City of BunburyBig Swamp Master PlanScientific basis for management
A report by Acacia Springs Environmental, urbanplan and ERM December 2005
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM i
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Scope............................................................................................................................................ 1
2 HISTORY OF BIG SWAMP .............................................................................................................. 3
3 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Maintaining water levels and water quality .......................................................................... 4
3.2 Biodiversity, conservation and eco-tourism .......................................................................... 8
3.3 Landscape and cultural considerations .................................................................................. 9
3.3 Considerations for eco tourism.............................................................................................. 10
3.4 Considerations for recreation................................................................................................. 12
4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 15
5 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 16
Figures
Figure 1 Historical air photos of Big Swamp showing land use and habitat quality. ........... 17
Figure 2 Relationship between the hierarchy of plans for Big Swamp.................................... 18
Appendices
Appendix 1 Opportunities and constraints for master management plan
Conservation master management plan
Eco-tourism and recreation master management plan
Appendix 2 Big Swamp signage concept
Big Swamp signage location
Appendix 3 Implementation strategy notes
Implementation strategy table of costs, staging
Appendix 4 Indicative planting scheme for rehabilitation of Big Swamp
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Big Swamp is situated in the City of Bunbury, Western Australia, approximately two kilometres
from the Bunbury CBD. The wetland supports a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic fauna
and flora and is particularly renowned for the diversity of birdlife it exhibits. Big Swamp is a
recognised System 6 conservation area and is currently managed by the City of Bunbury for the
purpose of conservation of flora, fauna and recreation.
Historically, the management of Big Swamp has been guided by the Big Swamp Development
Plan (Masters 1995), which contained the following key objectives:
• To create a diverse and stable ecosystem incorporating a maximum number of natural
habitats and in turn a major tourist attraction
• To provide passive recreation facilities
• To establish the area as an important study centre, noted for its representation of a
healthy South West wetlands, able to be maintained within an urban setting
• To encourage a sense of ownership and participation in the planning of the park by the
people living in the City and region; and
• To create a viable Bird Park operation.
Whilst the Big Swamp Development Plan was integral in guiding the management of Big
Swamp for many years following its preparation and many of its objectives successfully
achieved, the passage of time and additional information has rendered some sections of the
document out of date. Hence, in 2004 the City of Bunbury opted to commence the development
of a Master Management Plan that provides a clear framework for the future enhancement and
management of Big Swamp as one of the premier conservation wetlands and tourist attractions
of the Bunbury area.
1.2 Scope
This report provides a way forward and summarises the scientific basis for managing Big
Swamp wetland in Bunbury (Figure 1). It has been compiled from information gathered from a
number of sources, ie. 5 Mile Brook Restoration Plan (TME 2004), Big Swamp Conservation
Park (Whelans 1990), City of Bunbury Big Swamp Development Committee, B K Masters and
Associates, Friends of Big Swamp and Wildlife Park committee, local residents and interested
members of the public. While much of the previous management plan has been utilised in this
updated Master plan some additional sections have been added and other sections revised.
Only issues having an impact on providing a master management plan for the wetland have been
considered here.
This Master Plan for Big Swamp establishes the vision, sets the mission, and provides guidance
and direction for actions and activities and recommends the development of a number of
management sub plans (Figure 2) to refine and focus future activities.
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 2
The vision and mission are discussed in Section 4. Section 3 draws on the scientific summary
(Section 2) and describes opportunities and constraints to management under various themes
(Section 4). Diagrammatic representation of these management measures are provided in
Appendices 1 and 3. A way forward to implement the Master Plan in discussed in Appendix 3.
his document includes:
Opportunities and constraints for the master management plan Appendix 1
Conservation master management plan Appendix 1
Eco-tourism and recreation master management plan Appendix 1
Big Swamp signage concept Appendix 2
Big Swamp signage location Appendix 2
Implementation strategy notes Appendix 3
Implementation strategy table of costs, staging Appendix 3
Indicative species planting list Appendix 4
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 3
2 HISTORY OF BIG SWAMP
It has been stated that Big Swamp (Figure 1) is an artificially created wetland that was formed by
the clearing of native vegetation and the direction of subsequent increased drainage run-off into a
natural depression which became seasonally inundated, drying out over the summer period.
While this may be true of recent history, studies of shell deposits taken from Big Swamp clearly
indicate that it was an estuarine lagoon with a restricted marine fauna (oysters, molluscs, pippies)
as recently as 4,000 years ago (Kendrick, 1994). At this time, sea level fall would have resulted
in a reduced contact with the oceanic influence and the wetland reducing in size and converting
from brackish to more fresh conditions. Further drying would have resulted in it probably
becoming a seasonally inundated dampland or sumpland with water levels generally less than
0.2m prior to European settlement (Masters undated).
Clearing of the native dampland vegetation was undertaken at some time around the turn of the
century and the area converted to grazing and annual horticulture. During summer, cattle were
grazed on grasses growing on the dry bed of the swamp and the fence posts at present projecting
above the surface of the water are a reminder of this past use. Market gardens were established
around the swamp, the outline of which is clearly visible on aerial photographs (Figure 1).
In 1962, landfill operations were commenced along the south western and eastern margins of the
swamp. These operations continued for approximately 15 years, closing down in the late
seventies.
Also in the late 1970’s, an adjustable overflow weir was installed in the Hayward Street outlet
drain to control and maintain the water level in the swamp over summer. The water level is
currently maintained at around 0.5m AHD, however, high evaporation rates in summer make it
necessary to divert water into the swamp from the nearby 5 Mile Brook drain late in winter to
achieve this. Big Swamp also acts as a compensating basin for several local stormwater drains
which feed into the swamp along its northern and eastern boundaries.
In 1981 a bird park was built in the south western corner of the swamp, on part of the filled
areas. The avicultural society secured a lease of land from the City of Bunbury and construction
was achieved through a combination of volunteer effort and commercial sponsorship.
The location of the Bird Park at Big Swamp resulted from the attraction of the swamp wildlife.
This was formally recognised with the areas inclusion in the System 6 Report - Conservation
Reserves for Western Australia. The wide range of birds (up to 28 bird species), and potential
for study were identified and the recommendation made that the swamp be managed for
conservation of flora, fauna and recreation. The City of Bunbury’s Town Planning Scheme No.
7 now contains policy statements recognising the importance of the area for wildlife.
In 1994 a significant upgrading of the wetland was undertaken with the creation of numerous
islands and channels around the wetland (Figure 1). Removal of exotic weeds (Typha, Pampas
grass), establishment of a dual use path around the wetland. Construction of an elevated
boardwalk and bird hide were also undertaken. This work significantly increased the value of
the wetland in terms of wildlife habitat and as a cultural experience as well as improving its
ability to buffer inputs of pollutants through the resulting increase in fringing vegetation
assemblages.
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 4
An adopt an island scheme was undertaken in the late 1990s which involved groups undertaking
rehabilitation works on an 'adopted' island. Significant improvement to vegetation cover was the
result on many islands but there was poor or no establishment of vegetation on other islands.
More recently continuing infill development on the western and northern perimeters has
continued. Friends of Big Swamp and other community groups have continued significant
replanting and rehabilitation works around the swamp and the City has maintained its weed (eg.
Typha) and feral (introduced domestic) bird and animal removal programs.
3 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
The following discussion is a brief synopsis of opportunities and constraints for management of
the wetland. They are grouped under particular themes.
3.1 Maintaining water levels and water quality
One of the main threats to the continuing ecological health of the wetland is that of maintaining and enhancing water quality. The wetland has experienced a number of events, which threaten its water quality through excessive nutrient or other pollutant inputs including:
• Former grazing and market garden site within and around the wetland;
• Former rubbish tip site in and around the wetland;
• Acid sulfate soils within and around the wetland;
• Poor circulation causing stagnant pockets;
• Stormwater inputs from drains in the immediate catchments around the wetland; and
• Inputs from 5 Mile Brook in late winter.
Nutrient intensive historical land uses
Historical rubbish tips and market gardens constitute a possible source of leachates into the
wetland through contaminated plumes of groundwater entering the wetland for extended periods
of time. Possible inputs from these types of sources may be highly variable in space and time
and difficult to quantify accurately.
In time, the nitrogen content of these inputs tends to diminish through natural processes of
denitrification by soil microbes. In soils with very low levels of iron and aluminium oxides like
the surrounds of Big Swamp however, this can lead to a decrease in the N:P ratio favouring blue
green algae in receiving wetlands. Toxic blue green algae (Anabaena, Microcystis) can fix
atmospheric N like legumes and have been regularly observed in many wetlands on the coastal
plain where low N:P ratio inputs have occurred even though N inputs themselves have been
relatively low.
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 5
Threats from the old tip sites and historical grazing and market gardens within and around the
wetlands will need to be quantified and managed. The DOE has requested a tip closure
management plan be prepared for the area. Any development (including revegetation), needs to
be preceded by capping and/or interception of potential leachates in the areas of, or immediately
down gradient of the old tip sites and the market gardens. Strategic monitoring of groundwater
flowing into the wetland and phytoplankton levels in the wetland should continue.
Acid sulfate soils
Acid sulfate soils have been found in the vicinity of Big Swamp. The principal environmental,
social and economic impacts of acid sulfate soils have been documented as follows (WAPC,
2003):
• Adverse changes to soils and water quality.
• Deterioration of ecosystems and the ecosystem services associated with soils, groundwater, wetlands, watercourses and estuarine environments.
• Local and regional loss of biodiversity in areas affected by acid sulfate soils leachate.
• Loss of groundwater and surface water resources used for irrigation and other purposes.
• Reduction in opportunities for agriculture and aquaculture.
