INTEGRATED STORMWATER TREATMENT AND RE-USESYSTEMS - INVENTORY OF AUSTRALIAN PRACTICE
TECHNICAL REPORTReport 04/1June 2004
Belinda Hatt / Ana Deletic / Tim Fletcher
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H C E N T R E F O R C A T C H M E N T H Y D R O L O G Y
Hatt, Belinda, 1978-
Integrated Stormwater Treatment and Re-useSystems: Inventory of Australian Practice
Bibliography
ISBN 1 920813 07 1
1. Urban runoff - Australia. 2. Storm sewers - Australia. 3. Water reuse -Australia. 4. Water quality management. I. Deletic, Ana, 1965- . II.Fletcher, Tim, 1969- . III. Cooperative Research Centre for CatchmentHydrology. IV. Title. (Series : Report (Cooperative Research Centre forCatchment Hydrology); 04/1)
628.21
Keywords
Urban areasWater supplyStormwaterRunoffWater treatmentWater reuseInventoriesRecyclingGuidelinesWater qualityIntegrated systemsStorageCost benefit analysisDesign
© Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, 2004
i
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
Preface
The current drought in much of Australia hashighlighted the need for improved management of theurban water cycle. In particular, there is nowrecognition that stormwater provides a potentialresource, that could help to reduce demand for potablewater supplies.
Clearly, utilisation of stormwater for water supplypurposes depends on the quality of that stormwater,and the integration of treatment and utilisation systemsis therefore critical. Monash University has embarkedon a major project to develop new technologies for thecollection, treatment, storage and distribution ofstormwater for water supply.
In order to underpin this research, a review of existingpractice in Australia was conducted. The reviewconsiders the design, construction, operation andmaintenance of integrated stormwater treatment andre-use systems. It also provides information onregulations supporting (or impeding) adoption of suchsystems. Costs and benefits are examined, along withimplementation issues, and performance. Mostimportantly, current gaps are examined to set prioritiesfor future research.
There are many case studies presented in the review,and the authors would like to thank the numerouspeople who provided the information necessary todescribe these case studies.
Funding for this project was provided by the NSWEnvironment Protection Authority (through itsStormwater Trust), whilst Melbourne Water, CSIROUrban Water, Brisbane City Council and the VictorianEPA (through the Victorian Stormwater ActionProgram) provided in-kind support.
Tim FletcherDirector, Institute for Sustainable Water ResourcesProgram Leader, Urban Stormwater QualityCRC for Catchment Hydrology
IntegratedStormwaterTreatment and Re-use Systems -Inventory ofAustralian Practice
Belinda Hatt, Ana Deletic, Tim Fletcher
Technical Report 04/1June 2004
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
ii
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the NSW
Environment Protection Authority for funding this
research project, in particular Mike Sharpin. We
would also like to acknowledge in kind contributions
from Brisbane City Council, Melbourne Water, CSIRO
Land and Water, and the Victorian Environment
Protection Authority.
This review was also made possible by the assistance
of people associated with the studied stormwater re-
use schemes.
The authors would like to thank Sandy Booth
(University of Western Sydney), Andrzej Listowski
(Sydney Olympic Park Authority) and Keith Furniss
(HNJ Holdings P/L) for conducting site visits, for
providing information and valuable discussion.
The following people are also thanked for providing
information and discussions:
Leanne Dallmer Roach (Storm Consulting)
Peter Donley (South Sydney City Council)
Jake Matuzic (City of Canada Bay Council)
Joel Stewart (University of Western Sydney)
Christina Roman (Boyden and Partners P/L)
Daryl Edwards (Taronga Zoo)
Joanne Scarsbrick
Paul Smith (Manly Council)
Kaye Power (NSW Department of Health)
Peter Smith (Kogarah Council)
Greg Jackson (Queensland EPA)
David Mitchell (Charles Sturt University)
Anne Simi (City Design)
Lucy Peljo (Brisbane City Council)
Peter Scott (SA EPA)
Neil Kerby (Winkfield P/L)
Bill Mole (HNJ Holdings P/L)
Gary Spivak (City of Port Phillip Council)
Garry Kerans (Integrated Ecovillages)
Rebecca Brown (Hume City Council)
Ian Brown (Hobsons Bay City Council)
Sam Sampanthar (Hobsons Bay City Council)
Steering Group
Matt Francey, Melbourne Water
Tonia Giobbi, Brisbane City Council
Christine Grundy, GHD
Grace Mitchell, CSIRO Land and Water
Sean Moran, Victoria Environment ProtectionAuthority
Graham Rooney, Melbourne Water
Mike Sharpin, NSW Environment ProtectionAuthority
Matt Thwaites, Victoria Environment ProtectionAuthority
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
iii
Executive Summary
The use of water resources in many parts of Australiais approaching the limits of sustainability. Betterintegrated management of urban water (supply,wastewater and stormwater) is needed if the waterneeds of the expected population are to be met withoutfurther deterioration of the environment. A focal pointfor proposed national water conservation programmesis the use of both treated wastewater and urbanstormwater.
The aim of this research was to develop an inventoryof technologies for the collection, treatment, storage,and distribution of urban stormwater runoff and, wherecurrent knowledge allows, provide interim guidanceon stormwater re-use implementation. General urbanrunoff is defined as runoff generated from all urbansurfaces. Schemes that collect and re-use runoff fromroofs only are not considered in this study since thereis already a good deal of knowledge about this,whereas knowledge about harvesting and re-usinggeneral runoff is lacking.
This survey of existing stormwater re-use systemsfocussed primarily on non-potable water use (e.g.irrigation, non-potable in-house). An extensive reviewof existing national (focussing on the Eastern seaboardand South Australia) and international stormwater re-use systems was carried out and lessons learned fromthe selected case studies with respect to sizing,performance, operation, and integration into the totalwater cycle of re-use systems. Issues regardingoptimisation of their overall performance and keyfactors in their successes (or failures) were alsoexamined.
Regulation
The use of recycled water is governed by States andTerritories and regulatory stakeholders. While thereare specific statutory obligations under State health,environmental, agricultural or food legislation for re-use of wastewater, stormwater re-use is not regulated.It is generally recommended that guidelines forwastewater re-use be used to operate and evaluate
stormwater re-use schemes. However, both the supplyand quality of wastewater and stormwater are verydifferent, therefore applying wastewater guidelines toa stormwater recycling scheme is somewhatinadequate. New National Water RecyclingGuidelines are currently being developed as part of theFederal government’s National Water Initiative andwill address stormwater recycling, but not as a firstpriority.
System Components
At this stage, re-use of stormwater is largely restrictedto smaller scale sites, and is mainly used for purposeswith low potential for human contact (low risks), suchas irrigation. Collection and storage are still based onconventional methods. Treatment is mainly based onWater Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) techniques(swales, buffers and bio-filters, infiltration systems,wetland ponds and basins and lakes), howeveradvanced techniques along with disinfection areutilised if there is a higher health risk.
Design
Stormwater re-use system design should satisfy end-use requirements and address the multiple objectivesthese systems often have. Information was readilyavailable with respect to sizes and features of thevarious components incorporated into the studied re-use systems but very rarely on methods used for theirdetermination. However, it appears that the samedesign methods are used for re-use schemes as forstormwater pollution control alone (e.g. AustralianRainfall and Runoff, 2003). This may cause someproblems since the WSUD systems are not currentlydesigned to deliver high water quality; in particular thereliability of treatment may be an issue. Design ofsurface stores (such as ponds and urban lakes) is notwell defined which may present safety problems (largewater level variations, or deterioration of water qualityduring long dry weather spells).
Construction, Maintenance and Operation
Construction tolerances in integrated stormwatertreatment and re-use systems are generally finer thanin conventional systems. Further, maintenance is
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
iv
especially important for re-use systems in order toguarantee reliability of treated water quality.However, a number of studied sites appear to havebeen neglected since completion of construction.Clear specification of an operation and maintenanceprogram should be prepared during the design process.Without this, it is likely that the integrity of a numberof the systems studied is at risk, potentially impactingon public health and amenity.
Implementation Issues
Some of the most frequently encountered issues werelengthy and resource intensive negotiation, assessmentand approval processes. This is largely due to a lackof pertinent experience and policies on the part of thewater industry and relevant authorities. Many of there-use schemes were the result of a partnershipapproach, often between the various levels ofgovernment and a private developer. This was foundto be successful, since it enabled all parties’ skills,roles and experience to be combined. Involving otherparties, such as the design team and researchers, in thepartnership was also found to be beneficial. There issignificant public acceptance of domestic use ofrainwater. Government grants assist with project costs,however managing grants takes a lot of time andongoing effort. Reliable provisions and monitoringplans are fundamental elements of re-use projects,particularly given their experimental nature at thisstage.
Costs and Benefits
Stormwater re-use systems offer multiple benefits,including reduced demand for potable water supply,and delay or removal of the need for stormwaterdrainage infrastructure expansion. Other benefits arereduced stormwater flows, pollution control, habitatcreation, and protection/enhancement of downstreamwaterways. It has been accepted for a number of yearsthat, to correctly assess the worth of a water servicingoption, the cost of implementing a re-use scheme mustbe compared to the true costs of current supply anddisposal practices, however little progress has beenmade in developing such means of comparison.
Performance
Performance results were somewhat limited, partlybecause most projects are still very new and there isnot a lot of feedback available. In general though,developers, operators and regulators appear to besatisfied with the schemes’ initial performances, andthe public response has been positive.
Critique of Current Practices - Knowledge Gapsand Research Needs
Regulations and guidelines specific to stormwaterrecycling need to be developed to allow re-use systemsto be designed effectively. There is a clear need for thedevelopment of innovative techniques for thecollection, treatment and storage of stormwater.Performance modelling for evaluation purposes alsoneeds further research. Traditional cost benefits fail toadequately assess non-monetary benefits, therefore anovel approach with well structured methodologyshould be developed. If the costs and benefits of re-usesystems can be shown to compare favourably with thecosts and benefits of conventional practices, this willprovide a good deal of incentive to overcome otherobstacles to widespread adoption of stormwaterrecycling.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
v
Preface i
Acknowledgements ii
Executive Summary iii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.1.1 Recent Progress in the Field 1
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Study 2
1.3 Study Sites 3
2. Current Regulatory Environment Framework 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 New South Wales 5
2.3 Victoria 5
2.4 Queensland 9
2.5 South Australia 10
2.6 Key Learnings 10
3. Integrated System Components 13
3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Survey of the Components and End-Use Types 15
3.3 End-Use 17
3.4 Collection 18
3.5 Treatment 20
3.6 Storage 22
3.7 Distribution 24
3.8 Key Learnings 25
4. Design 27
4.1 Introduction 27
4.2 Treatment 27
4.2.1 Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters 27
4.2.2 Infiltration and Filtration Systems 27
4.2.3 Wetlands 28
4.2.4 Ponds, Basins and Lakes 29
4.2.5 Litter and Sediment Traps 29
4.2.6 Advanced Treatment 29
4.3 Storage 30
4.3.1 Tanks 30
4.3.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 30
4.4 Key Learnings 32
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
vi
5. Construction, Operation and Maintenance 33
5.1 Introduction 33
5.2 Construction 33
5.2.1 Current Practice 33
5.2.2 Key Learnings 33
5.3 Operation and Maintenance 33
5.3.1 Collection 34
5.3.2 Treatment 34
5.3.3 Storage 34
5.3.4 Distribution 34
5.3.5 Flood Protection 34
5.3.6 Key Learnings 35
6. Implementation Issues 37
6.1 Introduction 37
6.2 Integration into the Total Urban Water Cycle 37
6.3 Public Safety 38
6.4 Landscape Requirements 39
6.5 Site Amenity 39
6.6 Institutional and Other Issues 39
6.7 Key Learnings 41
7. Costs and Benefits 43
7.1 Introduction 43
7.2 Costs 43
7.3 Benefits 43
7.4 Collected Data 43
7.5 Key Learnings 47
8. Performance 49
8.1 Introduction 49
8.2 Monitoring 49
8.3 Assessment of Performance 49
8.4 Key Learnings 53
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
vii
9. Critique of Current Practices- Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs 55
9.1 Regulation 55
9.1.1 Knowledge Gaps 55
9.1.2 Research Needs 55
9.2 Design 55
9.2.1 Knowledge Gaps 55
9.2.2 Research Needs 56
9.3 Costs and Benefits 56
9.3.1 Knowledge Gaps 56
9.3.2 Research Needs 57
9.4 Other 57
9.4.1 Knowledge Gaps 57
9.4.2 Research Needs 57
9.5 Synthesis of Key Learnings 57
10. Conclusions 59
References 61
Appendix A 67
Appendix B 79
Appendix C 167
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
viii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 The Main Functions of IntegratedStormwater Treatment and Re-use Systems 13
Figure 3.2 Frequency of End-Use Types 17
Figure 3.3 Influence of Catchment Size on the Frequency of End-Use Type 18
Figure 3.4 Frequency of Components Used for Collection Purposes 19
Figure 3.5 Influence of Catchment Size on CollectionComponent Frequency 19
Figure 3.6 Frequency of Components Used forTreatment 20
Figure 3.7 Influence of Catchment Size on TreatmentComponent Frequency 21
Figure 3.8 Influence of Re-use Type on TreatmentComponent Frequency 21
Figure 3.9 Frequency of Components Used for Storage Purposes 22
Figure 3.10 Influence of Catchment Size on StorageComponent Frequency 23
Figure 3.11 Influence of Re-use Type on StorageComponent Frequency 23
Figure 3.12 Frequency of Distribution Methods 24
Figure 3.13 Influence of Catchment Size on Distribution Methods 24
Figure 4.1 Influence of Evapotranspiration on Storage Type 30
Figure 4.2 Diagram of the Aquifer Storage andRecovery System at Parafield 31
Figure 6.1 Signs at Homebush Bay Inform the Publicabout the Use of Recycled Water 38
Figure 6.2 Stormwater Outlet Pipe at Ocean Beach in Manly and Pollution Warning Sign 40
Figure 6.3 Information Boards (at Manly Beach andSolander Park) 41
Figure 6.4 Art Work at Solander Park 42
Figure 7.1 Relationship Between Catchment Area and Capital Cost 45
Figure 8.1 Interlocking Pavers Installed in Smith StNorth create a Permeable Surface to Treat and Infiltrate Runoff from the Street Surface 53
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1 The Quality of Different Classes of UrbanStormwater and Wastewater and theRequirements of Selected Urban WaterDemands 6
Table 2.2 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses through a Dual Reticulation System 7
Table 2.3 NWQMS Guidelines for Sewerage Systems: Use of Reclaimed Water 8
Table 2.4 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Use 9
Table 2.5 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses 10
Table 3.1 Summary of Components against Functions 16
Table 3.2 Identified Components of Stormwater Re-use Systems and their Functionality 25
Table 4.1 Summary of Wetland Components 28
Table 4.2 Summary of Pond Functions and Capacities 29
Table 4.3 Summary of Tank Storages 30
Table 7.1 Summary of Costs and Benefits Associated with Surveyed Stormwater Re-use Schemes 44
Table 7.2 Quantified Benefits Associated with Selected Stormwater Re-use Schemes 45
Table 7.3 Demonstrated Benefits of SelectedStormwater Re-use Schemes 46
Table 8.1 Summary of Water Quality MonitoringPrograms for Stormwater Re-use Systems 50
Table 8.2 Summary of Water Quantity and OtherMonitoring Programs for Stormwater Re-use Systems 51
Table 8.3 Summary of Performance 52
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
x
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
x
1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In recent years signs of environmental degradation,
manifesting through declining quality of surface and
ground water, have been observed in many parts of
Australia. For example, the rivers of the Murray-
Darling Basin and Hawkesbury-Nepean Basin have
deteriorated in part because of urban water demands
and polluted stormwater discharges (Anderson, 1996).
The use of water resources in many parts of Australia
is approaching, and in some urban centres exceeding,
the limits of sustainability. Better integrated
management of urban water (supply, wastewater and
stormwater) is needed if the water needs of the
expected population are to be satisfied without further
deterioration of the environment.
A focal point for proposed national water conservation
programmes is the re-use of both treated wastewater
and urban stormwater (Anderson, 1996; Thomas et al.,
1997; Coombes et al., 2002) A number of authors
(Thomas et al., 1997; Newton et al., 2001; Coombes et
al., 2002; Mitchell et al., 2002) have stated that there
is potential for stormwater re-use schemes to expand
limited primary water sources, prevent excessive
diversion of water from other uses, eliminate
discharges of untreated urban stormwater runoff, and
minimise urban water infrastructure costs. However,
this is still not widely practised in Australia, with
stormwater being particularly neglected (only 8% of
rainwater is used, while 14% of wastewater is
reclaimed, (CSIRO, 2003)). The average annual
volume of urban stormwater runoff in Australian cities
is almost equal to the average annual urban water
usage, of which at least 50% is for non-potable use
(Mitchell et al., 1999). Stormwater is usually of better
quality than untreated sewage or industrial discharge,
and has better public acceptance for utilisation. All
these factors make it a potentially valuable resource
for water supply substitution (particularly for non-
potable water applications).
The majority of stormwater re-use is practised as roofrainwater harvesting (Coombes et al., 2002), orstormwater runoff harvesting for groundwaterrecharging (Dillon et al., 1999). There are only a fewexamples of stormwater re-use systems that rely ongeneral urban runoff as a source and deliver water fora variety of uses (e.g. systems in Singapore andCanberra, (WBM Oceanics Australia, 1999)). One ofthe main reasons for this is a lack of clear designguidance for integrated systems that could effectivelycollect, treat, store, and distribute stormwater runofffor general use (Thomas et al., 1997; WBM OceanicsAustralia, 1999; Burkhard et al., 2000) In their nation-wide survey of water re-use, (Thomas et al., 1997)argued that stormwater runoff is neglected becauseinitial infrastructure for its treatment (that could bebuilt upon to provide re-use) is not in place (in contrastto wastewater treatment systems which are widelypresent). This is changing rapidly, and sustainablesystems for stormwater treatment are becomingcommon features in Australian urban areas (they are animportant part of Water Sensitive Urban Design –WSUD). Whether they are constructed wetlands,ponds, swales, or bio-filters, they all act as effectiveflood control measures, provide treatment of pollutedrunoff, and many have significant amenity potential(e.g. wetlands, swales and ponds). However, theirdesign could be improved further to allow effective re-use of treated runoff. It is important to achieve thisintegration between stormwater treatment and re-usenow, since WSUD technologies are being installed at arapid rate around Australian cities. In other words, ifthe proper technologies are developed and adapted forthe integrated stormwater treatment and re-use now,considerable environmental and economic benefits toAustralia will be assured.
1.1.1 Recent Progress in the Field
Although practised separately, stormwater treatmentand water re-use technologies have improvedsignificantly in recent years. Stormwater ponds,wetlands, bio-filters, and swales (to name some of theWSUD systems) have been installed at a rapid ratearound Australia. They have proven to be veryeffective in the removal of key stormwater pollutants,flood protection and landscape enhancement (Argue,
1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
2
1998). Design manuals for these systems are now
widely available (WEF and ASCE, 1997 in the USA,
CIRIA, 2000 in the UK, and Victorian Stormwater
Committee, 1999, and IEAust, in prep in Australia).
The CRC for Catchment Hydrology recently launched
software for conceptual design and performance
evaluation of the WSUD systems for stormwater
pollution control, (named MUSIC, (CRCCH, 2002)).
Current design practice of the WSUD systems does not
always guarantee reliable stormwater treatment to
required quality standards. Such treatment even
stretches the capabilities of most traditional
clarification technologies used in treatment of potable
water. This paucity of technology for integrated urban
stormwater treatment and re-use is one of the main
challenges in efficient stormwater use. Existing
practice is far ahead of research, which may pose a
great danger to the future adoption of such measures.
Just one high profile case of public health or
environmental failure of a re-use project (conducted
without sound scientific backing) could undermine
public confidence in re-use nationally, costing our
society time and money in the much-needed adoption
of future re-use technologies.
If integrated systems are to be successful, they should
become a part of the sustainable management of the
total urban water cycle. The CSIRO Urban Water
research team has recently completed several studies
that considered both the total urban water system and
the alternative technologies that can be employed to
deliver sustainable solutions (Mitchell et al., 2002).
Tools such as PURRS (Coombes, 2002), Aquacycle
(Mitchell, 2000) and UVQ (Farley, 2000) have been
developed to aid the assessment of total water cycle
options.
It could be concluded that there are rapid
developments in the areas of stormwater treatment,
water re-use, and management of the total urban water
cycle. These areas are developing separately, although
there is a huge demand for their integration into a
reliable design of systems for collection, treatment,
storage, flood protection and re-use of general
stormwater runoff.
1.2 Objectives and Scope of Study
The aim of this project was to develop an inventory oftechnologies for collection, treatment, storage, anddistribution of general stormwater runoff and, wherecurrent knowledge allows, provide interim guidanceon stormwater re-use implementation. Generalstormwater runoff is defined as runoff generated fromall urban surfaces. The research focussed on generalrunoff and excluded schemes that collected and re-used roof runoff only, since much is already knownabout re-use of roof runoff, whereas there is a paucityof knowledge about general stormwater runoff re-use.The objectives of this research were to:
• Study Australian and international practices of re-use of general urban stormwater runoff;
• Identify the main components of integratedstormwater treatment and re-use systems withpotential for their application in Australia;
• Identify the components’ key design parameters,performance, current knowledge gaps, andobstacles to their implementation;
• Where possible, provide interim guidance on howto implement stormwater re-use (based on analysisof success factors and lessons learnt from the casestudies); and
• Prioritise the key research needs to overcome thegaps and impediments.
The required performance of the integrated stormwatersystems was determined in relation to water userdemands. The research focused primarily on non-potable water use (e.g. irrigation, non-potable in-house use). The water quality standards, volume anddynamics of water users, health issues/risks and otherissues associated with community acceptance werealso considered.
An extensive review of existing national andinternational stormwater re-use system was carried outand lessons learned from the selected case studies withrespect to sizing, performance, operation, andintegration into the total water cycle of re-use systems.Issues regarding optimisation of their overallperformance and key factors in their successes (orfailures) were also examined.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
2
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
3
Use was made of both national and international casestudies and literature. An attempt was made to contactthe developer, operators and regulators of the existingsystems and learn from their successes and failures.Where appropriate, this also included an examinationof current practice in wastewater re-use and rainwaterharvesting, and traditional wastewater treatmenttechniques.
From the work described above, key learnings havebeen drawn for sizing, performance, operation andintegration into the total water cycle of re-use systems.However, the requirements to achieve successfulintegration of stormwater treatment and re-use are notbeing met by existing technologies at their presentlevel of development. Therefore, this review identifieskey design issues which require detailed investigationvia laboratory, modelling or field techniques.
1.3 Study Sites
The review focuses on re-use schemes along theeastern seaboard of Australia, and South Australia.Stormwater re-use schemes from New South Wales,Queensland, Victoria and South Australia wereidentified and studied. Tasmania was considered,however no operational stormwater re-use schemescould be found.
Appendix A.1 briefly summarises the stormwater re-use schemes that were studied in this review. Each ofthese sites was studied in detail by gathering as muchinformation as possible on their characteristics, design,construction, operation, maintenance, costs andbenefits, performance, and any other relevant issues.Appendix A.2 presents all the relevant details aboutthe stormwater re-use scheme at Figtree Place,Newcastle as an example1. Detailed tables ofinformation for all sites were compiled and arepresented in Appendix B.
Appendix A.3 summarises other water recyclingschemes that were identified during the course of thisreview but not studied in detail. Reasons for notstudying these sites varied:
• Not yet operational i.e. at design or constructionstage;
• Recycled roof runoff only;
• Not well documented; or
• Timely information could not be gathered.
Much of the information gathered was not found inpublished literature. Rather, we were heavily relianton communicating with the developer, operators andregulators of the systems for information. Thispresented some difficulties, although overall mostwere willing to contribute information. The majorobstacle to gathering information seemed to be a lackof documentation of the systems. Frequently, thereseemed to be a lack of knowledge about the systemand the existence of relevant reports.
1 This table was used to make the report writing process efficient. The required information was able to be quickly sourced for each section of the finalreport.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
4
5
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
2. Current Regulatory EnvironmentFramework
2.1 Introduction
In order to understand the current regulatory
environment it is necessary to appreciate that there are
considerable differences in both the quality and
quantity of different water streams. It can be seen in
Table 2.1 that the quality of urban stormwater is very
different to the quality of wastewater. Nutrient
concentrations tend to be lower in stormwater
compared with greywater and wastewater, while
stormwater concentrations of metals and suspended
solids are generally higher. Stormwater is also very
different to wastewater in terms of quantity. While
wastewater supplies are relatively constant,
stormwater is a highly inconsistent water source.
A recent review of the National Plumbing and
Drainage Code and State plumbing regulations with
respect to urban water recycling (Workman et al.,
2003) identified the following inconsistencies between
the different regulations:
• Definition of Class A quality recycled water,domestic use and rainwater;
• Treatment of sewage and rainwater, and how thetwo systems are managed;
• Non-return values where multiple sources of waterare used (backflow prevention);
• Marking of pipes containing waters of differentquality;
• Provision in new house construction or extensionsto separate water supply and sewage pipes fromwaters uses within the house at least to the outsideof the house;
• Harnessing of rainwater tank supplies to houses;and
• Provision of multiple sources of water for the sameuse and how these will be interchanged (e.g.supply of laundry from tank with mains supply asa backup) (Workman et al., 2003).
2.2 New South Wales
New South Wales has a policy specific to the re-use ofroof runoff (NEHF, 1998) and specific guidelines forurban dual reticulation systems (Table 2.2).
State government is reviewing the guidelines availablefor water re-use, however re-use of general stormrunoff is currently not covered in any State guidelines.A reason given for the lack of guidelines andregulations for stormwater re-use is that there has beenno call to address this issue until recently (K Power,pers. comm.). This is somewhat surprising given thatNew South Wales appears to have the highest numberof stormwater re-use schemes, either alreadyoperational or being planned, in Australia (perhapswith the exception of South Australia), and certainlythe most prominent example of water recycling inAustralia at the site of the 2000 Olympic Games inHomebush Bay.
