

e ru

no

ff r

edu

ced

by 7

0%

Mo

nit

ori

ng h

as n

ot

confi

rmed

wh

ether

over

flo

w h

as o

ccurr

ed, as

yet

tan

k h

as n

ot

bee

n e

mp

tied

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

B.1

0 M

anly

Sto

rmw

ater

Tre

atm

ent a

nd R

e-us

e (S

TAR

) Pr

ojec

t ...

cont

inue

d


130

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$1

.3 m

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

N

o f

orm

al o

per

atin

g c

ost

s ca

lcu

late

d,

nor

life

cycl

e &

ener

gy a

pp

rais

al (

i.e.

inc.

exte

rnal

itie

s)

(c

ost

s/kL

) C

ost

s w

ou

ld i

ncl

ud

e p

um

p e

ner

gy,

mai

nte

nan

ce (

stre

et s

wee

pin

g,

of

ecoso

ils,

tri

ckle

irr

igat

ion

sy

stem

, p

um

ps

etc.

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t S

mit

h S

t N

ort

h r

oad

su

b-g

rad

e w

as e

ngin

eere

d t

o c

onta

in a

1:1

0 y

ear

storm

even

t, w

ith

a 3

0%

st

ora

ge

cap

acit

y

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Imp

roved

sto

rmw

ater

qu

alit

y d

isch

argin

g o

nto

Oce

an B

each

Red

uce

d p

ote

nti

al h

ealt

h r

isk t

o t

he

bea

ch u

sers

Pre

ven

tin

g p

oll

uti

on

by e

duca

tio

n a

nd

sig

nag

e In

fra

stru

ctu

re

Chea

per

alt

ernat

ive

to r

emo

val

of

sto

rmw

ater

dra

ins

fro

m b

each

fron

t (e

stim

ated

co

st o

f $

32

m t

o

relo

cate

pip

es o

nly

)

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.1

0 M

anly

Sto

rmw

ater

Tre

atm

ent a

nd R

e-us

e (S

TAR

) Pr

ojec

t ...

cont

inue

d


131

B.1

1

Oa

kla

nd

s P

ark

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e B

ill

Mo

le,

Nei

l K

erb

y

Lo

cati

on

O

akla

nd

s Ju

nct

ion

, V

IC

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s H

NJ

Ho

ldin

gs

Pty

Ltd

Ref

eren

ces

(Fo

ster

, 2

00

0)

W.

Mo

le,

per

son

al c

om

mu

nic

atio

n

K.

Fu

rnis

s, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

N.

Ker

by,

per

sonal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

(Win

kfi

eld

Pty

. L

td.,

20

03

)

(Win

kfi

eld

Pty

. L

td.,

20

02

)

(AG

P C

on

sult

ing,

19

94

)

(Sav

ewat

er, 2

00

3)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e G

reen

fiel

ds

Siz

e 1

74

ha,

12

1 o

f w

hic

h i

s o

pen

spac

e

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

B

egu

n i

n 1

99

7

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t an

d a

llo

tmen

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

54

8.7

(

ML

) 9

53

.0

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

14

1.0

1 y

r in

ten

sity

(1

hou

r du

rati

on

) 1

2.7

2

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 7

5

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

10

00

-11

00

Geo

log

y

Poo

r dev

elo

ped

to

pso

il o

f cl

ay,

soil

per

cola

tion

<1

2.5

mm

/hr,

no e

vid

ence

of

wat

er l

oggin

g

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

~

30

m,

bra

ckis

h

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

No

hig

hly

per

mea

ble

aq

uif

ers

foun

d i

n i

nit

ial

surv

ey o

f si

te

Sit

e H

isto

ry

B.1

1 O

akla

nds

Park


132

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Pio

nee

r ec

olo

gic

ally

su

stai

nab

le p

rin

cip

les

(ad

dre

ss t

riple

bo

tto

m l

ine)

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

C

ity o

f H

um

e fo

r ro

ads

& d

rain

age

work

s

Op

erati

on

al

Wes

tern

Wat

er t

ech

nic

al s

tan

dar

ds

for

wat

er r

etic

ula

tio

n c

onst

ruct

ion

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

(a

) R

oo

f-ru

noff

use

d t

o h

arves

t po

tab

le w

ater

, o

n a

n i

nd

ivid

ual

lo

t-b

asis

(b

) R

un

off

fro

m r

oad

s an

d o

pen

spac

e h

arves

ted

; open

sw

ale

dra

ins

alo

ng r

oad

s (c

) P

um

pin

g f

rom

nea

rby r

iver

is

a la

st r

esort

(an

d s

ubje

ct t

o m

inim

um

riv

er f

low

req

uir

emen

ts)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Sw

ales

slo

w w

ater

flo

ws,

min

imis

e er

osi

on a

nd i

ncr

ease

poin

t of

conta

ct g

roundw

ater

infi

ltra

tion;

no

evid

ence

of

des

ign

fo

r sp

ecif

ic t

reat

men

t ob

ject

ives

. U

sed

vo

lum

etri

c ru

no

ff c

oef

fici

ent

scal

ed

acco

rdin

g t

o t

ota

l m

on

thly

rai

nfa

ll (

to a

cco

unt

for

soil

mois

ture

).

Bas

ed 'w

ors

t-ca

se' d

eman

d a

nd

su

pp

ly o

n 1

98

2-8

3 d

rou

gh

t.

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Rel

iance

on c

atch

men

t ex

tern

al t

o t

he

site

(hen

ce o

uts

ide

dir

ect

contr

ol)

pla

ces

supply

rel

iabil

ity a

t ri

sk.

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

N

on

-po

tab

le w

ater

co

nvey

ed t

hro

ugh

open

sw

ale

dra

ins

(tre

atm

ent

for

sed

imen

t)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Sw

ales

des

ign

ed u

sed

Man

nin

g's

eq

uat

ion

, to

typ

ical

sta

nd

ard

s (t

o s

afel

y c

on

vey

5 y

ear

AR

I fl

ow

).

No

rea

l at

tenti

on

pai

d t

o t

yp

e o

f veg

etat

ion

, no

r sp

ecif

ic t

reat

men

t p

erfo

rman

ce r

equ

irem

ents

.

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

T

hre

e la

ke

syst

em (

wit

h u

nd

ergro

un

d p

ipe

reti

cula

tio

n b

ack t

o i

nd

ivid

ual

lo

ts)

Capaci

ty (

ML

) O

rigin

ally

mo

del

led

to

sto

re 3

7 M

L i

n t

hre

e st

ora

ges

, d

ue

to m

od

ific

atio

ns

du

rin

g c

onst

uct

ion

the

dam

s cu

rren

tly c

on

tain

49 M

L

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 5

0%

(d

esig

n),

65%

as

const

ruct

ed

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Model

ling b

ased

on p

roje

cted

dem

and f

or

sum

mer

(3 m

onth

s duri

ng N

ov-M

ar)

pea

k

(80

kL

/lot/

mo

nth

) an

d r

emai

nin

g p

erio

d (

6kL

/lo

t/m

onth

); r

equ

ired

sto

rage

did

no

t in

clu

de

river

pum

pin

g. 1

00 y

ear

AR

I sp

illw

ay i

nst

alle

d o

n s

tora

ges

. E

vap

ora

tion b

ased

on f

igu

re

B.1

1 O

akla

nds

Park

...c

ontin

ued


133

Sto

rage

con

t…

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

10

0 y

ear

AR

I fl

ood

pro

tect

ion n

eed

ed. E

vap

ora

tio

n c

an b

e m

ade

issu

e in

dro

ugh

t p

erio

d (

hen

ce

SA

:Vo

l is

im

po

rtan

t -

and

so w

ater

pre

fere

nti

ally

sto

red

in d

am w

ith

low

est

SA

:Vo

l).

Ther

efore

, n

eed

to

all

ow

fo

r w

ater

to

be

mo

ved

fro

m o

ne

store

to

th

e o

ther

Re-

use

W

ha

t N

on

-po

tab

le a

nd

fir

efig

hti

ng,

som

e h

ouse

s p

lum

bed

for

toil

et f

lush

ing

Ho

w

Ret

icu

lati

on

syst

em,

mai

ns

pre

ssure

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) G

uar

ante

ed c

on

tinu

ity o

f su

pp

ly t

o 8

0 l

ots

usi

ng 8

0,0

00

L/m

on

th/l

ot

in s

um

mer

and

6,0

00

L

/mo

nth

/lot

at o

ther

tim

es (

bas

ed o

n 8

2/3

dro

ugh

t as

wo

rst-

case

sce

nar

io)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) T

yp

ical

an

nual

no

n-p

ota

ble

dem

and (

6.9

Ml/

a) a

ppro

xim

atel

y 1

0%

of

mea

n a

nn

ual

ru

noff

(7

5

ML

/a)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Syst

em b

uil

t to

Mel

bo

urn

e W

ater

sta

ndar

ds

(use

s p

iped

ret

icu

lati

on

fro

m s

tora

ges

)

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Import

ant

to u

nder

take

reli

able

model

ling o

f li

kel

y d

eman

d. W

ill

be

inte

rest

ing t

o m

onit

or

whet

her

th

e la

ck o

f co

st f

or

use

of

no

n-p

ota

ble

wat

er l

ead

s to

ab

ove-

aver

age

consu

mpti

on

.

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) T

anks

hav

e m

inim

um

cap

acit

y o

f 7

0,0

00

L (

x 8

0 l

ots

= 5

.6 M

L):

mo

del

led

dem

and =

1

00

L/p

erso

n/d

ay

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 7

%

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

) 6

3.9

26

94

06

39

26

94

(T

ank s

tora

ge

vo

lum

e /

Po

tab

le w

ater

dem

and)

Coll

ecti

on

G

utt

er

Tre

atm

ent

Fir

st f

lush

div

ersi

on

dev

ices

, n

atu

ral

sed

imen

tati

on

pro

cess

es i

n t

anks

Sto

rag

e T

ank

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

E

ach

in

div

idu

al l

ot

has

a s

yst

em t

o p

rod

uce

tre

ated

wat

er s

uit

able

fo

r ir

rigat

ion

Tre

atm

ent

Sep

tic

tan

ks

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) se

e w

aste

wat

er

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

B.1

1 O

akla

nds

Park

...c

ontin

ued


134

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se c

on

t…

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Pro

vis

ion

for

wat

er t

o b

e p

um

ped

fro

m D

eep

Cre

ek (

wh

ich

form

s o

ne

bo

un

dar

y o

f th

e dev

elo

pm

ent)

to

supple

men

t st

ora

ge

pond f

illi

ng i

n t

imes

of

low

rai

nfa

ll;

this

pro

vis

ion w

ill

also

more

than

co

mp

ensa

te f

or

any p

ote

nti

al l

oss

of

catc

hm

ent

area

(so

me

is e

xte

rnal

)

18

0 m

2 m

inim

um

ho

use

siz

e (t

o e

nsu

re a

deq

uat

e co

llec

tio

n o

f p

ota

ble

wat

er),

ro

of

mat

eria

l an

d

slope

requir

emen

ts o

pti

mis

e co

llec

tion e

ffic

iency

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

En

sure

d t

hat

ro

ad c

ulv

erts

had

cap

acit

y u

p t

o 1

0 y

ear

AR

I, s

tora

ge

spil

lway

s ca

pac

ity u

p t

o 1

00

yea

r A

RI.

D

rain

age

syst

em s

afel

y c

on

vey

s 5

yea

r (a

ssu

me?

) fl

ow

s, w

ith

ou

t ri

sk o

f er

osi

on

, o

r ex

cess

ive

dep

ths

(lit

tle

det

ail

giv

en h

ere)

.