• Human health concerns particularly from arsenic contamination of groundwater in areas affected by acid sulfate soils.
• Corrosion of engineering works and infrastructure such as bridges, culverts, floodgates, weirs, drainage pipes and sewerage lines.
• Conflict between activities that depend on healthy surface and groundwater regimes (eg. commercial fishing, recreation and tourism) and activities that may have resulted in disturbance to acid sulfate soils (eg. agriculture and urban development).
• Loss of visual amenity from plant deaths, weed growth and invasion by acid tolerant water plants and algae.
• Costs to the community in terms of financial outlays and the community’s and government’s time and effort in minimising impacts and rehabilitating disturbed areas.
Areas having the potential to adversely impact on Big Swamp where the following pre-disposing
factors exist include (WAPC, 2003):
• areas known to contain peat or a build up of organic material;
• areas near bores in which peat or other organic deposits have been recorded as part of the stratigraphy;
• permanently inundated wetlands;
• seasonally or occasionally saturated or inundated floodplains and sumplands;
• shallow estuarine areas receiving alluvium;
• mangrove areas;
• tidal swamps, wetlands and shallow estuarine areas receiving alluvium;
• artificial lakes excavated in peaty material;
• sites known or believed to contain carbonaceous or pyritic material, such as:
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 6
− sites containing fill;
− existing or former municipal waste disposal sites;
− industrial sites;
− food industry waste disposal areas;
− animal-based waste disposal areas;
• areas where the highest known water table level is within three (3) metres of the surface; and,
• areas where the pH of the soil or water is less than 5.
Any change of zoning that will lead to any intensification of land use on at-risk land shall be
accompanied by a Preliminary Site Assessment which is to be prepared in accordance with the
Department of Environment's guidelines.
Where the presence of acid sulfate soils has been confirmed by a Preliminary Site Assessment,
the change of zoning shall also be accompanied by a Detailed Site Assessment which is to be
prepared in accordance with the Department of Environment's guidelines.
Should an acid sulfate management plan be required, samples from any development area should
be collected and analysed for oxidisable sulphur level (Spos%) and total potential acidity (TPA).
DEP action criteria above which action for acid sulfate soils must be managed are Spos=0.03%
and TPA=18.
Should acid sulfate soils be found they should be appropriately managed on site or disposed of at
a specially prepared landfill cell. Water from dewatering should pass through detention ponds
where it would be treated prior to disposal to Big Swamp or any of its inflowing tributaries and
drains.
The poor establishment of vegetation on some of the islands in Big Swamp may be partly
influenced by acid sulfate soils that were exposed during the excavation of the islands.
Anecdotal evidence of declining bird populations at the wetland could also be linked to acid
sulfate influences.
Surface soils on the islands where previous rehabilitation efforts have failed should be
investigated for the presence of very low pH conditions due to acid sulfate soils. In some cases
the simple incorporation of agricultural lime may improve plant establishment and rehabilitation
success.
City of Bunbury should be vigilant in its application of acid sulfate guidelines for areas
potentially impacting Big Swamp.
Circulation
There are several areas around the wetland where circulation through the network of islands is
restricted. There may need to be some strategic and subtle modification to some of these choked
and throttled areas to improve circulation where stagnant conditions have been observed. If
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 7
these modifications are to be undertaken, care should be taken not to expose deeper acid sulfate
soils or create turbid plumes.
Big Swamp is listed under the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 and the Revised Draft (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands) Policy 2004. This has implications for any alterations to the bathymetry and may necessitate EPA consideration.
Stormwater detention basins
Detention basins providing water quality treatment for inflowing drains were a recommendation
of the 1994 works around the wetland. An assessment of various distributed WSUD BMPs
should be undertaken. For example, at stormwater outlets litter removal devices using CDS
technology may be appropriate to control the current levels of gross pollutants entering the
wetland from the road network.
Effective treatment of inflowing stormwater drains from the urban catchment immediately
around Big Swamp needs to be established. The most effective treatment is at source ie. through
the catchments, not at their bottom-end.
5 Mile Brook diversion
There has been much discussion over the potential for the total diversion of the 5 Mile Brook
into and through Big Swamp. This would free up land on the current alignment of the Brook for
other considerations.
The brook has been found to contain low to moderate levels of a range of pollutants including
nutrients, suspended solids, heavy metals and pesticides (TME, 2004). These contaminants are
probably at their greatest early in the winter flow year.
Some water from 5 Mile Brook is currently diverted into Big Swamp late in winter to maximise
its water levels prior to the summer drying period.
Given that Big Swamp is already under threat from pollutant inputs (discussed above) any
attempt to divert 5 Mile Brook through Big Swamp without effective treatment of its water
quality should be discouraged.
Big Swamp is listed under the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy
1992 and the Revised Draft (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands) Policy 2004. This has implications
for diversion of 5 Mile Brook into the wetland on a permanent basis. Accordingly, this may
necessitate EPA consideration.
According to the principles of water sensitive urban design, the most effective treatment is
generally undertaken at source, that is throughout the catchment, not simply along the Brooks
length or at its bottom-end.
As recommended in the recently completed 5 Mile Brook management plan, treatment options
throughout the catchment of 5 Mile Brook, along its length and at is bottom-end should be
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 8
investigated. This may need to include modelling water quantity and quality throughout the
catchment. Given the current absence of documented examples of effective diffuse pollution
control in the southwest of WA, innovate solutions will certainly need to be found prior to any
serious consideration of diversion of 5 Mile Brook into and through Big Swamp.
3.2 Biodiversity, conservation and eco-tourism
The management intent for biodiversity, conservation and eco-tourism should be to protect and
where possible enhance the conservation values (flora and fauna) as well as the landscape
qualities of Big Swamp. Priority should be given to continuing restoration and maintenance of
the natural state of conservation attributes and improving habitat and water quality in the
catchment.
Values
Values of Big Swamp include:
• Big Swamp is seen as a major resource, there is a will to conserve and use it as an education icon, particularly in its proximity to a population centre;
• The wetland is currently healthy and supports a diverse population of flora and fauna;
• It is a significant site in terms of both European and Indigenous heritage; and,
• There are ongoing efforts and intent by the local community towards creating ecological
zones and animal refuges around the fringe and on various islands, including revegetation
with local endemic species.
Future management should allow public access to designated areas, the development of facilities
such as nature trails, boardwalks and observation platforms in specific areas. Rehabilitation of
vegetation and habitat protection should continue (see Appendix 1) using endemic local
provenance species where possible. Education, interpretation and scientific research uses should
also be promoted and encouraged where possible.
Ecological threats
Ecological threats include the continuing loss of biodiversity through pests, weeds and disease of
wetland flora and fauna plants, increased fire frequency in the fringing areas and pollutants and
acid sulfate soils mentioned above.
Apart from the pollution management issues mentioned above, the key to maintaining ecological health is habitat diversity and the creation of ecological zones. The wetland is currently well served by a complex mosaic of islands and fringing areas.
Ecological opportunities
Further enhancement of habitat diversity will be achieved by undertaking the following:
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 9
• Addition/creation of snags and woody debris in the water;
• Addition/creation of bird perching areas;
• Diverse planting of fringing vegetation at areas around the wetland and on the islands using endemic local provenance species where possible;
• Addition of hollow logs, rocks and other materials on islands to attract vertebrates such as reptiles and birds. A reptile viewing area was a recommendation of the 1994 works;
• Alterations to bathymetry to create differential low salinity water zones for vertebrates such as frogs, particularly in the south west and south east corners;
• Improving wildlife crossing points through re-design of kerbs, wildlife underpasses and traffic calming; and,
• Improving the connectedness with the terrestrial System 6 habitat to the east through road
closure and further rehabilitation works.
Ecological monitoring
A systems-based monitoring program should be established to track human usage, water quality and ecosystem health. Environmental indicators which can be practically monitored include:
• Wetland water quality
• Inflowing surface and groundwater quality
• Phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, frogs, turtles, snakes and
birds.
3.3 Landscape and cultural considerations
There are a range of cultural and landscape issues influencing Big Swamp. Themes could include, ecology, habitat, water quality, scientific. Considerations include:
• Existing vegetation currently obscures views into the wetland adding to the impact of the two open views at either side. There is an opportunity to repeat this juxtaposition between other places of openness around the wetland;
• The existing bird hide is visually intrusive and could be replaced with a purpose designed ‘sculptural‘ or ‘softer‘ structure with enhanced existing interpretive information;
• There is an opportunity to enhance Hayward Street and improve the approach into Big Swamp;
• There is an opportunity to strengthen distant view corridors through trees to specific landmarks ie. Anglican Church tower, elevated landforms;
• Create an activity node with open 360° views across Big Swamp with an opportunity to:
o create a focal point for the wetland;
o elevate the site and promote visual linkages with surrounding sites;
o create focus for eco-centre (long term);
• The existing road currently separates wildlife centre and playground area from Big Swamp. There is an opportunity to relocate this section of road and restore connections;
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 10
• There is a short term opportunity to enhance and better utilise the existing wildlife park for interpretive purposes. A longer term opportunity exists to increase park presence and use the area as a regional environmental resource centre;
• There is an opportunity to create wetland habitat precinct focusing on frogs and encompassing existing children’s playground area;
• Existing signage and interpretive material should be enhanced and updated with an opportunity to create more strategically located and site responsive structures;
• There is an opportunity to link activity nodes and bring the interpretive experience onto the wetland;
• The existing road currently divides System 6 Wetland. There is an opportunity to remove this section of road and restore a connection between aquatic and terrestrial habitats;
• There is an opportunity to diversify wildlife habitat with separate human nodes of interest on each island. Investigations into establishing different wetland vegetation types to improve habitat diversity should continue;
• Exotic and introduced species should continue to be removed as revegetation establishes over the longer term;
• There is an opportunity to enhance wetland habitat precincts focusing on frogs;
• There are attractive open views along the foreshore. There is an opportunity to revegetate and create framed views at selected points;
• There is an opportunity to create an activity node or tourist precinct within the wetland area;
• There is an opportunity for the sale of land owned by the City of Bunbury within the Big Swamp precinct to in part fund the implementation of the Big Swamp Master Management Plan. Clearly, the suitability of potential land must be determined through an appropriate level of community consultation.