The Department of Health and the NSW EnvironmentProtection Agency recommend that the National WaterQuality Management Strategy (NWQMS) Guidelinesfor Sewerage Systems: Use of Reclaimed Water beused as a guide for stormwater re-use schemes basedon the final use of the water (ARMCANZ et al., 2000),presented in Table 2.3.
2.3 Victoria
Permits or authorisations for stormwater re-useschemes are not required from the VictorianEnvironment Protection Authority (VicEPA).However, the general requirement that water re-usemust not result in pollution applies. If stormwater isbeing supplied for re-use by a person or agency theTrade Practices Act may apply. VicEPA recommends(but does not require) that their Guidelines forEnvironmental Management: Use of Reclaimed Water(2002), which are specific to treated effluent, be usedas a guide to evaluate and operate stormwater re-useschemes (Table 2.4).
In addition to water quality requirements, theguidelines inform about the statutory framework forre-use schemes, risk identification and riskassessment, obligations of the suppliers and users,
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
6
Roo
f R
unof
fR
ain
Tan
kSt
orm
wat
erU
ntre
ated
Gre
ywat
erU
ntre
ated
Was
tew
ater
Tre
ated
Was
tew
ater
Pot
able
Supp
ly
Urb
an G
arde
nW
ater
ing,
Toi
let
Flu
shin
g,C
arW
ashi
ng
The
rmot
oler
ant c
olif
orm
s,cf
u/10
0 M
L<1
–124
0-10
0–6
x10
56–
8 x
106
8 x
106
0<1
0
Vir
uses
, org
/50L
<2
Para
site
s, o
rg/5
0L<1
BO
D5,
mg/
L3–
7390
–290
100–
500
8–80
pH5.
35-5
.99
4.9-
6.1
6.7–
8.5
6.6–
8.7
6.5–
86.
9–8.
76.
5–8.
56.
5–8.
0
Tota
l dis
solv
ed s
olid
s, m
g/L
78-1
024-
168
44–2
0828
4–17
0025
0–85
052
0–49
4050
0
Susp
ende
d so
lids,
mg/
L0.
75–2
040.
4-17
813
–162
245
–330
100–
500
11–2
50<5
Tur
bidi
ty, N
TU
0.75
–6.5
12–3
420
–>20
05
<2
Cad
miu
m, m
g/L
0.1–
4<2
0.2–
46<1
00–
22
Cop
per,
mg/
L0.
002–
0.32
0.00
5–0.
560.
018–
0.39
0.00
1–0.
20.
001–
0.12
10.
2
Iron
, mg/
L<0
.01
<0.0
1-0.
12.
4–7.
30.
094–
4.37
0.3
0.03
–1.6
0.3
1.0
Lea
d, m
g/L
0.00
2–0.
32<0
.01
0.00
7–2.
04<0
.05–
0.15
0.05
0–0.
030.
010.
2
Man
gane
se, m
g/L
0.04
–0.1
10.
014-
0.07
50.
0003
0.02
–0.0
80.
10.
2
Sodi
um, m
g/L
4.4-
12.9
3.17
-16.
512
–116
29–2
3070
–300
41–1
540
180
Zin
c, m
g/L
0.02
–1.1
0.4-
5.3
0.02
6–2.
4<0
.01–
0.44
0.05
50.
0–0.
263
3
Tota
l pho
spho
rus,
mg/
L0.
034–
0.49
0.04
9–2.
140.
6–27
.34–
30
Tota
l nitr
ogen
, mg/
L0.
65–2
.84
0.3-
3.6
0.50
–12.
62.
1–31
.5 (
TK
N)
20–8
5 (T
KN
)6.
1–44
.2
Nitr
ate,
mg/
L0.
1–0.
87<0
.05-
0.05
0.1–
6.2
<0.1
5–30
0.1–
19.5
50
cfu:
col
ony
form
ing
units
NT
U: N
ephe
lom
etri
c T
urbi
dity
Uni
tsT
KN
: Tot
al K
jeld
ahl N
itrog
en
Qua
lity
Par
amet
er
Cla
ss o
f St
orm
wat
eran
d W
aste
wat
er
Tabl
e 2.
1
The
Qua
lity
of D
iffe
rent
Cla
sses
of
Urb
an S
torm
wat
er a
nd W
aste
wat
er a
nd th
e R
equi
rem
ents
of
Sele
cted
Urb
an W
ater
Dem
ands
(M
itche
ll et
al.,
200
2)
Water Quality Objectives Suitable End-uses
Tertiary Treatment
• Faecal coliforms <1/100 ML
• Coliforms <10/100 ML (in 95% of samples)
• Virus <2/50 L
• Parasites <1/50 L
• Turbidity <2 NTU
• pH 6.5-8.0
• colour <15 TCU
• <0.5 mg/L Cl2 residual
• Open access urban and residential re-use e.g.
- irrigation
- toilet flushing
- car washing and similar outdoor uses
- firefighting
- water bodies for passive recreation (not involving water contact)
- ornamental water bodies
Secondary Treatment
• BOD <20 mg/L
• NFR <30 mg/L
• Municipal landscape watering
• Construction purposes e.g. dust suppression andsewer flushing
• Aquifer recharge
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
7
Table 2.2 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses Through a Dual Reticulation System (NSW RecycledWater Coordination Committee, 1993) - Non-potable In-house Use
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
8
Table 2.3 NWQMS Guidelines for Sewerage Systems: Use of Reclaimed Water (ARMCANZ et al., 2000) for UrbanNon-Potable Re-use
Re-use Type Level ofTreatment
Water QualityCriteria
Monitoring Controls
Residential
• irrigation
• toilet flushing
• car washing
• path/wall washing
Tertiarypathogenreduction
pH 6.5-8.5
≤2 NTU
1 mg/L Cl2 residualthermotolerantcoliforms <10 cfu/100 ML
pH weekly
BOD weekly
turbidity continuous
disinfection systemsdaily
thermotolerant coliforms daily
Plumbing controls
Toilet Flushing Closed Systems1
Tertiarypathogenreduction
1 mg/L Cl2 residual or equivalent level of disinfection
disinfection systemsdaily
thermotolerant coliforms daily
Plumbing controls
For non residentialusage, Legionellacontrols and biocidedosing may berequired
Municipal withUncontrolled PublicAccess
• irrigation openspaces, parks,sportsgrounds
• dust suppression
• construction sites
• ornamentalwaterbodies
Tertiarypathogenreduction
pH 6.5-8.5
≤2 NTU
1 mg/L Cl2 residual or equivalent level of pathogen reduction
thermotolerantcoliforms <10 cfu/100 ML
pH weekly
BOD weekly
turbidity continuous
disinfection systemsdaily
thermotolerant coliforms monthly
Colour reduction maybe necessary forornamental uses
Application rateslimited to protectgroundwater quality
Salinity should beconsidered forirrigation
Municipal withControlled PublicAccess
• irrigation openspaces, parks,sportsgrounds
• dust suppression
• construction sites
• mines
Secondarypathogenreduction
thermotolerantcoliforms <1000cfu/100 ML
pH monthly
SS monthly
disinfection systemsdaily
thermotolerant coliforms monthly
Application rateslimited to protectgroundwater quality
Salinity should beconsidered forirrigation
Irrigation during timesof no public access
Withholding periodnominally 4 hours oruntil irrigated area isdry
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
9
treatment and distribution reliability, site selection andsite management practices, monitoring, reporting andauditing programs, and environment improvementplans, all of which are relevant to stormwater re-useschemes.
2.4 Queensland
Queensland Environmental Protection Agency(QEPA) takes a similar stance to Victoria with respectto stormwater recycling. In December 2003 the QEPAreleased a technical review draft of the Queensland
Guidelines for Water Recycling. These guidelines
explicitly support re-use of stormwater but do not
contain any detailed advice. Instead, proponents will
be encouraged to carry out a risk assessment and
prepare a Recycled Water Safety Plan for risk
management. Queensland EPA is proposing to
develop more detailed guidelines in the future working
with industry partners.
Table 2.4 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Use (Vic EPA, 2002)
Class Water Quality Objectives Suitable End-uses
A Indicative objectives
• <10 E.coli org/100 ML
• Turbidity <2 NTU
• <10/5 mg/L BOD/SS
• pH 6-9
• 1 mg/L Cl2 residual (or equivalentdisinfection)
• Residential e.g. irrigation, toilet flushing, third pipesystem
• Municipal with uncontrolled public access e.g.irrigation of open spaces, water for containedwetlands or ornamental ponds
• Fire protection systems
B • <100 E.coli org/100 ML
• pH 6-9
• <20/30 mg/L BOD /SS
• Municipal with controlled public access
C • <1000 E.coli org/100 ML
• pH 6-9
• <20/30 mg/L BOD /SS
• Municipal with controlled public access
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
10
2.5 South Australia
The Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management(2002), prepared by the Patawalonga CatchmentManagement Board, the Torrens CatchmentManagement Board and Planning SA, does addressstormwater re-use to a certain extent, although it doesnot outline specific water quality requirements. Ratherit maintains that water quality must be fit for purpose.The guidelines also contain more specificrequirements for particular end-uses; subject to theproposed use, origin and characteristics of thereclaimed water.
2.6 Key Learnings
Currently there are no legal requirements in Australiafor reclaimed water to be substituted for fresh water.However there is a generally agreed principle that highquality water should not be used for purposes that cantolerate a lower grade (ARMCANZ et al., 2000).
Water re-use is governed by States and Territories andregulatory stakeholders include water authorities,water retailers, local government municipalities,
environment protection authorities and healthdepartments (Workman et al., 2003). At this stagestormwater re-use does not appear to be regulated, inthat particular permits or authorisations are notrequired. In addition, there are no guidelines specificto stormwater re-use, however there does seem to be afew general rules that apply nationwide:
• re-use of stormwater must not result in pollution ofthe environment in any way;
• quality and quantity must be fit for purpose;
• it is unclear whether re-use of general storm runofffor potable purposes is permitted in urban areas (insome cases roof runoff is, reclaimed wastewater isnot); however it is envisaged that it would not beacceptable for potable re-use unless approved bythe authority.
It must be noted that, whilst the first generalrequirement appears perfectly reasonable, the analysisshould really consider the net pollutant load (and itstemporal distribution) under alternative managementscenarios, with the aim of achieving best achievableoutcome. For example, to preclude stormwater re-usein the situation where there was a small residual
Class Water Quality Criteria Suitable End-uses
A • < 10 E.coli/100 ML
• Turbidity < 2 NTU
• < 20 mg/L BOD
• Primary contact recreation
• Residential non-potable e.g. irrigation, toiletflushing, car washing, path/wall washing
• Municipal use with public access/adjoining premises
• Dust repression with unrestricted access
B • <100 E.coli org/100 ML
• < 20 mg/L BOD
• < 30 mg/L SS
• Secondary contact recreation
• Ornamental ponds with public access
• Municipal use with restricted access
• Dust suppression with restricted access
• Fire fighting
C • <1000 E.coli org/100 ML
• < 20 mg/L BOD
• < 30 mg/L SS
• Passive recreation
• Municipal use with restricted access
Table 2.5 Water Quality Criteria for Non-potable Uses (PCWMB et al., 2002)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
11
pollutant load to receiving waters, when the alternativeof not re-using stormwater would result in a largerpollutant load being discharged, seems non-sensical.
There are specific statutory obligations under health,environmental, agricultural or food legislation for re-use of wastewater (this varies from state to state). Thesuite of documents that comprise the NWQMS includeguidelines for use of reclaimed water, specific toeffluent arising from municipal wastewater plants(ARMCANZ et al., 2000), and most States either referto this for guidance on stormwater re-use or appear tohave based their own State guidelines on thisdocument. The NWQMS provides guidance forspecific reclaimed water applications in terms of typeof re-use, level of treatment, reclaimed water quality,reclaimed water monitoring, and controls. NewNational Water Recycling Guidelines are currentlybeing developed as part of the Federal Government’sNational Water Initiative and will address stormwaterrecycling but not as a first priority (G. Jackson, pers.comm.).
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
12
13
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
3. Integrated System Components
3.1 Introduction
There are a multitude of methods for stormwater re-use. In general, an integrated urban stormwater systemmust provide four core functions:
(a) collect stormwater runoff,
(b) treat runoff water,
(c) store the treated water,
(d) distribute water to the end-user.
In Figure 3.1, these functions are presented alongsidelists of possible techniques that could be utilised fortheir accomplishment. These techniques are definedas components of the integrated stormwater system.Wherever possible, each component of the systemshould perform more than one function (e.g. a largewetland could perform treatment, storage and floodcontrol, as well as provide amenity to the community).
In a similar way more than one component should be
used for each function (e.g. treatment could be
performed by a sequence of a bio-filter, wetland, fine
polishing filter, and disinfection unit).
The system should deliver water to the end-users
according to their needs, taking into account the
pattern of the supply (spatial and temporal distribution
of stormwater runoff) and flood protection
requirements. The system should be fully integrated
into the urban water cycle and the surrounding
environment (adding to the amenity value of the area),
and operated to protect urban waterways. Wherever
possible, it should use ‘natural’ processes for water
treatment and minimise utilisation of resources and
energy.
It is important to note that treatment measures are
really a ‘continuum’, and that hybrids and adaptations
of all the known treatments often occur. Treatment
trains should be based on principles of WSUD,
starting from the current practices (Wong, 2003).
Figure 3.1 The Main Functions of Integrated Stormwater Treatment and Re-use Systems(components that could be used for performing each function are listed)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
14
Stormwater can be a highly inconsistent source ofwater. Storage is essential for smoothing the temporalvariability in availability of stormwater. Therefore, the‘easiest’ or most efficient end-uses are those thatinvolve regular (e.g. daily) demand, such as toiletflushing. In general, the potential for re-use dependson end-uses that can accept stormwater as a substitutefor mains water.
The components (mainly based on WSUD principles)that are usually employed in stormwater recyclingsystems are listed below.
1. Traps
Gross pollutant traps (GPTs) range from simplescreens to structures that straddle channels. GPTsremove gross pollutants using various combinations ofscreening, stalling flow, settlement, flotation and flowseparation, and are generally most effective for mid-range rainfall events. GPTs are generally not effectivein the removal of fine or dissolved pollutants.
Sediment traps prevent coarse sediment fromdischarging to downstream treatment measures. Theyrange from simple earthen or concrete basin designs tocomplex structures using vortices and secondaryflows. Sediment traps are generally not effective in theremoval of fine or dissolved pollutants.
2. Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters
Swales are open, vegetated channels, basically a longshallow linear depression with low sloping sides and abroad width-to-depth ratio. Swales are used to reducerunoff velocity and retain coarse sediments. Theireffectiveness in the removal of fine sediments anddissolved pollutants is variable. When used forstormwater collection for re-use they should notpromote infiltration, rather they should minimiseinfiltration, conveying inflows to downstreamreceiving waters and thereby maximising the volumeof water collected for re-use.
Buffer strips are grassed surfaces that reduce velocityof flow, infiltrate water and therefore remove sedimentand associated pollutants. Grass can also remove somesoluble pollutants.
Bio-filters are vegetated buffers on top of a filtrationmedium (e.g. sandy loam, sand and/or gravel). Theymay also incorporate sub-soil drainage pipes,geotextile layer separation and biologically engineeredsoils targeted to local pollution characteristics. Bio-filters facilitate flow attenuation, sediment andpollutant removal. As above, the ex-filtration shouldbe subdued.
3. Infiltration and Filtration Systems
Porous pavement systems consist of a porous surfaceoverlaying a filter layer (a bedding material), that isplaced on top of a sub-base (usually divided bygeotextile). The porous surface can be modular(unbound individual and non-porous blocks, laid downwith gaps in between), or monolithic (asphalt orconcrete without fine aggregate - the entire surface isporous). Some porous pavement includes a modularlattice arrangement, in which infiltration media isplaced, and grass then seeded. The sub-base shouldcontain a collection pipe for drainage. As above the ex-filtration should be subdued if used for collection ofstormwater for re-use.
Sand filters are effective in removal of sediment andadsorbed pollutants. They comprise collectionchambers, part filled with sand, through whichstormwater passes. A variety of different types of filtermedium may be employed to target specific pollutants.Sand filters require periodic maintenance throughremoval of the top layer of sand where oils andsediments are retained.
Biologically engineered soils are soils containingnaturally occurring and/or bio-engineered micro-organisms that degrade toxic pollutants (e.g. PCBs,hydrocarbons, organophosphates, herbicides andpesticides), and organic materials that removenutrients as stormwater infiltrates through the soil.
Infiltration basins (trenches) are detention basins thatincorporate seepage through the floor of the basin.They provide flood protection and reduce storm flowvelocities, and can retain pollutants includingsuspended solids, oxygen-demanding materials andnutrients. They represent a combination of infiltration
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
15
and retention systems. As in the case of other
infiltration systems, ex-filtration should be suppressed.
4. Wetlands
Wetlands, whether natural or constructed, offer water
quality improvement, landscape amenity, recreational
opportunities, habitat provision and flood retention.
They may be either free water surface or subsurface
flow wetlands. Free water surface wetlands are
essentially basins or channels with a subsurface barrier
to minimise seepage, and emergent vegetation to treat
water. The role of vegetation in wetland performance
is critical, and they can be quite effective in the
removal of fine sediment and dissolved pollutants.
Subsurface flow wetlands are channels or basins that
contain gravel or sand media that supports emergent
vegetation growth. Water flows through the root zone
of the wetland plants beneath the gravel surface.
5. Stormwater Ponds
Ponds and basins (settling ponds,detention/retention ponds) are constructed ponds
utilised to intercept and treat runoff. They are largely
open water bodies of several metres depth. Treatment
is achieved by a combination of sedimentation,
biological uptake, and exposure to ultra-violet (UV)
light.
Urban lakes, dams and reservoirs are also placed in
this category. They are typically artificial and are
constructed for the storage and treatment of
stormwater. They may also contribute local amenity
benefits e.g. aesthetic appreciation, habitat provision.
Treatment is achieved, as in ponds, by a combination
of sedimentation, biological uptake, and exposure to
UV light.
6. Other
Conventional drainage systems are traditional
gutter/channel/pipe systems. They are very commonly
used for collecting and conveying stormwater runoff
into the WSUD systems listed above. A channel may
be a concrete or non-lined channel, or a main trunk
drain.
Natural drains are natural depressions in the terrain
that convey runoff. They may include small creeks and
burns.
Advanced treatment includes microfiltration, reverse
osmosis, dissolved air flotation, electrolysis, aeration
and biological treatment. In general, where advanced
treatment is utilised, a number of methods are
incorporated in the treatment train.
Disinfection methods utilised by the case study sites
include chlorine and UV light disinfection.
Conventional water tanks are simple structures used
to store water (usually rain and roof runoff).
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) involves
artificial recharge of suitable unconfined or confined
aquifers through surface spreading basins, infiltration
trenches, infiltration wells or direct injection wells.
The water is subsequently recovered for re-use. ASR
assists in reducing groundwater salinity, flood
mitigation and increasing potential for larger water
allocations from the aquifer.
3.2 Survey of the Components and End-UseTypes
A survey was carried out to determine which
components listed were used for the main functions of
the stormwater re-use systems (i.e. collection, treatment,
storage, and distribution), and how often. Similarly,
end-use types and the frequency of their occurrence
were determined. Table 3.1 presents the results of the
survey.
In this analysis other outdoor use is defined as car
washing, window washing, and use in water features,
ornamental ponds etc. Other use includes industrial re-
use, backup supply, bus washing and groundwater
recharge (without recovery).
The basic statistical analysis of the results presented in
Table 3.1 is discussed in the following five sections.
The effect of catchment size on the frequency of the
components is also discussed. Four different catchment
sizes were analysed: <5 ha (nine sites), 5-200 ha (four
sites), 200-500 ha (two sites), and >500 ha (two sites).
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
16
Bob
bin
Hea
d R
oad
Fig
tree
Pla
ce
Kog
arah
Tow
n Sq
uare
Man
ly S
TA
R
Pow
ells
Cre
ek
Tar
onga
Zoo
Bow
ies
Fla
t
Par
fitt
Squ
are
Alt
ona
Gre
en P
ark
Inke
rman
Oas
is
CSU
Thu
rgoo
na
Sola
nder
Par
k
Oak
land
s P
ark
Sant
a M
onic
a
Haw
kesb
ury
Hom
ebus
h B
ay
Par
afie
ld
Tot
al
End-Use
Irrigation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17
Firefighting 1 1 1 3
Environmental Flows 1 1 1 1 4
Other 1 1 1 1 4
Toilet Flushing 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Other Outdoor Use 1 1 1 1 1 5
Collection
Gutter 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14
Pipe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Natural Drainage 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Channel 1 1 1 1 1 5
Swales and Buffers 1 1 1 3
Infiltration Systems 1 1 1 3
Treatment
Litter and Sediment Traps 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Swales and Buffers 1 1 1 1 1 5
Wetlands 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Ponds, Basins Lakes 1 1 2
Infiltration Systems 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 10
Advanced Treatment 4 1 1 3 2 11
Disinfection 1 1 1 1 4
Storage
Tank 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Ponds, Basins and Lakes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Aquifer 1 1 1 3
Wetlands 1 1
Distribution
Irrigation System 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Pumping 1 1 1 3
Dual Reticulation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Table 3.1 Summary of Components against Functions (the number indicates how many structures have beenimplemented for each function e.g. at Manly there are two different types of infiltration systems used fortreatment)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
17
3.3 End-Use
Various end-uses for harvested stormwater wereidentified, each having particular quality and quantityrequirements, as discussed below.
Re-use for irrigation includes watering of residentialgardens, public open space, parks and sportsgrounds.Irrigation of private gardens will require water of ahigher quality than for irrigation of areas withcontrolled public access since primary contact is morelikely. A fundamental water quality consideration forall irrigation is salinity. Quantity requirements and thedistribution method employed will depend on factorssuch as scale, climate, vegetation type and provision ofa backup supply. Toilet flushing and other outdoorend-uses would require similar considerations as forresidential irrigation with respect to both quality andquantity.
The quality of stormwater re-used for firefightingwould not need to be as high as for residential non-potable use since the likelihood of primary contactoccurring is less. The most important concern forfirefighting end-uses is reliability of supply andsufficient water pressure.
Stormwater re-used for environmental flows wouldneed to be of a quality that would not cause detrimentto either the quality or the ecology of the water body towhich the stormwater is discharged. Re-use forgroundwater would require similar water qualityconsiderations. Required quantity is probably moreflexible for environmental flows than for other end-uses, in that many urban waterways are alreadystressed, especially in terms of flow and therefore anywater released to them as environmental flows is likelyto be beneficial.
The required quality and quantity of stormwater re-used in industrial processes will be largely dictated bythe particular process. A requirement common to allindustrial re-use would be water of a sufficient qualityto ensure machinery is not damaged or its lifespanshortened. Reliability of supply would be necessary tomaintain productivity unless a backup supply isincorporated into the system.
Figure 3.2 presents the frequency of a particular end-use type. It is clear that irrigation is the most commontype of end-use (44%), followed by toilet flushing(15%) and other outdoor uses (13%). Re-use for
Figure 3.2 Frequency of End-Use Types
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
18
environmental flows (10%) and other uses (10%) are
next, with re-use for firefighting least common (8%).
All these end-uses would require pathogen removal to
some extent, perhaps with the exception of
environmental flows. The level of pathogen reduction
required is determined by the degree to which public
access is controlled and thus the likelihood of primary
contact occurring.
Figure 3.3 displays the influence of catchment size on
the occurrence of the various re-use types. Although
the entire range of re-use types is largely employed
across all size classes (i.e. size does not seem to restrict
re-use types), it appears that re-use for irrigation
purposes is more present in smaller catchments than at
larger sites.
3.4 Collection
Figure 3.4 presents the frequency of application of
particular components for collection. The most
common method of collection utilised by the study
sites were conventional methods (70% of cases) i.e.
gutters, pipes and channels. Natural drainage (14%)
and elements of WSUD (14%) were not widely
utilised for collection purposes. This may be because
conventional pipes and gutters are well developed.
Further, they are hydraulically efficient and thus
deliver the maximum proportion of runoff to the
storage.
Figure 3.5 presents the distribution of components
according to their respective catchment sizes. Both
conventional drainage systems and WSUD elements
Figure 3.3 Influence of Catchment Size on the Frequency of End-Use Type
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
19
Figure 3.4 Frequency of Components Used for Collection Purposes
Figure 3.5 Influence of Catchment Size on Collection Component Frequency
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
20
were employed across all size classes. Natural
drainage tended to be utilised by systems with a
catchment area less than 200 ha.
3.5 Treatment
Figure 3.6 illustrates how frequently a particular
component was utilised for stormwater treatment,
while Figure 3.7 demonstrates the influence of
catchment size. Finally, Figure 3.8 presents the
distribution of components used for treatment
according to end-use type.
In general, all treatment methods were used to some
extent across all size classes. WSUD treatment
methods (litter and sediment traps, swales and buffers,
wetlands, ponds and basins, and infiltration systems)
were most common.
The use of wetland systems for treatment purposes was
more common among the larger scale systems. This is
not surprising given that, although wetlands are
scaleable, their maintenance costs as a percentage of
capital costs increase as size decreases. Wetlands may
therefore be a less feasible option for small sites.
Similarly, infiltration systems were more common at
smaller sites, since these systems are multifunctional
and therefore an efficient use of space.
The high occurrence of advanced methods of treatment
(20% of cases) is somewhat misleading, in that where
advanced treatment was utilised there were usually
several methods combined to form a treatment train.
For example, there are four methods of advanced
treatment in the 5-200 ha size class, however three of
these are part of the treatment train at the Santa
Monica site. Further, the relatively large proportion of
sites where advanced treatment was employed to treat
stormwater for irrigation purposes may seem
surprising, however, in such systems stormwater was
also re-used for toilet flushing. Disinfection is more
common if water is to be used for purposes where
human contact is more likely (Figure 3.8).