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

R

esid

ents

are

en

cou

raged

to

pla

nt

dro

ugh

t to

lera

nt

loca

l n

ativ

e p

lants

to

min

imis

e ir

rigat

ion

nee

ds

Lo

call

y n

ativ

e tr

ees,

sh

rub

s an

d g

rass

es a

re p

lan

ted

alo

ng s

tree

ts a

nd

in

op

en s

pac

e re

serv

es

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

N

on

-po

tab

le m

ain

s pre

ssu

re w

ater

is

met

ered

to

dis

cou

rage

was

te

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Eco

nom

ic v

iabil

ity -

so

me

buyer

rel

uct

ance

was

exper

ien

ced i

nit

iall

y i

n t

he

mar

ket

ing o

f O

akla

nds

Par

k b

ecau

se i

t w

as d

iffe

ren

t; t

hro

ugh

per

sist

ence

an

d o

ver

tim

e th

e d

evel

op

er w

as a

ble

to

per

suad

e p

rosp

ecti

ve

pu

rch

aser

s th

at t

hei

r id

eas

wo

uld

work

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Rep

ort

edly

lit

tle

supp

ort

or

invo

lvem

ent

fro

m r

elev

ant

inst

itit

uti

ons

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Wee

d m

anag

emen

t an

d r

emo

val

pro

gra

m f

or

op

en s

pac

e ar

eas

Pu

mps

hav

e se

lf-c

lean

ing f

ilte

rs (

bac

kw

ash

ever

y w

eek),

rem

oved

and

pre

ssu

re w

ash

ed e

ver

y 3

m

on

ths

Lak

es:

mai

nta

in g

rass

co

ver

, en

sure

rock

lin

ing r

emai

ns

in p

lace

, at

ten

d t

o a

ny l

eakag

e; i

n t

he

lon

g

term

sil

t re

mo

val

may

be

req

uir

ed t

o m

ain

tain

fu

ll s

tora

ge

cap

acit

y

Who

K

eith

Fu

rnis

s (s

ite

man

ager

)

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Lit

tle

mai

nte

nan

ce r

equ

ired

ap

art

fro

m p

um

pin

g w

ater

bet

wee

n s

tora

ges

, d

ams

do

not

leak

e

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

B.1

1 O

akla

nds

Park

...c

ontin

ued


135

Mo

nit

ori

ng c

on

t…

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

No

pro

ble

ms,

sit

e m

anag

er d

rin

ks

wat

er f

rom

lak

es

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Pu

mp

ing f

rom

Dee

p C

reek

req

uir

ed o

nly

on

ce (

to i

nit

iall

y f

ill

the

lakes

)

On

ly p

rob

lem

s ex

per

ience

d w

ith

su

pp

ly t

o d

ate

hav

e o

ccurr

ed d

uri

ng p

ow

er s

hort

ages

(p

um

ps

swit

ch o

ff)

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Wat

er s

upp

ly a

deq

uat

e fo

r n

on

-pota

ble

req

uir

emen

ts,

no

res

iden

ts h

ave

use

d t

hei

r fu

ll 1

50

kL

/yr

allo

cati

on

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

No

n-p

ota

ble

wat

er s

up

ply

$7

3,0

00

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Bo

dy c

orp

ora

te f

ee $

80

0/l

ot/

yr,

in

clu

des

cost

of

150

kL

rec

ycl

ed w

ater

, use

rs c

har

ged

fo

r an

y e

xtr

a

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Sit

e n

ot

con

nec

ted

to

mai

ns

wat

er

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.1

1 O

akla

nds

Park

...c

ontin

ued


136

B.1

2

Pa

rafi

eld

Sto

rm

wa

ter H

arvest

ing

Fa

cili

ty

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e C

oli

n P

itm

an

Lo

cati

on

P

araf

ield

Air

port

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s C

ity o

f S

alis

bu

ry

Par

afie

ld A

irp

ort

Man

agem

ent

SA

Sta

te G

over

nm

ent

No

rther

n A

del

aid

e an

d B

aross

a C

atch

men

t W

ater

Man

agem

ent

Boar

d

GH

Mic

hel

l &

Sons

Aust

rali

a P

ty L

td

Ref

eren

ces

(Pit

man

, 2

00

3)

(CS

, 2

00

3)

(DE

H, 2003)

(CS

)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

etro

fit

(Sta

ge

1)

Siz

e 1

60

0 h

a ca

tch

men

t, 1

1.2

ha

site

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

E

arly

2003

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

46

0.5

(M

L)

73

68

.0

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

11

6.8

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 2

21

0

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

11

00

-12

00

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

Sal

ine

lim

esto

ne

aquif

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts


137

Ob

ject

ives

Flo

od

pro

tect

ion

Pro

vis

ion

of

recr

eati

on

al a

men

itie

s

En

vir

on

men

tal

man

agem

ent,

incl

ud

ing h

abit

at c

reat

ion

, pro

tect

ion

of

the

Bar

ker

Inle

t (b

reed

ing

gro

un

d a

nd

nurs

ery f

or

mu

ch o

f S

A's

fis

her

ies)

, dec

reas

ed d

epen

den

ce o

n M

urr

ay R

iver

Eco

no

mic

dev

elo

pm

ent

Sh

ow

case

dev

elo

pm

ent

in c

on

ver

tin

g s

torm

wat

er f

rom

an

urb

an n

uis

ance

an

d p

oll

uta

nt

thre

at i

nto

a

val

uab

le r

esou

rce

for

indu

stry

an

d t

he

com

mun

ity

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

R

ech

arge

wat

er q

ual

ity h

as t

o m

eet

the

EP

A r

equ

irem

ents

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t E

MP

incl

ud

ed r

isk a

nal

ysi

s to

co

ntr

ol

and

min

imis

e im

pac

t fr

om

dust

, tr

ansm

issi

on

of

pat

ho

gen

s,

chem

ical

s, f

uel

s an

d o

ther

poll

uta

nts

, er

osi

on

, n

ois

e an

d t

raff

ic m

ovem

ent

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

G

utt

er, p

ipe,

chan

nel

S

torm

wat

er f

rom

lo

cal

catc

hm

ent

div

erte

d f

rom

the

trun

k d

rain

into

a s

erie

s of

cap

ture

, h

old

ing a

nd

cl

ean

sin

g b

asin

s A

wei

r in

th

e P

araf

ield

Dra

in d

iver

ts f

low

in

to a

n i

nst

ream

cap

ture

bas

in v

ia s

even

10

50

mm

d

iam

eter

cu

lver

ts

A 3

00

mm

dia

met

er b

yp

ass

culv

ert

loca

ted

thro

ugh

the

wei

r to

re-

dir

ect

low

wat

er f

low

s d

etec

ted t

o

be

of

un

sati

sfac

tory

qu

alit

y f

or

captu

re

Pu

mped

fro

m c

aptu

re b

asin

to

ho

ldin

g b

asin

Capaci

ty (

ML

) U

p t

o a

1:1

0 y

ear

sto

rm e

ven

t, 5

0 M

L c

aptu

re b

asin

(39

000

m3

), s

imil

ar c

apac

ity h

old

ing b

asin

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

W

etla

nd

s

Gra

vit

ates

to

and

flo

ws

conti

nu

ousl

y t

hro

ugh

den

sely

-pla

nte

d r

eed

bed

, b

iolo

gic

ally

fil

tere

d

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 2

ha

(15

000

0 m

3)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Res

iden

cy p

erio

d o

f w

ater

in

tre

atm

ent

pon

ds

is b

etw

een

7 a

nd

10

day

s, d

epen

din

g o

n q

ual

ity o

f in

flow

wat

er

B.1

2 Pa

rafi

eld

Stor

mw

ater

Har

vest

ing

Faci

lity


138

Tre

atm

ent

con

t…

Bir

d-p

roo

f n

eeti

ng o

ver

po

nds

to r

educe

bir

d p

op

ula

tio

ns

aro

und

air

po

rt a

nd

ris

k o

f b

ird

str

ike

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Rem

oves

~9

0%

of

nu

trie

nt

and

po

llu

tan

t lo

ads

Sto

rag

e H

ow

A

SR

, cl

ean

sed

sto

rmw

ater

ex

cess

to

th

e n

eeds

of

loca

l in

du

stry

is

sto

red

in

nat

ura

l u

nder

gro

un

d

aqu

ifer

s fo

r re

cover

y a

t ti

mes

of

low

rai

nfa

ll

Capaci

ty (

ML

) ~

65

0 M

L i

nje

cted

und

ergro

un

d a

nn

ual

ly (

des

ign

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

AS

R w

ell

fiel

d c

om

pri

ses

two

wel

ls,

bo

th 1

90

m d

eep,

35

L/s

inje

ctio

n r

ate

Init

ial

bu

ffer

of

2,0

00

ML

as

bal

anci

ng s

tora

ge

to o

ver

com

e yea

rly v

aria

tio

ns

in A

SR

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t W

oo

l cl

ean

sin

g (

GH

Mic

hel

l &

So

ns

Aust

rali

a P

ty L

td m

ajor

reci

pie

nt)

, ir

rigat

ion

H

ow

C

lean

sed w

ater

pu

mp

ing s

tati

on

pu

mps

dis

char

ge

fro

m t

he

reed

bed

via

30

0 m

m d

iam

eter

ris

ing

mai

n,

dis

trib

ute

d b

y p

ipel

ine

to a

tan

k a

t G

H M

ich

ell

& S

on

s A

ust

rali

a C

apaci

ty (

ML

) 1

50

0 M

L/y

r m

ax y

ield

, G

H M

ich

ell

use

~1100

ML

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 9

0%

D

esig

n m

eth

ods

An

nu

ally

, 5

00

ML

pu

mp

ed d

irec

tly t

o G

H M

ich

ell,

50

0 M

L d

raw

n f

rom

AS

R,

up

to 4

00

ML

to

oth

er c

on

sum

ers

alo

ng p

ipel

ine

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

15

0-2

50

pp

m s

up

ply

wat

er s

alin

ity,

wh

ich

is

less

th

an t

he

sali

nit

y o

f th

e R

iver

Murr

ay (

usu

ally

gre

ater

th

an 4

00

mg/L

)

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

B.1

2 Pa

rafi

eld

Stor

mw

ater

Har

vest

ing

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


139

Gre

yw

ate

r co

nt…

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Co

nsi

der

atio

n o

f p

oss

ible

dis

rupti

on

to

air

po

rt a

ctiv

itie

s

Acc

ess

to s

yst

em (

bec

ause

air

port

is

a se

cure

are

a)

Em

ergen

cy R

esp

on

se P

lan

dev

elo

ped

for

the

pro

ject

in

ord

er t

o e

nsu

re e

ffec

tive

and e

ffic

ien

t re

spo

nse

s to

in

cid

ents

that

may

thre

aten

to

adver

sely

im

pac

t th

e pro

ject

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Bir

d s

trik

e m

anag

emen

t

Mo

squ

ito

man

agem

ent

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

W

ind

sh

ear

contr

ol

(chan

ges

in t

op

ogra

ph

y)

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

C

om

pet

itiv

e w

ater

pri

cing

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Co

un

cil

op

ted

fo

r p

ayb

ack p

erio

d o

f 1

0 y

ears

& w

ill

ensu

re r

ecycl

ed w

ater

s al

way

s co

mp

etit

ivel

y

pri

ced

co

mp

ared

to

mai

ns

wat

er

Mo

del

fo

r in

du

stry

, lo

cal,

sta

te a

nd

fed

eral

gover

nm

ent

par

tner

ship

Reg

ula

tory

an

d l

egal

ref

orm

s te

sted

R

equ

ired

lic

ense

s (f

rom

EP

A a

nd

Dep

artm

ent

of

Wat

er R

esou

ces)

an

d d

evel

op

men

t ap

pro

val

s;

un

der

too

k d

etai

led

tec

hn

ical

and

leg

al a

sses

smen

t of

the

pro

ject

in

ord

er t

o e

nsu

re r

egu

lato

ry

app

roval

s re

ceiv

ed i

n t

ime

to k

eep

to t

imin

g s

ched

ule

Oth

er

Co

un

cil

pro

vid

es e

con

om

ic i

nce

nti

ves

to

ex

isti

ng a

nd

new

in

du

stri

es i

n t

he

regio

n

Ind

igen

ou

s her

itag

e is

sues

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

O&

M M

anu

al d

evel

op

ed f

or

pro

ject

B.1

2 Pa

rafi

eld

Stor

mw

ater

Har

vest

ing

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


140

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce c

on

t..

Syst

em c

ontr

ol

& d

ata

acq

uis

itio

n (

SC

AD

A)

syst

em l

inked

to

cen

tral

co

ntr

ol

syst

em a

t C

ou

nci

l o

ffic

es

Who

O

n-g

oin

g q

ual

ity c

on

tro

l pro

vid

ed T

echn

ical

Ad

vis

ory

Com

mit

tee,

co

mpri

sed

of

exp

ert

per

sonn

el

fro

m c

ou

nci

l, a

irp

ort

, G

H M

ich

ell,

NA

BC

WM

B,

EA

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Par

afie

ld D

rain

, b

asin

s, g

rou

nd

wat

er

Usi

ng i

n-l

ine

real

tim

e m

on

itori

ng (

pH

, T

DS

an

d s

ettl

eab

le s

oli

ds)

, gra

b s

amp

les

& c

om

posi

te

sam

pli

ng

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Gro

un

dw

ater

lev

els

Oth

er

Mac

ro-i

nver

teb

rate

s, n

ativ

e fi

sh, te

rres

tria

l in

ver

tebra

tes

(mo

squ

itoes

an

d o

ther

inse

cts)

, se

dim

ents

(w

ith

in b

asin

s)

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

AS

R i

nje

ctio

n w

ater

qual

ity m

eets

Aust

rali

an D

rinkin

g W

ater

Guid

elin

es

Har

ves

tin

g a

nd

tre

atin

g s

torm

wat

er t

hro

ugh

wet

lan

ds

typ

ical

ly r

edu

ces

the

nu

trie

nt

and

poll

uta

nt

load

s b

y u

p t

o 9

0%

, w

hil

e th

e th

e sa

lin

ity o

f th

e tr

eate

d s

torm

wat

er i

s le

ss t

han

25

0 m

g/L

(th

ese

are

the

gen

eral

fig

ure

s fo

r al

l o

f S

alis

bu

ry's

wet

lan

ds)