3.3 Considerations for eco tourism
There are a range of considerations for eco tourism. Themes could include, education and
heritage.
The management emphasis should be to provide for appropriate uses of the natural environment
for eco tourism purposes. Areas should be managed for public use, conservation and
enhancement of flora and fauna, and improvement of landscape qualities. Public use should also
be of an educational, tourism and scientific nature and must be compatible with other
considerations. Management should encourage uses and development that facilitates education,
heritage interpretation and conservation.
Uses and facilities
Public access should be primarily by walking trails. Further development of facilities is
encouraged. These may include education nodes and facilities associated with visitor use. The
provision of facilities will depend on the values of the precinct. Rehabilitation and habitat
protection will be necessary.
Sculptures
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 11
Arrows set in the pavement of pedestrian paths could point to sculptures emerging from the
wetlands. Sculptures have been and should continue to be commissioned from local artists.
Playground
The existing playground could be extended. Enhancements to the playground could include
interpretive and educational elements relating to the wetlands such as viewing structures,
structures that interact with the water and equipment shaped like bird species.
Bird hide
A bird hide allows a closer appreciation of the wetland environment without adversely impacting
on its integrity. The existing bird hide could be upgraded to form a sculptural element in the
landscape and the existing interpretive information enhanced by including educational tools such
as signs graphically portraying species characteristic and audio assisted guided tours.
Interpretive centre
The bird sanctuary currently offers excellent interpretive material for the wetland. This could be
upgraded, enhanced and extended to offer greater experience for visitors. A viewing centre for
education and information. Ventures could include a indigenous cultural centre, a high-quality
restaurant or café on the waterfront, a book or gift shop and community group offices. The
building architecture should be in keeping with the wetland environment and could wrap around
the shoreline.
Education
There is considerable opportunity to use the Big Swamp wetland and its catchment and adjoining
human and natural landscapes in an educational sense. Curriculum material could be developed
with the wetland as a focus for a range of field observational and participatory experiences.
Several web-cams could be established around the wetland for students and visitors to access on-
line. Material could include interpretive images, maps and additional interactive elements aimed
at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary students. Research projects at upper secondary
and tertiary levels could include the full range interactions between past, current and possible
future human and ecological components.
Boardwalks
Boardwalks enable visitors to interact with the flora and fauna of the wetlands and create
recreational opportunities and pedestrian links to viewing platforms. The existing boardwalks
could be extended to other areas.
Wildlife park (Bird Sanctuary)
The existing Wildlife Park could be expanded to include botanical gardens, endangered species
and other fauna. This would serve to create a total integrated environment for recreation,
tourism, research and education and provide an environmental resource centre for the region.
Vegetation
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 12
Vegetation used in the Big Swamp precinct for landscape works (including street trees) and areas
of revegetation should be local endemic species (local provenance where possible) and
sympathetic to the existing character of the area and species indigenous to the coastal wetlands
of south Western Australia (Appendix 1).
In some instances, non-indigenous species may be beneficial to help recreate habitat value in the
short to medium term. These non-indigenous species can be removed later and replaced with
local provenance species once they have performed their short term tasks. Phyto-remediation of
contaminated sites, bank stabilisation or weed suppression are examples where non-indigenous
species may have a shorter term role.
Clearly in the selection of vegetation for the site, a balance needs to be established between short
and longer term goals and aims. Variations in vegetation such as the retention of dead trees,
stumps and logs will also improve wildlife habitats.
Tourism
There is potential for an area of tourist activity and self-contained cabin style accommodation
adjacent to the wetlands. Bus or cycle tours from nearby accommodation could also be
established.
There is a potential for the revenue associated with any long-term lease of land for tourist
accommodation to be directed into the further implementation of the Big Swamp Master
Management Plan and overall management of the precinct.
Open views
Existing views could be enhanced by placing seating areas and timber viewing platforms at open
areas around the swamp. New views can be opened up by strategic clearing of corridors through
some areas of vegetation.
Recreation
Large, low maintenance areas of open lawn and indigenous canopy trees are suitable for
recreational activities such as kicking the footy, picnics and large group gatherings. BBQ
facilities could to be provided and shaded seating areas could to be positioned at gaps in the
vegetation to maximise views and the experience of the wetlands.
3.4 Considerations for recreation
There are numerous considerations for recreation. Themes could include integration and access.
The prime emphasis of management for recreation should be to provide a variety of recreation
opportunities. The type and scale of facilities provided will depend on the values of the precinct,
community demand for recreation and the appropriate management of Big Swamp. Management
should minimise the impact of visitor activities through the sensitive placement of access and
facilities as well as through the provision of information and interpretive material.
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 13
Uses and facilities
Given the increasing attractiveness of the wetland and its surrounds, public use may be high in
some areas. Predominantly passive recreation pursuits should be encouraged, allowing for low
scale active and family and picnic facility development. Commercial concessions are considered
appropriate within this management zone. Rehabilitation of landscaped area could also be
undertaken.
Traffic circulation
The removal of part of Tuart Street will affect the flow of traffic travelling north-south through
the site. However, Ocean Drive and Minninup Road are the main north-south roads in this area,
therefore the removal of part of this road will not unduly affect traffic flow in this part of
Bunbury. The proposed redirection of Prince Philip Drive should not affect the east-west traffic
flow.
Links
Signage (including mapping and history) at major viewpoints visually links Big Swamp to other
sites of cultural or ecological significance in the viewshed. Major linking sites could include
Leschenault Estuary, Leschenault Inlet, Koombana Bay and Geographe Bay. It is proposed that a
future urban development strategy will physically link these sites by implementation of themed
linear landscapes or ‘green wedges’ between each site.
There is an Aboriginal spiritual connection between the southern estuary in the locations of the
Sanctuary, the Inlet, Big Swamp and Binningup. There are obvious ecological connections for
the same areas. The educational strategy will explore cultural and ecological linkages between
these related ecosystems.
Signage
Signage should be used to orientate visitors as well as to educate and inform about the history,
culture and wildlife of the area. Signs could include interpretive images, maps and additional
interactive elements aimed at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary students (Appendix
2). The current wetland bird and tortoise emblems will be built upon and a strong theme created
through the use of standard materials such as oxidized metal and stainless steel throughout the
signage. Where possible the signs will be incorporated into landscape design.
3.5 Future management
Some local residents are concerned that there may need to be an increase in the current level of
budget and activities needed to manage and maintain Big Swamp particularly as it becomes more
prominent, more widely appreciated and used and ultimately fulfils its mission of becoming the
region's significant conservation wetland.
It is considered by some that the small amount of maintenance time allocated to the area is
inadequate. With new development, there will be a requirement for more maintenance. Issues
concern mowing, weed control, domestic animal removal and infrastructure maintenance.
Mowing
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 14
The council currently mow the swamp area on an opportunistic basis. Whipper snipping is done
by volunteers on an ad hoc basis. There is often very long grass underneath the seating which is
dangerous with snake season approaching. With time restraints, sometimes the area is left only
half mowed.
Weed Control and Animal Removal Programme
The control of weeds, including the Typha in the water needs to be managed and better
coordinated. It has had great success to date but much more work is required. The wins of our
early successes will be lost if the harder followup work and spot weeding is not undertaken
diligently.
Monitoring and removal of feral birds/animals (introduced domestic animals) must be
undertaken effectively. Leaving these intruders unmanaged for a time, signals to people that it is
acceptable for these pests to be dumped. Quick removal sends a message to the community that
it is not tolerated.
It is recommended that an exotic and introduced species management plan be prepared as an
adjunct to this Master plan.
Infrastructure Maintenance
The path around the swamp has been deteriorating in parts and should be repaired with the
appropriate materials. In the past some areas have been patched with different material reducing
the visual ameneity of the area.
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 15
4 CONCLUSIONS
The vision for the Big Swamp management plan is:
Conservation - Diversity - Links
These three words embody the rich cultural and ecological opportunities for this special wetland.
Conservation of environment, conservation of cultural and indigenous history and
conservation of experiential opportunities.
Diversity of experience, diversity of habitat form and habitat function, diversity of wildlife
and diversity of visitors.
Links within the wetland: aquatic to terrestrial, links to surrounding urban and wider
natural environments, links between human experience and ecology, links between
visitors, students and volunteers.
The mission for the Big Swamp management plan is:
• To draw from our European and Indigenous heritage and culture in the promotion of Big Swamp as the region's significant conservation wetland;
• To provide a diversity of wildlife habitats and experiences for visitors; and,
• To link the precinct to surrounding open space, the City centre and other significant conservation areas around Bunbury.
There are opportunities to celebrate the significance of this special site from both wildlife and
human cultural perspectives, to reference and reveal its rich cultural history and to enhance
experiential opportunities of this significant site for all walks of life.
There have been discussions over the name for the wetland. Some people like Big Swamp as a
name. Others consider that it down plays the ecological and cultural value of the wetland.
To provide a point of difference, a unique name could be chosen for this special place.