Figure 3.6 Frequency of Components Used for Treatment
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
21
Figure 3.8 Influence of Re-use Type on Treatment Component Frequency
Figure 3.7 Influence of Catchment Size on Treatment Component Frequency
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
22
3.6 Storage
As shown in Figure 3.9, tanks were the most widely
utilised method of storage (45% of cases). Where
ponds and basins were used for storage purposes (32%
of cases), it was mostly in the form of larger dams and
reservoirs rather than smaller ponds. The use of
wetlands and aquifers for storage was infrequent and,
in the case of aquifers, restricted to South Australia
and New South Wales. The use of aquifers for storage
is likely to be constrained to areas with soils of high
permeability and easily accessible aquifers.
The use of tanks for storage decreases as the catchment
area increases (Figure 3.10). In the same way, the use
of ponds, basins, and lakes increases with the
catchment size. However, the scale of the stormwater
re-use scheme does not appear to preclude the use ofother storage methods.
With the exception of aquifer storage, all storagemethods are used for all re-use types, as shown inFigure 3.11. However, it appears that aquifer storageis only utilised where the end-use has the lowestexposure potential to humans i.e. irrigation, otheroutdoor use, and other use. This may be because theinteraction with another water source, namely, thegroundwater increases the potential for pollutionproblems, particularly if the groundwater is polluted.
On the other hand the use of ASR for recycled water isrelatively new and adoption of this technique maybecome more widespread with both furtherdevelopment and increased awareness.
Figure 3.9 Frequency of Components Used for Storage Purposes
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
23
Figure 3.10 Influence of Catchment Size on Storage Component Frequency
Figure 3.11 Influence of Re-use Type on Storage Component Frequency
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
24
3.7 Distribution
Figure 3.12 shows that irrigation systems are the most
common method employed for stormwater distribution
(50% of cases), followed by dual reticulation (35% of
cases). The use of irrigation systems was restricted to
the smaller scale re-use schemes (<200 ha). Dual
reticulation, where potable water is piped through the
usual mains and recycled water is distributed via a
separate pipe (lilac), is a viable distribution option for
re-use schemes from the neighbourhood scale and
upwards.
At present, irrigation systems are mainly used in small
scale schemes (Figure 3.13), while the use of dual
reticulation is more common for larger catchments.
Figure 3.12 Frequency of Distribution Methods
Figure 3.13 Influence of Catchment Size on Distribution Methods
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
25
3.8 Key Learnings
Table 3.2 presents possible components of re-use
systems and the particular functions that these
components perform.
From the survey results the following can be
concluded:
• At this stage, re-use of stormwater is largelyrestricted to smaller scale sites;
• Stormwater is mainly used for purposes with lowpotential for human contact (low risks), such asirrigation;
• Collection is largely based on traditional methods,such as gutter/channel/pipe systems;
• Treatment is mainly based on WSUD techniques,however advanced techniques alongside withdisinfection are utilised if there is higher healthrisk;
• Storage methods are still conventional, with watertanks being predominant; and
• The frequency of components presented is notnecessarily a reflection of the suitability of themethod, but in some cases may simply reflect thelimited awareness (and guidance) of the range ofapplicable techniques.
Table 3.2 Identified Components of Stormwater Re-use Systems and their Functionality
ComponentFunction
Collection Treatment Storage Distribution
Gutter P
Pipe P
Channel P
Natural Drainage P
Litter and Sediment Traps P
Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters P P
Infiltration Systems P P
Wetlands P P
Ponds and Basins and Lakes P P
Advanced Treatment P
Disinfection P
Tank P
Aquifer P
Irrigation System P
Pumping P
Dual Reticulation P
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
26
27
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
4. Design
4.1 Introduction
There are few examples of stormwater re-use systemsthat rely solely on general urban runoff as a source anddeliver water for a variety of uses (e.g. systems inSingapore and Canberra, WBM Oceanics Australia,1999). One of the main reasons for this is a lack ofclear design guidance for integrated systems that couldeffectively collect, treat, store, and distributestormwater runoff for general use (Thomas et al.,1997; WBM Oceanics Australia, 1999; Burkhard etal., 2000).
Stormwater treatment and water re-use technologieshave improved significantly in recent years.Stormwater ponds, wetlands, bio-filters and swaleshave been installed at a rapid rate around Australia.They have proven to be very effective in removal ofkey stormwater pollutants, flood protection andlandscape enhancement (Argue, 1998). Designmanuals for these systems are now widely available(WEF and ASCE, 1997 in the USA, CIRIA, 2000 inthe UK, and Victoria Stormwater Committee, 1999,and Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 2003 in Australia).The Cooperative Resource Centre (CRC) forCatchment Hydrology has recently launched softwarefor conceptual design and performance evaluation ofthe WSUD systems (named MUSIC, (CRCCH,2002)), and others have developed a deterministicmodels of swale performance (e.g. Deletic, 2001).
In general, it was found that WSUD elementsincorporated in stormwater re-use systems were notdesigned differently compared with those designedexclusively for pollution control. The followingdescribes the design of components utilised for re-usethat differed from those for pollution control. Otherdetails of the designs of particular systems can befound in Appendix C. Information was readilyavailable with respect to sizes and features of thesystems but very rarely on methods used for theirdesign.
4.2 Treatment
4.2.1 Swales, Buffers and Bio-filters
From the limited information available, it may beconcluded that standard methods suggested for thedesign of swales, buffers and bio-filters for pollutioncontrol were utilised (Australian Runoff Quality,Wong, 2003). In order to collect as much water aspossible modifications may be made to limit ex-filtration from the systems. No specific mention ofsuch modifications was made in any of thedocumentation gathered on the relevant sites.However, it is understood that for the sites whereswales and bio-filters have been utilised, theunderlying soils have low permeability, hence it islikely that such modifications were not required.
Hybrids of swales and infiltration trenches are alsopossible. Infiltration trenches are briefly discussed inthe following section and more detailed informationcan be found in Appendix C.
4.2.2 Infiltration and Filtration Systems
From the evidence gathered, systems incorporatingporous pavements and infiltration basins/trenches aredesigned similarly for re-use or for stormwaterpollution control (see Appendix C.1-4). The use ofsand filters and biologically engineered soils is newand discussed in more detail below.
Sand Filters
• Bobbin Head Road – Appendix B.2
The system at Bobbin Head Road was designed to pre-treat runoff from the roadway through a sand filterprior to it entering the wetland system. The area of thefilter media bed required to treat flow ratescharacteristic of this particular catchment wasdetermined using Darcy’s law. While the sand filter isdesigned to allow for clogging (the top 50 mm layer ofsand requires periodic replacing), a trash basket andsedimentation chamber offer pre-treatment to delayclogging. Weep holes prevent stagnant water sitting inpits. In designing the filter the water quality volumewas considered rather than peak flow, since the systemwas designed primarily to treat any first flush that maybe present for the site.
Study Site
CatchmentArea (ha)
SurfaceArea(ha) SA/CA*
DetentionTime (h)
AnnualRainfall
(mm) Mac
roph
yte
Zon
e
Dee
p O
xida
tion
Pon
d
Sett
ling
Pon
d
Sub-
surf
ace
Flo
w
Aer
atio
n
Inkerman Oasis 1.223 0.04 0.033 657.3 P P
Parfitt Square 1.3 0.03 0.023 558.4 P
Bobbin Head Road 2 0.02 0.010 1068 P
CSU Thurgoona 87 715.2 P P P
Hawkesbury 415 5.5 0.013 14 807.1 P P P
Homebush Bay 760 8 0.010 921.3 P P
Parafield 1600 2 0.001 7-10 460.5 P
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
28
• Inkerman Oasis – Appendix B.8
Following treatment in the constructed wetland,
stormwater flows through a 100 m2 dosed aerobic sand
filter.
Medium to coarse sand should be used for sand filters
since fine sand tends to remobilise. The use of angular
sand granules is also successful in encouraging biofilm
growth. Other learnings relevant to sand filters
highlight the need for pre-treatment to delay clogging
of the sand bed. This may be achieved by
incorporating a litter basket and a sedimentation
chamber. Wrapping the sand filter in geotextile further
protects the pore spaces of the filter (Roman, 2003).
Biologically engineered soils
• Manly STAR – Appendix B.10 and Powells
Creek – Appendix B.14
Both the Manly STAR and Powells Creek systems
incorporate Atlantis Ecosoils® into their treatment
trains. These soils are comprised of expanded polymer
made from recycled plastics with sufficient strength to
carry normal pavement loadings, have a high cationexchange capacity and biofilm to remove bacteria.They act to degrade and remediate toxic pollutants andremove nutrients. At both sites runoff is treated priorto infiltration through the biologically engineeredsoils; through porous pavement at Manly and turf cellsat Powells Creek.
• Kogarah Town Square – Appendix B.9
Garden beds at the Kogarah Town Square containbiologically engineered soils to filter first flush generalrunoff. The stormwater is collected in a detentiontank, filtered through the biologically engineered soils,and then stored in another tank for re-use.
4.2.3 Wetlands
From the information gathered it appears that wetlandsare designed similarly, be they for re-use or forpollution control purposes. Table 4.1 summarises themain characteristics of the studied wetlands. It can beseen that they are very different in their design.Further details about the particular systems may befound in Appendix C.5.
Table 4.1 Summary of Wetland Components
*SA/CA – Surface Area / Catchment Area
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
29
Of all the wetland systems studied, only one site
(Homebush Bay) specifically incorporated storage of
treated stormwater into the design. To avoid public
safety issues, disruption to wetland processes and
unattractive edges, ponds were built for either draw
down or habitat provision/ornamental purposes.
Wetlands/ponds built for draw down are neither
visible to nor accessible by the public.
4.2.4 Ponds, Basins and Lakes
Table 4.2 summarises the main characteristics of the
ponds, basins and lakes studied. Further information
can be found in Appendix C.6.
Evaporation can be a storage issue in a period of
drought, hence the Surface Area / Volume ratio is
important in a pond designed for storage. At Oaklands
Park during times of low rainfall water is preferentially
stored in the dam with the lowest SA/Volume ratio.
It is apparent that in most situations, ponds are used for
storage only. They are not relied on to achieve the
required water quality treatment; other treatment
measures are generally used to deliver water of anacceptable quality to the pond for storage.
4.2.5 Litter and Sediment Traps
A range of GPTs and sediment traps have been utilisedby the stormwater re-use schemes surveyed. In quite afew cases, not enough detail was obtained to describetheir design; however it is supposed that in most cases“off the shelf” products would have been installed.Examples of the litter and sediment traps utilised canbe found in Appendix C.7.
GPTs and sediment traps can only ever provideprimary treatment (i.e. be the first stage in thetreatment train). They will not deliver the requiredwater quality for re-use without further treatment.
4.2.6 Advanced Treatment
The types of advanced treatment techniques(microfiltration, reverse osmosis, dissolved airflotation, electrolytic flocculation, aeration andbiological treatment) found in the stormwater re-useschemes studied were typical of those utilised bypotable water and wastewater treatment plants.
CatchmentArea (ha)
Capacity(ML)
Capacity/CA#
AnnualRainfall
(mm) Detention Treatment Storage
Bowies Flat 377 2.3 0.006 1146.6 P P P
Hawkesbury 415 175 0.422 807.1 P P P
CSU Thurgoona 87 56.5 0.649 715.2 P
Oaklands Park 174 49 0.282 547.8 P
Homebush Bay 760 490 0.645 921.3 P
Parafield 1600 100 0.062 460.5 P P
Table 4.2 Summary of Pond Functions and Capacities
#CA – Catchment Area
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
30
4.3 Storage
Figure 4.1 indicates that the selection of the storage
type for each re-use scheme is influenced to some
extent by evapotranspiration. For example, ponds and
basins are not used for storage in areas with higher
evapotranspiration. On the other hand, in areas with
the lowest evapotranspiration, ponds and basins are the
most frequently used storage method.
4.3.1 Tanks
Table 4.3 summarises the main characteristics of thestorage tanks studied. Further information can befound in Appendix C.8.
4.3.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Although the use of aquifers for water storage withsubsequent recovery is not exclusive to stormwater re-use, it is a relatively new technique and thereforewarrants some discussion. The following outlines theparticular details of each ASR system identified.
Flood CapacityCatchment Area
(ha)Capacity
(kL)Annual
Rainfall (mm) Capacity/CA*
Powells Creek 0.66 1.75 921.3 0.003
Taronga Zoo first flush 0.83 500 1219.8 0.602
Kogarah 1:3 month storm 1 511 1102.3 0.511
Inkerman Oasis first flush 1.223 45 657.3 0.037
Bobbin Head Road 1:50 yr storm 2 500 1068 0.265
Manly 3 400 1220.6 0.133
Altona Green 4 400 557.3 0.100
Santa Monica dry weather 42
Solander Park 1:20 yr storm 65 255 1102.4 0.004
* CA – Catchment Area
Table 4.3 Summary of Tank Storages
Figure 4.1 Influence of Evapotranspiration on Storage Type
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
31
• Figtree Place – Appendix B.5
At Figtree Place general runoff collects in the centraldry detention basin and then infiltrates through theunderlying sandy soil for storage in the aquifer.Geotechnical testing prior to site developmentconfirmed that groundwater at a depth of 3-4 m was ofa quality satisfactory for irrigation, however it showeddark discolouration due to the presence of iron andmanganese salts. A flownet model of the aquifer wasused to explore possible groundwater impacts. Thereis a submerged pump within the recharge basin at adepth of 10 m. Water stored in the aquifer is pumpedas required for re-use for irrigation and other outdooruses. There is a net excess recharge to the aquifer as aresult of high local rainfall. Recharged water excess tothe demands of on-site residents is extracted, treatedwith activated carbon to remove colour and distributedto the adjacent bus station for bus washing.
• Parfitt Square – Appendix B.13
At Parfitt Square four recharge wells are situated in theponding area at the end of the bio-filter. These boresare designed to inject up to 20 L/s of clean stormwaterto the Quaternary 1 saline aquifer that underlies mostof the Adelaide metropolitan area. The bore
headworks include a geotextile layer for final filtering.
The design annual recharge is approximately 1.7 ML;
the aquifer is estimated to have a storage capacity of
50,000 ML. The annual groundwater movement of the
underlying aquifer is approximately 12 m, hence the
discharge bore and pump is located 10 m downstream
of the nearest recharge bore. This allows the plug of
stormwater injected in winter to be centred around the
production bore in summer when extraction is
required. It is anticipated that the aquifer will show a
gradual reduction in salinity over time.
• Parafield – Appendix B.12
Clean stormwater, excess to the needs of local industry
is injected into the underlying saline limestone aquifer
at Parafield for recovery at times of low rainfall. There
are two wells in the well field, each around 190 m deep
and capable of injecting up to 35 L/s of water. The
design annual injection volume is approximately 650
ML. An initial buffer of 2,000 ML was incorporated as
a balancing storage to overcome yearly variations in
rainfall and hence recharge. Annually, 500 ML is
extracted from the aquifer for re-use.
Figure 4.2 Diagram of the Aquifer Storage and Recovery System at Parafield (source: CSIRO)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
32
Although used infrequently in the three Eastern states(but often present in South Australia), this method canprovide a means of cheap and reliable storage. Keyissues are availability of a natural aquifer for safestorage and groundwater quality.
4.4 Key Learnings
Current design practice of WSUD systems does notalways guarantee reliable stormwater treatment torequired quality standards, since the design approachhas focussed on protection of aquatic ecosystems,requiring less stringent design standards than requiredfor re-use. Such treatment of stormwater, whosecharacteristics vary greatly, in quite short periods, evenstretches the capabilities of the most traditionalclarification technologies used in treatment of potablewater.
Storage of treated stormwater is another key issue.Water has to be safely stored over long periods ofdrought. It appears that the ratio of the volume ofpermanent water body to available storage volume isnot clearly specified in any of the systems studied.
It can be concluded that one of the main challenges inefficient stormwater use is a paucity of technology forintegrated urban stormwater treatment and re-use.Existing practice is far ahead of research, which maypose a danger to the future adoption of such measures.Just one high profile case of public health orenvironmental failure of a re-use project (conductedwithout sound scientific backing) could underminepublic confidence in re-use nationally, costing oursociety time and money in the much needed adoptionof future water re-use technologies.
33
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
5. Construction, Operation andMaintenance
5.1 Introduction
There was limited information pertaining toconstruction, operation and maintenance proceduresand issues for the cases studies. Perhaps this is notsurprising, given the previously reported (Taylor andFletcher, 2004) lack of information on construction,operation and maintenance of WSUD. Informationthat was available is summarised in this chapter, andkey learnings drawn.
5.2 Construction
5.2.1 Current Practice
From the limited information gathered regarding theconstruction of stormwater re-use systems, it appearsthat:
• Construction must comply with the relevant Stateagency requirements that apply to all constructionsites. For example, part of the planning processfor the constructed wetlands at Bowies Flat inBrisbane involved preparation of anEnvironmental Management Plan, including theconstruction phase. In addition, specificdocuments such as Brisbane City Council’sGuidelines on Sediment Basin Design,Construction and Maintenance also applied. AtOaklands Park in Melbourne, the requirements ofVic EPA’s “Construction Techniques for SedimentPollution Control” applied.
• Construction procedures for re-use are essentiallythe same as those for WSUD construction (e.g.Wong, 2003), although these too are not yetparticularly well documented. Production oftechnical manuals (Melbourne Water, in prep) willgo some way towards addressing this lack ofinformation.
• A number of the problems encountered were theresult of poor construction practices. For example,at Figtree Place the post-construction siteinspection found that underground rain tanks had
not been cleaned following construction, water inrecharge trenches flowed to the raintanks, firstflush pits were not constructed, covers had notbeen sealed allowing entry of debris into the storedwater, and ponding in the roof and gutter systemwas occurring (Coombes et al., 2000). Water inthe raintanks was subsequently of poor quality.
5.2.2 Key Learnings
During construction of Bowies Flat officialenvironmental audits were conducted weekly. As aresult, this process could alleviate only majorproblems and it was found that, without anenvironmental auditor permanently on-site to ensurecontrols were well-maintained and implemented, therewere times when the environmental controls were notsufficient (BCC, 2003).
Diverting water around a construction site is asuccessful way to meet water quality targets. Anotheroption, relevant to sites with ponds or wetlands is tostabilise a pond early in the construction phase for useas a sediment/treatment pond.
Sediment control during construction is critical;without it, the integrity and operation of the systemsinstalled can be threatened. This is particularly thecase for infiltration systems and filters, which aresusceptible to clogging during the construction period.
Construction tolerances in integrated stormwatertreatment and re-use systems are generally finer thanin conventional systems. It is important, therefore, toensure that contractors are well-briefed, and fullyunderstand the design intent of the system.
5.3 Operation and Maintenance
It is understood that operation and maintenancemanuals were developed for most of the studied re-useschemes, at the very least for the larger scale schemesor those with more complex treatment trains.Operation and maintenance requirements for re-useschemes do not appear to differ from requirements fortypical water supply nor other types of WSUD. Forexample, regular inspection and maintenance offilters, GPTs, pumps and pipes is required, but this is
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
34
also a requirement of both conventional water supplyand WSUD schemes. The major difference would bemore stringent monitoring schedules to ensure waterquality is adequate for the intended re-use purpose.The respective monitoring programs will be discussedin Chapter 8.
The following briefly describes examples of theoperation and maintenance practices of the re-useschemes that are specific to water re-use.
5.3.1 Collection
The scheme at Inkerman Oasis combines re-use ofgreywater with first flush stormwater. Since thecapacity of the collection, treatment and storagesystem is relatively small, when rainfall is detectedgreywater is diverted to the conventional seweragesystem. Once all the collected and treated stormwaterhas been re-used into the toilets, the system reverts tocollecting greywater.
5.3.2 Treatment
Constructed wetlands and ponds are designed to below maintenance, self-sustaining systems (overrelatively long-time periods, of at least 20 years). Thetype of maintenance required for these systems is notexclusive to wetlands and ponds incorporated into re-use schemes e.g. weed control and silt removal.However it is more likely that this maintenance willactually be carried out since it determines the healthand thus the performance of the system – and it iscritical that these systems function satisfactorily toensure water quality is adequate for safe re-use (asopposed to wetlands and ponds constructedspecifically to provide environmental flows ofimproved quality – maintenance of these systems maytend to be neglected, with less direct human impacts).
The advanced treatment tank at Inkerman Oasis isduplicated to permit maintenance on each individualmembrane module. This avoids the need for thesystem to revert to the conventional system (wheregreywater goes to the sewerage system and allstormwater to the drainage system) duringmaintenance periods.
5.3.3 Storage
Storage tanks, particularly those with provision formains supply as a backup, tend to be constantly drawndown to ensure tanks regularly have the storagecapacity available to accept runoff. This is alsoimportant if the system is going to have any flow-attenuation, or flood-mitigation function.
At Oaklands Park there is provision to pump betweenthe three storage dams. This has a number of benefits;a) it enables water levels in each dam to be maintainedabove the minimum level required for water quality, b) two of the dams have larger catchments and higherimpervious areas and therefore fill faster (water fromthese dams is pumped to the third dam to allowmaximum collection), and c) in times of low rainfall(when evaporation may be an issue) water can bestored in the dam with the lowest surface area: volumeratio (and thus lowest potential evaporation).
In the case of ASR schemes, consideration of potentialgroundwater impacts is essential. For example, atParfitt Square, recharge and retrieval volumes are keptapproximately in balance to avoid adverse pressurefluctuations. Operation of the ASR scheme at FigtreePlace includes monitoring of the watertable to ensurethat neither significant drawdown nor the formation ofa groundwater mound, which could lead to structuralproblems, occurs.
5.3.4 Distribution
The initial design of the re-use scheme at SantaMonica required the injection of a background level ofchlorine within the distribution line. However, it hasbeen found that algae grows almost everywhere withinthe advanced treatment facility, particularly in thestorage tank. As a result, the City is consideringadding chlorine earlier in the treatment train to reducealgal growth.
5.3.5 Flood Protection
Most neighbourhood scale sites have provision foroverflow to traditional stormwater drainage systems ornearby waterways when their design flood capacity isexceeded. For example, at Altona Green Park, if the
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
35
storage tank is at full capacity, runoff discharges alonga swale (hence some treatment may occur) beforeoverflowing into the conventional drainage system.Wetland systems generally have bypass channels tolower the risk of flood damage to macrophyte zonesand reduce the potential for export of pollutants causedby re-suspension of sediment during high flows (wellknown from the operation of wetlands used only forpollution control).
5.3.6 Key Learnings
The larger scale schemes or those with complextreatment systems tend to be controlled centrally. Forexample, the Parafield scheme is controlled by aSystem Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)system linked to a central control scheme at the City ofSalisbury offices. The advanced treatment plant atTaronga Zoo is also controlled centrally.
There are a number of sites studied that appear to havebeen neglected since completion of construction.Further the subsequent planned stages of at least oneproject appear not to have been completed, potentiallyjeopardising the integrity of the original design intent.It appears that a lack of adequate monitoring andmaintenance is particularly a problem for the smaller-scale sites, where there are inadequate resourcesand/or expertise to undertake the requiredmaintenance. This definitely needs to be taken intoaccount when planning, designing and regulatingstormwater re-use systems.
Some sites do not have defined operation andmaintenance programs as such; rather it is a “wait andsee” situation. For example, at Kogarah Town Squareit is expected that screen filters on the pumps will needto be cleaned once a year and the storage and headertanks approximately every 5-6 years. In another case,an operation and maintenance schedule for the ManlySTAR project was meant to be developed, howeverthis seems to have been considered a low prioritysince, at this stage, it has not occurred. Currently, theextent of the operation and maintenance is regularstreet sweeping to reduce pollution, maintenance ofpumps as required and, according to manufacturerspecifications, once every 10 years the biologicallyengineered soils should be harvested and accumulated
pollutants extracted (although there is currently nodefined feedback mechanism to determine whetherthis frequency is adequate).
The operation and maintenance of a stormwater re-usesystem may be contracted out e.g. maintenance ofpumps and the ring main at Taronga Zoo is carried outby a contractor, and the maintenance of the re-usescheme at Homebush Bay is contracted to theconstruction company for 25 years. In the case ofsubdivision type developments, the body corporate isgenerally responsible for the operation andmaintenance of the re-use scheme.
The principal lesson is that clear specification of anoperation and maintenance program should beprepared during the design process. This specificationshould include clear identification of the responsibleentity, and a realistic assessment of whether that entityis capable of taking on the operation and maintenanceresponsibly. Without this, it is likely that the integrityof a number of the systems studied is at risk,potentially impacting on public health and amenity.
Operation and maintenance of stormwater re-useschemes must be controlled centrally and managedstrictly, at the authority level rather than privately.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
36
37
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
6. Implementation Issues
6.1 Introduction
Essential considerations for implementation ofstormwater re-use systems, other than costs andpricing, include ecological responses, environmentalimpacts, social consequences, technical feasibility andflexibility (Mitchell et al., 1999).
This chapter provides a discussion of implementationissues and how the re-use schemes address theseconcerns.
6.2 Integration into the Total Urban Water Cycle
The urban water cycle is typically defined by the threeurban water streams i.e. potable water, wastewater andstormwater. Traditionally the approach has been tomanage each water stream separately. However, ifintegrated systems are to be successful, they shouldbecome a part of the sustainable management of thetotal urban water cycle. The following is a discussionof how this has been addressed at a number of sites.
Two of the study sites also incorporated greywater re-use into their water recycling schemes. At CSUThurgoona, greywater is treated in intermittent-flowconstructed wetlands (separate from the stormwaterwetlands) and is then mixed with the treatedstormwater in the storage reservoirs for subsequent re-use. Greywater is also collected from about half of theunits at Inkerman Oasis. It is passed through adifferent primary treatment method before joining thestormwater for treatment in the wetlands and tertiarytank.