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

GH

Mic

hel

l &

So

ns

Aust

rali

a ar

e p

leas

ed w

ith

the

qu

alit

y o

f th

e w

ater

P

rovid

es s

olu

tio

n t

o s

torm

wat

er f

lood

ing o

f P

araf

ield

Air

po

rt, re

nta

l in

com

e h

elp

s to

off

set

cost

of

run

nin

g a

irp

ort

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$4

.5m

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

) 3

0 c

/kL

(ex

clu

din

g c

ost

of

cap

ital

, co

mpar

ed w

ith c

ost

of

mai

ns

wat

er f

rom

Riv

er M

urr

ay o

f $

1.0

0/k

L)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

1.5

bil

lion l

itre

s of

wat

er t

hat

was

pum

ped

annual

ly f

rom

the

Riv

er M

urr

ay s

tays

in t

he

river

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t F

loodin

g p

roble

ms

at P

araf

ield

Air

port

eli

min

ated

P

oll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Co

ntr

ibute

s to

th

e el

imin

atio

n o

f ~

500

0 M

L o

f st

orm

wat

er f

low

ing i

nto

th

e B

arker

In

let

ann

ual

ly

and

ass

oci

ated

po

lluta

nts

B.1

2 Pa

rafi

eld

Stor

mw

ater

Har

vest

ing

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


141

Ben

efit

s co

nt…

In

fra

stru

ctu

re

Enhan

ced l

oca

l jo

b o

pport

unit

ies

and e

conom

ic s

tabil

ity -

cost

s to

GH

Mic

hel

l in

mai

ns

wat

er u

se

and

sew

age

dis

po

sal

wer

e oth

erw

ise

suff

icie

ntl

y h

igh

to

forc

e th

e co

mp

any t

o c

onsi

der

rel

oca

tin

g

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

M

ore

than

a b

illi

on l

itre

s of

wat

er t

hat

was

pum

ped

annual

ly f

rom

the

Riv

er M

urr

ay s

tays

in t

he

river

to

hel

p e

nhan

ce f

low

an

d a

rres

t ri

sin

g s

alin

ity

B.1

2 Pa

rafi

eld

Stor

mw

ater

Har

vest

ing

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


142

B.1

3

Pa

rfit

t S

qu

are

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e U

WR

C

Lo

cati

on

B

ow

den

, S

A

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s C

ity o

f C

har

les

Stu

rt

Urb

an W

ater

Res

ou

rces

Cen

tre,

Un

iver

sity

of

So

uth

Au

stra

lia

Ref

eren

ces

(UW

RC

, 2

00

3)

(PC

WM

B e

t al

., 2

00

2)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

e-d

evel

op

men

t in

an i

nn

er s

urb

urb

(2

7 r

esid

ence

s, 2

50

m o

f ro

ad,

a ca

r p

ark a

nd

an

open

sp

ace

rese

rve)

Siz

e 1

.3 h

a re

crea

tio

nal

par

k w

ith 0

.3 h

a ad

join

ing m

ediu

m d

ensi

ty h

ou

sin

g

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

M

arch

19

97

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

55

8.4

(M

L)

7.3

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

12

0.3

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 2

.2

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

16

00

-17

00

Geo

log

y

Dom

inan

t so

il i

s a

low

per

mea

ble

cla

y, per

mea

bil

ity t

ests

rev

eal th

e so

il t

o h

ave

low

hydra

uli

c co

nd

uct

ivit

y (

k6

0=

8x

10

-7 m

/s)

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

1

2 m

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t ~

12 m

/yr

Oth

er

Qu

ater

nar

y a

qu

ifer

, ~

1.5

m t

hic

k,

com

pri

ses

coar

se r

iver

gra

vel

, T

DS

18

00

mg/L

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

To r

etai

n a

ll s

torm

ru

noff

flo

ws

up

to a

nd

in

clu

din

g t

he

1:1

00

yr

storm

ru

noff

T

o r

etai

n a

nd

man

age

all

surf

ace

po

llu

tio

n g

ener

ated

in

the

catc

hm

ent

in a

ll s

torm

even

ts u

p t

o a

nd

in

clu

din

g t

he

1:1

00

yr

even

t

To d

iver

t th

e bulk

of

reta

ined

sto

rm r

un

off

to

sto

rage

in t

he

und

erly

ing u

pp

er Q

uat

ern

ary a

qu

ifer

B.1

3 Pa

rfitt

Squ

are


143

Ob

ject

ives

con

t…

To

ret

riev

e st

ore

d s

torm

wat

er t

o p

rovid

e ir

rigat

ion

fo

r th

e 0

.6 h

a re

serv

e

To

pro

vid

e a

qu

alit

y e

nvir

on

men

t fo

r p

assi

ve

recr

eati

on

al a

ctiv

ity

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

G

utt

er, si

ngle

en

try p

oin

t in

car

par

k a

rea

Capaci

ty (

ML

) A

ll s

torm

wat

er f

rom

the

upst

ream

su

b-c

atch

men

ts

Des

ign c

ater

s fo

r tw

o 1

00

-yr

AR

I st

orm

co

ndit

ion

s, p

eak d

esig

n f

low

= 2

00

L/s

(cr

itic

al s

torm

= 2

0

min

s),

des

ign r

un

off

volu

me

= 1

20

0 m

3 (

4 h

r st

orm

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

3

0m

lo

ng g

rate

d s

edim

ent

trap

an

d 3

00

m2 g

ravel

ree

d b

ed (

sed

imen

tati

on

, fi

ltra

tio

n a

nd

ad

sorp

tio

n),

over

flo

w a

nd

in

filt

rati

on

fro

m r

eed

bed

ente

rs s

ub

terr

anea

n g

ravel

-fil

led

tre

nch

ben

eath

a

gra

ssed

sw

ale

(fu

rther

fil

trat

ion

), c

lean

sed

sto

rmw

ater

is

then

co

nvey

ed t

o r

ech

arge

wel

ls f

or

stora

ge;

bo

re h

ead

wo

rks

incl

ud

es d

ou

ble

thic

knes

s o

f geo

texti

le t

o p

rovid

e fi

nal

fil

teri

ng

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Fo

reb

ay o

f re

ed b

ed d

esig

ned

to

co

nvey

pea

k f

low

D

esig

ned

to

sto

re a

ll s

usp

end

ed m

ater

ial

exp

ecte

d t

o b

e m

ob

ilis

ed i

n t

he

catc

hm

ent

over

an

es

tim

ated

10

0 y

r p

erio

d

Bo

th t

he

gra

vel

ree

d b

ed a

nd

tre

nch

are

sep

arat

ed f

rom

th

e su

rro

und

ing s

oil

by g

eote

xti

le

Tre

nch

100

m l

on

g a

nd

4 m

2 i

n c

ross

-sec

tio

n, en

tran

ce t

o b

ore

sit

uat

ed 1

00 m

m a

bo

ve

bott

om

of

tren

ch t

o a

llow

for

filt

rati

on

of

storm

wat

er t

hro

ugh

to s

urr

ou

nd

ing s

oil

an

d v

eget

atio

n i

n b

etw

een

st

orm

even

ts

Anal

ysi

s o

f d

rain

age

des

ign p

erfo

rmed

usi

ng I

LS

AX

co

mp

ute

r so

ftw

are,

obta

ined

pea

k f

low

into

p

ark,

infl

ow

hyd

rogra

ph

an

d p

eak s

tora

ge

hei

gh

t

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

F

ou

r re

char

ge

wel

ls i

n a

po

nd

ing a

rea,

AS

R

B.1

3 Pa

rfitt

Squ

are

...c

ontin

ued


144

Sto

rage

con

t…

Capaci

ty (

ML

) tr

ench

: ~

135

m3

, p

ark a

cts

as 9

00

m3

det

enti

on

bas

in

Qu

ater

nar

y 1

aq

uif

er u

nd

erli

es m

ost

of

Ad

elai

de

Met

rop

oli

tan

are

a an

d i

s es

tim

ated

to

hav

e a

stora

ge

cap

acit

y o

f 5

0,0

00

ML

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Sto

rage

vo

lum

e n

eed

ed w

ith

in l

and

scap

ed r

eser

ve

des

ign

ed b

y d

eter

min

ing r

ate

of

rech

arge

usi

ng a

si

mple

co

mp

ute

r m

od

el,

dev

elo

ped

usi

ng s

tand

ard

spre

adsh

eet

tech

niq

ues

an

d a

ssu

mes

tra

nsi

ent

con

dit

ions

(par

ticu

lar

par

amet

ers

giv

en i

n "

Par

fitt

Sq

uar

e S

tuff

" d

oc)

L

and

scap

ing o

f re

serv

e pro

vid

es 9

00 m

3 s

tora

ge

bel

ow

car

riag

eway

in

ver

t, w

ith

all

ab

ove-

gro

un

d

stora

ge

uti

lise

d i

n a

4 h

r 100 y

rs e

ven

t th

e fo

ur

rech

arge

bore

s ar

e ex

pec

ted t

o c

onvey

20 L

/s o

f cl

ean

sto

rmw

ater

to

th

e aq

uif

er

An

tici

pat

ed a

nn

ual

rec

har

ge

~ 1

.7 M

L

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

H

ow

D

isch

arge

bore

an

d p

um

p 1

0m

do

wn

stre

am f

rom

nea

rest

rec

har

ge

bore

, al

low

s "p

lug"

of

sto

rmw

ater

in

ject

ed i

n w

inte

r to

be

cen

tred

aro

un

d p

rod

uct

ion

bore

in

su

mm

er

Cle

anse

d s

torm

wat

er m

ixes

wit

h g

rou

nd

wat

er,

sup

ply

wit

h s

alin

ity a

rou

nd

500

mg/L

su

itab

le f

or

irri

gat

ion

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

If r

ech

arge

and

ret

riev

al v

olu

mes

are

kep

t ap

pro

xim

atel

y i

n b

alan

ce a

dver

se p

ress

ure

flu

ctuat

ion

s w

ill

be

avoid

ed a

nd t

he

aquif

er w

ill

in t

ime

show

a g

radual

red

uct

ion i

n s

alin

ity

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

R

oo

f ru

noff

fro

m n

ewly

co

nst

ruct

ed h

ou

ses

dir

ectl

y c

on

nec

ted

to

gra

vel

tre

nch

via

PV

C p

ipes

Tre

atm

ent

GP

Ts

(mes

h t

rap

s), 100 m

long, gra

vel

-fil

led t

ren

ch f

or

stora

ge

and i

nfi

ltra

tion

Sto

rag

e A

SR

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

B.1

3 Pa

rfitt

Squ

are

...c

ontin

ued


145

Wa

stew

ate

r co

nt…

C

oll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Co

mm

un

ity e

xp

ecta

tio

ns

for

acti

ve

and

pas

sive

recr

eati

on

Nee

ds

of

an a

dja

cent

sch

oo

l

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Str

on

g s

ense

of

com

mu

nit

y i

n n

eigh

bo

urh

oo

d -

req

uir

e re

sid

ent

man

dat

e fo

r st

orm

wat

er s

yst

em -

co

mm

un

ity i

nvo

lvem

ent

and

co

oper

atio

n s

ough

t at

ear

lies

t st

age

of

dev

elo

pm

ent

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Wh

o

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Lo

ng

-ter

m m

on

itori

ng

B.1

3 Pa

rfitt

Squ

are

...c

ontin

ued


146

Mo

nit

ori

ng c

on

t…

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s

Red

uce

d d

ema

nd

for

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Red

uct

ion, an

d i

n s

om

e ca

ses

the

elim

inat

ion o

f, m

ains

wat

er f

or

irri

gat

ion

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t R

edu

ces

do

wn

stre

am f

loo

din

g;

all

sto

rm r

un

off

up t

o a

nd i

ncl

ud

ing t

he

1:1

00

yr

sto

rm e

ven

t re

tain

ed

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Poll

uti

on

gen

erat

ed i

n t

he

catc

hm

ent

in a

ll s

torm

even

ts u

p t

o a

nd

in

clu

din

g t

he

1:1

00

yr

even

t tr

eate

d o

n-s

ite

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

L

oca

lise

d t

reat

men

t o

f st

orm

wat

er w

ill

no

t co

ntr

ibute

to

do

wn

stre

am p

rob

lem

s

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

R

eple

nis

hm

ent

of

the

aqu

ifer

B.1

3 Pa

rfitt

Squ

are

...c

ontin

ued


147

B.1

4

Pow

ells

Cree

k

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e Ja

ke

Mat

uzi

c

Lo

cati

on

C

on

cord

, N

SW

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s C

ity o

f C

anad

a B

ay C

ou

nci

l

Atl

anti

s C

orp

ora

tio

n

NS

W E

PA

Ref

eren

ces

(NS

W E

PA

, 2003)

(AC

, 2

00

3)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e D

emo

nst

rati

on

pro

ject

, re

trofi

t ker

b g

ull

y b

yp

ass

syst

em

Siz

e ~

0.1

33

ha/

stre

et (

x 5

str

eets

= 0

.67

ha)

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

D

ecem

ber

199

8

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

ca

tch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

92

1.3

(ML

) 6

.1

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

10

6.4

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 3

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

Nat

ive

sub-s

urf

ace

consi

sts

of

topso

il a

nd f

ill,

over

layin

g s

ilty

cla

ys

and w

eath

ered

shal

e. N

atura

l si

lty c

lays

pre

sent

at d

epth

s of

2.1

-3.0

m w

ith p

ock

ets

of

man

-mad

e fi

ll. S

oil

per

mea

bil

ity t

ests

in

dic

ated

a c

lay w

ith p

erm

eabil

ity o

f 10-7

cm

/s

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

O

ther

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Pro

ject

sit

e is

a s

erie

s of

stre

ets

in C

onco

rd t

hat

ru

n w

estw

ard

fro

m G

eorg

e S

t to

Po

wel

ls C

reek

.

The

Cre

ek a

t th

e p

oin

ts o

f d

isch

arge

fro

m t

hes

e st

reet

s is

a t

idal

co

ncr

ete

lin

ed t

rap

ezo

idal

ch

annel

, h

ow

ever

th

e m

ore

nat

ura

l se

ctio

n o

f P

ow

ells

Cre

ek c

onsi

stin

g o

f m

angro

ve

wet

lan

ds

is j

ust

d

ow

nst

ream

.