Indigenous names of: koomber gup (big water) or bulla pinjaar (literally big swamp) could be
considered. A hyphenated name such as Koomber gup - Big Swamp could also be considered.
Clearly a discussion over a name for the wetland needs to take place.
As discussed, a number of potential revenue sources have been identified through the
development of this Master Management Plan, such as the sale of land owned by the City of
Bunbury within the Big Swamp precinct and revenue associated with the long-term lease of land
for tourist accommodation. It is recommended that these and other potential revenue options be
reviewed by the City of Bunbury and that this revenue be used to facilitate the implementation of
the Big Swamp Master Management Plan and overall management of the precinct.
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 16
5 REFERENCES
Kendrick, G.W. (1994) Report of investigations into collected shell fossil material from Big
Swamp, Bunbury. Dept of Earth and Planetry Science, Museum of Western Australia.
Masters, B.K. (undated) Effective planning and community consultation: The Big Swamp Urban
Wetland Rehabilitation Project, City of Bunbury, Western Australia.
Masters, B.K. (1995) Big Swamp Development Plan. Prepared for the City of Bunbury,
Bunbury, Western Australia.
TME (2004) 5 Mile Brook restoration plan. A report to the City of Bunbury. Thompson
McRobert Edgloe. September 2004.
WAPC (2003) Acid Sulfate Soils. Planning Bulletin Number 64 Western Australian Planning
Commission, November 2003
Water Authority (1995) Five Mile Brook Flood Study: Hydrology, Surface Water Branch, Water
Resources Division, Report No WS 161, August 1995
Waters & Rivers Commission (1998), Living Streams, Water Facts 4,January 1998.
Whelans (1993) Water Sensitive Urban (Residential) Design Guidelines, Department of Planning
and Urban Development, W.A.
Whelans (1990) Big Swamp Conservation Park Report for the South West Development
Authority. August 1990.
Glossary
WSUD Water sensitive urban design
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/stormwater/design.html
BMPs Best management practices
CDS Continuously deflective separation
http://www.cdstech.com.au/au/stormwater.asp
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 17
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM 18
Figure 2 Relationship between the hierarchy of plans for Big Swamp.
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
_____________________________________________________________________
Appendix 1
Opportunities and constraints for master management plan
Conservation master management plan
Eco-tourism and recreation master management plan
_____________________________________________________________________
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
_____________________________________________________________________
Appendix 2
Big Swamp sinage concept
Big Swamp sinage location
_____________________________________________________________________
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
_____________________________________________________________________
Appendix 3
Implementation strategy notes
Implementation strategy table of costs, staging
_____________________________________________________________________
Appendix 3 Part 1 Notes for the implementation strategy for the Big Swamp Master Plan. Potential funding sources _____________________________________________________________________________ The implementation strategy has been divided into 4 areas. i) Big Swamp System This covers the development of any sub-plans for the system as a whole
or for projects that apply to the area in its system context. ii) The wetland This covers the water, the wet fringing area and the internal islands. iii) The surrounds This covers the immediate area surrounding Big Swamp and the
contributing surface water catchment (except for 5 Mile Brook). iv) 5 Mile Brook This catchment was treated separately for a number of reasons
described below. _____________________________________________________________________________ i) BIG SWAMP SYSTEM Total funds required for process-based projects = $117k This does not include the $250-$500k cost for a new eco-tourism/education centre. 1 Develop an information and extension management plan This project (see Figure 2 of the main report) is for a small $5k planning study to develop the priorities for the promotion of education, interpretation and scientific research uses for Big Swamp. Part of this project should be establishing a point-of-difference for Big Swamp. This may include a new name. Suggestions for a name for Big Swamp have included: Big Swamp (its current name) Koomber Gup Bulla Pinjaarr Or Big Swamp hyphenated with another name. This project will also develop material as part of the linked, hierarchical signage strategy (see appendix 2). Linked means overt signage linkages to the sanctuary, the estuary, the inlet, the Mininup area and marine areas. There are Nyoongar spiritual links through these areas and more obvious ecological links. Birds migrate around many of these wet areas. There is also a degree of niche difference and niche parallelism which can be explored in the signage and interpretative material. This means for example, that there are areas of marshland experiencing fresh water conditions at Big Swamp that are similar in form and function to areas around the inlet and the estuary that experience marine salinities on occasions. While function and form in these areas appear similar, species assemblages are quite different. With appropriate comparative educational material, students would be able to compare and contrast these areas and enjoy a rich experience of the repeating themes in nature. The term hierarchical means building layers of complexity. For example there is considerable potential to develop simple themes for primary level students and them build in levels of
complexity for secondary and tertiary level students. The water balance for the wetland is one such example. This project could be funded through a South West Development Authority grant through the BESAC committee. Development of the plan could be undertaken by a competent and experienced consultant or by volunteers from the GreenTeach organisation. The signage strategy should incorporate fauna warning and signs along the adjacent roads to minimise road kill. They should also inform as to why there should be no feeding of birds and animals. The information extension and experiential process could include the use of installed web cams, audible interpretive material (frog or bird sounds). Primary to tertiary level educational material should be included. 2 Develop access management plan This project is for a small $5k planning study to develop the location and implementation of paths, lighting, nature trails, boardwalks and observation platforms around the swamp. The plan could be funded through a South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, or by a local industry sponsor such as Bunnings. The plan could be developed by a competent consultant of volunteers from Friends of Big Swamp or similar. 3 Develop rehabilitation management plan This project is for a small $4k planning and documentation process for rehabilitation and habitat protection for the Swamp. It should capture and build on the very successful methods of the Friends of Big Swamp. It should document where native and local provenance stock may be sourced, planting and establishment tips. It should explore the role of exotic species which may have a transitional or transitory role as part of a staged rehabilitation i.e. for erosion control and soil conditioning for later plantings of local provenance species. Clearly issues like undesirable seed set or suckering etc should be explored if exotic species are to have a temporary role in ecosystem repair. Funds may be available from CALM's Wetland conservation program for this project. The documentation could be prepared by the Friends of Big Swamp or a consultant. 4 Develop exotic and introduced species management plan This project ($1,5k) is to document the continuing weed management and Typha management program. There has been significant early success in weed removal however, these hard fought gains will be lost if the more difficult follow up and spot treatments are not undertaken effectively. It has been identified that there should be prompt (feral) domestic animal removal so that the wrong impression of the acceptability of dumping domestic ducks and water birds is not given. These issues need to be documented and appropriately incorporated into the plan. Funding for this project could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC or other industry sponsor. The documentation could be undertaken by the Friends of Big Swamp with assistance from the City of Bunbury (CoB) or by a competent consultant. 5 Develop system monitoring plan This project is a small ($1.5k) planning process to define the most cost-effective method of monitoring the ongoing ecological health of the Big Swamp ecosystem. Strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment and biota (plankton, invertebrates, fish, frogs, reptiles, birds) should be undertaken. Because of the integrating effects of biota it is important that appropriate bio-monitoring protocols be explored.
Funding for this planning project could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC or an industry sponsor. A consultant experienced in developing cost-effective strategic ecosystem health monitoring programs would be required to define the best monitoring programme. Funds ($30k) to undertake the monitoring are identified below. 6 Improve terrestrial habitat connected-ness and links This $30k project is to improve the connection and quality of the surrounding areas (e.g. the eastern System 6 habitat, and local greenways), to undertake rehabilitation works, establish wildlife crossing points and traffic calming signs or measures. There is an opportunity for linkages of endemic species continuing internally across the site and externally into surrounding areas i.e. street plantings. A NHT Envirofund grant could be accessed for the rehabilitation of the eastern System 6 area. Aspects of the works could be undertaken by a rehabilitation contractor, the CoB Engineering Services section or Friends of Big Swamp. In Perth, the Cities of Cockburn, Melville and South Perth (to name a few) have found the volunteer burnout has occurred ad they now routinely employ dedicated rehabilitation contractors to undertake planting and rehab works. It would be indeed a shame if the Friends of Big Swamp were burdened to the point of burnout in their attempts of improve what is in reality a community asset. 7 Commission community art This project is for a nominal amount to continue the development of the excellent community art associated with Big Swamp. The funds (~$20k) could be used to commission additional sculptures, installations and performance art pieces. Specific theme projects may be funded through an Australia Council for the Arts Grant. Works would be undertaken by emerging and established artists. CoB may wish in partnership with the community to explore and document preferred art themes for Big Swamp. 8 Relocate road between wildlife centre A recommendation of the Master Plan is to relocate the existing road which currently separates wildlife centre and playground area from Big Swamp. The CoB Engineering Services section may need to cost, evaluate, schedule, fund and implement this project as appropriate. A suitable contractor may be used to complete the works. Vegetative screening along southern boundary of Wildlife Park and traffic calming measures will probably be required 9 Close Tuart Street A recommendation of the Master Plan is to close Tuart Street and create additional car parks along the existing road which currently separates the terrestrial System 6 area from Big Swamp. The CoB Engineering Services section may need to cost, evaluate, schedule, fund and implement this project as appropriate. A suitable contractor may be used to complete the works. Vegetative screening along southern boundary of Wildlife Park and traffic calming measures will probably be required 10 Establish regional environmental resource centre This $50k project is to upgrade the interpretive material for the wildlife park as a first step in establishing a more centrally located and dedicated regional environmental resource centre. The interpretive centre could then become available for a range of community groups.