A number of sites collect, treat and recycle wastewaterin addition to stormwater. Reclaimed wastewater isthe primary source of recycled water at Hawkesburyand Homebush Bay. At Hawkesbury, wastewaterundergoes advanced treatment at the RichmondSewerage Treatment Plant, polishing in a differentwetland system and storage in a separate dam from thestormwater. At Homebush Bay, wastewater from
Newington, the sporting venues and showgrounds isreclaimed and passed through an advanced treatmentplant. Clean stormwater from the brickpit storage isused to supplement this supply prior to distributionaround the site. Excess treated wastewater is stored ina 7 ML buffer underground storage tank at thetreatment plant as well as in the brickpit storage. AtOaklands Park each individual lot has a wastewatertreatment system to produce water suitable forirrigation. Wastewater from animal cage hose-downsat Taronga Zoo is mixed with stormwater at the inflowto the treatment plant.
Six sites collect, treat and re-use roof runoff separatelyfrom general runoff. These sites tend to use the roofrunoff, which is generally cleaner than general runoff(particularly lower in sediment concentration), forpurposes where the risk of human contact is higher.For example, roof runoff at Figtree Place is passedthrough first flush devices, stored in five centralunderground tanks, and re-used for toilet flushing andhot water systems. Re-use of the general runoff, on theother hand, is restricted to irrigation and other outdooruses. At CSU Thurgoona, it is a similar situation, withraintanks incorporated into the walls of the buildingsstoring roof runoff for re-use for laundry, cooling andinsulation purposes. The stadiums and showgroundsat Homebush Bay collect their own roof runoff, storeit in underground tanks and re-use it to irrigate theplaying fields etc. Oaklands Park differs from all otherstudied sites in that roof runoff from individual lots iscollected, passed through first flush devices,undergoes natural sedimentation processes inindividual storage tanks and is re-used for potable andother in-house uses. Interestingly, at Oaklands Park,there is no clearly defined charge for the use ofcollected general stormwater runoff for gardenirrigation. Instead it is included in body corporatefees, potentially giving little incentive for saving waterresources.
The incorporation of additional supplies as backupduring periods of low rainfall was almost universal. Inmost cases, this was in the form of connection of themains supply to the storage. This also provides a watersupply of reliable quality should the stormwaterquality fall below accepted levels. Oaklands Park does
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
38
not have access to mains water, however it has
provisions for pumping from nearby Deep Creek to
supplement storage. This will also more than
compensate for any future loss of catchment area
(some is external to the site). In addition, there is a
minimum house size to ensure adequate collection for
potable re-use.
Other initiatives that have been adopted by various
schemes to integrate the system into the total urban
water cycle include the use of water efficient fittings
and appliances, incorporation into an integrated
environmental precinct, and the promotion of
maintenance of good water quality.
6.3 Public Safety
There are various issues to consider in terms of
ensuring public safety and a range of techniques have
been implemented to address these.
To some extent, most schemes carried out risk
assessment as part of their design process. Part of the
planning of the re-use scheme at Hawkesbury was the
development of an Environmental Management Plan
(based upon ISO 14000 processes), including a
preliminary risk assessment and an ongoing program
to develop effective risk communication andmanagement strategies.
With respect to minimising risks associated withirrigation with recycled water, various approacheswere taken. At Figtree Place irrigation occurs onlyduring night hours (thus minimising the risk of humancontact), while at Hawkesbury shelterbelts have beenplanted along the edges of pastures to prevent thepublic from coming into contact with spray drift. AtManly the mains supply is also linked to an irrigationsystem and is mixed with the treated stormwater as arisk management precaution (and to supplement thesupply in extended dry periods).
A survey of residents at Figtree Place found that 48%of the respondents use water from the hot tap forcooking. As a result, the rainwater used in hot watersystems must be compliant with drinking waterguidelines.
All re-use schemes must also provide flood protection.Most systems divert to conventional drainage systemsonce the design flood capacity of the collection systemis exceeded. There is also usually some means of flowcontrol for the treatment system. For example, atKogarah Town Square surge tanks regulate water flowin periods of high stormwater flow. Storages alsogenerally have provision for overflow.
Figure 6.1 Signs at Homebush Bay Inform the Public About the Use of Recycled Water
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
39
Other public safety issues:
• Schemes utilising ponds and wetlands as part of
their re-use system must address mosquito
management;
• The use of signage informing the public about the
use of recycled water is also widely used (Figure
6.1);
• A number of sites had contaminated soils as a
result of previous land use (e.g. Homebush Bay
and Figtree Place); this was required to be
remediated during the initial construction stages.
• Storage tanks and ASR headworks are either
underground or have restricted access to ensure
public safety. If ponds and basins are utilised for
storage purposes only, access is restricted.
However, it is generally not known what, if any,
safety precautions have been incorporated into the
design of ponds that are open to the public i.e.
barriers, maximum gradings, shelving margins.
6.4 Landscape Requirements
Landscape requirements for stormwater re-use
systems include:
• Consideration of the need for soil treatment to
prevent groundwater accessions and to aid in plant
establishment in constructed wetlands;
• Community expectations for provision of open
space for active and passive recreation;
• Other needs of the surrounding community;
• Irrigation requirements of vegetation (most sites
encourage the use of locally native plant species;
Powells Creek also incorporated specific
vegetation types with high evapotranspiration rates
into the re-use scheme);
• If the site is a major tourist destination (e.g.
Manly), it should be taken into account that
intensive developments with high transient
populations give rise to greater than normal
amounts of vehicles and litter;
• Changes in topography, and hence wind shearcontrol was a landscape issue for the Parafieldscheme;
6.5 Site Amenity
Major amenity issues that have been found at thestudied sites include:
• Interaction with major public infrastructure. Forexample, issues that needed to be resolved in thedevelopment of the Parafield re-use schemeincluded possible disruption to airport activitiesand ensuring access to the re-use system (sinceairports are secure areas). In addition, anEmergency Response Plan was developed for theproject in order to ensure effective and efficientresponses to incidents that may threaten toadversely impact the project.
• Limited space, as at Powells Creek. In these cases,the utilisation of subsurface systems can free upspace.
• Improvement of visual amenity. For example theredevelopment of Solander Park improved thevisual amenity. All elements of the re-use systemwere integrated into a total management approachand do not obstruct the aesthetics or useability ofthe park.
• A couple of re-use schemes with multifunctionalponds and lakes allowed recreation on and aroundthe water storage, however this was restricted topassive recreation (i.e. non-contact activities suchas boating).
6.6 Institutional and Other Issues
During the development phase of the re-use scheme atCSU Thurgoona, the option of potable re-use wasexplored, however, following risk consideration, theUniversity required water for human consumption,personal hygiene and some other domestic uses to beprovided by an authorised supplier (Mitchell et al.,2001).
Significant delays, caused by approval agencies, wereexperienced during the development stage of Figtree
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
40
Place. This was largely due to the lack of institutional
frameworks regarding WSUD design principles,
maintenance requirements and costs (Coombes et al.,
1998). To avoid these problems, a detailed technical
and legal assessment of the Parafield project was
undertaken to ensure that regulatory approvals were
received in time to keep to schedule.
The development of Inkerman Oasis required rezoning
of the land and Council acceptance of building heights
and unit density. This was a straightforward process
since Council was a project partner. However, the
relevant water authority would not agree to any
reduction in infrastructure charges and an alternative
means of reducing costs could not be agreed upon.
The development at Bobbin Head Road did not make
it past the design stage. While the application was
supported by Council, it could not be approved
because the State government declared that the type of
development (SEPP5) was no longer allowed in the
area. In a similar way Oaklands Park reportedly had
little support or involvement from relevant institutions.
The initial motivation for the Manly STAR project was
a call from the community in regard to removal of
stormwater pipes from the beachfront (Figure 6.2).
Relocating these outlet pipes would have been an
expensive exercise and would not have offered any
improvement in stormwater quality, hence it was
decided to implement the treatment and re-use scheme.
However, the community still wants the stormwater
pipes removed, indicating they are more concerned
with visual pollution than water quality issues. This is
supported by the strong public acceptance of
permeable pavers, despite initial hesitation by the
community, which have visual appeal as well as
reducing surface flows.
It appears that the key lesson is that all organisations
with regulatory responsibility should be brought in as
key stakeholders early on in a project’s development.
There is a need to identify a ‘champion’ for the project,
within each organisation, to “smooth its path” through
regulatory requirements. Until regulations have
‘caught up’ with stormwater re-use, this type of case-
by-case facilitation approach will be needed.
Figure 6.2 (a) Stormwater Outlet Pipe at Ocean Beach in Manly and (b) Pollution Warning Sign
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
41
Other issues included:
• Minimisation of avifauna at the two sites that areon or near airports (Hawkesbury and Parafield) toreduce the risk of bird strike; and
• Indigenous heritage issues e.g. at Parafield
6.7 Key Learnings
Many learnings and recommendations with respect toimplementation issues have arisen from thedevelopment and operation of the stormwater re-useschemes surveyed.
One of the most frequently encountered issues werelengthy and resource intensive negotiation, assessmentand approval processes. This is largely due to a lackof pertinent experience and policies on the part of thewater industry and relevant authorities. In manyinstances, regulatory and legal reforms were tested.The overwhelming recommendation with respect togaining project approval is to involve the relevantapproval agencies at an early stage.
A key learning identified by the Kogarah Council isthat, while it is worthwhile incorporating both wasteand stormwater recycling initiatives in planningcontrols and especially public projects, it is essentialthat the objectives are clearly identified and that thereis flexibility with respect to the outcome. Further, thestandard of design documentation for innovative
practices must be above average (Coombes et al.,1998). Evaluation of the whole process (from designall the way through) is also essential.
Many of the re-use schemes were the result of apartnership approach, often between the various levelsof government and a private developer. This wasfound to be successful, since it enabled all parties’skills, roles and experience to be combined. Involvingother parties, such the design team and researchers, inthe partnership was also found to be beneficial. It iscrucial that all stakeholders are kept informed.
Kogarah Council found that some developers can seethe long term benefit of learning how to apply anddemonstrate best practice design as part of a long-termbusiness strategy to be seen as “green”. Further, thetenderers and the design teams all responded well tothe environmental objectives of this project. Coombesalso advocated involving a constructing contractorwho is supportive of the project innovations early inthe development stage (Coombes et al., 1998).
Communicating the innovations to the buyers andwider community is important. Two examples ofcommunication to the general public are shown inFigure 6.3. Kogarah Council reflected that consultingwith the community early in the development stagewould have reduced costs and greatly reducedtimeframes associated with the implementation of theKogarah Town Square water re-use project. Some
Figure 6.3 Information Boards (at Manly Beach and Solander Park) are Effective Ways to Communicate WaterRecycling Innovations to the General Public
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
42
schemes have also incorporated artwork into thefacility (Figure 6.4). Many re-use schemes have foundthat community consultation and interpretive artworkhas resulted in interest and ownership of the scheme byboth the local and wider community.
Other learnings to have arisen from theimplementation of the re-use schemes studied include:
• There is significant public acceptance of domesticuse of rainwater;
• Stormwater re-use systems should be developedwithin a broader landscape management plan andlandscape architects should be part of the designprocess;
• Government grants assist with project costs,however managing grants takes a lot of time andongoing effort (for which funding is often notavailable); and
• Reliable provisions and monitoring plans arefundamental elements of re-use projects,particularly given the experimental nature of themat this stage (Coombes et al., 1998).
Figure 6.4 Art Work at Solander Park (source: (SSCC, 2002))
43
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
7. Costs and Benefits
7.1 Introduction
One of the main attributes of every stormwater re-use
scheme is their multiple objectives. Stormwater re-use
reduces demand for traditional potable water supply
while diminishing environmental problems caused by
elevated and polluted stormwater runoff arising from
urbanization. However, it can be very costly.
Assessing the costs and benefits of any water recycling
project is a complex process. The traditional
cost/benefit approach uses the discounted cash flow
method to compare the cost of a development against
the benefits realised (Wong, 2003). However, this
method is inadequate since water re-use schemes also
offer non-monetary social and environmental benefits
and disadvantages. Methods for objectively and
consistently assessing these are not yet well
developed.
The following sections describe the types of costs
associated with implementing a stormwater re-use
scheme, the potential benefits that may be achieved
and new key learnings.
7.2 Costs
Costs involved in developing a stormwater re-use
system are:
• Capital costs: the cost of design, approval, and
construction (often called total acquisition costs);
• Operating costs: including maintenance and
energy requirements;
• Actual total cost is the sum of capital and operating
costs;
• A user price may apply where recycled stormwater
is provided by a central agency; this may be higher
or lower than the actual cost.
7.3 Benefits
The potential benefits of stormwater re-use schemes
are:
• Provision of water supply (a potable water
substitute) where water resources are constrained
or non-existent;
• Reduced demand for potable water (particularly
peak flows), which offers savings through the
reduced need to develop other water resources
(and therefore helps in their conservation) or
expand water supply infrastructure (therefore
delay or remove the need for enhanced water
supply reticulation and stormwater drainage
infrastructure);
• Reduction in volume and peak of stormwater
flows, protecting downstream waterways, and
reducing the need for downstream stormwater
infrastructure;
• Reduction in stormwater pollution, which may
lead to protection/enhancement of downstream
waterways as well as savings resulting from the
reduced need for downstream pollution mitigation
measures;
• Multi-functionality of waterways for recreation,
environmental enhancement and stormwater
storage and recycling purposes, which generally
manifests itself in greater property values.
7.4 Collected Data
Table 7.1 summarises the known costs and qualitativebenefits of each re-use scheme studied.
In interpreting these costs, some important issues must
be taken into account:
• It can be seen that only limited information about
operating costs and user prices was available. This
is not due to reluctance on the part of the
developers/operators to divulge this information.
Rather it seems that, in most cases at least, these
costs have not been formally considered as part of
the project design process. Future projects should
have a disciplined costing analysis undertaken.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
44
• Public grants have been used to help the
implementation of many of the systems, which
reduced the user price e.g. approximately 60% of
the costs for WSUD elements at Inkerman Oasis
were funded by a Commonwealth Urban
Stormwater Initiative grant.
In interpreting the qualitative benefits, there are also a
number of important considerations:
• Where it was deemed appropriate, benefits have
been assessed relative to other schemes and rated
accordingly e.g. for reduced demand of potablesupply, the schemes that provide the largestrelative reduction have been given three ticks,while those that offer the smallest relativereductions in demand have one tick.
• Categories have only been ticked ifreports/conversations have specifically stated thatthis is a benefit. For example, even though onlythree schemes have listed habitat provision as abenefit, this may very well be an incidental benefitof other schemes.
Year
Costs Benefits
Cap
ital
Cos
t ($
)‘00
0s
Ope
rati
ng (
c/kL
)
Use
rP
rice
(c/
kL)
Red
uced
Dem
and
for
Pot
able
Sup
ply
Red
uced
Dis
char
ge t
oW
ater
way
s/oc
ean
Red
uced
Dis
char
ge t
oSe
wag
e Sy
stem
Del
ays
need
for
Dra
inag
eIn
fras
truc
ture
Upg
rade
Pol
luti
on C
ontr
ol
Env
iron
men
tal F
low
of
Impr
oved
Qua
lity
Aba
tem
ent
of F
orm
erF
lood
ing
Pro
blem
Ntu
rien
t R
ecyc
ling
Hab
itat
Pro
visi
on
Oth
er3
Altona Green 2003 250 n/a P P P P
Bowies Flat 2002 24001 n/a P P P P P P
CSU Thurgoona 1999 n/a PP PPP PPP P P P P
Figtree Place 1998 109.9 PPP PP P P
Hawkesbury 2003 39002 PPP PPP PP P P P P
Homebush Bay 2000 158002 180 77.5 PPP PPP PP P P P P
Inkerman Oasis 2003 4342 PPP P P P P P
Kogarah 2003 629 PP P P P
Manly STAR 2001 1300 n/a P P P
Oaklands Park 1997 73 PPP PPP PPP P
Parafield 2003 4500 30 PPP P PP P P P P P
Parfitt Square 1997 n/a P PP P P P
Powells Creek 1998 400 n/a P P P P P
Santa Monica 2001 16600 212 PP n/a P
Solander Park 2001 615 n/a P PP P P P
Taronga Zoo 1996 22002 n/a PP PP P P
Table 7.1 Summary of Costs and Benefits Associated with Surveyed Stormwater Re-use Schemes
1 Capital cost of total redevelopment i.e. not just re-use component2 Includes capital costs for both stormwater and wastewater recycling 3 Other benefits: CSU Thurgoona – part of the campus is unsewered; Parafield – provides local job opportunities and economic stability (cost of potable waterin South Australia high enough that industry was considering relocation); Parfitt Square – aquifer recharge
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
45
It can be seen in Figure 7.1 that capital cost is only
partly determined by the size of the catchment (and
therefore usually the system size). Other factors that
influence capital cost would include treatment method
(type and complexity), storage type, and physical
characteristics of the land (e.g. slope, which would
have a large influence on the type of collection and
distribution methods selected). Capital cost may also
be influenced by the degree of external benefits (e.g.
public amenity facilities) which are integrated into thesystems.
Table 7.2 lists selected quantitative benefits ofstormwater re-use schemes as reported. Note thatalthough pollution control was a specifically statedbenefit of all re-use systems (Table 7.1) it wasquantified in only two instances. This furtherhighlights the need for data collection to be undertakenas part of stormwater re-use projects.
Reduced PotableDemand
Pollution Control Reduced Runoff Volume
Figtree Place 40-45% 83% of runoff up to 1:50 year ARIstorm event
Hawkesbury 28% 50% of annual runoff (400 ML)
Homebush Bay 50% all runoff up to 1:100 year ARI stormevent (with some release asenvironmental flows)
Inkerman Oasis 30% ~14 tonnes P and Nremoved year1
first flush (until wetland is full)
Kogarah 17% 6375 kL year
Oaklands Park 6.9 ML year 75 ML year
Parafield 1500 ML year removes 90% of nutrientand pollutant loads
all runoff up to 1:10 year ARI stormevent
Figure 7.1 Relationship Between Catchment Area and Capital Cost
Table 7.2 Quantified Benefits Associated with Selected Stormwater Re-use Schemes
1 Figure is for pollution removal from greywater and stormwater combined
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
46
Due to lack of available data, a simple analysis wasundertaken to demonstrate the costs and benefits of thestudied systems. Table 7.3 demonstrates two possiblebenefits of selected stormwater re-use schemes;reduced potable water demand and pollution control.All capital costs are taken as reported. Mean annualrunoff is calculated from annual rainfall and estimatedrunoff coefficient. The percentage of collected andused runoff was either taken as reported or estimatedfrom the qualitative data available. Potable watersavings are then simply estimated as the volume of there-use water multiplied by the cost of potable waterproduction, as supplied by Melbourne Water (0.3 $/kL).
The benefits of the pollution control were assessed asthe ‘equivalent cost’ of nitrogen removal only (basedon data provided by Melbourne Water). This was donebecause the resultant benefits, such as environmentalprotection and nutrient recycling, cannot be reliablycosted, particularly given the different (and unknown)conditions at each site, and their downstream
environments. The mass of nitrogen removed from
stormwater is assessed as the volume of re-used
stormwater (that is never to reach streams in its state)
multiplied by the concentration of total nitrogen (TN)
in stormwater. The calculation is done for lower (TN =
0.7 mg/L) and upper (TN= 6 mg/L) wet weather
concentrations (Fletcher et al., 2003). Finally, the total
cost of nitrogen removal was calculated using the
estimated cost of $787 per kg of TN removal (as
supplied by Melbourne Water). The costings provided
indicate an equivalent cost which would be required to
remove this level of nitrogen, using typical stormwater
treatment wetlands.
It must be noted that this demonstration is most likely
an underestimate of potential benefits because it
estimates only the benefits of the portion of
stormwater collected for re-use only. For example, the
WSUD elements incorporated into the systems offer
additional treatment of non-collected stormwater, but
inadequate data were available to estimate these.
Capital Cost ($)1
MeanAnnualRunoff(ML)
%Collected
Volumeof
RunoffCollected
(ML)
PotableWater
Savings ($)
Pollution Control
Quantity TNRemoved
(kg)3 Cost Range ($)
Inkerman Oasis 434,000 7.6 202 1.52 456 1.1 - 9.1 837 - 7,200
Figtree Place 109,900 6.3 831 5.2 1,569 3.7 - 31 2,900 - 24,700
Kogarah 629,000 9.4 851 8.0 2,397 5.6 - 48 4,400 - 37,700
Oaklands Park 73,000 75 1002 75 22,500 53 - 450 41,300 - 354,200
Hawkesbury 3,900,000 8001 501 400 120,000 280 - 2,400 220,400 - 1,888,900
Homebush Bay 15,800,000 1,179 1002 1,179 353,700 825 - 7,074 649,500 - 5,567,200
Parafield 4,500,000 2,210 1002 2,210 663,120 1,547 - 13,262 1,217,700 - 10,437,500
Table 7.3 Demonstrated Benefits of Selected Stormwater Re-use Schemes. Note: cost of potable water production = 0.3 $/kL(Melbourne Water), lower wet weather TN conc = 0.7 mg/L and upper wet weather TN conc = 6 mg/L(Fletcher et al., 2003), cost of nitrogen removal = $787/kg (Melbourne Water)
1 As reported2 Conservative estimates based on qualitative data3 Quantity removed = concentration x volume collected
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
47
7.5 Key Learnings
While it has been accepted for a number of years that,to correctly assess the worth of a water servicingoption, the cost of implementing a re-use scheme mustbe compared to the true costs of current supply anddisposal practices, little progress has been made indeveloping such means of comparison. Thedifficulties in defining boundaries of potential benefits(externalities) appear to have discouraged attempts tofully quantify costs and benefits of stormwater re-useschemes. The lack of attention to this area isconcerning, given the (often) high levels of publicfunding which has gone into these systems.
An extensive study was conducted at the aluminiumsmelter at Portland, Victoria, to develop a strategy forretrofitting the plant with improved water managementpractices. The smelter uses more than 500 ML ofmains water annually. This water is supplied by thelocal council, which is under pressure to expand itssupply system to meet the demand of a growingcommunity. The study found that conservation-oriented water management practices have thepotential to reduce present mains water use at the plantby 80%. In addition, significant pollution control andsubsequent environmental protection was likely to beachieved since the plant collected and dischargedstormwater (with process effluents) to sea using aconventional drainage system. As a result of thestudy’s recommendations, steps to improve processefficiencies through increased maintenance (e.g.finding and repairing leakages etc.) wereimplemented. However, although it was planned tointroduce stormwater collection to supplement mainswater used in industrial processes, management couldnot be convinced of the need for what would be anexpensive capital outlay, particularly since the price ofmains water is so inexpensive.
The developers of Inkerman Oasis identified the lackof developer front-end incentives as the most difficultissue associated with water recycling. The high capitalcost for WSUD practices is unable to be recompensedat any time in the project since market demand forWSUD is not compensated by the prices units can sell for.
The lack of attention to collecting lifecycle cost dataon most of these projects is also of concern; the lack ofdata reduces the ability to develop reliable predictionsof costs for systems being proposed.
Other key learnings:
• The developers of the Santa Monica recyclingfacility considered that the additional costs ofincorporating art into public works was minisculecompared to the long term public educationalbenefits and the public acceptance of a treatmentfacility near a major tourist attraction.
• Some buyer reluctance at Oaklands Park wasinitially experienced due to concerns abouteconomic viability, however persistence on thepart of the developer paid off as all lots have beensold and many developed.
• Of all the re-use schemes surveyed, the FigtreePlace development has had the most extensivecost/benefits analysis conducted. Coombes et al.,(2000) suggested an alternative way to adequatelycompare re-use schemes with conventional watersupply and disposal practices without having toaddress the difficulties of costing in social andenvironmental benefits. A novel approach withwell structured methodology should be developedto resolve these issues (that is based on soundscience, such as Australian Standard for LifecycleCost analysis, Australian Standards, 1999). TheCRC for Catchment Hydrology is currentlyundertaking a project to this end, with resultsexpected towards the end of 2004.
The main key learning is that there is inadequatedevelopment of methodology to objectively assess thecosts and benefits of water re-use systems, and thislack will hold back both their assessment, and theirimplementation.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
48
49
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
8. Performance
8.1 Introduction
Performance results are somewhat limited at this stage,partly since most of the stormwater re-use schemesstudied are still very new and thus there is not a lot offeedback available. In general though, developers,operators and regulators appear to be satisfied with there-use schemes’ initial performances, and the publicresponse has been positive.
The following sections describe the monitoringprograms and performance of the various stormwaterre-use schemes.
8.2 Monitoring
Tables 8.1 and 8.2 summarise the monitoringschedules developed for various stormwater re-useschemes for which we were able to gather information.This table contains details for only half of the studiedsites. Water quality is not currently being monitored aspart of the stormwater re-use scheme at Kogarah TownSquare. It is planned to monitor water quality to someextent, but this is not considered critical because theend-use type is non-contact (P. Smith, pers. comm.).At Bowies Flat, ambient and post-storm event waterquality monitoring occurs, however this is part of themonitoring program to evaluate the water qualityimprovement efficiency of the wetlands and is notspecific to re-use. It is understood that long term waterquality monitoring is taking place at Parfitt Square,however no further details could be obtained. Nodetails about the monitoring programs for CSUThurgoona and Oaklands Park were gathered, howeverit is understood that they do exist.
From Tables 8.1 and 8.2 it is clear that the larger thescale of the scheme, the higher the public profile, orthe more personal the re-use type, the more extensivethe monitoring program is. Conversely, the simplerthe scheme and the less personal the re-use type, thesmaller the monitoring schedule is.
It must be noted that in almost all cases the NWQMSand relevant State guidelines for water recycling
comprehensively outline monitoring parameters andsuggested monitoring frequencies. The fact that thesesuggestions are not always incorporated into the re-useschemes further highlights the need for regulations(rather than guidelines) specifically targetingstormwater re-use.
8.3 Assessment of Performance
Performance was generally assessed against whetherthe system met its overall objectives, whether relevantwater quality guidelines were achieved and whetherthe system adequately supplied demand.Unfortunately, only limited data, mostly qualitativeassessment, were available (as noted earlier, it wasdifficult to obtain information regarding performanceachievements).
Table 8.3 summarises, where possible, how eachscheme is meeting its performance objectives; a tickmeans that the systems met that particular objective. Ifa particular criterion is not ticked, it may not be that ithasn’t been achieved, rather it may not have been aspecific performance goal. Further, it also may be dueto lack of a monitoring program that allowed it to beassessed.