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

B.1

4 Po

wel

ls C

reek


148

Ob

ject

ives

To

co

llec

t an

d t

reat

ro

ad r

un

off

fro

m t

he

catc

hm

ent

area

of

five

stre

ets

run

nin

g f

rom

Geo

rge

Str

eet

tow

ard

s P

ow

ells

Cre

ek,

dem

on

stra

tin

g b

est

pra

ctic

es f

or

man

agin

g s

torm

wat

er r

un

off

T

o p

rovid

e a

bre

akth

rou

gh

ro

le m

odel

for

ecolo

gic

ally

su

stai

nab

le a

nd

cost

eff

ecti

ve

subu

rban

d

evel

op

men

t

To

im

ple

men

t an

in

no

vat

ive

dis

trib

ute

d-s

ourc

e so

luti

on f

or

storm

wat

er f

iltr

atio

n a

nd

man

agem

ent

syst

em f

or

a su

bu

rban

are

a

To

pro

tect

wil

dli

fe h

abit

ats,

res

tore

bio

logic

al d

iver

sity

, im

pro

ve

recr

eati

on

al a

reas

an

d C

on

cord

co

mm

un

ity a

men

titi

es a

nd

bea

uti

fy t

he

cree

k

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Co

llecti

on

H

ow

G

utt

er,

infi

ltra

tio

n s

yst

em

Ker

b g

ull

y b

yp

ass

syst

em,

poro

us

road

sh

ou

lder

co

nsi

stin

g o

f A

tlan

tis

Gra

ss C

ells

an

d s

elec

ted t

urf

gra

ss

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Des

ign

bas

ed o

n t

he

Atl

anti

s S

torm

wat

er P

uri

fica

tio

n a

nd

Re-

use

Syst

em f

or

Road

s, w

ith

ap

pro

pri

ate

mo

dif

icat

ions

for

this

sch

eme

Dra

inag

e ce

ll d

esig

ned

to r

e-o

xygen

ated

sto

rmw

ater

H

igh d

ensi

ty p

oly

ethyle

ne

gri

d s

truct

ure

, d

istr

ibu

tes

load

s fr

om

ped

estr

ian

and

veh

icle

tra

ffic

to

bas

e co

urs

e, m

inim

ises

gra

ss a

nd r

oot

com

pac

tion (

mai

nta

ins

infi

ltra

tion c

apab

ilit

y),

lat

eral

des

ign

cap

abil

itie

s pre

ven

t ce

ll b

lock

ing

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

F

ilte

rs t

hro

ugh

gra

ss c

ells

and

then

th

rou

gh

Atl

anti

s E

coso

il i

nto

Atl

anti

s E

colo

gic

al C

han

nel

wh

ich

co

nti

nues

fil

trat

ion

pro

cess

Irri

gat

ion

wat

er a

bso

rbed

in

to t

he

surr

ou

nd

ing s

oil

s o

r ev

apo

-tra

nsp

ired

thro

ugh

surr

ou

nd

ing

veg

etat

ion

"ph

yto

-rem

edia

te"

hea

vy m

etal

s an

d n

utr

ients

Eco

soil

ph

ysi

call

y a

nd

bio

logic

ally

en

gin

eere

d t

o t

reat

PC

Bs,

PA

Hs,

org

ano

ph

osp

hat

es,

coal

tar

s,

pes

tici

des

an

d h

erb

icid

es,

and

tai

lore

d t

o s

uit

the

site

's s

pec

ific

soil

an

d w

ater

pro

per

ties

B.1

4 Po

wel

ls C

reek

...c

ontin

ued


149

Tre

atm

ent

con

t…

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Co

nsi

der

atio

ns

incl

ud

e su

itab

le c

om

pac

tio

n o

f th

e fi

lter

med

ium

to

mai

nta

in r

oad

su

rfac

e in

tegri

ty,

mai

nta

inin

g o

pti

mum

infi

ltra

tio

n r

ates

, su

pp

ort

ing g

row

th o

f gra

ss;

requ

ired

to a

chie

ve

a per

mea

bil

ity o

f at

lea

st 0

.1 c

m/s

(1.0

1 l

/s/m

2)

Eco

logic

al C

han

nel

co

mpri

sed

of

Atl

anti

s ver

tica

l ce

lls

wit

h d

imen

sio

ns

of

18

00

x30

0x

80

mm

an

d

wra

pp

ed i

n 2

mm

Atl

anti

s F

iltr

atio

n G

eote

xti

le.

On

e si

de

of

the

chan

nel

is

flu

sh w

ith

th

e ex

cavat

ion,

the

oth

er w

ith

th

e ta

nk.

Ch

annel

is

also

des

ign

ed t

o r

e-o

xygen

ate

sto

rmw

ater

. C

han

nel

des

ign

ed t

o f

oll

ow

in

her

ent

con

tou

rs o

f la

ndfo

rm (

emu

lati

ng f

low

of

nat

ura

l su

b s

urf

ace

wat

erw

ay),

th

is d

esig

n c

reat

es v

erti

cal

flo

w,

turb

ule

nce

an

d r

educe

s o

ver

all

flo

w v

elo

city

, p

erm

eab

le w

alle

d c

han

nel

s al

low

inte

ract

ion

of

wat

er w

ith

so

ils

(in

crea

sin

g a

ero

bic

cap

acit

y o

f ch

annel

)

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

D

iver

ted

by E

colo

gic

al C

han

nel

in

to u

nder

gro

un

d A

tlan

tis

Eco

logic

al T

anks,

co

mp

rise

d o

f 1

5 c

ells

, ea

ch 4

10

x4

67

x61

0 m

m

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 0

.00

17

5

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 0

.06%

D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Due

to l

ow

per

mea

bil

ity r

ate

of

the

subso

il, sy

stem

would

be

unab

le t

o i

nfi

ltra

te a

ll w

ater

sto

red i

n

the

tan

k

Duri

ng l

arge

storm

even

ts a

n o

ver

flo

w s

yst

em d

iver

ts e

xce

ss t

reat

ed w

ater

to a

n a

ppro

pri

ate

outl

et

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

, gro

un

dw

ater

rec

har

ge,

dis

char

ge

to P

ow

ells

Cre

ek

Ho

w

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 4

50

0 m

2 i

rrig

atio

n a

rea

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

B.1

4 Po

wel

ls C

reek

...c

ontin

ued


150

Ro

of

run

off

con

t…

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Su

bsu

rfac

e sy

stem

fre

es u

p s

pac

e

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

La

nd

sca

pe

Req

uir

emen

ts

Spec

ific

veg

etat

ion

typ

es u

sed

fo

r ev

apo

-tra

nsp

irat

ion

form

par

t o

f th

e sy

stem

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Who

Key

lea

rnin

gs

B.1

4 Po

wel

ls C

reek

...c

ontin

ued


151

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Mo

nit

ore

d f

or

six

mo

nth

s fo

llo

win

g c

on

stru

ctio

n;

sto

rmw

ater

tes

ted

at

surf

ace

level

, af

ter

infi

ltra

tio

n a

nd

sto

rage

in t

anks;

10

rai

nfa

ll e

ven

ts s

amp

led

, te

sted

for

pH

, T

N, T

P, P

AH

, E

C,

turb

idit

y, S

S, C

u, Z

n, P

b

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Over

90

% e

ffic

ien

cy i

n r

emo

val

of

met

als,

~25

% r

emo

val

rat

e fo

r n

utr

ients

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$4

00

,000

Co

sts

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Use

of

recy

cled

wat

er f

or

irri

gat

ing p

arks

and o

ther

lan

dsc

ape

area

s

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Mic

ro-o

rgan

ism

s in

Eco

soil

s b

iolo

gic

ally

deg

rad

e p

oll

uta

nts

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

R

edu

ced

mai

nte

nan

ce o

f st

orm

wat

er s

yst

ems

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

E

xce

ss r

emed

iate

d w

ater

dis

char

ged

into

Po

wel

ls C

reek

as

envir

on

men

tal

flo

ws

of

imp

roved

wat

er

qu

alit

y

B.1

4 Po

wel

ls C

reek

...c

ontin

ued


152

B.1

5

Sa

nta

Mo

nic

a U

rb

an

Ru

noff

Recy

clin

g F

acil

ity

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e

Lo

cati

on

S

anta

Mo

nic

a, U

SA

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s C

ity o

f S

anta

Mo

nic

a

Ref

eren

ces

(Am

aro

, 2

00

1)

(An

tich

et

al.,

20

02

)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e

Siz

e P

ico

-Ken

ter

and

Pie

r st

orm

dra

ins

dra

in 1

,68

0 a

nd

360

ha

resp

ecti

vel

y (

4,2

00

and

90

0 a

cres

)

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

B

egan

op

erat

ion i

n F

ebru

ary 2

00

1

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

1 y

r in

ten

sity

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wa

tert

able

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Cit

y o

f S

anta

Monic

a is

a p

rim

aril

y u

rban

are

a w

ith 8

5,0

00 r

esid

ents

, occ

upie

s 2.2

. m

iles

of

coat

al

zon

e

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Pri

mar

y:

To

eli

min

ate

po

llu

tio

n o

f S

anta

Monic

a B

ay c

ause

by d

ry-w

eath

er r

un

off

S

eco

nd

ary:

To

tre

at a

nd

pro

duce

co

st-e

ffec

tive

and

hig

h-q

ual

ity w

ater

for

re-u

se i

n l

and

scap

e ir

rigat

ion

; to

rai

se p

ub

lic

awar

enes

s o

f S

anta

Mo

nic

a B

ay p

oll

uti

on

thro

ugh

app

rop

riat

e ed

uca

tion

al

exhib

its

at o

r nea

r th

e tr

eatm

ent

faci

lity

; to

const

ruct

an a

esth

etic

ally

ple

asin

g a

nd f

unct

ional

fa

cili

ty w

ith

an

app

rop

riat

e em

ph

asis

on

art

ele

men

ts

B.1

5 Sa

nta

Mon

ica

Urb

an R

unof

f R

ecyc

ling

Faci

lity


153

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

(re

gu

lati

on

) Q

ua

lity

Ir

rigat

ion

re-

use

of

recy

cled

was

tew

ater

is

regu

late

d b

y T

itle

22

of

the

Cal

iforn

ia D

epar

men

t o

f H

ealt

h S

ervic

es,

alth

ou

gh

it

was

dev

elo

ped

for

was

tew

ater

rec

ycl

ing a

nd

do

es n

ot

curr

entl

y c

over

re

cycl

ed u

rban

run

off

an

d s

torm

wat

er.

Reg

ula

tory

co

mp

lian

ce w

as j

ud

ged

on

th

e b

asis

of

the

app

lica

tio

n o

f bes

t av

aila

ble

tec

hn

olo

gy a

s a

bes

t m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

e co

ver

ed u

nder

th

e L

os

An

gel

es C

ounty

Min

icip

al S

torm

wat

er N

atio

nal

Poll

uta

nt

Dis

char

ge

Eli

min

atio

n S

yst

em P

erm

it

Rem

oval

of

oil

, gre

ase

and

lar

ge

soli

ds

duri

ng t

he

pre

lim

inar

y t

reat

men

t pro

cess

Rem

oval

of

org

anic

an

d i

no

rgan

ic c

om

po

unds

and

turb

idit

y d

uri

ng s

eco

nd

ary t

reat

men

t

Rem

oval

of

pat

ho

gen

s d

uri

ng t

he

dis

infe

ctio

n s

tage

Qu

an

tity

A

ver

age

dry

-wea

ther

flo

ws

fro

m P

ico

-Ken

ter

and

Pie

r st

orm

dra

ins

assu

med

to

be

aro

un

d 2

25

,00

0

gp

d a

nd

40

,00

0 g

pd

res

pec

tivel

y b

ased

on

vis

ual

ob

serv

atio

ns

and a

ctu

al f

ield

mea

sure

men

ts;

pea

k

flo

ws

esti

mat

ed t

o b

e 4

50

,00

0 a

nd

50,0

00

gpd

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

L

ow

-flo

w d

ry-w

eath

er r

un

off

div

erte

d f

rom

Pic

o-K

ente

r an

d P

ier

(cit

y's

tw

o m

ain

) st

orm

dra

ins

Op

erat

es i

n d

ry w

eath

er s

easo

n (

Ap

ril

to O

ctob

er)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

T

reat

men

t tr

ain

co

nsi

stin

g o

f: c

oar

se a

nd

fin

e b

ar s

cree

ns,

flo

w e

qu

alis

atio

n,

dis

solv

ed a

ir f

lota

tio

n,

deg

ritt

ing s

yst

ems,

mic

rofi

ltra

tion a

nd U

V d

isin

fect

ion

Capaci

ty (

ML

) ~

1.9

ML

/day

(5

00

,00

0 g

allo

ns/

day

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

An e

val

uat

ion w

as c

onduct

ed o

f var

ious

wat

er t

reat

men

t pro

cess

es t

o d

eter

min

e th

eir

abil

ity t

o

pro

duce

a r

ecla

imed

eff

luen

t su

itab

le f

or

lan

dsc

ape

irri

gat

ion

an

d t

oil

et f

lush

ing b

ased

on

sp

ecif

ic

regu

lati

ons,

dis

char

ge

lim

itat

ions,

and m

inim

um

tre

atm

ent

requir

emen

ts

Pre

lim

inar

y:

pro

cess

es e

val

uat

ed i

ncl

ude

rack

s, s

cree

ns,

co

mm

inu

tors

, gri

nder

s, g

rit

cham

ber

s,

flo

tati

on

un

its,

an

d f

low

-eq

ual

izat

ion

bas

ins;

pro

cess

es c

ho

sen

wer

e d

eem

ed b

est

fro

m t

he

vie

wp

oin

t o

f sp

ace

const

rain

ts,

op

erat

ion

an

d m

ain

ten

ance

, an

d r

esid

ual

s m

anag

emen

t

B.1

5 Sa

nta

Mon

ica

Urb

an R

unof

f R

ecyc

ling

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


154

Tre

atm

ent

con

t…

Sec

ondar

y:

pro

cess

es e

val

uat

ied i

ncl

ude

fine

scre

enin

g, sa

nd f

iltr

atio

n, m

icro

filt

rati

on, tw

o-s

tage

filt

rati

on, li

me

soft

enin

g, re

ver

se o

smosi

s, g

ranula

ted a

ctiv

ated

car

bon, an

d i

on e

xch

ange

filt

ers;

se

lect

ion

cri

teri

a w

ere

abil

ity t

o r

emo

ve

the

iden

tifi

ed c

onta

min

ants

an

d f

or

issu

es t

hat

lim

its

appli

cabil

ity i

ncl

udin

g f

ootp

rint,

res

idu

als

man

agem

ent,

an

d f

amil

iari

ty o

f o

per

atio

n a

nd

m

ainte

nan

ce;

mic

rofi

ltra

tion c

hose

n f

or

its

smal

l fo

otp

rint,

the

abil

ity t

o h

andle

a w

ide

range

of

var

iab

le i

nfl

uen

t w

ater

qu

alit

y,

and

it

wo

uld

als

o a

llo

w c

ost

-eff

ecti

ve

con

ver

sio

n t

o r

ever

se o

smo

sis

in t

he

futu

re a

nd p

oss

ibly

use

the

trea

ted

wat

er f

or

gro

und

wat

er r

ech

arge

Dis

infe

ctio

n:

pro

cess

es e

val

uat

ed i

ncl

ud

e th

e u

se o

f o

zon

e, U

V r

adia

tio

n a

nd

so

diu

m h

yp

och

lori

te;

sele

ctio

n c

rite

ria

incl

ud

ed f

ootp

rin

t re

qu

irem

ents

, co

mm

un

ity s

afet

y,

regu

lato

ry a

ccep

tan

ce,

pil

oti

ng e

xp

erie

nce

, o

per

atio

n a

nd

mai

nte

nan

ce,

regro

wth

, o

rgan

ics

rem

oval

, co

st, an

d

envir

on

men

tal

imp

act;

UV

sel

ecte

d f

or

its

smal

l p

hysi

cal

site

lay

ou

t re

qu

irem

ents

, m

inim

al

chem

ical

han

dli

ng,

red

uce

d e

nvir

on

men

tal

imp

act,

and

pre

sen

t lo

w-w

ort

h c

ost

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

C

on

cret

e ta

nk

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

One

sid

e nee

ded

to

be

des

igned

as

a re

tain

ing w

all

for

a fr

eew

ay o

n-r

amp

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t Ir

rigat

ion

(in

c. t

wo

par

ks,

a c

emet

ery,

a m

idd

le s

cho

ol,

sev

eral

gre

enbel

t ro

adw

ay m

edia

ns,

th

e ci

vic

cen

ter

area

, a

maj

or

off

ice

bu

ild

ing c

om

ple

x),

to

ilet

flu

shin

g

Ho

w

Du

al-p

lum

bed

syst

ems

for

toil

et f

lush

ing

Capaci

ty (

ML

) A

stu

dy o

f th

e n

um

ber

, ty

pe

and

lo

cati

on

of

po

tenti

al r

e-u

se s

ites

in

dic

ated

th

at 3

3 s

ites

wit

hin

a

two

-mil

e ra

nge

of

the

SM

UR

RF

had

an

aver

age

dai

ly d

eman

d o

f ~

4.5

ML

(1

.2 M

gal

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

B.1

5 Sa

nta

Mon

ica

Urb

an R

unof

f R

ecyc

ling

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


155

Roof

run

off

con

t…

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Ed

uca

tio

n i

nfo

rmat

ion

pla

zas

loca

ted

in

pla

nt

over

vie

w a

reas

; ar

t an

d a

rch

itec

tura

l el

emen

ts

des

ign

ed t

o 1

. E

xpla

in t

he

work

ings

of

the

faci

lity

, 2. P

lace

th

e fa

cili

ty i

n t

he

larg

er c

onte

xt

of

the

San

ta M

on

ica

urb

an w

ater

shed

, an

d 3

. In

form

cit

izen

s w

hat

they

can

do t

o d

ecre

ase

or

elim

inat

e p

oll

uti

on

in

urb

an r

un

off

Key L

earn

ings

Coll

abo

rati

ve

des

ign

ap

pro

ach

bet

wee

n t

he

arti

st, en

gin

eer,

an

d p

ub

lic

wo

rks

tran

sfo

rms

a pote

nti

ally

unsi

ghtl

y w

aste

wat

er f

acil

ity i

nto

a m

ajor

publi

c des

tinat

ion

Ad

dit

ion

al c

ost

of

inco

rpora

tin

g a

rt i

n p

ub

lic

wo

rks

min

iscu

le c

om

par

ed t

o t

he

lon

g-t

erm

pu

bli

c ed

uca

tio

nal

ben

efit

s an

d t

he

pu

bli

c ac

cepta

nce

of

a tr

eatm

ent

faci

lity

nea

r a

maj

or

touri

st a

ttra

ctio

n

B.1

5 Sa

nta

Mon

ica

Urb

an R

unof

f R

ecyc

ling

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


156

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Dai

ly m

ain

ten

ance

of

pre

-tre

atm

ent

syst

em

Maj

or

chal

len

ge

is t

he

con

tro

l o

f al

gae

; w

eekly

cle

anin

g i

s re

qu

ired

to

pre

ven

t th

e bu

ild

up

of

algae

Who

K

ey l

earn

ings

Init

ial

des

ign

req

uir

ed t

he

inje

ctio

n o

f a

bac

kgro

un

d l

evel

of

chlo

rin

e w

ithin

th

e d

istr

ibu

tion

lin

e.

Ho

wev

er,

the

Cit

y h

as f

oun

d t

hat

alg

ae g

row

s al

mo

st e

ver

yw

her

e w

ith

in t

he

faci

lity

, es

pec

iall

y i

n

the

fin

ish

ed r

eser

vo

ir.

Th

e C

ity i

s co

nsi

der

ing a

dd

ing c

hlo

rin

e ea

rlie

r in

the

trea

tmen

t tr

ain

to

re

duce

alg

al g

row

th

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Oil

an

d g

reas

e ar

e m

on

itore

d t

o a

vo

id h

igh

co

nce

ntr

atio

ns

(fro

m s

pil

ls)

fro

m e

nte

rin

g t

he

faci

lity

an

d e

xce

edin

g t

he

syst

em's

par

amet

ers

"Spec

ial

monit

ori

ng o

f m

icro

filt

rati

on s

yst

em t

o e

nsu

re p

roper

oper

atio

n a

nd l

ong-t

erm

dura

bil

ity

and r

elia

bil

ity"

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

US

$1

2 m

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

) U

S$

1.5

3/L

(U

S$

5.8

0/g

al)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Cost

-eff

ecti

ve

sourc

e o

f al

tern

ativ

e w

ater

su

pp

ly f

or

the

Cit

y o

f S

anta

Mo

nic

a; d

isp

lace

men

t of

up

to

4%

of

pota

ble

wat

er d

eman

d

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Red

uce

s p

oll

uti

on

in t

he

San

ta M

on

ica

Bay

In

fra

stru

ctu

re

Res

ourc

e co

nse

rvat

ion

, p

oll

uti

on

pre

ven

tio

n, p

ub

lic

hea

lth

pro

tect

ion a

spec

ts;

opp

ort

un

ity t

o

educa

te p

ubli

c w

rt s

ust

ainab

ilit

y

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.1

5 Sa

nta

Mon

ica

Urb

an R

unof

f R

ecyc

ling

Faci

lity

...c

ontin

ued


157

B.1

6

So

lan

der

Pa

rk

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e L

ean

ne

Dal

lmer

-Ro

ach

, Pet

er D

on

ley

Lo

cati

on

E

rskin

evil

le,

Syd

ney

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s S

ou

th S

yd

ney

Co

un

cil

Ref

eren

ces

(Dal

lmer

, 2002)

(Dal

lmer

Roac

h,

200

1)

(SS

CC

, 2

00

2)

L.

Dal

lmer

Ro

ach

, p

erso

nal

co

mm

un

icat

ion

P.

Don

ley,

per

son

al c

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

edev

elo

pm

ent

(of

a su

burb

an p

ark)

Sta

ge

1 o

f a

thre

e st

age

pro

ject

that

wil

l ev

entu

ally

com

bin

e to

upgra

de

storm

wat

er q

ual

ity f

rom

ap

pro

xim

atel

y 7

5%

of

the

sub

-cat

chm

ent

bef

ore

it

ente

rs t

he

dow

nst

ream

rec

eivin

g w

ater

s o

f A

lex

and

ra C

anal

Siz

e ~

22

0 h

a ca

tch

men

t, ~

65

ha

curr

ent

coll

ecti

on a

rea

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

G

PT

in

stal

led

in

mid

-20

01

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

C

atch

men

t

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

11

02

.4

(M

L)

71

6.6

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

12

9.4

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 2

50

.8

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

15

00

-16

00

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wate

rtable

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Cat

chm

ent

is p

red

om

inan

tly r

esid

enti

al w

ith

so

me

com

mer

cial

an

d o

pen

sp

ace

Par

k i

s fo

rmer

rec

reat

ion

are

a an

d c

ou

nci

l d

epo

t

B.1

6 So

land

er P

ark


158

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

Imp

rove

storm

wat

er q

ual

ity e

nte

rin

g A

lex

and

ra C

anal

Use

tec

hn

iques

an

d d

evic

es t

o i

mp

rove

oth

er c

atch

men

ts

Inte

gra

te c

urr

ent

syst

ems

wit

h a

ho

list

ic a

pp

roac

h t

o s

torm

wat

er p

oll

uti

on

pre

ven

tio

n

Dem

on

stra

te s

afe

storm

wat

er r

e-u

se

Pro

vid

e an

d d

evel

op

ed

uca

tio

nal

op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

stu

den

ts a

nd

the

com

mu

nit

y t

o l

earn

fro

m a

nd

u

nd

erst

and

thes

e p

roce

sses

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Ap

pro

val

of

des

ign

an

d i

nst

alla

tio

n o

f S

yd

ney

Wat

er r

equ

ired

(ow

ner

of

sto

rmw

ater

dra

ins)

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

(a

) G

PT

inte

rcep

ts f

low

s fr

om

tw

o p

aral

lel

trunk d

rain

s pas

sin

g t

hro

ugh

Sola

nd

er p

ark

(b)

over

lan

d f

low

in

filt

rati

on

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) G

PT

: ac

com

odat

es 6

mon

th A

RI

Over

lan

d f

low

: gra

din

g o

f p

ark i

nco

rpora

tes

on

-sit

e st

ora

ge

cap

acit

y o

f ~

45

0 m

3 o

r 1

00

% o

f ra

infa

ll

up

to

a 1

in

20

yea

r A

RI

sto

rm e

ven

t D

esig

n m

eth

ods

In-l

ine

GP

T, p

ipe

dis

char

ge

calc

ula

ted

usi

ng a

sm

all

wei

r in

th

e p

ipe

and

a d

opp

ler

curr

ent

met

er t

o

mea

sure

vel

oci

ty w

hen

th

e w

eir

was

no

lo

nger

val

id,

des

ign

flo

wra

te o

f 4

m3/s

, 1

5.5

m l

ong x

4.5

m

wid

e x

3.9

m d

eep

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

F

rom

tru

nk d

rain

s: E

coso

l R

SF

60

00

GP

T,

hold

ing t

ank,

"Ele

ctro

pu

re"

elec

tro

lysi

s tr

eatm

ent

un

it

Over

lan

d f

low

: sa

nd

fil

trat

ion

bed

, su

b-s

urf

ace

dra

inag

e p

ipes

th

en c

on

vey

wat

er t

o r

eten

tio

n t

ank

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 1

2 k

L h

old

ing t

ank

2 x

1kL

tre

atm

ent

tan

ks

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) D

esig

n m

eth

ods

GP

T:

des

ign

ed t

o c

aptu

re 9

5%

of

gro

ss s

oli

ds

and

95%

of

sed

imen

t p

arti

cles

over

2 m

m i

n d

iam

eter

B.1

6 So

land

er P

ark

...c

ontin

ued


159

Tre

atm

ent

con

t…

San

d f

iltr

atio

n:

0.3

m t

op

soil

, 0

.6 m

san

d,

0.1

m g

ravel

K

ey L

earn

ing

s E

lect

roly

sis

alte

rnat

ive

trea

tmen

t te

chn

iqu

e, s

ho

wn

to

rem

ove

98

-99

% o

f su

spen

ded

so

lid

s d

ow

n t

o

and

in

clu

din

g l

arge

dis

solv

ed m

ole

cule

s (i

nc.