11 Eco-tourism centre with open views across the wetland This substantial amount $250k-$500k is estimated to be required to establish a centrally located regional eco-tourism centre. This would serve to create a prominent activity node for the wetland. Funding for the centre could come from a specific grant, or from industry sponsorship. Concept development for the centre may need to be outsourced to appropriate consultants. Works could be undertaken by a suitable building contractor. _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Total for wetland $111.5K _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Control mosquitoes in the paperbark area This $5k project is to undertake runnelling to control mosquitoes in the northern paperbark area. The works could be funded by the CoB Health Services or Conservation volunteers Australia, or a CDEP program. The project would require the hand digging of runnels and has some degree of urgency. 2 Undertake soil investigations on islands The poor establishment of vegetation on some of the islands in Big Swamp following the adopt-an-island scheme may be partly influenced by acid sulphate soils that were exposed during the excavation of the islands.
Surface soils on the islands where previous rehabilitation efforts have failed should be investigated for the presence of very low pH conditions due to acid sulphate soils. In some cases the simple incorporation of agricultural lime and soil conditioner may improve plant establishment and rehabilitation success.
This $10k project is to undertake the surface soil investigations on the islands and to undertake remedial management. The project could be funded by CSBP, Agmin or other fertilizer/aglime suppliers and undertaken by a suitable consultant or volunteer Agricultural or Horticultural Scientist. Some liming and conditioning of island soils may be required prior to any future revegetation works 3 Monitor wetland ecosystem health This $30k project is to undertake strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment, biota-phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, frogs, turtles, snakes and birds arising from the development of the systems monitoring plan (described above). The monitoring could be funded by the DOE, CALM or CoB Environmental services and undertaken by Friends of Big Swamp, Birds Aust, RAOU, Ribbons of Blue or a consultant. The intent of the monitoring should be to support and encourage community monitoring programs i.e. ribbons of blue, birds Australia, Friends of Big Swamp and their participation.
4 Improve habitat diversity This small ($5k) project is to improve he structural diversity of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. This can be achieved through addition of snags, logs and other woody debris in the water for turtles, fish, frogs and invertebrate habitat. Similarly the structural diversity of the terrestrial habitat can be improved by the addition of bird roosting and perching materials, rocks, stones and logs on islands for reptiles and other animals. These works could be funded by a Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Green Reserve program or a CDEP program. The works would be undertaken by the program participants. 5 Investigate wetland circulation Blind pockets in the circulation of the wetland need to be assessed and managed. Areas of poor circulation may become stagnant accumulation areas for organic detritus and have the potential to generate noxious odours, phytoplankton blooms and avian (botulism) and human diseases. This project is for a small ($1.5k) grant for a tertiary engineering student to undertake a desktop hydrodynamic and circulation study for the Swamp. Funds could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, or from an industry sponsor. An engineering student from the UWA Centre for Water Research or similar could undertake the work. Any works to modify the bathymetry of the Swamp may require EPA assessment because of its conservation status. 6 Create and enhance frog habitat This small $5k project is to augment the existing frog pond at the southeast corner of Tuart Street and to and create a frog habitat precinct encompassing existing children’s playground area. Funds for this investigation and works could come form the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC. Works could be undertaken by the Conservation volunteers Australia, or through a CDEP program. 7 Create view ways This small $5k project is for the strategic removal of selected vegetation to augment views across the wetland. This potentially contentious project would need to be undertaken with due regard to the competing needs of aesthetics and conservation. Funding could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, or form an industry sponsor. The work could be undertaken by the CoB Parks and Gardens section of a contractor. 8 Upgrade bird hide There is a view that as the Swamp becomes more prominent as the region's environmental experience that some upgrading of the existing bird hide may be required. This $50k project is to fund the upgrade with purpose designed structure and enhanced interpretive information. Green engineering could be used to better position the facility within the surrounding environment. Funding could come from an industry sponsor, or form an Australian Government Envirofund. The works could be undertaken by a Bunbury-based builder.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Surrounds Total for surrounds $205k _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Repair surrounding path The path around the swamp is deteriorating in parts and should be repaired with the appropriate material when needed. Some areas are incomplete, and others have been repaired with materials different to the original path reducing the amenity value of the location. This $10k project is to fund the repair and upgrade works on the paths. The works could be funded by the COB Parks and Gardens or a Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Green Reserve program grant. The works could be undertaken by COB Parks and Gardens or by program participants. Cob may need to determine its potential public liability under its duty of care obligations. 2 Continue landscape maintenance This $10k amount is to augment the CoB Parks and Gardens budget for Big Swamp to allow them to better undertake mowing and edge management of paths and grassed areas. Funds may need to be directed to COB Parks and Gardens. Work should be undertaken by COB Parks. 3 Prepare a tip closure management plan CoB needs to develop a Tip Closure Management Plan for the abandoned tip sites around Big Swamp. The plan was previously requested by the DOE. The plan would need to quantify issues, potential for greenhouse gas emissions and leachate movement offsite, to undertake a risk assessment and to develop measures to manage the risks. This project $30k is to commence these investigations. The Community of Bunbury enjoyed the benefits of reduced tip fees because of the convenience of this location and now as with many abandoned tip sites, it is time to pay the piper. CoB may need to fund this project which would need to be undertaken by a suitably qualified consultant. Completion of this plan may be a statutory requirement prior to any future developments at the site. 4 Assess Big Swamp acid sulfate risk This $15k project is to assess the potential acid sulfate risk of areas surrounding development areas. Anecdotal evidence of declining bird populations and episodic events at the wetland may be linked to acid sulphate influences. The CoB may need to be vigilant in its application of acid sulphate guidelines for areas potentially impacting Big Swamp.
Funds could come from the CoB with a consultant experienced in these matters undertaking the preliminary risk assessments. 5 Asses stormwater detention structures This $10k project is to undertake a desktop assessment of WSUD treatment options for stormwater inputs around the wetland and throughout the catchment. Bottom-end treatment
alone is against the philosophy of WSUD which seeks to establish smaller and more cost-effective solutions higher up and throughout the catchment. Funds could come from the CoB with a suitably experienced consultant undertaking the works. 6 Revegetation of surrounds This $20k project is to continue revegetation works for the islands and the wetland surrounds. Funds may be available form Alcoa, Local nursery sponsorship or from an Australian Government Envirofund. Works could be undertaken by contractors and or Friends of Big Swamp. 7 Quantify catchment pollutant inputs This $10 project is to undertake a strategic assessment of inflowing surface and groundwater pollutant inputs. Rather than use a scatter gun approach, there may be some benefit in prioritising which particular pollutants are investigated. This does not cover 5 mile Brook which is dealt with as a special case below. Funds could come from the CoB with aspects of the investigation being undertaken by Ribbons of Blue or a suitable consultant. 8 Continue improvement of play ground This $25k project is to further augment the play ground and to add a kids pier at the wetland edge adjacent to the playground and to provide additional eco-oriented play equipment. Funds could come from Industry sponsorship or from COB a Parks and Gardens grant. 9 Install recreational amenities This $25k project is to commence the installation of additional barbecues, shaded tables, seating and paths. Paths, seating and tables should be paved to minimise the snake hazard. Initial funds could come form the Grants Program Community Facilities or from Industry sponsorship or COB Parks and Gardens grant. Works could be undertaken by COB Parks and Gardens of a dedicated contractor. 10 Improve entrance statements This $50k project is to enhance Hayward Street landscaping and improve the approach into Big Swamp. Entry statements will help define the point-of-difference for the swamp and promote the areas vision and mission. Funds could come from a Grants Program Community Facilities or from Industry sponsorship or from a COB Parks and Gardens Grant. Works could be undertaken by COB Parks and Gardens of a dedicated contractor.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Five Mile Brook catchment TOTAL for 5 mile brook catchment $282.5 Water from 5 Mile Brook is diverted into the wetland only at the end of the wet season to help top up and maintain water levels over summer. This means it is currently partly a contributing catchment.
Secondly, there is a strong political push to divert all 5 Mile Brook runoff into Big Swamp to free up land for development along the current alignment of the lower section of the brook.
Because of the current degraded nature of the waters in 5 Mile Brook (TME, 2004), special efforts must be made to cleanup the entire catchment prior to any additional water being diverted into Big Swamp.
Bottom-end treatment alone is against the philosophy of WSUD which seeks to establish more cost-effective solutions higher up and throughout the catchment as part of an integrated treatment train.
Water quality rehabilitation of the 5 Mile Brook catchment is a high priority. Works undertaken throughout this catchment can serve as a model for other catchment repair programs around Big Swamp specifically and for Bunbury generally.
A dedicated grant should be sought from the National Heritage Trust or the State Government to fund the catchment rehabilitation works. Support for a major funding initiative for 5 Mile Brook rehabilitation would be assured because of the importance of Big Swamp, the potential financial gains accruing from the sale of land freed by the successful rehabilitation and ultimate diversion into Big Swamp.
_____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Historical land use survey Background
It has been found that historical land uses and in particular, nutrient-intensive land uses have the capacity to accumulate significant stores of available nutrients in surface soils. Soils on the coastal plain have a limited ability to immobilise these nutrients over time because of the naturally low levels of nutrient binding materials. Historical accumulations of nutrients have been found to continue leaching of N and P at excessive levels for many years, even after the land use that caused the accumulations had ceased to be in operation.
An example of one such site is the Mary Carroll Park wetlands in Gosnells, where an abandoned night soil tip (human wastes) had continued to leach large concentrations of P and to a lesser extent N for several decades after the night soil tip closed. This continued to cause adverse impacts in the receiving wetlands for many years (Rodda and Deeley, 1990).
Stormwater management systems constructed for new urban developments primarily deal with water quantity and water quality for surface drainage. Measures for removing, trapping or immobilising nutrients in stormwater need to match the nutrient concentrations and loads generated by the urban stormwater runoff.