The data were gathered for 13 schemes (Table 8.3).Performance of the re-use scheme at Altona Greencannot be assessed yet; the system has been brieflyoperational but is currently not due to problems withpumps. The system at Bowies Flat is also difficult toassess given that it is not specifically designed for re-use and monitoring is aimed at assessing how thewetland system treats water for flows of improvedquality and addresses flood abatement; it does notexplicitly target quality of water for re-use.
The scheme at Figtree Place has been successful withrespect to both water quality and quantity. There hasbeen no overflow to the conventional system in thefirst two years of operation, infiltration rates in the drydetention basin have been more than adequate to dealwith general runoff and, overall, water qualitycomplies with Australian Drinking Water Guidelines(although some parameters were found to occasionallyexceed recommended levels).
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
Table 8.1 Summary of Water Quality Monitoring Programs for Stormwater Re-use Systems
Parameters
Alt
ona
Gre
en
Bow
ies
Fla
t
Fig
tree
Pla
ce
Haw
kesb
ury
Hom
ebus
h B
ay
Inke
rman
Oas
is
Man
ly S
TA
R
Par
afie
ld
Pow
ells
Cre
ek
Sant
a M
onic
a
Sola
nder
Par
k
Tar
onga
Zoo
ComponentsMonitored
storage P P P P P P Ptreatment P P P P Phot water service Ppotable supply Prunoff/inlet P P P P P Psoil P P Pother1 P P
Water QualityParameters
quality2 P P P PTSS P P P P P P PTS P PVSS Pturbidity P P PTN P P P P PNOx P PNH4+ PTP P P P P P PFRP PpH P P P P P P PDO PEC P P Ptemp P P PBOD P P Psalinity/TDS P P Pchlorides Pcolour Pbacteria P P P P P Pviruses Pchlorophyll a Pchlorine residual Pheavy metals P P P P Ptoxicants P Pother3 P P P
SamplingMethod
in situ sensors P Pautosampler P Pmanually P P P
MonitoringFrequency
continuous P P6 hourly Pweekly Pmonthly P P Pduring/after events P P P Phalf yearly P Pyearly P
1 Homebush Bay: 20 monitoring points throughout system plus all other significant ponds and wetlands; Taronga Zoo:overflow from the treatment plant’s inlet detention tank
2 Know water quality monitoring occurs but don’t know specific parameters3 Hawkesbury: Na, K, Mg, Ca, Cl, SO4-, HCO3, CO3; Santa Monica: oil and grease; Taronga Zoo: oil and grease50
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
51
Parameters
Alt
ona
Gre
en
Bow
ies
Fla
t
Fig
tree
Pla
ce
Haw
kesb
ury
Hom
ebus
h B
ay
Inke
rman
Oas
is
Man
ly S
TA
R
Par
afie
ld
Sola
nder
Par
k
Tar
onga
Zoo
ComponentsMonitored
quantity1 P P
storage (volume) P P P P
water use P P P
recharge basin P
infiltration rates P P
inflow/runoff quantity P P P
watertable P P
outflow P
SamplingMethod
in situ sensors P P P
meter P P
MonitoringFrequency
6 hourly P
weekly P
monthly P
during/after events P
Other maintenance P
economic viability P
social acceptance P
ecological studies P P
groundwater P
other P
1 Know water quantity is monitored but don’t know specific components
Table 8.2 Summary of Water Quantity and Other Monitoring Programs for Stormwater Re-use Systems
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
52
Against Objectives Quality Quantity
Dec
reas
e P
otab
le W
ater
Usa
ge
Pro
tect
ion
of D
owns
trea
mW
ater
way
s (p
ollu
tion
)
Dec
reas
e F
requ
ency
and
Seve
rity
of
Dis
char
ges
Red
uce
Sew
age
Dis
char
ge
Dem
onst
rate
Via
ble
Stor
mw
ater
Re-
use
Show
case
Bes
t W
ater
Man
agem
ent
Pra
ctic
es
Oth
er1
Pol
luta
nt R
emov
al
Com
plie
s w
ith
Rel
evan
tSt
anda
rds
Gro
undw
ater
Qua
lity
Mai
ntai
ned/
Impr
oved
Ade
quat
e St
orag
eC
apac
ity/
Supp
ly
Figtree Place 65% P P P
Hawkesbury P P P P P P
Homebush Bay 50% P >90% P P P P P
Inkerman Oasis 30% P P P P P
Kogarah 17% P P P
Manly STAR P P P P P P
Oaklands Park P P P
Parafield P P P P P 90% P P P
Parfitt Square P P P P P P
Powells Creek P P P 90%
Santa Monica 4% P P P
Solander Park P P P P >90%
Taronga Zoo P P P P P
Table 8.3 Summary of Performance
1 Other objectives: • develop community awareness (Hawkesbury, Kogarah, Santa Monica, Solander Park), • provide recreational areas (Hawkesbury, Powells Creek), • ensure compliance with environmental undertakings committed to as part of bid for Olympic Games (Homebush Bay), • secure regional economic development (Parafield), • aquifer replenishment (Parfitt Square), and• provide wildlife habitat (Powells Creek).
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
53
At Homebush Bay approximately 40 tonnes of litterwas removed from Haslams Creek in 2000 by floatingbooms and physical cleaning of banks, and there hasbeen no need to revert to the backup supply in the firstthree years of operation.
The Manly STAR project collects 70% of surfacerunoff and, as yet, the storage tank has not beenemptied, although monitoring has not confirmedwhether the tank has overflowed.
At Oaklands Park, backup pumping from Deep Creekhas only been made use of once, to fill the storagedams during the establishment period.
Timely information about performance of the re-usescheme at CSU Thurgoona was not able to beobtained. However, from the information that wasgathered, it appears that all is going well.
8.4 Key Learnings
Experience gained from the Figtree Place developmentrevealed opportunities for improved design in the formof reduced plumbing, elimination of backflow
prevention devices, exclusion of redundant elementsand more efficient construction practices (Coombes etal., 2000). Some of these options are currently beinginvestigated at an existing housing allotment in asuburb of Newcastle, although re-use at this site islimited to roof runoff.
Although the quality of water for re-use at HomebushBay is compliant with guidelines, high nutrient levelsare present in the brickpit storage and there is visiblealgal growth. Options for nutrient removal from thisstorage are currently being investigated.
A key learning resulting from the Inkerman Oasisdevelopment is, since stormwater is of a higher qualitythan greywater, it is intended to keep these two streamsseparate and use stormwater for hot water supply infuture developments.
A second component of the Manly STAR projectinvolved the installation of Rocla Ecoloc® permeablepavers in Smith St North (Figure 8.1). Thiscomponent of the project aimed to treat and infiltraterunoff from the street surface to the underlying soil; itdid not involve direct re-use. This infiltration
Figure 8.1 Interlocking Pavers Installed in Smith St North Create a Permeable Surfaceto Treat and Infiltrate Runoff from the Street Surface
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
54
component has been deemed more successful than there-use component. The problem with the re-usecomponent is that it concentrates pollutants to onepoint before passing through the treatment system,resulting in decreased treatable flow rates andincreased maintenance requirements (P. Smith, pers.comm.). The infiltration component using permeablepavers in Smith St North is regarded as more efficientbecause it infiltrates water where it lands.
At Oaklands Park the water supply has been more thanadequate for non-potable requirements to date; noresidents have used their full 150 kL annual allocation.It will be interesting to see whether the water supplycontinues to be adequate in the future when allallotments have been developed. Finally, GH Michelland Sons Australia, the primary users of thestormwater collected by the Parafield scheme, are verypleased with the quality of the water (250 mg/Lsalinity (TDS) recycled stormwater is considerablyless than the salinity of water from the Murray River(>400 mg/L)).
55
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
9. Critique of Current Practices -Knowledge Gaps and ResearchNeeds
Although some progress has been made in the field ofstormwater re-use, there are many knowledge gapsthat need to be filled before it can be efficiently andsafely integrated into the urban water cycle on awidespread scale.
At present, the largest obstacles to implementingstormwater re-use are:
• lack of regulation and design criteria;
• lack of clear design guidelines; and
• lack of a method to adequately assess costs andbenefits of re-use systems against conventionalpractices.
Knowledge gaps and research needs may be arrangedinto four main categories: regulation, design, costs andbenefits, and other. Issues related to performance,construction, operation, maintenance, implementation,etc. are directly related to the existing problems in thefour listed categories. The four main categories arethemselves also highly interrelated. For example,without clear design criteria re-use systems cannotefficiently perform. Further, without knowledge ofperformance, benefits cannot be quantified.
9.1 Regulation
9.1.1 Knowledge Gaps
Stormwater recycling is not effectively regulated atthis stage. There are only a few general guidingprinciples that apply:
• re-use of stormwater must not result in pollution ofthe environment in any way;
• the quality and quantity of the treated stormwatermust be fit for the intended purpose;
• it is unclear whether re-use of general storm runofffor potable purposes is permitted (in some casesroof runoff is, reclaimed wastewater is not);
however it is envisaged that it would not be
acceptable for potable re-use unless approved by
the relevant authorities, most likely on a case-by-
case basis.
There are specific, State government level statutory
obligations under health, environment, agricultural,
and food legislation for re-use of wastewater, and it is
generally recommended that these be referred to as
guides to evaluate and operate stormwater re-use
schemes. However, the characteristics of stormwater
and wastewater are very different, therefore these
guidelines are only adequate to a certain extent.
New National Water Recycling Guidelines are
currently being developed as part of the federal
government’s National Water Initiative and will
address stormwater recycling but not as a first priority
(G. Jackson, pers. comm.).
9.1.2 Research Needs
Given the potential for stormwater re-use in Australia,
higher priority should be given to development of
specific guidelines to facilitate appropriate
implementation and to allow re-use systems to be
designed effectively. If stormwater re-use can be
implemented via a well defined, step-by-step process
which is backed by research (rather than the lengthy,
complicated procedures currently experienced) it
follows that developers will be more inclined to
incorporate stormwater re-use schemes.
9.2 Design
9.2.1 Knowledge Gaps
Re-use of stormwater is currently largely restricted to
smaller scale sites. This is not surprising, given that
stormwater re-use is still very much at an experimental
stage and system complexity increases with size,
particularly with respect to collection and distribution
methods. Further, stormwater is primarily used for
purposes with the lowest risk of human contact (e.g.
irrigation) suggesting a lack of confidence in treatment
and storage reliability.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
56
While collection and storage are still based onconventional methods, treatment is mainly based oncurrent stormwater treatment techniques. Currentdesign practice for stormwater treatment systems doesnot always guarantee reliable stormwater treatment torequired quality standards, since the design approachfocusses on the protection of aquatic ecosystems,which requires less stringent design standards thanrequired for re-use. There doesn’t seem to be anydifference in design of techniques for re-use comparedwith for pollution control. This may pose a weakness,in that consistently producing treated stormwater of aquality suitable for re-use may not adequatelyaddressed by such designs.
Designing a stormwater storage for safe and efficientre-use is also a challenge (spatial and temporalvariability of runoff is one of the main challenges insound stormwater re-use). The optimal andeconomical type and size of the store is unclear,particularly for open surface stores (e.g. ponds/urbanlakes). It is well known that water quality in such asystem will be affected by its size, detention time, andlevel variations. Safety and aesthetics will also behighly influenced by the design of its banks andmaximum level variations. However, there is littleevidence of how these factors are taken into account atpresent.
When treating stormwater, is it best to direct runoff toone point or treat it where it lands? While directingrunoff to one point for treatment concentratespollutants and therefore increases efficiency, it alsodecreases treatable flow rates and increasesmaintenance requirements.
It can be concluded that one of the main challenges inefficient stormwater use is a paucity of technology, andguidance in their design, for integrated urbanstormwater treatment and re-use. Existing stormwaterre-use practice is far ahead of research, in that there areno technologies designed specifically for stormwaterre-use, rather technologies designed for pollutioncontrol are frequently utilised. Such technologies arenot necessarily applicable to stormwater re-use andmay pose a danger to the future adoption ofstormwater re-use measures.
9.2.2 Research Needs
There is a clear need for the development of innovativetechniques for the collection, treatment and storage ofstormwater. Until this knowledge gap is addressedstormwater re-use will most likely be limited tosmaller scale, less complex systems. Design standardsfor stormwater treatment for the purposes of re-use,based on targeted research, are also needed. Thedesign standards should be published as part of an“Integrated Stormwater Treatment and Re-use DesignManual”.
Performance modelling for design evaluation purposesalso needs further research, to adapt it to therequirements of integrated stormwater treatment andre-use. Reliable models should be developed that arecapable of predicting the treatment efficacy of newtechnologies, or water quality changes in storages.Existing models, such as MUSIC (CRCCH, 2002),Aquacycle (Mitchell, 2000), or PURRS (Mitchell,2000), could be used as a starting point for theirdevelopment. Designing efficient systems would thenbe more readily accessible to the industry.
9.3 Costs and Benefits
9.3.1 Knowledge Gaps
The lack of developer front-end incentives is a difficultissue associated with water recycling. A key learningfrom the Inkerman Oasis project is that the high capitalcost for WSUD practices is unable to be recompensedat any time in the project since market demand forWSUD is not compensated by the prices developmentscan sell for. At this stage, there is inadequatedevelopment of methodology to objectively assess thecosts and benefits of re-use systems, and this will holdback both their assessment, and their implementation.
Assessment of benefits which are not easily measured,such as environmental flows, conservation and newhabitat creation, is one of the main challenges.However, the scope of this challenge (and the time itmay take to solve) means that a simple, morepragmatic approach may be required, undertaking theanalysis on readily-obtainable cost and benefit data.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
57
9.3.2 Research Needs
It has been accepted that, to correctly assess the worthof a water servicing option, the cost of implementing are-use scheme must be compared to the true costs ofcurrent supply and disposal practices. However, littleprogress has been made in developing such means ofcomparison. The difficulties in defining boundaries ofpotential benefits (externalities) appear to havediscouraged attempts to fully quantify costs andbenefits of stormwater re-use schemes. A novelapproach with well structured methodology should bedeveloped to resolve these issues (that is based onsound science, such as Australian Standard forLifecycle Cost Analysis, Australian Standards, 1999).If the costs and benefits of re-use systems can beshown to be compare favourably with the costs andbenefits of conventional practices, this will provide agood deal of incentive to overcome other obstacles towidespread adoption of stormwater recycling.
9.4 Other
9.4.1 Knowledge Gaps
Construction, Operation and Maintenance
The fundamental knowledge gap with respect toconstruction, operation and maintenance is the lack ofclear specification of an operation and maintenanceprogram. There are a number of sites studied thatappear to have been neglected since completion ofconstruction. It appears that a lack of adequatemonitoring and maintenance is particularly a problemfor the smaller-scale sites, where there are inadequateresources and/or expertise to undertake the requiredmaintenance. An operation and maintenance programshould be prepared during the design process andinclude clear identification of the responsible entity,and a realistic assessment of whether that entity iscapable of taking on the operation and maintenanceresponsibly. Without this, it is likely that the integrityof a number of the systems studied is at risk,potentially impacting on public health and amenity.
Implementation Issues
One of the most frequently encountered issues duringthe implementation of the studied re-use schemes was
lengthy and resource intensive negotiation, assessmentand approval processes. This is largely due to a lackof pertinent experience and policies on the part of thewater industry and relevant authorities. Also lacking isa clearly defined process to involve community,developers, and regulators. Informing and involvingall relevant parties is instrumental in ensuring thesuccessful adoption of new ideas.
Partitioning of Re-use Sources
When recycling different water streams, is it best tocombine or separate them? This question has arisen asa result of performance assessment where differentwater streams are re-used and is yet to be answered.Greywater and wastewater are more regular withrespect to both quality and supply, making collection,treatment and re-use more straightforward than forirregular stormwater. Since stormwater is variable interms of quality and supply, it may be more useful as abackup supply to supplement other recycled water intimes of high demand. However, stormwater isgenerally of a higher quality than wastewater andtherefore is likely to have higher public acceptance formore personal re-use e.g. in hot water systems.
9.4.2 Research Needs
Other issues that require further research to resolveinclude:
• Development of well defined guidelines withrespect to construction, operation and maintenanceto ensure adequate information is available toallow successful operation;
• Development of a clear process, supported byregulation, that involves all concerned parties i.e.regulators, developers, design team, communityfrom the initial stages of a project; and
• The previously mentioned development of clearregulations and appropriate design guidelines,based on appropriate research, would also behelpful in overcoming implementation issues.
9.5 Synthesis of Key Learnings
There is a need for a clear framework for developingnew water servicing approaches. Veldkamp et al.,
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
58
(1997) proposed the following decision network forchoosing the best combination of techniques forintegrated urban water management:
1. Problem definition – key factors includedevelopment type, quality and quantity ofstormwater, and existing facilities;
2. Technologies – consideration of possibilities ofdifferent technologies for treatment and storage ofstormwater;
3. Selection procedure – assessing appropriateness oflikely alternatives;
4. Combination – development of scenarios bycombining potential technologies;
5. Ranking by sustainability – assessment ofscenarios according to their sustainability; and
6. Costs – integrated urban water management is farmore likely to be implemented on a widespreadscale if it is economically feasible (Veldkamp etal., 1997).
Veldkamp et al., (1997) briefly describes each step ofthis decision network, with more detailed discussion ofthe selection procedure and sustainability ranking.
The key learnings from our survey of existingstormwater re-use systems were combined with theabove step-by-step approach, resulting in thefollowing decision support framework:
• Problem definition: this step should address themultiple objectives of integrated watermanagement i.e. human health, environmentalprotection (flow management and pollution loads),water demand, economic feasibility, site amenity,and social acceptance (Mitchell, 2002);
• Selection procedure: the selection of possibletechnologies will be influenced by the drivers forstormwater re-use for a particular system i.e. watertrading (water shortages), disconnection ofimpervious surfaces from urban streams(environmental protection), and runoff controlwith respect to both volume and pollution(drainage infrastructure, environmentalprotection). Other important factors (that at least
partly determine system complexity) are scale(allotment, neighbourhood, catchment) andwhether the system is centralised or de-centralised;
• Combination: including a risk assessment in thedesign process offers a way around the current lackof regulation of stormwater re-use i.e. this maysimplify the approval process;
• Ranking by sustainability: ideally a stormwaterre-use system should mimic natural drainageprocesses. Of particular importance isconsideration of environmental flows foroverstressed urban rivers. A stormwater re-usesystem cannot be considered sustainable unless aportion of the water collected is released towaterways as environmental flows; and
• Costs: can be reduced if the total water cycle ismanaged, particularly if the re-use project is at agreenfields site i.e. infrastructure is not initiallythere.
Interestingly, the use of small-scale solutions(allotment scale) is advocated by Veldkamp et al.,(1997). It is likely that de-centralising a stormwaterre-use system will greatly contribute to improvedpublic understanding of stormwater processes(through increased visibility of the system). De-centralisation will also simplify the re-use system,particularly in terms of collection and distributionprocesses, thus reducing the risk of cross-connectingdifferent pipelines. However, this must be balancedwith economic feasibility and it is suspected that re-use efficiency and thus cost viability improves withscale.
59
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
10. Conclusions
Stormwater re-use is not effectively regulated at thisstage. Given the potential for stormwater re-use inAustralia, higher priority should be given todevelopment of specific guidelines to facilitateappropriate implementation and to allow re-usesystems to be designed effectively. If stormwater re-use can be implemented via a well defined, step-by-step process (rather than the lengthy, complicatedprocedures currently experienced) it follows thatdevelopers will be more inclined to incorporatestormwater re-use schemes.
Methods employed for the collection and storage ofstormwater intended for re-use are based onconventional methods while treatment methods aremainly based on current stormwater treatmenttechniques (which are primarily designed for pollutioncontrol). There is a paucity of technologies, andguidance in their design, specific to integratedstormwater treatment and re-use. There is a clear needfor the development of innovative technologies (oradaptation of existing technologies) for the collection,treatment and storage of stormwater. Until thisknowledge gap is addressed stormwater re-use willmost likely be limited to smaller scale, less complexsystems. Design standards for stormwater treatmentfor the purposes of re-use are also needed.
Performance modelling for design evaluation purposesalso needs further research, to adapt it to therequirements of integrated stormwater treatment andre-use. Reliable models should be developed that arecapable of predicting the treatment efficacy of newtechnologies, or water quality changes in storages.Existing models, such as MUSIC, Aquacycle, orPURRS, could be used as a starting point for theirdevelopment. Designing efficient systems would thenbe more readily accessible to the industry.
Currently, there is inadequate methodology toobjectively assess the costs and benefits of re-usesystems. It has been accepted that, to correctly assessthe worth of a water servicing option, the cost ofimplementing a re-use scheme must be compared to
the true costs of current supply and disposal practices.However, little progress has been made in developingsuch means of comparison, and getting agreement onthis method. A novel approach with well structuredmethodology, based on sound science, should bedeveloped to resolve these issues. If the costs andbenefits of re-use systems can be shown to comparefavourably with the costs and benefits of conventionalpractices this will provide a good deal of incentive toovercome other obstacles to widespread adoption ofstormwater recycling.
Other key learnings and research needs:
• It appears that a number of studied sites have beenneglected since completion of construction. Thedevelopment of well defined guidelines withrespect to construction, operation and maintenanceto ensure adequate information is available toallow successful operation is required. Withoutthis, it is likely that the integrity of a number of thesystems is at risk, with potential impacts for publichealth and amenity;
• The involvement of all concerned parties i.e.regulators, developers, the design team and thecommunity, is a key factor in determining thesuccess (or failure) of a re-use project. A clearprocess, supported by regulation, that facilitatesthis involvement from the initial stages of a projectshould be developed; and
• The previously suggested development of clearregulations and appropriate design guidelineswould also be helpful in overcoming many of theimplementation issues encountered by theproponents of the studied re-use schemes.
Notwithstanding the limitations described above, thereis a great potential for the integration of stormwatertreatment and re-use in Australia. The combination ofclimate and relative availability of space, means thatre-use of stormwater could provide significant benefitsin both protection of receiving waters from pollution,and reduction in potable water demand. Ongoingcommitment by the water management industry to thisarea is warranted.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
60
61
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
References
(1997). "Gorillas and Recycled Water." WaterJuly/August 1997: 27-28.
(2000). A pollution solution that has it all.Hawkesbury Graduate.
AC (2003). Atlantis Corporation.www.atlantiscorp.com.au
AGP Consulting (1994). Report on Water Supply andDrainage for Oaklands Park Village Farm.
Amaro, J. (2001). SMURFF leads the way to a cleanerbay. Splash. Stormwater Program, City of LosAngeles. 2.
Anderson, J. (1996). "Potential for water recycling inAustralia - expanding our horizons." Desalination106(1-3): 151-156.
Anderson, J. M. (1996). "Current water recyclinginitiatives in Australia: scenarios for the 21st century."Water Science and Technology 33(10-11): 37-43.
Antich, A., H. R. Gobas and J. Salgaonka (2002). "TheSanta Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility andthe Sustainable Environment." Stormwater.
Argue, J. R. (1998). Demonstration project in "sourcecontrol" technology: Theory and practice. HydraStorm'98, Adelaide, September 1998.
ARMCANZ, ANZECC and NHMRC (2000).Guidelines for sewerage systems. Use of reclaimedwater. National Water Quality Management Strategy,Agriculture and Resource Management Council ofAustralia and New Zealand, Australian and NewZealand Environment and Conservation Council,National Health and Medical Research Council.
ATS (2003). Australian Technology Showcase.ats.business.gov.au/aws/NSW_010/
Australian Standards (1999). AS/NZS 4536:1999 Life-cycle Costing - An Application Guide, StandardsAustralia, Homebush, NSW.
BCC (2003). (in draft) Bridgewater Creek Water
Quality Improvement Project, Final Report, prepared
by City Design, for Brisbane City Council.
BCC (2003). (in draft), SQIDS Monitoring Program
Stage 6, prepared by Water and Environment, City
Design, for Brisbane City Council.
Booth, C. A., R. Attwater, C. Derry and B. Simmons
(2003). "The Hawkesbury Water Reuse Scheme."
Water August 2003: 42-44.
Booth, S. and P. Adcock Richmond Water Re-use
Project, Accompanying Notes for Re-configured
Concept Design.
Burkhard, R., A. Deletic and C. Anthony (2000).
"Techniques for water and wastewater management: a
review of techniques and their integration in
planning." Urban Water 2: 197-221.
Charles Sturt University (2003). www.csu.edu.au
Clean Up Australia (2000). Richmond Water Reuse
Project - Project Summary.
Coombes, P., G. Kuczera, J. D. Kalma and J. R. Argue
(2002). "An evaluation of the benefits of source control
measures at the regional scale." Urban Water 4: 307-
320.
Coombes, P. J. (2002). On-site Water Balance
Modelling using PURRS (Probablistic Urban
Rainwater and wastewater Reuse Simulator), School
of Civil Engineering. Queensland University of
Technology.
Coombes, P. J. (2002). Rainwater Tanks Revisited:
new opportunities for urban water cycle management.
Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental
Engineering. Newcastle, University of Newcastle.
Coombes, P. J., J. R. Argue and G. Kuczera (2000).
"Figtree Place: A Case Study in Water Sensitive Urban
Development." Urban Water Journal 4(1): 335-343.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
62
Coombes, P. J., G. Kuczera, J. J. Argue and J. R. Argue
(1998). Water Sensitive Urban Redevelopment: The
"Figtree Place" Experiment. HydraStorm '98,
Adelaide, September 1998.
Coombes, P. J., G. Kuczera, J. R. Argue, F. Cosgrove,
D. Arthur, H. A. Bridgeman and K. Enright (1999).
Design, monitoring and performance of the water
sensitive urban redevelopment at Figtree Place in
Newcastle. Eighth International Conference on Urban
Stormwater Drainage, Sydney, The Institution of
Engineers, Australia.
CPP (2003). City of Port Phillip.
www.portphillip.vic.gov.au
CPP (2003). 'Inkerman Oasis' Development at the
former Municipal Depot Site, St Kilda, a joint venture
residential development between the City of Port
Phillip and Inkerman Developments Pty Ltd -
Sustainable Design Features.