bac

teri

a, a

lgae

)

Typ

ical

ly r

equ

ires

les

s th

an 2

5%

of

the

amoun

t of

alu

min

ium

ad

ded

ele

ctro

lyti

call

y t

o c

lear

a w

ater

sa

mp

le t

han

wh

en a

dd

ed a

s al

um

Sto

rage

Ho

w

Un

der

gro

un

d r

eten

tion

tan

k

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 0

.22

5

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 0

.09%

D

esig

n m

eth

ods

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t P

ark i

rrig

atio

n

Ho

w

Irri

gat

ion

syst

em, p

op

-up

spri

nkle

rs

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

All

ow

s fo

r o

ver

90%

of

wat

er u

sed f

or

irri

gat

ion

wit

hin

th

e p

ark t

o b

e so

urc

ed f

rom

re-

use

st

orm

wat

er

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Coll

ecti

on

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

B.1

6 So

land

er P

ark

...c

ontin

ued


160

Gre

yw

ate

r co

nt…

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Imp

roved

vis

ual

am

enit

y a

s re

sult

of

redev

elo

pm

ent

of

par

k,

all

elem

ents

are

inte

gra

ted

into

a t

ota

l m

anag

emen

t ap

pro

ach a

nd d

o n

ot

obst

ruct

the

aest

het

ics

or

the

use

abil

ity o

f th

e par

k

Inte

rpre

tati

ve

artw

ork

s

Pro

vis

ion

fo

r m

ain

s w

ater

to t

op

up

ret

enti

on

tan

k d

uri

ng d

ry c

ond

itio

ns

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

Rem

edia

tio

n o

f co

nta

min

ated

so

ils

on

th

e si

te

Over

flo

w f

rom

tre

atm

ent

un

it, fl

ush

tan

k a

nd

ret

enti

on

tan

k i

nto

GP

T b

y g

ravit

y,

exce

ss r

elea

sed

to

re

ceiv

ing w

ater

way

GP

T i

s b

yp

asse

d o

nce

cap

acit

y e

xce

eded

Lan

dsc

ap

e R

equ

irem

ents

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Pub

lic

con

sult

atio

n a

nd

involv

emen

t fr

om

beg

inn

ing o

f p

roje

ct

Key L

earn

ings

Co

nst

ruct

ion

ori

gin

ally

co

mm

issi

on

ed i

n l

ast

19

99

, ho

wev

er i

nst

alla

tio

n w

as d

elay

ed u

nti

l m

id-

20

01

due

to "

site

rel

ated

iss

ues

"

Com

mu

nit

y c

on

sult

atio

n a

nd

art

wo

rk d

evel

op

men

t has

res

ult

ed i

n l

oca

l co

mm

un

ity i

nte

rest

an

d

ow

ner

ship

of

the

sch

eme

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

GP

T c

lean

ed e

ver

y 3

-4 m

on

ths

and

at

each

cle

anin

g t

her

e ar

e 6

-8 t

on

nes

of

mat

eria

l re

mo

ved

Who

B.1

6 So

land

er P

ark

...c

ontin

ued


161

Op

era

tio

n a

nd

ma

inte

na

nce

co

nt…

K

ey l

earn

ings

Mai

nte

nan

ce m

ay h

ave

bee

n n

egle

cted

as

tim

e si

nce

co

mp

leti

on o

f co

nst

ruct

ion h

as i

ncr

ease

d,

no

in

form

atio

n

abo

ut

pro

gre

ss o

f su

bse

qu

ent

stag

es o

f p

roje

ct

Mon

ito

rin

g

Wate

r q

ua

lity

P

re-c

onst

ruct

ion:

even

t &

bas

elin

e m

on

ito

ring

up

stre

am o

f G

PT

Po

st-c

onst

ruct

ion:

even

t &

bas

elin

e m

onit

ori

ng u

pst

ream

& d

ow

nst

ream

of

GP

T,

vid

eo s

urv

eill

ance

duri

ng

sto

rm e

ven

ts,

gra

b s

amp

les

fro

m r

e-use

tan

k,

Ele

ctro

pure

syst

em

Par

amet

ers:

hea

vy

met

als

(Ca,

Cu

, P

b,

Fe,

Zn),

gre

ase

& o

ils,

FC

, p

H,

SS

, D

S,

N &

P

Wate

r q

ua

nti

ty

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

of

GP

T w

rt h

ead l

oss

Oth

er

Man

ly V

alue

Hydra

uli

cs L

abo

rato

ry i

nst

alle

d a

nd o

per

ated

mo

nit

ori

ng a

nd s

amp

ling e

qu

ipm

ent

Po

st-c

onst

ruct

ion:

sed

imen

t im

pac

t m

on

ito

ring

Perf

orm

an

ce

Again

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Nu

mber

of

org

anis

atio

ns

inte

rest

ed i

n t

he

schem

e an

d t

he

SS

C i

s se

eing a

nu

mber

of

dev

elo

per

s in

corp

ora

ting

WS

UD

pri

nci

ple

s an

d u

sing s

imil

ar t

echno

log

ies

in t

he

area

W

ate

r q

ua

lity

P

re-c

onst

ruct

ion:

hea

vy m

etal

s, F

C,

SS

, N

& P

ele

vat

ed (

cf A

NZ

EC

C G

uid

elin

es f

or

Fre

sh a

nd

Mar

ine

Wat

er

Qual

ity

1992)

Po

st-c

onst

ruct

ion r

epo

rt n

ot

avai

lable

Wate

r q

ua

nti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hods

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tla

y

$615 0

00 f

or

des

ign a

nd c

onst

ruct

ion,

$200 0

00 f

or

par

k r

edev

elo

pm

ent,

$400 0

00 f

or

rem

edia

tio

n,

$100 0

00

for

com

mu

nit

y ar

twork

s

Cost

s

An

nu

al

op

era

tin

g

(cost

s/kL

) E

lect

ropure

unit

co

sts

$20-5

0/M

L f

or

mo

st p

oll

ute

d w

ater

(re

f: (

Ro

bin

son,

1999))

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

educe

d d

emand f

or

pota

ble

supply

O

n-s

ite

sto

rmw

ater

sto

rage

and r

eten

tio

n r

epre

sents

a s

ignif

ican

t sa

vin

g o

f pota

ble

wat

er

Flo

w m

anag

emen

t F

loo

d m

itig

atio

n a

nd

over

land

flo

w p

ath m

anag

emen

t (t

her

e w

as a

n e

xis

ting

flo

od

pro

ble

m w

ith

in l

oca

l st

reet

s an

d a

n o

ver

land f

loo

d r

oute

thro

ugh t

he

par

k c

ontr

ibute

d t

o r

egu

lar

flo

odin

g o

f ho

use

s su

rro

und

ing t

he

par

k)

Po

llu

tio

n c

on

tro

l G

ross

po

llu

tant

cap

ture

, re

hab

ilit

atio

n o

f th

e p

ark

's s

oil

s In

frast

ruct

ure

C

ounci

l ap

ply

in

form

atio

n a

nd t

echniq

ues

dev

elo

ped

to o

ther

cat

chm

ents

that

dis

char

ge

to A

lexan

dra

Can

al

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

S

torm

wat

er e

nte

rin

g r

ecei

vin

g w

ater

way

(A

lex

andra

Can

al)

of

imp

roved

qu

alit

y

B.1

6 So

land

er P

ark

...c

ontin

ued


162

B.1

7

Taro

nga

Zoo

Co

nta

ct I

nfo

rmati

on

Con

tact

Nam

e D

aryl

Ed

war

ds

Lo

cati

on

M

osm

an,

Syd

ney

, N

SW

Pro

ject

Part

ner

s T

aronga

Zoo

Cle

an U

p A

ust

rali

a

Syd

ney

Wat

er

Ref

eren

ces

(TZ

, 2003)

D.

Ed

war

ds,

per

son

al c

om

mun

icat

ion

(19

97)

(AT

S,

20

03

)

Gen

eral

Sit

e D

etail

s:

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Typ

e R

etro

fit

Siz

e 0

.83

ha

Da

te o

f co

mm

issi

on

S

epte

mb

er 1

99

6

Sca

le o

f im

ple

men

tati

on

S

ub

-cat

chm

ent

Rain

fall

R

ain

fall

(m

m/y

r)

12

19

.8

(M

L)

10

.1

No

. ra

infa

ll d

ays

/yr

13

8.2

Mea

n a

nnu

al

runo

ff (

ML

) 6

.6

Po

ten

tia

l ev

ap

otr

ansp

irati

on

(m

m)

3.9

Geo

log

y

Aq

uif

er

Wa

tert

able

Gro

un

dw

ate

r m

ove

men

t

Oth

er

Sit

e H

isto

ry

Sys

tem

Req

uir

emen

ts

Ob

ject

ives

B.1

7 Ta

rong

a Z

oo


163

En

d-u

se r

equ

irem

ents

Q

ua

lity

(reg

ula

tio

n)

Qu

an

tity

Op

erati

on

al

Ris

k a

sses

smen

t

Oth

er

Sys

tem

Com

po

nen

ts:

Coll

ecti

on

H

ow

F

irst

flu

sh s

torm

wat

er c

oll

ects

in

sto

rmw

ater

bas

in i

n f

ront

of

trea

tmen

t p

lant

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 1

20

0 k

L/d

ay

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 6

.6%

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Bas

in a

cts

to p

rovid

e fl

ow

eq

ual

isat

ion

wh

en r

equ

ired

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Trea

tmen

t H

ow

S

cree

n a

nd

gri

t co

llec

tio

n c

ham

ber

, b

iolo

gic

al t

reat

men

t (A

NI-

Kru

ger

pro

cess

rem

oves

N a

nd

P),

ae

rati

on

(p

asvee

r ch

ann

el),

cla

rifi

er,

buff

er t

ank,

mic

rofi

ltra

tio

n a

nd

dis

infe

ctio

n (

Mem

tec

Co

nti

nu

ous

Mic

rofi

ltra

tio

n, M

CF

) an

d U

V d

isin

fect

ion

(p

ost

-ho

ldin

g t

ank)

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Bac

kw

ash

fro

m C

MF

un

it r

eturn

s to

aer

atio

n t

ank

Wei

r d

iver

ts a

ny e

xce

ss f

low

en

teri

ng b

uff

er t

ank t

o t

he

UV

dis

infe

ctio

n c

ham

ber

pri

or

to h

arb

ou

r d

isch

arge

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Sto

rag

e H

ow

P

um

ped

to

ho

ldin

g t

ank a

t to

p o

f si

te

Capaci

ty (

ML

) 0

.5

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

) 7

.6%

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Re-

use

W

ha

t A

nim

al e

xhib

it w

ash d

ow

n, ex

hib

it a

nd o

rnam

enta

l m

oat

fil

lin

g, to

ilet

flu

shin

g, ir

rigat

ion

Ex

cess

tre

ated

wat

er d

isch

arged

to

Syd

ney

Har

bou

r H

ow

R

ecycl

ed w

ater

su

pp

ly p

ipe,

in

clu

des

1,3

00

m o

f ri

ng m

ain

(1

00

mm

dia

met

er P

VC

pip

e) a

nd

1,2

00

m

of

var

ious

size

d b

ranch

lin

es;

hose

tap

s, s

pri

nkle

r sy

stem

s, m

oat

fil

lin

g v

alves

an

d t

oil

et b

lock

s

Capaci

ty (

ML

)

B.1

7 Ta

rong

a Z

oo .

..con

tinue

d


164

Re-

use

co

nt…

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

Des

ign

met

ho

ds

Key

Lea

rnin

gs

Oth

er W

ate

r fo

r R

e-u

se

Ro

of

run

off

if

trea

ted

an

d u

sed

sep

ara

tely

C

apaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% m

ean

an

n.

run

off

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Wa

stew

ate

r C

apaci

ty (

ML

)

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

W

aste

wat

er f

rom

anim

al c

age

ho

sed

ow

ns

Tre

atm

ent

Inco

rpora

ted

wit

h s

torm

wat

er

Sto

rag

e

Greyw

ate

r

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Oth

er W

ate

r f

or R

e-u

se

Capaci

ty (

ML

) n

/a

(

% t

ota

l w

ate

r use

)

Co

llec

tion

Tre

atm

ent

Sto

rag

e

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Iss

ues

Sit

e A

men

ity

Pu

bli

c S

afe

ty

La

nd

sca

pe

Req

uir

emen

ts

Inte

grati

on

in

to t

ota

l u

rb

an

wa

ter c

ycle

B.1

7 Ta

rong

a Z

oo .