In some instances, stormwater management systems have also collected enriched superficial groundwater and their predicted ability to trap nutrients has been overwhelmed particularly on old rural sites like those over much of the Southern River Structure Plan area. This has been found in the South Lakes drainage area where nutrient enriched superficial groundwater has compromised the nutrient-stripping capacity of the stormwater management system.
A survey of current and historical land uses and in particular nutrient-intensive land uses is required to assist in the planning of appropriate nutrient management measures for the stormwater quality management system for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area specifically and the COB generally.
Requirement
A $40k survey of historical land uses is required for the 5 Mile Brook Catchment area from ~1950 to the present. Land use classes for the entire catchment should be consistent with those currently shown on the relevant town planning schemes. For rural commercial and industrial areas, additional detail for historical nutrient-intensive land uses is also required. These include (but are not limited to) piggeries, dairies, market gardens, night soil disposal areas, rubbish tips or any land use where significant amounts of fertilizers, organic wastes or nutrients have been applied within the last 50 years.
The survey of historical nutrient-intensive land uses should be undertaken using suitable aerial photographs, maps and backed up by cross referenced long term resident knowledge.
Deliverables A spatial data base in ArcView, Microstation or MapInfo format using current cadastre as a base and showing historical land uses from 1950 to the present for the 5 Mile Brook Catchment area. The location and duration of nutrient intensive land uses should be included.
A report with maps showing land use at ten year intervals from 1950 to 2004 (i.e. 1950, 60, 70, 80, 90, 2000, 2004). The report should describe where possible, the location, extent and duration of current and historical land uses and historical nutrient-intensive land uses. The report should clearly identify the source and reliability of all information and include information on interviews with longer term residents used to corroborate data.
2 Asses catchment runoff quality Background While some data are available for the main channel of 5 Mile Brook, there is a lack of consistent data for past and current water quantity and quality throughout the catchment area for either superficial groundwaters or surface waters. Other surveys of water quality have been undertaken as part of the Ribbons of Blue program.
There needs to be a significant improvement in the amount of data available to calibrate any models, to develop a performance tracking system or to guide the development of detailed stormwater management plans.
A snap shot of nutrient mass flux can be undertaken effectively by an organised team sampling water quality and simultaneously measuring discharge rate at various nodes around the catchment.
Requirement This project of $15k is to gain an understanding of the nature of water quantity and quality for baseflow and stormflow measured in August for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. This should include surface and superficial groundwaters at no less than 16 sites throughout the drainage network and be based on at least one snap shot of nutrient mass flux (simultaneous water quality samples and measurement of discharge rate). Deliverables A report describing water quality (at least for forms of N and P) and quantity of baseflow and stormflow to be sampled in August, at various nodal points throughout the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Sites should be geo-referenced so that the data can be used to calibrate hydraulic and hydrologic models for the catchment. The selection of sites and sampling should recognise any major physiographic and land use classes throughout the catchment. 3 Map soils and groundwater Requirement This project ($25k) seeks to gain an understanding of the major soil types and depth to groundwater for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area.
Coarse-resolution mapping of major soil types needs to be undertaken using data provided by Agriculture Western Australia as part of its land capability mapping. The information contained in this mapping needs to be ground-truthed by additional field sampling (hand augering), to confirm and improve upon its spatial accuracy. Additional field surveys need to recognise local topography and geomorphology.
Secondly, a map of depth to shallow groundwater will also need to be produced for the area, focussing on low lying areas using any available groundwater monitoring data. Additional ground-truthing (field augering) will be required to confirm and improve upon the spatial accuracy of maps developed for the area.
Deliverables A spatial data base in ArcView, Microstation or MapInfo format using current cadastre as a base and showing major soil types and depth to groundwater for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Location of additional sampling points for soils and groundwater will need to be clearly identified.
A report with appropriate maps describing the soil mapping and the methods used to undertake interpolation of groundwater surface. A description of the spatial accuracy of the resulting mapping is also required.
4 Determine environmental water requirements Background Land use change following urbanisation of the 5 Mile Brook catchment area has altered the water balance. This and the future introduction of water sensitive urban design and drainage best management practises need to have regard for their impact on surface flows and ground water
quantity. There may be a number of important wetlands and other groundwater dependant ecosystems (GDEs) within and influenced by the 5 Mile Brook catchment area.
It has been found that changes in the nature of surface flows (timing, volumes, flow rates) have the potential to impact adversely on riparian ecosystems. Altered patterns of levels in superficial groundwater (increased levels, decreased levels, altered hydroperiod) also have the potential to impact adversely on GDEs.
Requirements This project ($7.5k) requires the production of a map showing any groundwater or surface water dependant ecosystems having conservation status within the extended 5 Mile Brook catchment area. An understanding of the environmental water requirements (EWRs) needed to maintain the conservation values of these ecosystems is also required. Deliverables A spatial data base in ArcView, Microstation or MapInfo format using current cadastre as a base and showing the location of riparian ecosystems and GDEs at risk from altered hydrological regimes within or influenced by the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. A report estimating the environmental water requirements of riparian ecosystems and other GDEs throughout or influenced by the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. The EWRs should take account of seasonal cycles and inter-annual variability in rainfall patterns. A discussion on the reliability of information and any data gaps should be included. 5 Hydrologic modelling surface, groundwater Background Recognising the lack of existing data for calibration, modelling needs to be undertaken using available data to guide stormwater management planning for the 5 Mile Brook catchment. Significant levels of temporal (seasonal) and spatial variability exist for soil-water systems for the catchment and, given limited resources for field surveys (including additional monitoring currently underway), any modelling of the impacts of landuse change on stormwater hydrographs and quality must include a robust sensitivity analysis. A number of models exist which can predict water quantities and superficial groundwater levels based on limited calibration data and established relationships between rainfall, soils, land use and land cover. Describing water quality in the absence of robust calibration data and groundwater interactions is somewhat more problematic but possible. Requirement This project ($80k) requires the development of an agreed water balance for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area with a recurrence interval-based understanding of the nature of water quantity and quality. This should include surface and superficial groundwaters and incorporate past, current and future land use scenarios. Deliverables A report and model describing a recurrence-interval-based analysis of past, current and future water quality and quantity at various nodal points through out the 5 Mile Brook catchment area for both surface waters and superficial groundwaters. The modelling should recognise the lack
of calibration data and report with known levels of certainty (confidence intervals). The modelling should be undertaken in a manner which will allow it to form the basis of evaluating various distributed WSUD BMP implementation scenarios. 6 Establish distributed water quality performance targets
Background
Assessing compliance against bottom-end targets for water quality improvement in WA coastal plain catchments is accompanied by significant lags and uncertainties. It may take years or even decades for the impacts of land use change or improved stormwater management to manifest themselves at the bottom-end of catchments by way of reduced nutrient concentrations or loads.
It is however possible to develop a series of targets that better reflect the impacts of land use change, success of stormwater quality management and WSUD throughout a catchment. Potential indicators and targets may include (but not be limited to) the implementation rates and timing of stormwater BMPs, nutrient application rates, time of concentration for stormwater, snap-shots of nutrient concentrations of surface and superficial groundwaters through the drainage network, water quality of infiltration and recharge and performance of individual elements of the stormwater management infrastructure.
Requirement This small ($5k) project is to establish a set of indicators and targets of known statistical power to test the performance of improved stormwater quality (drainage) management for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Selection of the suite of indicators and targets should recognise the need for reporting of compliance and implementation of stormwater BMPs in the short term and a longer term need for tracking the quality of surface waters and superficial groundwaters.
Deliverables Establishment of a hierarchy of nested indicators and targets of known statistical power to test the performance of various elements of the stormwater quality management (drainage) system. Indicators may need to include aspects of water quantity, water quality, biodiversity, cultural and aesthetic considerations. The series of targets may need to include interim and staged system performance targets and implementation rates of stormwater BMPs. A discussion of information gaps and data requirements should be included in the final report.
7 Evaluate stormwater BMPs Background The DOE's stormwater quality management manual together with the recently completed Australian Runoff Quality management manual espouse the principals of WSUD and suggest a number of BMPs that could be combined to provide appropriate distributed treatment trains. While there are a significant number of candidate BMPs that promise much in theory, their cost effectiveness for application for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area is largely unknown.
The cost effectiveness of BMPs in terms of water quantity management (flood control structures) is well established. Their performance in terms of water quality management, enhancement or otherwise for biodiversity and cultural/aesthetic considerations has not been documented. Much
information is held within agencies and by their staff on the potential cost effectiveness of various BMPs for stormwater quality management.
Requirement This project ($15k) is to undertake a desktop performance assessment of applicable water quantity and water quality best management practices (BMPs), required to meet targets, EWRs for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Tools such as the Music model (Wong, 2004) offer a consistent method of evaluating the cost effectiveness of various BMPs for stormwater quality management.
Deliverables A report describing the cost effectiveness of available best management practices (BMPs) for water quantity and quality management for surface waters and superficial groundwaters and their impacts on biodiversity and cultural/aesthetic considerations. The investigation should document available information and its reliability, information gaps and resource requirements to test predicted versus actual performance of BMPs for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. 8 Develop precinct water quality management plans Requirement This project ($80k) requires the development of a number of precinct water and environmental management plans. The plans will need to be a synthesis of all previous studies for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area described above. Deliverables Precinct stormwater management plans which detail WSUD treatment trains and BMPs to be implemented throughout the 5 Mile Brook catchment to manage water quantity, to improve water quality, to enhance biodiversity and cultural aspects of the drainage network. Areas where historical nutrient-intensive land uses have been identified should receive special attention to manage actual or potential nutrient exports. 9 Performance audit of WQ improvements Background Water quality improvement for the 5 Mile Brook catchment is required so that its discharge can be considered for diversion into Big Swamp. This would free up valuable land along the lower alignment of 5 Mile Brook for other land uses.