CRCCH (2002). MUSIC - Model for Urban
Stormwater Improvement Conceptualisation - User
Manual 1.
CS Stormwater Recycling through Wetlands in the
City of Salisbury, South Australia.
CS (2003). City of Salisbury, South Australia.
www.salisbury.sa.gov.au
CSIRO (2003). http://www.clw.csiro.au/priorities/
urban/reclamation/faq.html
Dallmer, L. (2002). "SQIRTS - an on-site stormwater
treatment and reuse approach to sustainable water
management in Sydney." Water Science and
Technology 46(6-7): 151-158.
Dallmer Roach, L. (2001). S.Q.I.R.T.S: An On-site
Stormwater Treatment and Reuse Approach to
Sustainable Water Management in Sydney. IWA 2001
World Water Congress, Berlin.
DEH (2003). Australian Government Department of
the Environment and Heritage. www.ea.gov.au
Deletic, A. (2001). "Modelling of water and sediment
transport over grassed areas." Journal of Hydrology
248: 168-182.
Dillon, P., P. Pavelic, X. Sibenaler, N. Z. Gerges and R.
Clark (1999). "Development of new water resources by
aquifer storage and recovery using stormwater
runoff." Intl. Water and Irrigation 19(2): 22-28.
Farley, T. F. N. (2000). Contaminant Balance
Component of the Urban Water Volume and Quality
(UVQ) Model - Technical Description, CSIRO Land
and Water.
Fletcher, T. D., H. P. Duncan, P. Poelsma and S. D.
Lloyd (2003). "Stormwater flow and quality and the
effectiveness of non-proprietary stormwater treatment
measures: review and gap analysis."
Foster, J. (2000). Ecologically sustainable design:
Development achievements and opportunities -
Oaklands Park, Tract Consultants Pty Ltd.
HBCC Altona Green Park, Altona Meadows. prepared
by Hobsons Bay City Council.
Innovation Online (1999). Recycling Frogs and Water
- Part of Today's Olympics, CSIRO. 8.
Innovation Online (2000). Engineers Turn Sewerage
Into Art, CSIRO. 13.
KMC Kogarah Town Square - A Sustainable
Development, perpared by Ransce Salan, ESD
Strategist, for Kogarah Municipal Council.
KMC (2003). Kogarah Municipal Council.
www.kogarah.nsw.gov.au
Local Government Focus (2000). St Kilda
Breakthrough in Water Sensitive Urban Design.
October 2000.
Local Government Focus (2000). Stormwater reuse for
Manly's Norfolk Pines. October 2000.
Local Government Focus (2001). Landmark Project
for Water Sensitive Urban Design. January 2001.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
63
Local Government Focus (2002). Manly Council's
innovative treatment and reuse of stormwater. June
2002.
McRae, B. (2002). "Managing Manly Beach from
Source to Sea." Water March 2002: 99-101.
Melbourne Water (2003). Water Sensitive Urban
Design. www.wsud.melbournewater.com.au
Melbourne Water (in prep). Water Sensitive Urban
Design Engineering Procedures: Stormwater.
Mitchell, D. S., I. Croft, T. Harrison and M. Webster-
Mannison (2001). Water management on the
Thurgoona campus of Charles Sturt University. On-
site '01 Conference: Advancing On-site Wastewater
Systems, University of New England, Lanfax
Laboratories, Armidale.
Mitchell, V. G. (2000). Aquacycle User Manual, CRC
for Catchment Hydrology, Monash University.
Mitchell, V. G. (2002). Developing and assessing new
approaches to urban water service provision. Second
National Conference on Water Sensitive Urban
Design, Brisbane, 2-4 September 2002.
Mitchell, V. G., R. G. Mein and T. A. McMahon
(1999). The Reuse Potential of Urban Stormwater and
Wastewater. Melbourne, Cooperative Research Centre
for Catchment Hydrology.
Mitchell, V. G., R. G. Mein and T. A. McMahon
(2002). "Utilising Stormwater and Wastewater
Resources in Urban Areas." Australian Journal of
Water Resources 6(1): 31-43.
Mitchell, V. G., R. J. Shipton and S. G. Gray (2002).
Heathwood/Brazil Development Study: Stage 3
Summary Report, CSIRO Urban Water.
Mouritz, M. (2000). Water Sensitive Urban Design -
Where to now? Water Sensitive Urban Design
Workshop, 30-31 August 2000, Melbourne.
NEHF (1998). National Guidelines for the Use of
Rainwater Tanks. National Environmental Health
Forum Monograph, prepared by David A. Cunlifee for
the National Environmental Health Forum.
Newton, P. W., S. Baum, K. Bhatia, S. K. Brown, A. S.
Cameron, B. D. Foran, T. Grant, S. L. Mak, P. C.
Memmott, V. G. Mitchell, K. L. Neate, A. Pears, N.
Smith, R. J. Stimson, S. N. Tucker and D. Yencken
(2001). Human Settlements Theme Report, Australian
State of the Environment Report 2001, CSIRO
Publishing on behalf of the Department of
Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
NSW EPA (2003). Environment Protection Authority
of New South Wales. www.epa.nsw.gov.au
NSW Recycled Water Coordination Committee
(1993). NSW Guidelines for Urban and Residential
Use of Reclaimed Water.
OCA (1998). Environment Report 1998 Summary,
produced for the Olympic Co-ordination Authority.
OCA (1999). Environment Report Summary 1999,
produced by Designate for the Olympic Co-ordination
Authority.
OCA (2000). Environment Report 2000, produced by
the Olympic Co-ordination Authority.
PCWMB, TCWMB and Planning SA (2002).
Guidelines for Urban Stormwater Management,
prepared by Patawalonga Catchment Water
Management Board, Torrens Catchment Water
Management Board and Planning SA.
Pitman, C. (2003). Stormwater Harvesting and
Utilisation. Water Recycling Australia, 2nd National
Conference, Brisbane.
Radcliffe, J. (2003). An Overview of Water Recycling
in Australia - Results of the recent ATSE Study. Water
Recycling Australia, 2nd National Conference,
Brisbane.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
64
Robinson, V. (1999). An Alternative TreatmentTechnique for Stormwater Runoff. StormwaterIndustry Association 1999 Conference, HomebushBay, Sydney.
Rocla (2003). Rocla Pipeline Products.www.pipe.rocla.com.au
Roman, C. (2003). The Role of Sand Filters inStormwater Harvesting and Reuse Schemes. WaterRecycling Australia, 2nd National Conference,Brisbane.
Savewater (2003). www.savewater.com.au
Scarsbrick, J. (2002). Stormwater ManagementMeasures to Existing Development to PreventPollution and Attenuate Runoff. IPWEA NSWDivision Annual Conference 2002.
SIA (2003). Stormwater Industry Association.www.stormwater.asn.au
SOPA (2002). 2001/2002 State of EnvironmentReport, Sydney Olympic Park, prepared by the SydneyOlympic Park Authority.
SOPA (2003). Sydney Olympic Park Authority.www.sopa.nsw.gov.au
Spivak, G. and G. Kerans (2001). A Local Governmentand Private Developer Experience - the 'InkermanOasis' Development, St Kilda. The Future of WaterRecycling Seminar.
SSCC (2002). S.Q.I.R.T.S at Solander Park, IPWEAExcellence Awards 2002. prepared by South SydneyCity Council.
Stewart, J., M. White, B. Simmons, S. Riley and S.Shrestha (2003). Modelling Stormwater Quantity andQuality for Stormwater Use. ICaM 2003 - NationalConference on Integrated Catchment Management,Parramatta, NSW.
Taylor, A. C. and T. D. Fletcher (2004). Estimatinglife-cycle costs of structural measures that improveurban stormwater quality. International WSUDConference ("Cities as Catchments"), Adelaide, 21-25November 2004.
Thomas, J. F., J. Gomboso, J. E. Oliver and V. A.
Ritchie (1997). Wastewater re-use stormwater
management and the national water reform agenda,
CSIRO Land and Water.
TZ (2003). Taronga Zoo. www.zoo.nsw.gov.au
United KG (2003). www.unitedkg.com.au
UWRC (2003). Urban Water Resources Centre,
University of South Australia. www.unisa.edu.au/
uwrc/uwrc.htm
Veldkamp, R. G., T. Hermann, V. Colandini, L. Terwel
and G. D. Geldof (1997). "A decision network for
urban water management." Water Science and
Technology 36(8-9): 111-115.
Vic EPA (2002). Guidelines for Environmental
Management: Use of Reclaimed Water.
WBM Oceanics Australia (1999). Stormwater
Recycling Background Study.
Winkfield Pty. Ltd. (2002). Oaklands Park, Non-
potable Water Reticulation, Valve Operation
Masterplan.
Winkfield Pty. Ltd. (2003). Oaklands Park, Optimising
Water Storage Operations.
Wong, T. H., P. F. Breen, N. L. G. Somes and S. D.
Lloyd (1998). Managing Urban Stormwater Using
Constructed Wetlands, Cooperative Research Centre
for Catchment Hydrology and Cooperative Research
Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Monash University,
Victoria.
Wong, T. H. F., Ed. (2003). Draft Australian Runoff
Quality Guidelines. Australian Runoff Quality
Symposium. Albury, Institution of Engineers,
Australia.
Workman, G., R. Herbert and G. Tink (2003).
Overview of plumbing legislation reform needed for
urban water recycling. Water Recycling Australia 2nd
National Conference, Brisbane.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
65
APPENDICES
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
66
Appendix A
67
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
A.1
S
um
ma
ry
of
sto
rm
wa
ter r
e-u
se s
ch
em
es
stu
die
d
Sit
e S
tate
C
on
tact
S
ize
(h
a)
Oth
er
wate
r?
Trea
tmen
t m
eth
od
R
e-u
se t
yp
e A
RI
Ev
en
t
Cap
aci
ty
Mo
nit
ore
d?
Hom
ebu
sh B
ay
NS
W
An
drz
ej L
isto
wsk
i S
yd
ney
Oly
mp
ic P
ark
Auth
ori
ty
760
y
GP
Ts
swal
es &
buff
ers
wet
lan
ds
infi
ltra
tion s
yst
em
advan
ced
d
isin
fect
ion
irri
gat
ion
fire
figh
tin
g
envir
on
men
tal
flo
ws
toil
et f
lush
ing
oth
er o
utd
oo
r u
se
1:1
00
yr
y
Fig
tree
Pla
ce
NS
W
Pet
er C
oom
bes
U
niv
ersi
ty o
f N
ewca
stle
1
.1
n
infi
ltra
tio
n s
yst
em
irri
gat
ion
o
ther
outd
oo
r u
se
oth
er u
se
1:5
0 y
r y
Ta
ron
ga
Zo
o
NS
W
Dary
l E
dw
ard
s
Tar
onga
Zoo
0.8
3
y
litt
er &
sed
imen
t tr
aps
advan
ced
tre
atm
ent
dis
infe
ctio
n
irri
gat
ion
toil
et f
lush
ing
oth
er o
utd
oo
r
y
Ha
wk
esb
ury
Wate
r
Re-
use
Sch
eme
NS
W
San
dy B
ooth
U
niv
ersi
ty o
f W
este
rn
Sydney
10
0
y
wet
lan
ds
po
nd
s &
bas
ins
irri
gat
ion
envir
on
men
tal
flo
ws
oth
er u
se
y
Po
wel
ls C
reek
East
N
SW
J
ak
e M
atu
zic
Cit
y o
f C
anad
a B
ay
0.6
6
n
infi
ltra
tio
n s
yst
em
irri
gat
ion
en
vir
on
men
tal
flo
ws
oth
er u
se
y
Kogora
h T
ow
n S
qu
are
N
SW
P
eter
Sm
ith
K
ogar
ah C
oun
cil
1.0
n
in
filt
rati
on s
yst
em
irri
gat
ion
to
ilet
flu
shin
g
oth
er o
utd
oo
r u
se
1:
3 m
th
n
Man
ly C
ou
nci
l
NS
W
Jo
an
ne
Sca
rsb
rick
Pau
l S
mit
h
Man
ly C
ou
nci
l
3
n
litt
er &
sed
imen
t tr
aps
infi
ltra
tio
n s
yst
ems
irri
gat
ion
y
Ch
arl
es S
turt
Un
iver
sity
, T
hu
rgoo
na
NS
W
David
Mit
chell
C
har
les
Stu
rt U
niv
ersi
ty
87
y
swal
es &
buff
ers
wet
lan
ds
irri
gat
ion
y
A.1
Sum
mar
y of
Sto
rmw
ater
Re-
use
Sche
mes
Stu
died
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
68
Sit
e S
tate
C
on
tact
S
ize
(h
a)
Oth
er
wate
r?
Trea
tmen
t m
eth
od
R
e-u
se t
yp
e A
RI
Ev
en
t
Cap
aci
ty
Mo
nit
ore
d?
So
lan
der
Park
N
SW
L
ean
ne
Dall
mer
-Roach
S
torm
Co
nsu
ltin
g
Pet
er D
on
ley
So
uth
Syd
ney
Cit
y
Co
un
cil
65
n
li
tter
& s
edim
ent
trap
s in
filt
rati
on s
yst
ems
advan
ced
tre
atm
ent
irri
gat
ion
1
:20
yr
y
Bob
bin
Hea
d R
oad
N
SW
C
hri
stin
a R
om
an
B
oyd
en a
nd
Par
tner
s P
ty
Ltd
2
y
litt
er &
sed
imen
t tr
aps
infi
ltra
tio
n s
yst
ems
wet
lan
ds
irri
gat
ion
fire
fig
hti
ng
n
Bo
wie
s F
lat
Wet
lan
d
Qld
A
nn
e S
imi
Cit
y D
esig
n
37
7
n
po
nd
s &
bas
ins
irri
gat
ion
1
:2 y
r y
Para
fiel
d/M
ich
ell
Pro
ject
SA
C
oli
n P
itm
an
C
ity o
f S
alis
bu
ry
16
00
n
w
etla
nd
s ir
rigat
ion
o
ther
use
1
:10
yr
y
Parf
itt
Sq
uare
S
A
David
Pez
zan
iti
Univ
ersi
ty o
f S
ou
th
Au
stra
lia
1.3
n
li
tter
& s
edim
ent
trap
s sw
ales
& b
uff
ers
wet
lan
ds
infi
ltra
tio
n s
yst
ems
irri
gat
ion
1
:10
0
y
Alt
on
a G
reen
Pa
rk
VIC
Ia
n B
row
n
Ho
bso
ns
Bay
Cit
y
Co
un
cil
4
n
bio
filt
er
irri
gat
ion
y
Ink
erm
an
Oasi
s V
IC
Ga
ry S
piv
ak
C
ity o
f P
ort
Phil
lip
1.2
23
y
litt
er &
sed
imen
t tr
aps
wet
lan
ds
infi
ltra
tio
n s
yst
ems
advan
ced
tre
atm
ent
dis
infe
ctio
n
irri
gat
ion
toil
et f
lush
ing
firs
t fl
ush
y
Oa
kla
nd
s P
ark
V
IC
Bil
l M
ole
H
NJ
Ho
ldin
gs
Pty
Ltd
Nei
l K
erb
y
Win
kfi
eld
Pty
Ltd
17
4
n
swal
es &
buff
ers
irri
gat
ion
fi
refi
gh
tin
g
toil
et f
lush
ing
oth
er o
utd
oo
r u
se
1:1
00
y
San
ta
Mon
ica
Urb
an
Ru
noff
cRecycli
ng
Faci
lity
US
A
1
74
n
li
tter
& s
edim
ents
tra
ps
advan
ced
tre
atm
ent
dis
infe
ctio
n
irri
gat
ion
toil
et f
lush
ing
dry
wea
ther
y
A.1
Sum
mar
y of
Sto
rmw
ater
Re-
use
Sche
mes
Stu
died
...C
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
A.2
E
xa
mp
le o
f d
eta
iled
ta
ble
Sit
e In
form
ati
on
Sit
e N
am
e F
igtr
ee P
lace
Co
nta
ct N
am
e P
eter
Co
om
bes
Lo
cati
on
H
amil
ton, N
ewca
stle
, N
SW
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s N
ewca
stle
Cit
y C
ou
nci
l
Bu
ild
ing B
ette
r C
itie
s P
rogra
m (
fed
eral
go
ver
nm
ent)
NS
W D
epar
tmen
t o
f H
ou
sin
g
Ref
eren
ces
(C
oo
mb
es e
t al
., 1
99
8)
(Co
om
bes
et
al.,
19
99
)
(Co
om
bes
et
al.,
20
00
)
(Co
om
bes
, 2
00
2)
(UW
RC
, 2003)
(Mel
bou
rne
Wat
er, 2
00
3)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e 2
7 s
mal
l- a
nd
med
ium
-siz
e in
ner
cit
y h
ousi
ng v
entu
re
Siz
e 1.1
ha
(Ham
ilto
n B
us
Sta
tion s
ite
area
= 3
.0 h
a)
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
A
pri
l 1
99
5 (
conce
pt
inves
tigat
ion
an
d d
esig
n)
Red
evel
op
men
t o
pen
ed o
n 2
1 J
une
19
98
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
S
tree
tsca
pe
and
all
otm
ent
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
1141.9
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
133.0
1 y
r in
ten
sity
Mea
n d
ail
y ev
ap
ora
tio
n (
mm
)
Geolo
gy
San
d t
o d
epth
of
10
m,
sub
stra
te o
f cl
ay,
bed
rock
at
25
m
Aq
uif
er
Wa
tert
able
2
-2.5
m,
var
ies
seas
on
ally
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t ~
4 m
/yr
Oth
er
Pri
or
to r
emed
iati
on
, gro
und
wat
er a
t 3
-4 m
dep
th s
ho
wed
dar
k d
isco
lou
rati
on
du
e to
pre
sence
of
iro
n a
nd
man
gan
ese
salt
s
69
A.2
Exa
mpl
e of
Det
aile
d Ta
ble
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Pre
vio
usl
y u
sed
as
a tr
ansp
ort
atio
n c
entr
e si
nce
the
earl
y 1
90
0s,
init
ial
use
by t
ram
s, m
ore
rec
entl
y b
use
s; r
esu
lted
in m
ajor
con
tam
inat
ion
ho
t sp
ots
of
PA
H,
TP
H,
hea
vy m
etal
s, p
esti
cides
, o
il a
nd
gre
ase
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
To
ret
ain
sto
rmw
ater
on
-sit
e an
d r
educe
po
tab
le w
ater
co
nsu
mpti
on
To d
emon
stra
te t
hat
norm
al u
rban
liv
ing c
ou
ld b
e purs
ued
wit
h s
ignif
ican
tly l
ess
pota
ble
wat
er c
on
sum
pti
on
than
use
d i
n
con
ven
tio
nal
dev
elo
pm
ents
Pla
nn
ing i
nd
icat
ed t
hat
suff
icie
nt
wat
er c
ou
ld b
e h
arves
ted
on
sit
e to
mee
t 5
0%
in
-ho
use
nee
ds,
100
% d
om
esti
c ir
rigat
ion
n
eeds,
10
0%
bu
s-w
ash
ing d
eman
d
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Ass
esse
d a
gai
nst
Aust
rali
an D
rinkin
g W
ater
Gu
idel
ines
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
R
un
off
fro
m p
aved
are
as, la
wn
s an
d g
arden
s p
asse
s to
cen
tral
Det
enti
on
Bas
in R
echar
ge
Are
a
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Inte
rnal
ker
bed
ro
adw
ays
Des
ign
flo
od
cap
acit
y i
s 8
3%
of
run
off
fo
r al
l ev
ents
up
to
and
in
c 1
in
50
yea
r ev
ent
Hig
h i
nfi
ltra
tion r
ates
of
sandy s
oil
explo
ited
to m
inim
ise
over
flo
ws
fro
m t
he
bas
in
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
In
filt
rate
d t
hro
ugh
bas
e of
dry
det
enti
on b
asin
; 2
50
sq.m
gra
ssed
dep
ress
ion
, o
ver
lays
750
mm
lay
er o
f gra
vel
en
close
d i
n
geo
fab
ric
bel
ow
30
0m
m t
opso
il l
ayer
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
U
nco
nfi
ned
aqu
ifer
(A
SR
)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Flo
wn
et m
od
el o
f aq
uif
er s
yst
em u
sed
to
ex
plo
re p
oss
ible
gro
un
dw
ater
im
pac
ts
70
A.2
Exa
mpl
e of
Det
aile
d Ta
ble
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
71
Sto
rage
con
t…
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
No s
torm
wat
er o
ver
flo
w f
rom
sit
e u
p t
o 2
000
an
d a
max
imum
dep
th o
f p
on
din
g i
n t
he
det
enti
on
bas
in o
f 2
60
mm
wit
h a
re
sid
ence
tim
e of
6 h
ou
rs h
as b
een
ex
per
ien
ced
Re-
use
W
hat
Gar
den
an
d o
pen
spac
e ir
rigat
ion
, b
us
was
hin
g a
t ad
jace
nt
dep
ot
Ho
w
Su
bm
erged
p
um
p
wit
hin
re
char
ge
bas
in at
d
epth
o
f 1
0 m
, p
um
ped
as
re
qu
ired
, d
ual
re
ticu
lati
on
, o
pti
onal
ly tr
eate
d
(act
ivat
ed c
arb
on)
for
colo
ur
rem
oval
Capaci
ty (
ML
) m
ax 2
00
0 k
L/y
r su
pp
lied
to b
us
dep
ot
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Pre
lim
inar
y s
tudie
s of
wat
er a
vai
labil
ity f
rom
roof
and g
ener
al r
un
off
in
dic
ated
am
ple
su
pply
fo
r d
om
esti
c u
ses
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) R
ain
tan
k c
apac
itie
s ra
nge
fro
m 9
to
15
kL
(if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
sep
ara
tely
) (
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
S
torm
wat
er p
ipes
Tre
atm
ent
Fir
st-f
lush
pit
s se
par
ate
firs
t 2
mm
of
rain
fall
; re
info
rced
co
ncr
ete
box
pla
ced
over
fib
re r
einfo
rced
co
ncr
ete
pip
e, b
ox
co
nta
ins
a sc
reen
to f
ilte
r deb
ris
and
a b
affl
e to
sep
arat
e fi
rst
flu
sh f
rom
in
flo
w t
o r
ainta
nk,
wat
er r
etai
ned
upst
ream
of
baf
fle
infi
ltra
tes
thro
ugh
ho
les
in b
ase
of
bo
x t
o p
ipe
and
so
il
Sto
rag
e F
ive
cen
tral
ised
un
der
gro
und
tan
ks;
rei
nfo
rce
con
cret
e ra
inta
nks,
co
nta
in i
nle
t fr
om
fir
st f
lush
pit
, cl
ean
out
cham
ber
for
slu
dge
rem
oval
, lo
w w
ater
lev
el m
on
itor,
ou
tlet
fo
r d
om
esti
c su
pp
ly a
nd
over
flo
w p
ipe
to a
rec
har
ge
tren
ch
Re-
use
P
um
ps
wit
h p
ress
ure
cel
ls s
up
ply
rai
nw
ater
fro
m t
anks
to h
ot
wat
er s
yst
ems
and
for
toil
et f
lush
ing,
fail
-saf
e sy
stem
s in
clu
de
seco
nd
pu
mp
in
cas
e of
fail
ure
an
d s
ole
no
id t
o s
wit
ches
to m
ain
s su
pp
ly i
f in
adeq
uat
e w
ater
pre
ssu
re,
elec
tric
ity
fa
ilure
or
low
wat
er l
evel
is
det
ecte
d;
du
al r
etic
ula
tio
n,
bac
kfl
ow
pre
ven
tio
n d
evic
es u
sed
to
iso
late
fro
m m
ain
s su
pp
ly
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
A.2
Exa
mpl
e of
Det
aile
d Ta
ble
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
72
Gre
yw
ate
r co
nt…
C
oll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er
Wa
ter
for
Re-
use
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Pro
vis
ion
mad
e fo
r co
nver
sio
n t
o c
on
ven
tio
nal
pra
ctic
es (
i.e.
can
rev
ert
to m
ain
s su
pp
ly)
sho
uld
wat
er q
ual
ity f
all
bel
ow
ac
cep
ted
lev
els
or
dro
ugh
t o
ccu
r
Det
enti
on
bas
in p
rovid
es a
n o
pen
spac
e re
crea
tio
n a
rea
duri
ng d
ry s
pel
ls
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Irri
gat
ion o
ccurs
duri
ng n
ight
hours
to m
inim
ise
risk
of
inges
tion
Su
rvey
of
resi
den
ts f
ou
nd
th
at 4
8%
of
resp
ond
ents
use
d w
ater
fro
m t
he
ho
t ta
p f
or
coo
kin
g;
rain
wat
er i
n h
ot
wat
er s
yst
ems
mu
st b
e th
eref
ore
com
pli
ant
wit
h d
rin
kin
g w
ater
sta
nd
ard
s
Bac
kfl
ow
pre
ven
tio
n d
evic
es i
sola
te r
ecycl
ed w
ater
sup
ply
fro
m p
ota
ble
su
pp
ly
La
nd
sca
pe
Req
uir
emen
ts
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
W
ater
sav
ing a
pp
lian
ces
are
use
d
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Pote
nti
al f
or
un
det
ecte
d c
onta
min
ants
bei
ng r
elea
sed
in
to t
he
gro
un
dw
ater
an
d p
oll
uti
ng t
he
resi
den
ts' i
rrig
atio
n s
up
ply
an
d
mo
vin
g t
o l
oca
tio
ns
do
wn
stre
am w
her
e o
ff-s
ite
use
rs o
f th
e re
sourc
e m
ay a
lso
be
affe
cted
. S
olu
tio
n:
If g
rou
nd
wat
er q
ual
ity
fall
s b
elo
w a
ccep
tab
le l
evel
s, r
ainta
nk o
ver
flo
w a
nd
ru
no
ff a
rriv
ing a
t ce
ntr
al r
ech
arge
area
are
div
erte
d t
o t
he
Bu
s S
tati
on
d
rain
age
syst
em
Poss
ibil
ity t
hat
wat
er r
eten
tion p
ract
ices
mig
ht
pro
duce
a g
roundw
ater
mound a
dver
sely
aff
ecti
ng t
he
footi
ngs
of
hom
es, as
w
ell
as cr
eati
ng u
nac
cepta
bly
w
et co
nd
itio
ns
in lo
cal
bac
kyar
ds
and
gar
den
s.