..con

tinue

d


165

Poss

ible

Pro

ble

ms

Pre

ssu

re i

n h

ose

s u

sed

fo

r ca

ge

was

hd

ow

n

Inst

itu

tio

nal

Oth

er

Key L

earn

ings

Oth

er I

ssu

es

Op

erati

on

an

d m

ain

ten

an

ce

Ho

w

Ala

rm s

yst

em m

on

ito

rs o

per

atio

n o

f tr

eatm

ent

pla

nt

Wh

o

Zo

o o

per

ates

tre

atm

ent

pla

nt,

co

ntr

acto

r m

ainta

ins

reti

cula

tio

n a

nd

pu

mp

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Mo

nit

orin

g

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Zo

o:

over

flo

w a

nd

dis

char

ge

to h

arb

ou

r m

on

ito

red

mo

nth

ly f

or

BO

D,

SS

, p

H

Co

ntr

acto

r: o

ver

flo

w,

dis

char

ge

and

fil

trat

ion u

nit

mo

nit

ore

d m

on

thly

fo

r co

lifo

rms

and

eve

ry s

ix

mo

nth

s fo

r b

acte

ria,

par

asit

es a

nd

fae

cal

coli

form

s

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Flo

w i

n a

nd

out

of

pla

nt,

wat

er u

se

Oth

er

Per

form

an

ce

Ag

ain

st o

bje

ctiv

es

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Wa

ter

qu

anti

ty

Ass

essm

ent

met

hod

s

Key

lea

rnin

gs

Co

st/B

enef

its

Ca

pit

al

ou

tlay

$2

.2 m

C

ost

s

An

nu

al

op

erati

ng

(c

ost

s/kL

)

Use

r pri

ce

Ben

efit

s R

edu

ced

dem

an

d f

or

po

tab

le

sup

ply

Red

uce

d r

elia

nce

on

mai

ns

wat

er s

up

ply

Sav

e $

70

,00

0/y

r o

n w

ater

co

sts

Flo

w m

an

ag

emen

t R

edu

ced

dry

wea

ther

dis

char

ge

into

Syd

ney

Har

bo

ur

Poll

uti

on c

ontr

ol

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

En

viro

nm

enta

l fl

ow

B.1

7 Ta

rong

a Z

oo .

..con

tinue

d


166

167


Appendix C

This appendix contains information on stormwater

treatment measures built for re-use but designed using

the same principles as systems used solely for

pollution control.

C.1 Swales and Buffers

CSU Thurgoona – Appendix B.4

At this site contour banks are used to direct runoff to

swales. The swales are both grassed and rocky and

allow sedimentation to occur (Figure C.1). Treatment

wetlands are also positioned on swales. The swales

meander over the landscape to control erosion as well

as provide aesthetic features.

Oaklands Park – Appendix B.11

Grassed swales alongside roadways are used to collectgeneral runoff as well as slow water flow, minimiseerosion, increase point of contact for infiltration andconvey runoff to storage (Figure C.2). The swales aredesigned to typical minor/major standards; believed tosafely convey 5 year ARI storm event as suggested byAustralian Rainfall and Runoff (2003) (where <5yrARI is conveyed within the drainage system, and >5 yrARI is conveyed along the road). No real attentionappears to have been paid to type of vegetation orspecific treatment performance requirements. 'Worst-case' demand and supply was based on the 1982-83drought.

Homebush Bay – Appendix B.7

A conventional gutter and pipe system is used tocollect runoff in high traffic areas at Homebush Bay,

Figure C.1 Grassed Swales for Collection and Rocky Swales betweenTreatment Wetlands at CSU Thurgoona (source: CSU)

Figure C.2 Swales Alongside Roadways at OaklandsPark Collect Runoff and Allow Sedimentation(source: savewater.com.au)


168

however vegetated swales have been constructed

alongside roadways in low traffic areas (Figure C.3).

These swales facilitate collection, sedimentation and

convey of runoff to the treatment wetlands.

C.2 Bio-filters

Parfitt Square – Appendix B.13

A gravel-filled trench beneath a grassed swale conveys

treated water from the treatment wetland to the

infiltration basin at Parfitt Square (Figure C.4). It also

serves to further filter the stormwater and provides 135

kL of temporary storage. The trench, which is 100 m

long and has a cross-section of 4 m2, is separated from

surrounding soil by geotextile. The outlet pipe is

situated 100 mm above the bottom of the trench to

allow for some infiltration of stormwater through to

the surrounding soil and vegetation.

Altona Green Park – Appendix B.1

Beneath the grassed swale at Altona Green Park is the

central filter zone, which consists of a layer of sand

and a porous pipe at the bottom of the trench to convey

treated water to storage. The trench also facilitates

sedimentation and biological treatment (removal of

fine oil particles, dissolved organic matter, and

nutrients).

Figure C.3 Swales Collect Runoff from Low Traffic Areas at Homebush Bay

Figure C.4 Grassed Gravel-filled Trench atParfitt Square (source: UniSa)


169

C.3 Porous Pavement

There were three types of porous pavement found

incorporated into stormwater re-use schemes, as

described below:

1. The Manly Stormwater Treatment and Re-use

(STAR) Project (Appendix B.10) uses Atlantis

Aqua Pave permeable pavers in the Ocean Beach

carpark for the collection and initial treatment of

general runoff (Figure C.5). These pavers have acrush strength of ~14,000 kN/m2 and can infiltrateup to 20 L/s/m2.

2. Sydney Olympic Park in Homebush Bay(Appendix B.7) incorporates ~6.7 ha of RoclaEcoTrihex pavers to collect, treat and infiltraterunoff directly to trees (Figures C.6, C.7). Thesepavers have a compressive strength of 55x10-6

N/m2 and an abrasion resistance of 4.

Figure C.5 Atlantis Aqua Pave at ManlyBeach (source: AtlantisCorporation)

Figure C.6 Rocla Ecotrihex Pavers at Homebush Bay (source: Rocla and B. Hatt)

Figure C.7 Rocla EcoTrihex Pavers (source: Rocla)


170

3. The stormwater treatment and re-use system at

Powells Creek (Appendix B.14) in Sydney, NSW

uses Atlantis Turf Cells (Figure C.8) as part of the

treatment process. These cells are a grid structure

designed to house turf grass and are constructed

using high density polyethylene (Figure C.9). This

structure enables the distribution of loads from

pedestrian and vehicle traffic to the base course

and has a crush strength of 1457.60 kN/m2.

Infiltration capacity is maintained through the use

of individual cells in the grass paver to minimise

grass and root compaction.

C.4 Infiltration Basins/Trenches

Figtree Place – Appendix B.5

The 250 m2 grassed dry detention basin is located inthe centre of the Figtree Place development (FigureC.10). General runoff filters through 300 mm oftopsoil overlaying a 750 mm layer of gravel enclosedin geotextile followed by infiltration to the underlyingaquifer. Infiltration trenches around the perimeter ofthe development capture, filter and infiltrate overflowfrom the rainwater tanks. This system is designed todetain 83% of all runoff up to a 1:50 year ARI stormevent.

Figure C.9 Atlantis Turf Cells at Powells Creek (source: NSWStormwater Trust)

Figure C10 Detention Basin (dry and during a storm event) at Figtree Place (source: Coombes)

Figure C.8 Atlantis Turf Cell (source:Atlantis Corporation)


171

Parfitt Square –Appendix B.13

The detention basin at Parfitt Square acts to detaintreated stormwater for injection to the underlyingaquifer. There are four recharge wells within the basinwhich are expected to convey up to 20 L/s of cleanstormwater to the aquifer. The required detentionvolume was designed by determining the rate ofrecharge using a simple computer model which wasdeveloped using standard spreadsheet techniques andassumes transient conditions. The parameters requiredfor the model are as follows:

bore diameter 0.150 m

aquifer thickness 3 m

depth to aquifer 10 m

watertable level 11.5 m

transmissibility 336 m2/day

storage coefficient 0.09

In addition, the detention basin provides 900 kL oftemporary storage for large storm events.

Solander Park – Appendix B.15

The grassed infiltration bed at Solander Park (FigureC.11) has a detention capacity of 450 kL or 100% ofrainfall in a 1:20 year ARI storm event. A 300 mmlayer of topsoil overlays 600 mm of sand on top of 100mm of gravel. Perforated pipes beneath the gravellayer then convey the filtered water to the storage tank.

C.5 Wetlands

The design of constructed wetlands varies widely,however they typically have a pollution control/inletzone, which serves to trap coarse sediment (it isimportant to reduce the frequency of requiredmaintenance for the macrophyte component) anddistribute flow, followed by densely vegetated marshesthat trap fine sediment and soluble pollutants.Generally, the longer water is detained within thewetland the more improved the water quality is.However, as a rule there is a time threshold abovewhich water quality is likely to deteriorate due tochemical and biological processes within the wetland.

Figure C.11 Looking Across Solander Park to Infiltration Bed


172

Local climate affects the behaviour of a wetlandssystem; however pollutant removal is predominantlyinfluenced by the catchment runoff characteristics ofthe site, and the design and surface area of the pond(Wong et al., 1998).

Bobbin Head Road – Appendix B.2

The constructed wetland at Bobbin Head Road wasdesigned to settle sediments, and remove nutrients andheavy metals. It was to be a subsurface flow wetland,have a surface area of 200 m2 and an average depth of0.8m

Parfitt Square – Appendix B.13

The gravel reed bed at Parfitt Square (Figure C.12) hasa surface area of 300 m2 and provides initial treatmentfor low quality flow from the roadways and carpark(roof runoff flows directly to bio-filter). This wetlandfacilitates sedimentation, filtration and adsorption, andis designed to store all the suspended materialexpected to be mobilised in the catchment over anestimated 100 yr period. The wetland is separatedfrom the surrounding soil by a geotextile layer. Thedrainage design was analysed using ILSAX computer

software, including peak flow into park, inflow

hydrograph and peak storage height.

Inkerman Oasis – Appendix B.8

The treatment wetland at Inkerman Oasis is a baffled

subsurface flow rock filter with a surface area of

400m2. The wetland offers sedimentation and nutrient

removal. It contains a soil-gravel filter medium and

emergent plants, and is designed for both vertical and

horizontal flow to fully utilise the media surface area.


The instream treatment wetlands at CSU Thurgoona

provide sedimentation, nutrient removal and aeration

of inflowing runoff. At the point of inflow is a rock-

based water baffle to aerate the stormwater, followed

by a sedimentation pool at least 4 m deep with steep

sides (Figure C.13-a). This pool progressively

becomes shallower over a length of 5-10 m, leading to

a macrophyte zone (Figure C.13-b). These system are

self-sustaining and self-optimising, and their positions

on the swales are selected with respect to function and

aesthetic appeal.

Figure C.12 Gravel Reed Bed (in foreground) at Parfitt Square (source: UniSA)

Figure C.13 (a) Sedimentation Pond and (b) Macrophyte Zone at CSU Thurgoona (source: CSU)


173

Hawkesbury – Appendix B.6

The stormwater treatment wetland system at UWS

Hawkesbury is comprised of four one hectare surface

flow wetlands. Within each wetland is an alternating

series of shallow wetlands areas and deeper oxidation

ponds. The normal operating level has an average

design depth of 150 mm and a detention time of seven

days. The design allows for multitude of wetland

filling and holding scenarios, this allows studies of

management and other factors to be incorporated into

the scheme. Another design consideration was the

minimisation of avifauna since there is a nearby RAAF

base.


Homebush Bay incorporates over 100 ha of

constructed wetlands and waterways that follow the

original drainage line (Figure C.14). Three water

quality control ponds collect and detain first flush

runoff, this allows sedimentation. Aquatic plantsthroughout the system facilitate nutrient removal.Submerged gabion walls contain microphyte growth toensure areas of open water and hence aerobicconditions. There is a bypass channel for high flows,which also acts as secondary storage.

Parafield – Appendix B.12

The treatment system at Parafield is a two hectare,densely planted, surface flow reed bed whichfacilitates sedimentation, and the removal of nutrientsand pollutants. There is bird-proof netting over thesystem to minimise avifauna and thus reduce birdstrike for the airport. Detention time may be variedbetween seven and ten days depending on the qualityof the incoming stormwater

It can be seen that the Surface Area / Catchment Arearatio varies widely for small catchment areas (FigureC.15 (a)). This is most likely due to space constraints.

Figure C.14 (a) Wetland System at Homebush Bay. (b) Gabion Walls Visible in Pond Drawn Down for Maintenance

Figure C.15 (a) Catchment Area vs. Surface Area/Catchment Area for Treatment Wetlands

Catchment Area vs. Wetland Surface Area/Catchment Area

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Catchment Area (ha)

Su

rga

ce

Are

a/C

atc

hm

en

t A

rea


174

However, as catchment area increases, the SurfaceArea/Catchment Area ratio decreases. This mayindicate that wetlands are more efficient for largercatchments than for smaller.

An approximate decrease in the Surface Area /Catchment Area ratio as annual rainfall increases canbe seen in Figure C.15 (b), although the treatmentwetlands at Parafield do not follow this trend. There

does not seem to be any relationship between rainfall

seasonality and the wetland Surface Area / Catchment

Area ratio (Figure C.15 (c)).

Water quality emanating from these systems can be

highly variable. It is not clear how this was

incorporated into the designs (i.e. is treated stormwater

always fit for re-use?).

Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Wetland Surface Area/Catchment Area

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Annual Rainfall (mm)

Su

rfa

ce

Are

a/C

atc

hm

en

t A

rea

Parafield

Figure C.15 (c) Winter/Summer Rainfall vs. Surface Area/Catchment Area for treatment wetlands

Figure C.15 (b) Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Surface Area/Catchment Area for treatment wetlands

Winter/Summer Rainfall vs Wetland Surface Area/Catchment Area

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

winter/summer rainfall

Su

rfa

ce

Are

a/C

atc

hm

en

t A

rea


175

Provision of a bypass channel is important to protectwetland systems from potential re-suspension andscour during high flows. Homebush Bay incorporatesa bypass channel that upgrades the storm capacityfrom a 1:10 year ARI to a 1:100 year ARI event.Hawkesbury and Parafield also both have provisionfor flood protection of a different form. AtHawkesbury the large detention basin prior to thewetland system offers flood protection, and if thecapacity of this were exceeded inflowing water can bepumped past the wetland system. Parafield also has adetention basin prior to the reed bed that will providesome flood protection. In addition, beyond a certainstorm event, water will overflow the diversion weir inthe conventional drainage system.