The above series of projects sets out a series of logical and achievable steps to manage past and current land use impacts throughout the catchment. This will be achieved through the preliminary work and through implementation of the distributed WSUD treatment trains to be defined in the precinct water management plans.
Issues to be ultimately addressed through the above process and presented in the precinct water management plans for the 5 Mile Brook catchment include:
• Management of any historical nutrient-intensive hot spots such as dairys, piggeries, market gardens, night soil tips or rubbish tips;
• Management of current land uses for the catchment;
• Incorporation and attention to lags and uncertainties around particular land uses and the movement of their pollutants through surface and superficial groundwaters into the 5 Mile Brook;
• Capture of water quality data through cost-effective snap shots to help locate priority areas within the catchment requiring attention and to provide much-needed calibration data for hydrologic modelling;
• A set of water quantity, water quality, biodiversity and cultural indicators and performance targets to guide and evaluate progress;
• Calibrated hydraulic and hydrologic models to describe water movement and water quality throughout the 5 Mile Brook catchment;
• An evaluation of candidate BMPs for water quality improvement for the catchment and,
• Precinct water management plans to oversee and guide the implementation of distributed WSUD treatment trains for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area.
Addressing these issues in the 5 Mile Brook catchment will provide a considerable learning experience for officers of the City of Bunbury Engineering services, Parks and Gardens and Environmental and Planning sections.
The learnings gained from these investigations and activities in 5 Mile Brook will be directly applicable for many other catchments around Bunbury and elsewhere.
Requirement This project ($15k) is to undertake a systems performance audit of the process of developing and implementing precinct water management plans for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. A documentation of key learnings of the process so that successes and failings of the process can inform the development of other water management plans for the City area and elsewhere.
Deliverables A report describing the evaluation of the process used to develop and implement the precinct water management plans for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. The report should describe key learnings from the process and make recommendations as to how the process could be improved. This performance audit of the process should include an assessment of its success in meeting the requirements of triple bottom line reporting and other pertinent statutory obligations.
Potential funding sources Australian Government Envirofund Agency: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Keywords: Environment, government funding, community, landcare, rivercare, bushcare, coastcare Description: The Australian Government Envirofund is the community component of the $3 billion Natural
Heritage Trust. Through the Envirofund community groups and individuals can apply for grants of a few hundred dollars up to $50,000 to tackle local environmental and natural resource management problems. Typical Envirofund projects include tree planting, fencing, weeding and seed collecting. They also include training and education activities to help community groups improve their knowledge about the environment and sustainable agriculture. The Australian Government invests $20 million each year.
Website: http://www.nht.gov.au/envirofund Department of Environment and Heritage - Grants Home Page Agency: Department of the Environment and Heritage Keywords: Environment, grants, heritage, Australian Biological Resources Study, voluntary environment
organisations, voluntary heritage organisations, natural heritage trust, soil, tree, waterways, beaches, air pollution, agriculture, grants
Description: List of Environment Australia Grants Programs including the Natural Heritage Trust, Australian and World Heritage Grants, Australian Biological Resources Study, and Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations
Website: http://www.deh.gov.au/programs Green Reserve Agency: Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Keywords: Local heritage information, energy conservation, community recycling, costal reserves, urban
vegetation, work experience, green reserve, conservation, environment Description: Green Reserve involves Australian's between the ages of 40 and 65 who receive the full rate of
Newstart allowance in local conservation projects. Working in small teams Green Reserve volunteers contribute 2 days a week for 26 weeks to the project.
Website: http://www.greenreserve.com.au/ Program of Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Agency: Department of the Environment and Heritage Keywords: Voluntary, environment, heritage, organisations, grants, training, culture, cultural, community, Description: The program of Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations is intended to help
eligible community based environment and heritage organisations to value, conserve and protect the natural environment and cultural heritage by assisting these organisations with their administrative costs
Website: http://www.deh.gov.au/programs/gveho/index.html Arts WA Agency: Australia Council for the Arts Keywords: Arts, Western Australia, culture, cultural, art, artists, community art, community arts, theatre,
museum, community Description: Arts WA’s role is to address the overall development of arts and culture in Western Australia through:
·increasing the community’s awareness of the arts and culture; ·developing partnerships with the private sector to gain new resources for the arts community; ·developing strategies to promote and market the State’s arts and cultural resources; ·promoting new commercial opportunities; and ·supporting the arts through funding.
Website: http://www.dca.wa.gov.au Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Agency: Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Keywords: Employment, Indigenous, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, communities, community, grants,
cultural, culture, remote, economic development, social development
Description: The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Programme provides grants to communities or organisations for them to undertake community-managed activities. CDEP organisations managing projects also receive amounts to cover the costs of administration and capital items.
Website: http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/Sch... Environmental Education Grants Agency: Department of the Environment and Heritage Keywords: Environmental education, ecological sustainability Description: The Environmental Education Grants Programme aims to help the community protect the
environment. In keeping with the National Action Plan for Environmental Education and to promote a coherent approach, an important consideration in assessing proposals is the impact funding will have in acting as a catalyst for national change. Funded activities should perform at least one, but preferably more than one, of the key components of environmental education in support of ecological sustainability. Raising awareness acquiring new perspectives developing knowledge, values and skills and changing behaviour.
Website: http://www.deh.gov.au/education/programs
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
Appendix 3 Implementation strategy table of costs, staging
Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10
4=10-20
Priority v=vital u=urgent
i=important
d=desirable
No Action/Project Description Indicative Cost
($ 2005)
Funding Opportunities Who Notes
Big Swamp System
1 u 1 Develop information and extension management plan
Promotion of education, interpretation and scientific research uses. Develop linked, hierarchical signage strategy. Decide name.
5,000 South West Development Authority grant through BESAC
Consultant, GreenTeach
Signage strategy should incorporate fauna warning signs along the adjacent roadsto minimise road kill, and inform as to why no feeding of birds and animals. Use of web cams, audible interpretive material , primary to tertiary level material should
be incl
1 i 2 Develop access management plan Location and implementation of paths, lighting, nature trails, boardwalks and observation platforms
5,000 South West Development Authority grant through
BESAC, Bunnings
Consultant
1 i 3 Develop rehabilitation management plan
Rehabilitation and habitat protection using local provenance species 4,000 CALM Wetland conservation program
Friends of Big Swamp
Exotic species may have a role as part of a staged rehabilitation ie for erosion control and soil
conditioning
1 i 4 Develop exotic and introduced species management plan
Continue weed management, typha management, prompt domestic animal removal
1,500 South West Development Authority grant through
BESAC, Bunnings
Friends of Big Swamp
1 i 5 Develop system monitoring plan Strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment, biota 1,500 South West Development Authority grant through
BESAC, Bunnings
Consultant Consultant needs experienced in developing strategic ecosystem health monitoring programs
2 i 6 Improve terrestrial habitat connectedness and links
Improve connection and quality of surrounding areas (eg.eastern System 6 habitat, greenways), undertake rehabilitation works, wildlife
crossing points, traffic calming
30,000 NHT Envirofund grant for rehab of eastern System 6 area
Contractor, CoB Engineering
Opportunity for linkages of endemic species continuing into surrounding areas i.e. street
plantings.
2 d 7 Commission community art Commission additional sculptures, installations, performance art
pieces
20,000 Projects, Australia Council for
the Arts Grant
Artists Develop art themes
3 d 8 Relocate road between wildlife centre
Relocate the existing road which currently separates wildlife centre and playground area from Big Swamp
? CoB CoB Engineering, Contractor
The City's Engineering services may need to cost and evaluate this option. Vegetative screening along southern boundary of Wildlife Park and
traffic calming measures will be required
3 d 9 Close Tuart Street Close Tuart Street, create additional car parks ? CoB CoB Engineering, Contractor
The City's Engineering services may need to cost and evaluate this option
3 d 10 Establish regional environmental resource centre
Upgrade wildlife park interpretive material toward a regional environmental resource centre
50,000 The interpretive centre will be available for a range of community groups
4 d 11 Create prominent activity node Eco-tourism centre with open views across the wetland 250000-500000
Specific grant, or industry sponsorship
Consultant, building contractor
Concept development may need to be outsourced
Total for process 117,000
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
Appendix 3 ctd…. Implementation strategy table of costs, staging
Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10
4=10-20
Priority v=vital u=urgent
i=important
d=desirable
No Action/Project Description Indicative Cost
($ 2005)
Funding Opportunities Who Notes
Wetland
1 v 1 Control mosquitos paperbark area Undertake runnelling to control mosquitos in the northern paperbark area
5,000 CoB Health Services Conservation volunteers
Australia, CDEP
Hand digging of runnels
1 i 2 Undertake soil investigations on
islands
Investigate, manage soils where adopt-an-island revegetation failed 10,000 CSBP, Agmin or other
fertilizer/aglime supplier
Consultant, volunteer Ag Scientist
Some liming of island soils may be required prior to
any future revegetation works
1 i 4 Monitor wetland ecosystem health Strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment, biota-phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, frogs, turtles, snakes
and birds
30,000 DOE, CALM, CoB Environmemtal services
Friends of Big Swamp, Birds Aust, RAOU,
Ribbons of Blue
Support and encourage community monitoring programs ie. ribbons of blue, birds Australia, Friends
of Big Swamp
1 i 3 Improve habitat diversity Improve aquatic snags, logs, terrestrial perchings, logs, rocks etc 5,000 Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Green
Reserve program
Program participants
Increase structural diversity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats
2 i 5 Investigate wetland circulation Blind pockets need to be assessed and managed 1,500 South West Development Authority grant through
BESAC, Bunnings
Student Centre for Water Research UWA student
2 d 6 Create and enhance frog habitat Augment existing frog pond and create frog habitat precinct
encompassing existing children’s playground area
5,000 South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, Bunnings
Conservation volunteers
Australia, CDEP
2 d 7 Create view ways Strategic removal of selected vegetation to augment views across the wetland
5,000 South West Development Authority grant through
BESAC, Bunnings
CoB Parks and Gardens
3 d 8 Upgrade bird hide Upgrade with purpose designed structure and enhanced interpretive information
50,000 Industry sponsor, Australian Government Envirofund
Bunbury-based builder
Total for wetland 111,500
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
Appendix 3 ctd…. Implementation strategy table of costs, staging
Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10
4=10-20
Priority v=vital u=urgent
i=important
d=desirable
No Action/Project Description Indicative Cost
($ 2005)
Funding Opportunities Who Notes
Surrounds
1 v 1 Repair surrounding path The path around the swamp is deteriorating in parts and should be mended with the appropriate material when needed
10,000 COB Parks, Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Green Reserve
program
COB Parks, Program
participants
Note to works department. Maybe public liability issue. Areas incomplete, others have been patched
with different materials.