C
on
ver
sely
, d
isp
erse
d
rech
arge
wit
h
extr
acti
on f
rom
a c
entr
al w
ell
may
lea
d t
o s
ignif
ican
t dra
wdow
n o
f gro
undw
ater
nea
r ex
trac
tion p
oin
t.
Solu
tion:
model
lin
g
inves
tigat
ion
sh
ow
ed t
hat
ex
isti
ng g
rou
nd
wat
er l
evel
s w
ou
ld b
e p
rese
rved
exce
pt
at r
echar
ge
regio
n w
her
e d
raw
do
wn
may
b
e ex
per
ience
d d
uri
ng s
um
mer
P
ote
nti
on
al f
or
dro
ugh
t co
nd
itio
ns
cau
sin
g s
erio
us
dis
rupti
on
to i
n-h
ouse
su
pp
lies
. S
olu
tio
n:
bac
ku
p c
on
nec
tion t
o p
ota
ble
w
ater
suu
ply
P
oss
ibil
ity o
f ex
trem
e ra
infa
ll c
ausi
ng s
ever
e fl
oodin
g o
f re
siden
tial
unit
s on t
he
site
. S
olu
tion:
floods
of
gre
ater
mag
nit
ude
than
1:5
0 y
r ev
ent
flo
w o
ver
lan
d t
o n
ort
her
n b
ou
nd
ary o
f dev
elo
pm
ent
and
co
nven
tio
nal
dra
inag
e sy
stem
A.2
Exa
mpl
e of
Det
aile
d Ta
ble
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
73
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
con
t…
Ind
oor
wat
er c
onsu
mpti
on
an
d p
rop
ort
ion
that
is
use
d f
or
ho
t w
ater
an
d t
oil
et f
lush
ing u
nkn
ow
n f
or
the
regio
n;
pre
sente
d
dif
ficu
ltie
s in
det
erm
inin
g t
he
vo
lum
es o
f ta
nks
and
cap
acit
y o
f p
um
ps
to d
eliv
er r
ain
wat
er t
o t
he
dw
elli
ngs
Pote
nti
al f
or
hea
lth
pro
ble
ms
resu
ltin
g f
rom
in
ges
tio
n o
f un
san
itar
y w
ater
co
llec
ted
fro
m r
oo
fs a
nd
use
d i
n h
ot
wat
er
syst
ems.
S
olu
tio
n:
roof
wat
er s
amplin
g pro
ject
concl
uded
that
roof
runoff
was
vir
tual
ly e
quiv
alen
t to
rai
nw
ater
qual
ity a
par
t fr
om
hig
h T
SS
an
d a
sh c
on
tent;
fai
l-sa
fe p
rovis
ion
s in
clu
de:
if
hea
lth
sta
ndar
ds
not
met
, h
ot
wat
er s
yst
em c
on
ver
ts t
o m
ains
sup
ply
, si
gn
age
at h
ot
wat
er t
aps,
ten
ant
educa
tio
n
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Sig
nif
ican
t d
elay
s d
uri
ng d
evel
op
men
t st
age
cau
sed
by a
pp
roval
agen
cies
- c
on
cern
s th
at p
roje
ct n
ot
econ
om
ical
ly v
iab
le,
du
al r
etic
ula
tio
n w
as n
ot
com
pli
ant
wit
h A
ust
rali
an S
tan
dar
ds
and t
hat
co
nta
min
atio
n o
f m
ain
s su
pp
ly c
ou
ld o
ccu
r; n
o
inst
ituti
on
al f
ram
ewo
rk f
or
acce
pta
nce
of
WS
UD
des
ign p
rin
cip
les,
lo
ng-t
erm
mai
nte
nan
ce r
equ
irem
ents
an
d c
ost
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Del
iver
y m
eth
od
pla
ys
cruci
al r
ole
in
succ
ess
or
fail
ure
of
inn
ovat
ive
pro
ject
s
Imp
erat
ive
that
sta
nd
ard
of
des
ign
do
cum
enta
tio
n f
or
no
vel
tec
hn
iques
be
abo
ve
aver
age
Ear
ly i
nvo
lvem
ent
of
con
stru
ctin
g c
ontr
acto
r w
ho
is
sym
pat
het
ic t
o p
roje
ct i
nn
ovat
ions
Ear
ly i
nvolv
emen
t o
f ap
pro
val
agen
cies
Surv
ey o
f te
nan
ts r
evea
led
sig
nif
ican
t ac
cep
tance
of
in-h
ou
se u
se o
f ra
inw
ater
co
llec
ted f
rom
ro
ofs
Fai
l-sa
fe p
rovis
ion
s an
d o
n-g
oin
g m
on
itori
ng p
rogra
m v
ital
ele
men
t o
f th
e p
roje
ct a
nd r
efle
cts
its
exper
imen
tal
nat
ure
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Wat
er l
evel
s in
rai
nta
nks
use
d t
o s
up
ply
toil
et f
lush
ing a
nd
ho
t w
ater
use
s co
nst
antl
y d
raw
n d
ow
n;
ensu
res
tan
ks
regu
larl
y
hav
e st
ora
ge
cap
acit
y a
vai
lab
le t
o a
ccep
t ro
of
run
off
Who
New
mac
q C
om
mu
nit
y H
ou
sin
g C
om
pan
y m
anag
es s
ite,
New
cast
le C
ity C
ou
nci
l an
d t
he
NS
W S
torm
wat
er T
rust
fu
nd
s p
rogra
m t
o m
on
itor
per
form
ance
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wate
r quali
ty
Rai
nw
ater
tan
ks,
ho
t w
ater
syst
ems
and p
ota
ble
su
pp
ly m
anu
ally
mo
nit
ore
d m
on
thly
fo
r fa
ecal
co
lifo
rms,
tota
l co
lifo
rms,
het
erot
rophic
pla
te c
ounts
, pse
udom
ona
s sp
ecie
s, D
O, t
empe
ratu
re, p
H, B
OD
, EC
, colo
ur,
TP
, NO
x, c
hlo
rides
, sal
init
y, tota
l solids,
gia
rdia
, cr
yp
tosp
ori
diu
m
Rai
nw
ater
tan
k q
ual
ity a
uto
mat
ical
ly m
on
itore
d e
ver
y s
ix h
ours
for
pH
, te
m,
EC
, D
O a
nd
turb
idit
y
Gro
un
dw
ater
qu
alit
y (
colo
ur
and c
onta
min
ant
level
s) r
egu
larl
y m
on
ito
red
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Wat
er u
se
Pre
ssu
re s
enso
rs i
n r
ain
wat
er t
ank a
dja
cen
t to
rec
har
ge
bas
in m
easu
re w
ater
dep
th e
ver
y s
ix h
ours
Pre
ssu
re s
enso
rs i
n b
ore
s m
on
ito
r w
ater
tab
le e
ver
y s
ix h
ou
rs
A.2
Exa
mpl
e of
Det
aile
d Ta
ble
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
74
Mo
nit
ori
ng c
on
t…
Pre
ssu
re s
enso
rs a
t ce
ntr
al r
ech
arge
area
an
d r
ech
arge
tren
ch d
eter
min
e in
filt
rati
on
rat
es a
nd
qu
anti
ty o
f ru
noff
Oth
er
Auto
mat
ed m
on
itori
ng s
yst
em (
trig
ger
ed b
y r
ain
even
ts)
in a
dd
itio
n t
o m
anual
sam
pli
ng p
rogra
m
Mai
nte
nan
ce
Eco
nom
ic v
iabil
ity
So
cial
acc
epta
nce
(via
qu
esti
onn
aire
of
26
ten
ants
)
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Imp
roved
tan
kw
ater
qu
alit
y w
ill
resu
lt f
rom
sep
arat
ion
of
firs
t fl
ush
rai
nfa
ll f
rom
in
flo
w t
o r
ain
tan
ks
Ho
t w
ater
syst
ems
op
erat
e at
tem
per
ature
s su
ffic
ient
to p
astu
eriz
e ta
nkw
ater
to
pro
duce
qu
alit
y c
om
pli
ant
wit
h A
ust
rali
an
Dri
nkin
g W
ater
Guid
elin
es
Wat
er t
reat
men
t pro
cess
es o
f fl
occ
ula
tio
n,
sett
lem
ent
and
bio
reac
tio
n a
ppea
r to
oper
ate
in r
ain
wat
er t
anks
Sig
nif
ican
t te
nan
t ac
cepta
nce
(9
5%
) of
the
use
of
roo
f ru
noff
for
irri
gat
ion
, to
ilet
flu
shin
g,
ho
t w
ater
syst
ems,
clo
thes
w
ash
ing a
nd
co
okin
g.
Mo
der
ate
acce
pta
nce
(7
0%
) of
the
poss
ible
use
of
roo
f ru
no
ff f
or
dri
nkin
g p
urp
ose
s.
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Mea
sure
men
t of
inte
rnal
wat
er u
se s
ho
wed
a 6
5%
red
uct
ion i
n p
ota
ble
wat
er c
on
sum
pti
on
du
rin
g t
he
per
iod J
un
e to
D
ecem
ber
199
8
Wate
r quali
ty
Gro
un
dw
ater
: co
mp
lies
wit
h A
ust
rali
an D
rinkin
g W
ater
Sta
nd
ard
s fo
r al
l p
aram
eter
s ex
cep
t p
H;
acce
pta
ble
fo
r ir
rigat
ion
an
d b
us
was
hin
g p
urp
ose
s
Ro
of
run
off
: occ
asio
nal
ly e
xce
eded
guid
elin
e val
ues
fo
r am
mo
nia
, p
H,
iro
n a
nd
lea
d;
ove
rall
sam
ple
s fr
om
tan
ks
and
hot
wat
er s
yst
ems
wer
e fo
und
co
mp
lian
t w
ith
ch
emic
al a
nd
met
al p
aram
eter
s in
th
e A
ust
rali
an D
rin
kin
g W
ater
Gu
idel
ines
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Infi
ltra
tio
n b
asin
: m
axim
um
obse
rved
em
pty
ing t
ime
less
than
that
det
erm
ined
to
in
dic
ate
acce
pta
ble
per
form
ance
Rai
nta
nks:
11
-44
% r
educt
ion
in m
ain
s w
ater
use
(d
iffe
rence
s at
trib
uta
ble
to
co
nst
ruct
ion
err
ors
with
resp
ect
to
firs
t fl
ush
pits
- l
ower
val
ues
bec
ause
pit
s se
par
atin
g t
oo
mu
ch r
un
off
); d
egre
e o
f re
du
ced
mai
ns
wat
er u
se a
nd
roo
f w
ater
ut
ilis
atio
n de
pend
ent o
n th
e volu
me
of
rain
wat
er t
ank s
tora
ge,
ro
of
area
an
d w
ater
use
per
per
son
, an
d t
he
pro
port
ion
of
ro
of a
rea
to r
ainw
ater
tan
k volu
me
Ass
emen
t m
etho
ds
Rai
nta
nks:
per
form
ance
ass
esse
d u
sin
g m
eter
rea
din
gs,
rai
nfa
ll d
ata
and
tan
k l
evel
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
impro
ved
des
ign i
n t
he
form
of
red
uce
d p
lum
bin
g,
elim
inat
ion
of
bac
kfl
ow
pre
ven
tio
n d
evic
es,
excl
usi
on
o
f re
du
nd
ant
elem
ents
an
d m
ore
eff
icie
nt
const
ruct
ion
pra
ctic
es
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
A
nal
ysi
s su
gges
ts t
hat
the
redev
elo
pm
ent
is c
ost
-eff
ecti
ve
wh
en c
on
sid
ered
as
a co
mp
on
ent
of
"bey
on
d c
apac
ity"
urb
an
infr
astr
uct
ure
(c
ost
s/kL
) T
he
exis
tin
g d
esig
n d
etai
ls c
an b
e fu
rth
er i
mp
roved
wit
h c
on
seq
uen
t lo
wer
cost
s
Use
r pri
ce
Pay
bac
k p
erio
d f
or
WS
UD
ele
men
ts w
ou
ld b
e lo
nger
than
th
e an
tici
pat
ed l
ife
of
the
pro
ject
A.2
Exa
mpl
e of
Det
aile
d Ta
ble
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
75
Ben
efi
ts
Red
uced
d
ema
nd
fo
r p
ota
ble
sup
ply
Ov
eral
l re
du
cti
on
in
po
tab
le w
ater
dem
and
of
~6
0%
(4
0-4
5%
by
res
iden
ts)
com
par
ed w
ith
co
nv
enti
on
al d
evel
op
men
ts
Hig
h r
ain
fall
en
sure
s n
et e
xce
ss a
qu
ifer
rec
har
ge,
wate
r n
ot
req
uir
ed t
o m
eet
on
-sit
e d
em
and
s u
sed
by
ad
jace
nt
bu
s-w
ash
ing
faci
lity
(m
ax 2
00
0 k
L/y
r)
F
low
ma
na
gem
ent
Des
ign
ed t
o c
on
tain
s 8
3%
of
run
off
fo
r all
ev
ents
up
to
an
d i
ncl
ud
ing
a 1
in
50
year
ev
ent
(su
rface
ru
no
ff f
rom
sev
en u
nit
s
in N
E c
orn
er p
asse
s d
irect
ly t
o c
on
ven
tio
nal
dra
inag
e sy
stem
); f
loo
ds
of
gre
ater
mag
nit
ud
e w
ill
flo
w o
ver
lan
d t
o s
tree
t at
no
rth
ern
bo
un
dar
y a
nd
pas
s in
to c
on
ven
tio
nal
dra
inag
e s
yst
em
Rain
tan
k o
ver
flo
w d
irecte
d t
o s
oak
away
s (g
rav
el
tren
ches
) v
ia s
torm
wate
r p
ipes
an
d r
ech
arg
ed t
o t
he
aqu
ifer
; tr
ench
es 7
50
mm
dee
p a
nd
10
00
mm
wid
e la
yer
s o
f g
rav
el e
nclo
sed
in
geo
fab
ric
belo
w 3
00
mm
to
pso
il l
ayer
, o
ver
flo
w f
rom
rai
nta
nk
s
dis
trib
ute
d w
ith
in t
ren
ches
by
slo
tted
pip
es
P
oll
uti
on
co
ntr
ol
In
fra
stru
ctu
re
Sto
rmw
ate
r d
isch
arg
e a
lmo
st c
om
ple
tely
eli
min
ate
d,
red
uced
do
wn
stre
am f
loo
d p
eak
an
d r
edu
ced
str
ain
on
sto
rmw
ate
r
infr
astr
uct
ure
, in
clu
din
g p
oll
uti
on
co
ntr
ol
inst
all
atio
ns
E
nvi
ron
men
tal
flo
w
A.2
Exa
mpl
e of
Det
aile
d Ta
ble
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
76
A.3 Summary of water re-use sites not studied
Site State Contact General
Runoff
Other
water?
Treatment type Re-use type
Lake Ginninderra John
Knight Park
ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation
Tuggeranong Park ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation
Gungahlin Golf Course ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation
Gold Creek Golf Course ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation
Conder Sports Ground ACT Ian Lawrence y sand filters irrigation
Southwell Park Sewer
Mining Facility
ACT
Fyshwick Wastewater
Treatment Plan pilot plant
ACT
Allambie Heights Water
Quality Control Pond
NSW y
Alumy Creek and Eyre St
Wetlands, Grafton
NSW Peter Adcock y wetlands
Bells Creek, Blacktown NSW
Blue Hills Wetlands,
Glenmore Park, Penrith
NSW Peter Adcock y wetlands
Broken Head Coastal
Retreat
NSW GeoLINK waste irrigation
Cattle Saleyards, Casino NSW GeoLINK y sedimentation anaerobic digestion biological oxidation disinfection
irrigation yard washdown
Cellulose Valley Technology
Park, Lismore
NSW Peter Adcock y sediment ponds wetlands
infiltration
Cox's Creek Reserve
Wetlands
NSW
Domain Creek Innovative
Technologies Project
NSW Holroyd City Council
infiltration irrigation
Duffy Avenue Wetland,
Westleigh
NSW
Lake Pillans, Lithgow NSW
Model Farms High School,
Baulkham Hills
NSW Joe D'Aspromonte Peter Morrison
Moore Reserve Wetland,
Kogarah
NSW Peter Adcock y wetlands
Mullet Creek, Wollongong NSW CUSI y irrigation
Rouse Hill, Sydney NSW irrigation toilet flushing
Surveyors Creek, Glenmore
Park
NSW
Sutherland Shire Council NSW
North Lakes Golf Course Qld Lindsay McCleod y y irrigation
Carrara Catchment Qld Allan Lush
Forest Lake, Brisbane Qld John Maclean irrigation
Melvin St Qld Anne Simi y bioretention system irrigation
BP Clean Fuels Refinery Qld
A.3 Summary of Water Re-use Sites not Studied
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
77
Site State Contact General
Runoff
Other
water?
Treatment type Re-use type
Hervey Bay Qld Wide Bay Water detention basins
advanced treatment
irrigation
Ace Chemicals SA PCWMB
Banksia Park Water Re-use
Scheme
SA y irrigation
Christie Walk SA irrigation
toilet flushing
New Haven Village,
Osborne
SA Terry Chuah
Graeme Hill
y advanced treatment
disinfection
toilet flushing
irrigation
St Elizabeth Church
Carpark
SA UWRC y grass-pave filter
gravel filled trenches
geotextile fabric
irrigation
Brighton TAS Warren Lee y advanced treatment irrigation
Kangaroo Bay Rivulet
Constructed Wetland
TAS Adrian Tanner GPTs
constructed wetland
up to 10% of
annual flow from
wetland used to
irrigate Rosny
Golf Course
Anglesea Golf Course VIC Peter Byrnes y y wetlands ??? irrigation
City of Kingston VIC Brian Trower
Dow Chemical, Altona VIC Land Energy irrigation
Ford Geelong VIC y settling pond ??? industrial re-use
irrigation
Northern Memorial Park,
Fawkner
VIC Ecological
Engineering
y irrigation
Ross House rooftop garden,
Flinders Lane
VIC Terry White irrigation
toilet flushing
Sunbury-Melton Recycled
Water Pipeline
VIC Western Water irrigation
Underground Gas Storage
Plant, Port Campbell
VIC Peter Adcock,
Australian
Wetlands
y wetlands
Sharland Park Estate, Bell
Post Hill
VIC John Maxwell
Bayswater, Perth WA
Byford Village Multiple Tier
WSUD
WA Caversham P/L,
Shire of Serpentine-
Jarrahdale
swales
artificial creeks
wetlands
aeration
irrigation
Henley Annex Land
Division
WA City of Charles
Sturt
y
Roof runoff only
Carindale Pines, Brisbane Qld roof only
Heritage Mews, Castle Hill NSW Peter Coombes both roof and general runoff collected, however only roof runoff is
re-used; general runoff is collected and treated prior to slow release
King St estate, Prahran VIC Dino Kalivas roof runoff stored in old fire service water tank in building's
basement, filtered, used in subsurface drip irrigation
A.3 Summary of Water Re-use Sites not Studied ...continued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
78
Site State Contact General
Runoff
Other
water?
Treatment type Re-use type
Lightning Ridge Public
School, DPWS
NSW Northrop roof only Rocla ecoRain filter UV filter
irrigation toilet flushing
New Brompton SA UWRC roof only irrigation aquifer recharge
Northern Adelaide Plans SA Gerry Davies roof only irrigation
Ormond Road, Elwood VIC Louise Barbon-Elliott
roof only toilet flushing
Rockdale Council Chambers NSW Michael Casteleyn roof only irrigation toilet flushing
International
Henderson Valley NZ City of Waitakere y
Waitakere Hospital NZ Waitakere City Council
general runoff flows into swales & ponds for treatment prior to release into local creek; roofwater collected for toilet flushing
BHP Steel, Glenbrook,
Auckland
NZ
Lower Seletar/Bedok Sing
Village Homes, Davis USA
Prairie Crossings, near
Chicago
USA
At development stage
Bexley Municipal Golf
Course, Bardwell Creek
NSW Bill Woodcock y n irrigation
Urban Environment Centre,
Chipping Norton
NSW Liverpool City Council
wetlands irrigation
Victoria Park, Zetland,
Sydney
NSW Reid Butler John Dahlenburg
y n swales filtration wetlands GPTs
water feature aquifer recharge irrigation
Wyong Public School NSW Martin Lynch y GPT Rocla ecoRain filter
irrigation
Heathwood/Brazil
Development
Qld Ralph Woolley
Edinburgh Parks - Holden
Stormwater Management
Project
SA Colin Pitman y wetlands re-use at Holden, irrigation
Atherton Gardens, Fitzroy VIC Dino Kalivas; EcoEng
y y oil removal swale
irrigation
Aurora, Epping North VIC
Bergins Green Initiative VIC Matt Francey Grace Mitchell
Yet to be decided Yet to be decided
Portland Smelter VIC John Hill
Racing Victoria VIC Melbourne Water engaged Connell Wagner to conduct detailed assessment of 12 racecourses around Melbourne, plan to undertake demonstration project at Cranbourne track
Royal Park Wetland &
Water Re-use Project
VIC City of Melbourne
A.3 Summary of Water Re-use Sites not Studied ...continued
79
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
Appendix B
B.1
A
lto
na G
reen
Park
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Co
nta
ct N
am
e S
am S
ampan
thar
, Ia
n B
row
n
Lo
cati
on
A
lto
na
Mea
do
ws,
VIC
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s H
ob
sons
Bay
Cit
y C
ou
nci
l
Ref
eren
ces
(HB
CC
)
S.
Sam
pan
thar
, per
sonal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
I. B
row
n,
per
son
al c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
edev
elo
pm
ent
Siz
e 4
ha
spo
rts
fiel
d +
30
ho
use
s
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
S
ub
-cat
chm
ent
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
55
7.3
(M
L)
22
.3
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
14
4.5
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
)
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
14
00
-15
00
Geo
logy
Aq
uif
er
Wa
tert
able
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Wat
er c
onse
rvat
ion
and
kee
pin
g l
oca
l b
each
es a
nd
wat
erw
ays
clea
n
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
B.1
Alto
na G
reen
Par
k
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
80
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
G
utt
er, p
ipe,
nat
ura
l dra
inag
e
Ro
of
run
off
co
llec
ted
in
gu
tter
ing o
f n
ew h
om
es a
lon
g t
wo
str
eets
dra
ins
into
a p
iped
syst
em t
hat
cr
oss
es u
nder
th
e st
reet
; gen
eral
run
off
co
llec
ted
by s
tree
t gu
tter
s d
irec
ted
th
rou
gh
ch
ute
open
ings
in t
he
ker
b;
run
off
fro
m s
port
s o
val
s al
so d
rain
s in
to c
oll
ecte
d a
rea
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
B
iofi
lter
G
rass
ed s
wal
e d
rain
(re
mo
ves
lit
ter
and
sil
t), ce
ntr
al f
ilte
r zo
ne
(bio
logic
al t
reat
men
t zo
ne
rem
oves
fin
e o
il p
arti
cles
, d
isso
lved
org
anic
mat
ter
and
nutr
ien
ts)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
U
nd
ergro
un
d s
tora
ge
tan
k m
ade
up o
f sm
all
cell
s
Atl
anti
s ta
nk,
mo
du
les,
po
lyp
rop
yle
ne
wra
p
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 0
.4
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
of
sport
s o
val
s
Ho
w
Sp
rin
kle
r sy
stem
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
B.1
Alto
na G
reen
Par
k ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
81
Re-
use
co
nt…
K
ey L
earn
ing
s H
as b
een
oper
atio
nal
, cu
rren
tly n
ot
du
e to
ele
ctri
cal
pro
ble
ms
wit
h p
um
ps
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
If s
tora
ge
tan
k i
s at
fu
ll c
apac
ity,
run
off
sti
lls
dis
char
ges
alo
ng g
rass
ed s
wal
e an
d o
ver
flo
ws
into
ex
isti
ng s
tree
t dra
inag
e
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
B.1
Alto
na G
reen
Par
k ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
82
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Fil
ters
an
d p
um
ps
(as
requ
ired
)
Wh
o
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Sen
sors
in
pit
s w
her
e w
ater
is
pu
mp
ed
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Sen
sors
for
mo
nit
ori
ng t
ank l
evel
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$2
50
,000
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le s
up
ply
R
edu
ctio
n i
n d
eman
d f
or
mai
ns
wat
er t
o i
rrig
ate
the
sport
ing f
ield
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Lim
itin
g p
oll
uta
nts
and
lit
ter
ente
rin
g P
ort
Phil
lip B
ay
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
R
edu
ce t
he
amo
un
t o
f st
orm
wat
er e
nte
rin
g t
he
mai
n d
rain
age
syst
em
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.1
Alto
na G
reen
Par
k ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
83
B.2
B
ob
bin
Hea
d R
oa
d
Con
tact
In
form
ati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e C
hri
stin
a R
om
an
Lo
cati
on
T
urr
amu
rra,
Syd
ney
, N
SW
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s
Ref
eren
ces
(Ro
man
, 20
03)
C.
Ro
man
, per
son
al c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
eta
ils:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e G
reen
fiel
ds,
med
ium
den
sity
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
66
un
its
Siz
e 2
ha
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
D
id n
ot
get
bey
on
d p
lan
nin
g s
tage
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
S
ub
-div
isio
n?
& A
llo
tmen
t?