C.6 Ponds, Basins and Lakes

Bowies Flat – Appendix B.3

The main design objective for the Bowies Flattreatment system was to provide flows of improvedquality to Bridgewater Creek; re-use of stormwater forpark irrigation was an afterthought and not specificallyincorporated into the design. Stormwater for re-use is

pumped from the settling pond (Figure C.16), whichprimarily serves as the inlet zone for the treatmentwetlands, hence it is considered under this category(wetland system is downstream of the intake for re-use). The pond has a surface of 0.1 ha, a constantdesign depth of around two metres and is fringed byaquatic vegetation. The pond serves to remove coarsesediments and associated pollutants. It is designed foreasy maintenance and there is a high flow bypassspillway.

Hawkesbury – Appendix B.6

Stormwater collected from the conventional drainagesystem is detained in a 60 ML basin (Figure C.17 (a)).This allows some sedimentation to occur prior to entryinto the treatment wetlands. A settling pond at the endof wetlands allows further settling (Figure C.17 (b)).This pond has a surface area of 1.5 ha, an averagedepth of 2.1 m, and an effective storage capacity of 25ML (6.5 ML water quality proportion). The pondprovides final treatment and temporary storage forcleansed stormwater from the wetlands prior to eitherre-use as environmental flows or pumping to the 90ML storage dam.

Figure C.16 Settling pond at Bowies Flat Wetland (source: BCC, 2003)

Figure C.17 (a) 60 ML detention pond and (b) 25 ML settling pond at Hawkesbury


176


Three interconnected reservoirs at the bottom of CSU

Thurgoona store clean stormwater (Figure C.18). The

stored water is pumped by windmill and solar powered

pump up to a turkey nest dam as required for re-use as

environmental flows or for irrigation. The three

reservoirs have a combined storage capacity of 56.5

ML, and are sized so that natural supply of rainfall will

exceed requirements at least once every five years.

Overflow will discharge into a nearby creek to reduce

salt buildup in the storages.

Oaklands Park – Appendix B.11

A system of three interconnected dams at Oaklands

Park is used for storage (Figure C.19). This system

was originally modelled to store 37 ML or 50% of

mean annual runoff, in the three storages. However

due to modifications during the construction of the

dams, the storages currently contain 49 ML (or 65% of

mean annual runoff). Modelling was based on

projected demands for the summer peak

(80kL/lot/month for three months) and the remaining

period (6kL/lot/month). Modelling of the required

storage did not include river pumping, although there

is provision for this as a backup supply (subject to

flow). There is a 1:100 yr ARI spillway on the bottom

storage, which discharges to the nearby creek. Water

can be pumped or siphoned between storages, to

ensure that the storage with the lowest Surface

Area/Volume ratio can be used during drought (to

minimise evaporation).

Figure C.18 Turkey nest dam at top of site (source: CSU)

Figure C.19 Front storage and bottom storage at Oaklands Park (source: Neil Kerby and B. Hatt)


177


Following consideration of storage options it wasdecided to use lower levels of an on-site disusedbrickpit (Figure C.20). This storage has a 350MLcapacity and is the cornerstone of re-use scheme atHomebush Bay; the storage capacity is far greater thandemand. Shallow ponds surrounding the brickpit alsoprovide habitat for a local endangered frog species.

Parafield– Appendix B.12

Stormwater is diverted from the main Parafield trunkdrain into a 50 ML capture basin then pumped tosimilar capacity holding basin prior to flowing into thetreatment wetlands. These ponds have a 1:10 year ARIstorm event capacity and are covered in netting tominimise avifauna.

From Figure C.21 (a), it can be concluded that there isno evident relationship between the Storage Capacity /Catchment Area ratio and Catchment area, howeverthis is not unexpected, since the ponds studied hereincorporate different combinations of functions.

Figure C.20 Stormwater stored in old brickpit at Homebush Bay, shallowponds in foreground provide habitat for local endangered frog

Figure C.21 (a) Catchment Area vs. Storage Capacity / Catchment Area for Ponds

Catchment Area vs. Pond Storage Capacity: Catchment Area

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Catchment Area (ha)

Sto

rag

e C

ap

ac

ity

/Ca

tch

me

nt

Are

a


178

It can be seen that the Storage Capacity / CatchmentArea ratio increases with annual rainfall (Figure C.21(b)). Only the Bowies Flat pond/wetland does notfollow this trend; it is likely that this is entirely due toits unique construction (the settling pond of a primarilypollution control wetland is used for re-use storage asan afterthought). The same is true for the relationshipbetween PC/CA and the seasonality of rainfall,although this graph is not shown.

C.7 Litter and Sediment Traps

The following are some examples of the litter andsediment traps utilised:

• The GPT installed at Solander Park is an EcosolRSF 6000; a wet vault trap that straddles the twotrunk drains passing under the park. A weir divertsrunoff into a deep separation chamber, thenthrough a 3 mm mesh screen into a parallel by-passflume. The GPT is designed to capture 95% ofsediment greater than 2 mm and accommodate a 6month ARI flowrate of 4 m3/s.

• External screens capture litter and sediment at

Manly, while internal screens trap oils, fine

sediments and grease.

• The first stage in the treatment plant Taronga Zoo

involves passing the collected stormwater through

10mm bar screens followed by a grit collection

chamber.

• GPTs are positioned on the inlets to the wetland at

Inkerman Oasis and the settling pond at Bowies

Flat.

• Floating booms in Haslams Creek collect floating

debris prior to entry into the wetland system at

Homebush Bay.

• Parfitt Square features a 30 m long grated sediment

trap prior to the gravel reed bed.

• Coarse and fine bar screens and a degritting system

form part of the treatment process at Santa

Monica.

Figure C.21 (b) Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Storage Capacity/Catchment Area for ponds

Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Pond Storage Capacity: Catchment

Area

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)

Sto

rag

e C

ap

ac

ity

/Ca

tch

me

nt

Are

a

Bowies

Flat


179

C.8 Tanks

There are a wide variety of tanks utilised by the

surveyed re-use schemes for storage. These include

conventional above ground tanks, underground

concrete structures, underground tanks made up of

small cells, underground tanks that incorporate

infiltration into the surrounding soil and header tanks.

Performance targets for storage tanks include:

• sufficient capacity to ensure re-use demand can be

achieved, or provision for topping up the tank with

mains water as a backup;

• sufficient capacity to ensure that available capacity

prior to storms will provide flood mitigation

storage;

• noise emissions from pumps (there is a limit on

how much the ambient background noise levels

can be exceeded by).

From Figure C.22, it can be seen that there is adecrease in the tank capacity: catchment area ratio ascatchment area increases. This is not surprising, giventhat the larger the catchment area the more runoff thereis to be collected i.e. storage tanks will fill faster inlarger catchments.

Solander Park is excluded from the graph presented inFigure C.22 (a) because it is a huge outlier and as aresult the relationship is difficult to see. While thestorage capacity of the tank at Solander Park iscomparable to the capacities of tanks at other sites, itscatchment area is much larger relative to other siteswith tank storages. While the GPT and infiltrationbasin are each capable of detaining up to a 1:20 yearARI storm event, it is suspected that the tank wouldnot be capable of storing such a volume. The treatedstormwater is used to irrigate a small park, hence thedemand would be very low relative to the potentialsupply. Most treated stormwater would be releaseddownstream as flows of improved quality.

Figure C.22 (a) Catchment Area vs. Tank Capacity / Catchment Area

Catchment Area vs. Tank Capacity/Catchment Area

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 1 2 3 4 5

Catchment Area (ha)

Ta

nk

Ca

pa

cit

y/C

atc

hm

en

t A

rea


180

It must also be noted that the tanks at Taronga Zoo andInkerman Oasis stores treated wastewater as well asstormwater. While Taronga Zoo fits the trend,Inkerman Oasis does not. A possible reason for this isthat Inkerman Oasis only collects first flush anddischarges subsequent runoff to the conventionaldrainage system.

A general decrease in the Tank Capacity / CatchmentArea ratio as annual rainfall increases can be seen(Figure C.22 (b)). The exception to this trend is

Kogarah, however this is likely to be explained by a

number of factors; high imperviousness in the

catchment, collection of first flush runoff only, and

separate collection and storage of rainwater.

C.9 General Storage

There is a clear increase in the Tank Capacity /

Catchment Area ratio as rainfall seasonality increases

(Figure C.22 (c)), although there a couple of

exceptions (Manly, Kogarah and Powells Creek).

Figure C.22 (b) Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity / Catchment Area

Figure C.22 (c)Winter/Summer Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity / Catchment Area

Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity/Catchment Area

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Annual Rainfall (mm)

Ta

nk

Ca

pa

cit

y/C

atc

hm

en

t A

rea

Kogarah

Winter/Summer Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity/Catchment Area

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20

Winter/Summer Rainfall

Ta

nk

Ca

pa

cit

y/C

atc

hm

en

t A

rea


181

It can be seen that there is a clear positive correlation

between catchment area and storage capacity (Figure

C.23). This is not surprising, since the larger the

catchment area the more runoff that is available for

collection for re-use.

When all study sites are considered there is no

apparent pattern between Winter : Summer rainfall

ratio and storage capacity evident (Figure C.24).

However, when only the smaller catchments (i.e. <5ha

and 5-200 ha) are considered, a positive correlation is

apparent (Figure C.24). At these sites the storage

method employed is for storage for re-use only i.e. no

other benefits such as habitat provision, aesthetic

appreciation etc. Multi-functionality therefore has animportance influence on the design storage capacity.

There is a clear positive correlation between meanannual runoff and storage capacity (Figure C.25).Bowies Flat does not fit the trend, however thisscheme was initially designed only to control runoffpollution. Re-use for irrigation purposes was added inas an afterthought.

It must be noted that mean annual runoff wasestimated. It was not possible to obtain actualimpervious area figures so land use type and otherinformation was used to estimate imperviousness.

Catchment Area vs. Storage

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Catchment Area (ha)

Sto

rag

e (

ML

)

Figure C.23 Catchment Area vs. Storage Capacity


182

Figure C.24 Relationship between Winter:summer Rainfall Ratio and Storage Capacity

Winter:Summer Rainfall vs. Storage

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00


Sto

rag

e (

ML

)

Winter:Summer Rainfall vs. Storage

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00


Sto

rag

e (

ML

)


183

It follows that, as rainfall increases, the storage/rainfallratio should decrease, since less provision is needed.Figure C.25 reveals a general decrease instorage/rainfall ratio as rainfall increases.

For large surface storage systems, such as ponds,urban lakes, or wetlands, an attempt was made to findinformation on the ratio of their total volume andstorage capacity, as well as the designed variations intheir water levels. These are important design features;the ratio is important for water quality in the store (if

majority of the water is drawn from the system, water

quality will deteriorate dramatically), while the level

variation is important for aesthetics and safety of the

system.

Almost no data was gathered on total volume/storage

capacity and the maximum level variations. The only

relevant finding was that at Homebush Bay the

brickpit storage was drawn down to 55% in summer

2002 resulting in high nutrient levels in the store.

Figure C.25 Relationship between Mean Annual Runoff and Storage Capacity

Figure C.26 Relationship between Storage : Rainfall and Mean Annual Rainfall

Mean Annual Runoff vs. Storage

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0

Mean Annual Runoff (ML)

Sto

rag

e (

ML

)

Bowies

Flat

Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Storage/Rainfall

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300

Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)

Sto

rag

e/M

ea

n A

nn

ua

l R

ain

fall


184

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H C E N T R E F O R C A T C H M E N T H Y D R O L O G Y

Established and supportedunder the Australian

Government’s CooperativeResearch Centre Program

The Cooperative Research Centre forCatchment Hydrology is a cooperative ventureformed under the Australian Government’sCRC Programme between:

• Brisbane City Council

• Bureau of Meteorology

• CSIRO Land and Water

• Department of Infrastructure, Planning andNatural Resources, NSW

• Department of Sustainability andEnvironment, Vic

• Goulburn-Murray Water

• Griffith University

• Melbourne Water

• Monash University

• Murray-Darling Basin Commission

• Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Qld

• Southern Rural Water

• The University of Melbourne

• Wimmera Mallee Water

ASSOCIATE:

• Water Corporation of Western Australia

RESEARCH AFFILIATES:

• Australian National University

• National Institute of Water and AtmosphericResearch, New Zealand

• Sustainable Water Resources ResearchCenter, Republic of Korea

• University of New South Wales

INDUSTRY AFFILIATES:

• Earth Tech

• Ecological Engineering

• Sinclair Knight Merz

• WBM

CENTRE OFFICECRC for Catchment HydrologyDepartment of Civil EngineeringBuilding 60 Monash University Victoria 3800 Australia

Tel +61 3 9905 2704Fax +61 3 9905 5033email [email protected]

Documents

INTEGRATED STORMWATER TREATMENT AND RE-USE SYSTEMS ... · considers the design, construction, operation and maintenance of integrated stormwater treatment and re-use systems. It also