1 i 2 Continue landscape maintenance Continue mowing and edge management of paths and grasses areas 10,000 COB Parks COB Parks Note to parks and gardesn section: Seasonal snake concerns, potential council duty of care issue.
1 v 3 Prepare tip closure management plan
Quantify issues, gas, pollutants; asses risks; manage threats 30,000 CoB Consultant Statutory requirment prior to any development
1 i 4 Asses Big Swamp acid sulfate risk Assess, manage surrounding development areas 15,000 CoB Consultant Well established protocols
1 i 5 Asses stormwater detention structures
Undertake a desktop assessment of WSUD treatment options for stormwater inputs around the wetland and throughout the catchment
10,000 CoB Consultant
1 i 6 Revegetation of surrounds Continue revegetation of wetland surrounds 20,000 Alcoa, Local nursery sponsorship, Australian Government Envirofund
Contractors, Friends of Big
Swamp,
2 i 7 Quantify catchment pollutant inputs Assess inflowing surface and groundwater pollutant inputs 10,000 CoB Ribbons of Blue, consultant
Prioritise pollutants
2 i 8 Continue improvement of play ground
Add kids pier at wetland edge, eco-oriented play equipment 25,000 Industry sponsorship, COB Parks
COB Parks
2 d 9 Install recreational amenities Install additional barbecues, shaded tables, seating, paths 25,000 Grants Program Community Facilities, Industry sponsorship,
COB Parks
COB Parks, contractors
Paths, seating and tables should be paved to minimise snake hazard
3 d 10 Improve entrance statements Enhance Hayward Street landscaping and improve the approach into Big Swamp
50,000 Grants Program Community Facilities, Industry sponsorship,
COB Parks
COB Parks, contractors
Total for surrounds 205,000
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
Appendix 3 ctd…. Implementation strategy table of costs, staging
Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10
4=10-20
Priority v=vital u=urgent
i=important
d=desirable
No Action/Project Description Indicative Cost
($ 2005)
Funding Opportunities Who Notes
Five Mile Brook catchment
1 v 1 Historical land use survey Survey historical nutrient-intensive land uses using air photos, maps, long term resident knowledge
40,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
2 i 2 Asses catchment runoff quality Survey nutrients in base flow and storm flows throughout the catchment
15,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
2 i 3 Map soils and groundwater Map major soil types and the depth to superficial groundwater 25,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
1 i 4 Determine environmental water requirements
Map groundwater dependant ecosystems, riparian areas, determine environmental water requirements
7,500 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
3 i 5 Hydrologic modelling surface, groundwater
Hydrologic modelling of both surface water and superficial groundwater quantity and quality producing recurrence-based
hydrographs for specific nodes
80,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
2 i 6 Establish distributed water quality performance targets
Define performance targets for stormwater quality management throughout the catchment
5,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
2 i 7 Evaluate stormwater BMPs Undertake a desktop performance assessment of applicable water quantity and water quality best management practices (BMPs),
required to meet targets, EWRs
15,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
3 i 8 Develop precinct water quality management plans
Develop Precinct management plans with staged implementation of appropriate cost-effective BMPs
80,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
3 i 9 Performance audit of WQ improvements
Performance audit of the WQ improvement process:- strategic evaluation of implemented BMPs, EWRs, document key learnings,
refine strategies
15,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant
TOTAL for 5 mile brook
catchment
282,500
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
_____________________________________________________________________
Appendix 4
Indicative planting scheme for rehabilitation of Big Swamp
_____________________________________________________________________
Note: Native species to be used for revegetation / rehabilitation are not limited to those
detailed in the following species list as this list is not comprehensive.
Big Swamp is on the Yoongarillup Soil association having marine origin. Plains with low ridges
and swales, shallow yellow to brown sands over marine limestone.
The original dominant plant assemblages for the area would have included woodland to tall
woodland of E. gomphocephla (Tuart) with Agonis flexuosa (peppermint) in the second storey
with some occurrence of E marginata (Jarrah) and E, calophylla (Marri).
Big Swamp Master Plan
urbanplan ASE ERM
Scientific Name Common name Form Height (m) Flowers Planting
Eucalyptus gompbocephala Tuart Tree 40 Jan-Apr Direct seeding
Eucalyptus calophylla Marri Tree 35 Jan-May Direct seeding
Eucalyptus marginata Jarrah Tree 30 Sep-Feb Direct seeding
Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Tree 15 Sep-Dec Direct seeding
Allocasuarina fiaseriana Sheoak Tree 15 May-Oct Direct seeding
Casuarina obesa Swamp sheoak Tree 15 All year Direct seeding
Eucalyptus rudis Flooded gum Tree 15 Apr-Nov Direct seeding
Banksia littoralis Swamp banksia Tree 12 Mar-Jul Direct seeding
Banksia littoralis Swamp banksia Tree 10 Mar-Jul Direct seeding
Melaleuca preissiana Modong Tree 10 Nov-Jan Direct seeding
Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Swamp paperbark Tree 8 Sep-Jan Direct seeding
Melaleuca cuticularis Saltwater paperbark Tree 7 Sep-Dec Direct seeding
Acacia saligna Coojong Shrub 6 Aug-Oct Direct seeding
Viminaria juncea Swishbush Shrub 5 Oct-Dec Direct seeding
Melaleuca teretifolia Banbar Shrub 4 Oct-Jan Direct seeding
Acacia cyclops Coastal wattle Shrub 3 Sep-Jan Direct seeding
Jacksonia fucellata Grey stinkwood Shrub 3 Aug-Mar Direct seeding
Jacksonia sternbergiana Green stinkwood Shrub 3 all year Direct seeding
Kunzea ericifolia Spearwood Shrub 3 Sep-Nov Direct seeding
Melaleuca vinimea Mohan Tree 3 Aug-Oct Direct seeding
Typha domingensis Narrow-leaf cumbungi Sedge 3 Dec-Feb Direct seeding
Xanthorrhoea preissii Grass tree Shrub 3 Nov-Jan Direct seeding
Bamea vaginalis Sheath twig sedge Sedge 2.5 Oct-Nov Plant seedlings
Acacia pulchella Prickly moses Shrub 2 Jun-Oct Direct seeding
Atriplex hypoleuca Saltbush Shrub 2 Dec-Apr Direct seeding
Carex appressa Tall sedge Sedge 2 Sep-Oct Direct seeding
Juncus krausii Sea rush Sedge 2 Nov-Dec Direct seeding
Juncus pallidus Pale rush Sedge 2 Oct-Nov Direct seeding
Melaleuca thymoides A myrtle Tree 2 Sep-Jan Direct seeding
Astartea jascicularis no common name Shrub 1.5 Dec-Feb Plant seedlings
Carex inversa Knob sedge Sedge 1.5 Sep-Oct Direct seeding
Baumea juncea Bare twigrush Sedge 1.2 Jan-Apr Plant seedlings
Bolboschoenus caldwelli Marsh club rush Sedge 1.2 Aug-Nov Direct seeding
Baumea articulata jointed twig-rush Sedge 1 Nov-Dec Plant seedlings
Baumea juncea Bare twig-rush Sedge 1 Oct-Jan Plant seedlings
Aotus gracillima no common name Shrub 1 Oct-Nov Direct seeding
Ectaxia virgata no common name Shrub 1 Aug-Nov Direct Seeding
Gahnia trifida Coast saw sedge Sedge 1 Aug-Oct Plant seedlings
Hibbertia stellaris Orange stars Shrub 1 Sep-Dec Plant Seedlings
Hypocalymma angustifolium
White myrtle Shrub 1 Jul-Oct Direct seeding
Isolepis nodosa Knotted club rush Sedge 1 Nov-Mar Direct seeding
Leptosperma longitudinale Pithy sword-sedge Sedge 1 Nov-Jan Plant seedlings
Myoporum caprarioides Slender myoporum Shrub 1 all year Plant seedlings
Anigozanthos viridis Green kangaroo paw Shrub 0.5 Aug-Oct Plant seedlings
Frankenia pauciflora Southern sea heath Shrub 0.5 All year Plant seedlings
Lobelia alata no common name Shrub 0.2 Mar-Apr Plant seedlings
Triglochin striata Streaked arrowgrass Herb 0.2 Jun-Oct Plant seedlings
Centella cordifolia Centella Herb 0.1 all year Plant seedlings
Adapted from: Swan River System. Landscape description. Swan River Trust, Report No 28 1997