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
10
68
.0
(
ML
) 2
1.4
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
12
1.3
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 4
81
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rta
ble
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Dec
reas
e p
ota
ble
wat
er u
sage
Dec
reas
e p
oll
uta
nts
Dec
reas
e in
tro
duct
ion
of
wee
d s
pec
ies
Dec
reas
e fr
equen
cy a
nd s
ever
ity o
f d
isch
arges
Dec
reas
e er
osi
on
an
d s
couri
ng
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
B.2
Bob
bin
Hea
d R
oad
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
84
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Wh
o
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
en
efit
s
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.2
Bob
bin
Hea
d R
oad
...co
ntin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
85
B.3
B
ow
ies
Fla
t W
etl
an
d
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e A
nne
Sim
i
Lo
cati
on
B
ow
ies
Fla
t, C
oo
rpar
oo
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s W
ater
Res
ou
rces
- U
rban
Man
agem
ent
Cit
y D
esig
n
Pip
elin
es -
Bri
sban
e C
ity W
ork
s
Lo
cal
Ass
et S
ervic
es
Ref
eren
ces
L.
Pel
jo, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
A.
Sim
i, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
(BC
C, 2003)
(BC
C, 2003)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
etro
fit
Siz
e 3
77
ha
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
M
ay 2
00
2
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
11
46
.4
(M
L)
43
22
.0
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
12
2.0
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 1
29
7
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rta
ble
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
No
n-s
alin
e
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Fu
lly d
evel
op
ed c
atch
men
t, p
red
om
inan
tly r
esid
enti
al l
and
use
, fl
oo
din
g p
rob
lem
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Red
uce
sto
rmw
ater
po
llu
tio
n, sp
ecif
ical
ly f
ine
sed
imen
ts a
nd
nu
trie
nts
, en
teri
ng t
he
Bri
sban
e R
iver
an
d M
ore
ton
Bay
B.3
Bow
ies
Flat
Wet
land
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
86
Ob
ject
ives
con
t…
En
han
ce t
he
eco
logic
al v
alu
es o
f B
rid
gew
ater
Cre
ek a
nd d
ow
nst
ream
rec
eivin
g w
ater
s
En
han
ce t
he
vis
ual
am
enit
y a
nd
rec
reat
ion
al v
alu
es o
f B
ow
ies
Fla
t an
d i
ts s
urr
ou
nds
Imp
rove
com
mu
nit
y a
war
enes
s, w
hil
e p
rovid
ing e
du
cati
on
al a
nd r
esea
rch
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
loca
l,
regio
nal
an
d n
atio
nal
sta
keh
old
ers,
in
clu
din
g l
oca
l sc
hoo
ls,
rese
arch
in
stit
uti
on
s an
d s
torm
wat
er
ind
ust
ries
E
nsu
re r
isks
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
th
e p
roje
ct s
uch
as
flo
od
ing,
pu
bli
c sa
fety
an
d m
osq
uit
oes
are
m
inim
ised
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
G
utt
er, p
ipe,
chan
nel
C
on
ven
tio
nal
sto
rmw
ater
co
llec
tio
n s
yst
em, fl
ow
s in
to a
co
ncr
ete
lin
ed o
pen
ch
ann
el (
Bri
dgew
ater
C
reek
) to
th
e po
nd
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 2
.3 M
L p
on
d
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 1
00
% r
uno
ff p
asse
s th
rou
gh
th
e p
on
d;
pro
po
rtio
n s
tore
d d
epen
ds
on
siz
e o
f st
orm
even
t
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
G
PT
s at
tw
o m
ajor
inle
ts t
o t
he
pon
d,
sed
imen
tati
on
in t
he
sett
ling p
on
d
Capaci
ty (
ML
) A
RI
3 m
on
th
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Hyd
rau
lic
per
form
ance
key
in
flu
ence
in
des
ign
pro
cess
- w
ant
to m
axim
ise
trea
tmen
t per
form
ance
b
ut
no
t ex
acer
bat
e u
pst
ream
flo
od
ing
Ed
ges
bet
wee
n t
urf
an
d p
lan
tin
g a
reas
des
ign
ed a
s m
ow
ing s
trip
s fo
r ea
se o
f m
ainte
nan
ce
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Em
ban
km
ent
slo
ps
sho
uld
be
gen
tle
to e
nco
ura
ge
pla
nt
esta
bli
shm
ent
and
fo
r ea
se o
f m
ain
ten
ance
Sto
rag
e H
ow
In
th
e po
nd
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 2
.3 M
L
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 0
.17%
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
B.3
Bow
ies
Flat
Wet
land
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
87
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
of
par
kla
nd
Ho
w
Pum
ped
fro
m p
on
d w
ith a
port
able
pum
p
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) S
mal
l p
rop
ort
ion
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
B.3
Bow
ies
Flat
Wet
land
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
88
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Pub
lic
can
acc
ess
po
nd
an
d m
acro
ph
yte
zo
ne
ho
wev
er g
rate
s p
reven
t u
nau
tho
rise
d a
cces
s to
in
let
and
outl
et s
truct
ure
s
"All
wea
ther
" ped
estr
ian
cro
ssin
g o
f m
ain
wat
erw
ay
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Op
erat
ion
an
d m
ain
ten
ance
man
ual
dev
elo
ped
du
rin
g d
esig
n p
has
e, d
etai
ls r
eco
mm
ended
m
ain
ten
ance
su
ch a
s re
gu
lar
insp
ecti
on
an
d c
lean
ing o
f G
PT
s, w
eed
rem
oval
Inte
nsi
ve
mai
nte
nan
ce d
uri
ng p
lan
t es
tab
lish
men
t per
iod
Who
L
oca
l A
sset
Ser
vic
es -
Cust
om
er a
nd
Com
mun
ity S
erv
ices
Key
lea
rnin
gs
On
go
ing c
ost
s m
ay b
e m
inim
ised
by i
nvo
lvin
g m
ain
ten
ance
sta
ff e
arly
in
th
e d
esig
n p
roce
ss
Saf
ety o
f m
ainte
nan
ce s
taff
sh
ou
ld b
e ad
dre
ssed
in
the
des
ign a
nd
inst
alla
tio
n o
f h
yd
rau
lic
stru
ctu
res
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
TS
S,
TN
, T
P,
VS
S a
fter
sto
rm e
ven
ts, as
par
t o
f w
etla
nd
mo
nit
ori
ng p
rogra
m (
rath
er t
han
for
re-
use
wat
er q
ual
ity)
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Su
cces
s ag
ain
st p
erfo
rman
ce c
rite
ria
to b
e m
easu
red
over
fir
st f
ive
yea
rs o
f as
par
t o
f B
CC
's
SQ
UID
s M
on
itori
ng P
rogra
m
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Eff
ecti
ve
at r
emo
vin
g c
oar
se s
ilt
and
fin
e sa
nd
, b
ut
dep
enden
t o
n t
he
size
of
the
storm
even
t an
d
the
char
acte
rist
ics
of
the
infl
ow
ing p
arti
cle
size
dis
trib
uti
on
and
co
nce
ntr
atio
n
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s K
ey l
earn
ings
An
on
-sit
e re
pre
senta
tive
to o
ver
see
envir
on
men
tal
con
tro
ls a
nd
per
form
ance
(u
nd
er t
he
sup
ervis
ion
of
the
En
vir
on
men
tal
Au
dit
or)
is
likel
y t
o i
ncr
ease
en
vir
on
men
tal
com
pli
ance
wit
h
bo
th t
he
lice
nce
co
nd
itio
ns
and
Gen
eral
En
vir
on
men
tal
Du
ty
Ass
emb
lin
g t
he
full
des
ign
pro
ject
tea
m e
arly
in
th
e det
aile
d d
esig
n p
has
e al
low
s al
l d
isci
pli
nes
to
feed
sim
ult
aneo
usl
y i
nto
th
e des
ign
pro
cess
an
d i
nfl
uen
ce t
he
wet
lan
d's
per
form
ance
B.3
Bow
ies
Flat
Wet
land
...c
ontin
ued
g
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Wat
er c
an b
e so
urc
ed f
rom
mai
ns
sup
ply
du
rin
g d
ry p
erio
ds
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
89
Per
form
an
ce c
on
t…
Wat
er q
ual
ity s
ho
uld
be
mo
nit
ore
d f
rom
pri
or
to p
lanti
ng t
o e
stab
lish
a b
asel
ine
for
eval
uat
ing t
he
trea
tmen
t p
erfo
rman
ce o
f w
etla
nd
veg
etat
ion
Go
od
des
ign
an
d t
reat
men
t per
form
ance
are
su
bsi
dia
ry f
acto
rs i
n t
he
eyes
of
com
mu
nit
y.
Thei
r p
rim
ary c
on
cern
is
the
dir
ect
imp
act
of
the
pro
ject
on
th
eir
life
style
or
pro
per
ty v
alu
e (p
roje
ct
man
ager
)
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$2
.75
m
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Sm
all
red
uct
ion
ach
ieved
, p
ark o
nly
irr
igat
ed d
uri
ng 1
2 m
on
th e
stab
lish
men
t p
erio
d,
curr
entl
y n
ot
irri
gat
ed
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t A
dd
ress
es f
orm
er f
lood
ing p
rob
lem
in
the
area
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Rem
oval
of
litt
er,
sed
imen
t an
d n
utr
ien
ts p
rio
r to
do
wn
stre
am r
elea
se
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
H
abit
at p
rovis
ion
, fl
ow
s o
f im
pro
ved
qual
ity
B.3
Bow
ies
Flat
Wet
land
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
90
B.4
C
ha
rle
s S
turt
Un
iversi
ty,
Th
urgoo
na
Ca
mp
us
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e D
avid
Mit
chel
l
Lo
cati
on
1
0 k
m N
E A
lbu
ry
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s
Ref
eren
ces
(Mit
chel
l et
al.
, 2
001
)
D.
Mit
chel
l, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
(Ch
arle
s S
turt
Un
iver
sity
, 2
003
)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e G
reen
fiel
ds
Siz
e 8
7 h
a
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
Ja
nuar
y 1
99
9
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
S
ub
-cat
chm
ent
(7 a
cross
sit
e, 3
init
iall
y d
evel
op
ed)
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
71
5.2
(
ML
) 6
22
.2
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
97
.1
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 1
86
.7
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
No
su
pp
lies
of
gro
un
dw
ater
ap
pea
r to
be
pre
sen
t
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Lan
d p
revio
usl
y u
sed
over
pas
t 1
50
yea
rs f
or
var
iou
s fo
rms
of
agri
cult
ure
; m
ost
of
the
ori
gin
al
wo
od
lan
d c
lear
ed a
nd
rep
lace
d b
y p
oor
qu
alit
y p
astu
re
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
En
vir
on
men
tall
y e
ffic
ient,
on
-sit
e m
anag
emen
t of
wat
er r
eso
urc
es (
and
oth
er n
atu
ral
reso
urc
es)
in
an u
ndev
elo
ped
, gre
en f
ield
sit
e
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
B.4
Cha
rles
Stu
rt U
nive
rsity
, Thu
rgoo
na C
ampu
s
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
91
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
con
t…
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t P
oss
ibil
ity o
f usi
ng r
ainw
ater
for
hum
an c
onsu
mpti
on i
nves
tigat
ed b
ut
consi
der
ed t
o p
ose
u
nac
cepta
ble
ris
ks
to p
erso
nnel
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
N
atura
l d
rain
age,
sw
ales
Dir
ecte
d b
y c
onto
ur
ban
ks
to s
wal
es
Capaci
ty (
ML
) S
ub
catc
hm
ent
1:
av a
nn
ual
yie
ld o
f 7
.5 M
L,
1:1
0 y
r yie
ld o
f 1
1 M
L
Su
bca
tch
men
ts 2
& 3
: co
mbin
ed a
v a
nn
ual
yie
ld o
f 42
.7 M
L,
1:1
0 y
r yie
ld o
f 6
1 M
L
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Sw
ales
mea
nd
er o
ver
lan
dsc
ape
to c
on
tro
l er
osi
on
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
In
-str
eam
tre
atm
ent
wet
lan
ds
in e
ach s
wal
e
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Obje
ctiv
es:
sed
imen
tati
on
of
par
ticu
late
mat
ter,
ret
enti
on
of
pla
nt
nutr
ients
, ae
rati
on
of
infl
ow
ing
wat
er,
and
sel
f-su
stai
nin
g a
nd
sel
f-o
pti
mis
ing
aq
uat
ic e
cosy
stem
s P
osi
tio
n o
n s
wal
e se
lect
ed w
ith c
on
sid
erat
ion g
iven
to
eff
ecti
ven
ess
of
trea
tmen
t fu
nct
ion
, ae
sth
etic
app
eal.
N
um
ber
of
wet
lan
ds
dep
ends
on
len
gth
of
swal
e an
d l
ikel
y q
ual
ity o
f ru
noff
.
Ro
ck-b
ased
wat
erfa
ll a
t p
oin
t o
f in
flo
w f
or
aera
tio
n,
sed
imen
tati
on
po
ol
at l
east
4 m
dee
p w
ith
st
eep
sid
es,
bec
om
es m
ore
shal
low
to
~0
.5m
over
dis
tan
ce o
f 5
-10
m a
s d
eter
min
ed b
y s
lope
of
lan
d,
shal
low
are
a p
lan
ted
wit
h e
mer
gen
t aq
uat
ic p
lants
wit
h d
ecre
asin
g t
ole
ran
ce t
o w
ater
dep
th t
o
form
mar
sh a
rea
wh
ere
nutr
ient
upd
ate
is m
axim
ised
an
d f
urt
her
sed
imen
tati
on
occ
urs
.
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
S
ub
catc
hm
ent
1:
rese
rvo
ir
Su
bca
tch
men
ts 2
& 3
: T
hre
e in
terc
on
nec
ted
res
ervo
irs
at b
ott
om
of
site
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 5
6.5
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 3
0%
D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Siz
ed s
o t
hat
th
e n
atu
ral
sup
ply
of
rain
fall
wil
l ex
ceed
req
uir
emen
ts a
t le
ast
once
ever
y f
ive
yea
rs,
to r
educe
bu
ild-u
p o
f sa
lts
in s
tora
ges
B.4
Cha
rles
Stu
rt U
nive
rsity
, Thu
rgoo
na C
ampu
s ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
92
Sto
rage
con
t…
Sal
init
y c
on
tro
l: R
eser
vo
ir i
n s
ub
catc
hm
ent
1 d
esig
ned
to o
ver
flo
w e
ver
y y
ear
into
ro
adsi
de
dra
ins
and
sew
ers
pre
vio
usl
y c
on
stru
cted
by c
ivic
au
thori
ties
. T
hre
e in
terc
on
nec
ted
res
ervo
irs
des
ign
ed
to d
isch
arge
wat
er i
n y
ears
of
hig
h r
ain
fall
in
to n
earb
y c
reek
.
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
, so
me
rele
ased
into
wet
lan
d s
yst
em t
o k
eep
th
e sy
stem
ali
ve
Ho
w
Wat
er f
rom
the
low
est
stora
ge
rese
rvo
ir i
s p
um
ped
to t
urk
ey n
est
dam
s at
th
e to
p o
f th
e si
te v
ia a
w
ind
mil
l an
d a
so
lar
ener
gy p
ow
ered
pu
mp
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e 4
3 b
uil
din
g-i
nte
gra
ted
rai
nw
ater
tan
ks
Re-
use
L
aun
dry
, sp
ray-m
ist
coo
ling s
yst
em
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Inte
rmit
tent-
flo
w c
on
stru
cted
wet
lan
ds
Sto
rag
e Jo
ins
storm
wat
er i
n t
hre
e re
serv
oir
syst
em a
t b
ott
om
of
site
B.4
Cha
rles
Stu
rt U
nive
rsity
, Thu
rgoo
na C
ampu
s ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
93
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se c
on
t…
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Acc
ess
to a
dd
itio
nal
sup
pli
es o
f w
ater
mai
nta
ined
so
th
at e
ssen
tial
req
uir
emen
ts c
an b
e m
et d
uri
ng
per
iod
s w
hen
nat
ura
l p
reci
pit
atio
n i
s lo
w
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Wat
er t
o b
e re
-use
d m
ust
mee
t th
e cr
iter
ia r
equ
ired
fo
r th
at f
orm
of
re-u
se
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l w
ate
r c
ycle
D
evel
op
men
t pri
nci
ple
: re
cycl
e w
ater
wh
erev
er p
oss
ible
Wat
er o
n c
amp
us
is c
ircu
late
d a
nd s
tore
d i
n w
ays
that
are
aes
thet
ical
ly p
leas
ing a
nd
pro
mo
te
mai
nte
nan
ce o
f go
od
wat
er q
ual
ity
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Hig
h s
ecu
rity
wat
er f
or
hu
man
co
nsu
mp
tio
n, p
erso
nal
hygie
ne
and
so
me
oth
er d
om
esti
c u
ses
req
uir
es p
ota
ble
wat
er f
rom
an
auth
ori
sed
su
pp
lier
(A
lbu
ry C
ity C
ou
nci
l)
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Wet
lan
ds
const
ruct
ed a
s lo
w m
ain
ten
ance
syst
ems.
In
vad
ing p
lan
ts h
and
-wee
ded
bef
ore
they
fl
ow
er a
nd
est
abli
sh a
see
d b
ank.
Acc
um
ula
ted
sed
imen
t in
sed
imen
t p
oo
l re
mo
ved
wit
h a
m
ech
anic
al s
ho
vel
an
d i
nco
rpo
rate
d i
nto
so
il a
t a
suit
able
sit
e.
Wh
o
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Gre
yw
ater
wet
lan
ds
mon
ito
red
at
thre
e m
on
thly
in
terv
als
for
coli
form
bac
teri
a, B
OD
, T
N, T
P,
tem
p, pH
, D
O, E
C a
nd t
urb
idit
y
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Gre
yw
ater
wet
lan
ds
per
form
ed w
ell
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
B.4
Cha
rles
Stu
rt U
nive
rsity
, Thu
rgoo
na C
ampu
s ..
.con
tinue
d
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
94
Per
form
an
ce c
on
t…
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
n/a
?
Ben
efit
s
Red
uce
d d
ema
nd
for
po
tab
le
sup
ply
A
ll w
ater
on
the
site
is
har
ves
ted
; p
ota
ble
wat
er p
urc
has
ed f
rom
Alb
ury
Cit
y C
ou
nci
l o
nly
for
dri
nkin
g,
coo
kin
g,
lau
nd
ry a
nd
per
sonal
hygie
ne
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t P
oll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
N
ort
her
n p
art
of
cam
pus
un
sew
ered
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
D
evel
op
men
t of
eco
logic
ally
su
stai
nab
le,
nat
ura
l, a
qu
atic
eco
syst
ems
enco
ura
ged
B.4
Cha
rles
Stu
rt U
nive
rsity
, Thu
rgoo
na C
ampu
s ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
95
B.5
F
igtr
ee
Pla
ce
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Co
nta
ct N
am
e P
eter
Co
om
bes
Lo
cati
on
H
amil
ton, N
ewca
stle
, N
SW
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s N
ewca
stle
Cit
y C
ou
nci
l
Bu
ild
ing B
ette
r C
itie
s P
rogra
m (
fed
eral
go
ver
nm
ent)
NS
W D
epar
tmen
t o
f H
ou
sin
g
Ref
eren
ces
(Co
om
bes
et
al.,
19
98
)
(Co
om
bes
et
al.,
19
99
)
(Co
om
bes
et
al.,
20
00
)
(Co
om
bes
, 2
00
2)
(UW
RC
, 2
00
3)
(M
elb
ou
rne
Wat
er, 2
00
3)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e 2
7 s
mal
l- a
nd
med
ium
-siz
e in
ner
cit
y h
ousi
ng v
entu
re
Siz
e 1.1
ha
(Ham
ilto
n B
us
Sta
tion s
ite
area
= 3
.0 h
a)
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
A
pri
l 1
99
5 (
conce
pt
inves
tigat
ion
an
d d
esig
n)
Red
evel
op
men
t o
pen
ed o
n 2
1 J
une
19
98
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
S
tree
tsca
pe
and
all
otm
ent
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
11
41
.9
(
ML
) 1
2.6
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
13
3.0
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 6
.3
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
16
00
-17
00
Geo
log
y
San
d t
o d
epth
of
10
m,
sub
stra
te o
f cl
ay,
bed
rock
at
25
m
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
2
-2.5
m,
var
ies
seas
on
ally
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t ~
4 m
/yr
Oth
er
Pri
or
to r
emed
iati
on
, gro
und
wat
er a
t 3
-4 m
dep
th s
ho
wed
dar
k d
isco
lou
rati
on
du
e to
pre
sence
of
iro
n a
nd m
angan
ese
salt
s
B.5
Figt
ree
Plac
e
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
96
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Pre
vio
usl
y u
sed
as
a tr
ansp
ort
atio
n c
entr
e si
nce
th
e ea
rly 1
90
0s,
in
itia
l u
se b
y t
ram
s, m
ore
rec
entl
y
bu
ses;
res
ult
ed i
n m
ajor
con
tam
inat
ion
ho
t sp
ots
of
PA
H,
TP
H, h
eavy m
etal
s, p
esti
cides
, o
il a
nd
gre
ase
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
To
ret
ain
sto
rmw
ater
on
-sit
e an
d r
educe
po
tab
le w
ater
co
nsu
mpti
on
To
dem
onst
rate
th
at n
orm
al u
rban
liv
ing c
ou
ld b
e p
urs
ued
wit
h s
ign
ific
antl
y l
ess
pota
ble
wat
er
con
sum
pti
on
than
use
d i
n c
on
ven
tio
nal
dev
elo
pm
ents
Pla
nn
ing i
nd
icat
ed t
hat
su
ffic
ien
t w
ater
co
uld
be
har
ves
ted
on
sit
e to
mee
t 5
0%
in
-ho
use
nee
ds,
1
00
% d
om
esti
c ir
rigat
ion
nee
ds,
10
0%
bus-
was
hin
g d
eman
d
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Ass
esse
d a
gai
nst
Aust
rali
an D
rinkin
g W
ater
Gu
idel
ines
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
R
un
off
fro
m p
aved
are
as, la
wn
s an
d g
arden
s p
asse
s to
cen
tral
Det
enti
on
Bas
in R
echar
ge
Are
a
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Inte
rnal
ker
bed
ro
adw
ays
Des
ign
flo
od
cap
acit
y i
s 8
3%
of
run
off
fo
r al
l ev
ents
up
to
and
in
c 1
in
50
yea
r ev
ent
Hig
h i
nfi
ltra
tio
n r
ates
of
san
dy s
oil
ex
plo
ited
to
min
imis
e o
ver
flo
ws
fro
m t
he
bas
in
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
In
filt
rate
d t
hro
ugh
bas
e o
f d
ry d
eten
tio
n b
asin
; 2
50
sq
.m g
rass
ed d
epre
ssio
n, o
ver
lays
75
0m
m l
ayer
o
f gra
vel
en
clo
sed
in
geo
fab
ric
bel
ow
30
0m
m t
opso
il l
ayer
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rage
Ho
w
Un
con
fined
aqu
ifer
(A
SR
)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
B.5
Figt
ree
Plac
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
97
Sto
rage
con
t…
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Flo
wn
et m
od
el o
f aq
uif
er s
yst
em u
sed
to
ex
plo
re p
oss
ible
gro
un
dw
ater
im
pac
ts
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
No
sto
rmw
ater
over
flo
w f
rom
sit
e up
to
20
00 a
nd
a m
axim
um
dep
th o
f p
on
din
g i
n t
he
det
enti
on
b
asin
of
26
0m
m w
ith
a r
esid
ence
tim
e o
f 6
hou
rs h
as b
een e
xper
ience
d
Re-
use
W
ha
t G
ard
en a
nd o
pen
spac
e ir
rigat
ion
, b
us
was
hin
g a
t ad
jace
nt
dep
ot,
oth
er o
utd
oo
r u
se
Ho
w
Su
bm
erged
pu
mp
wit
hin
rec
har
ge
bas
in a
t d
epth
of
10 m
, p
um
ped
as
req
uir
ed,
dual
ret
icu
lati
on
, o
pti
on
ally
tre
ated
(ac
tivat
ed c
arbo
n)
for
colo
ur
rem
oval
Capaci
ty (
ML
) M
ax 2
00
0 k
L/y
r su
pp
lied
to b
us
dep
ot
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Pre
lim
inar
y s
tud
ies
of
wat
er a
vai
lab
ilit
y f
rom
ro
of
and g
ener
al r
un
off
in
dic
ated
am
ple
su
pply
fo
r d
om
esti
c u
ses
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
(if
tre
ate
d a
nd
use
d s
epa
rate
ly)
Capaci
ty (
ML
) R
ainta
nk c
apac
itie
s ra
nge
fro
m 9
to
15
kL
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
S
torm
wat
er p
ipes
T
reatm
ent
Fir
st-f
lush
pit
s se
par
ate
firs
t 2
mm
of
rain
fall
; re
info
rced
co
ncr
ete
box
pla
ced
over
fib
re r
ein
forc
ed
con
cret
e p
ipe,
bo
x c
onta
ins
a sc
reen
to f
ilte
r deb
ris
and
a b
affl
e to
sep
arat
e fi
rst
flush
fro
m i
nfl
ow
to
rai
nta
nk,
wat
er r
etai
ned
upst
ream
of
baf
fle
infi
ltra
tes
thro
ugh
ho
les
in b
ase
of
bo
x t
o p
ipe
and
so
il
Sto
rag
e F
ive
cen
tral
ised
und
ergro
un
d t
anks;
rei
nfo
rce
con
cret
e ra
inta
nks,
con
tain
in
let
fro
m f
irst
flu
sh p
it,
clea
n o
ut
cham
ber
fo
r sl
ud
ge
rem
oval
, lo
w w
ater
lev
el m
on
ito
r, o
utl
et f
or
do
mes
tic
sup
ply
an
d
over
flo
w p
ipe
to a
rec
har
ge
tren
ch
Re-
use
P
um
ps
wit
h p
ress
ure
cel
ls s
upp
ly r
ainw
ater
fro
m t
anks
to h
ot
wat
er s
yst
ems
and
for
toil
et f
lush
ing,
fail
-saf
e sy
stem
s in
clu
de
seco
nd
pu
mp
in c
ase
of
fail
ure
an
d s
ole
no
id t
o s
wit
ches
to m
ain
s su
pp
ly i
f in
adeq
uat
e w
ater
pre
ssure
, el
ectr
icit
y f
ailu
re o
r lo
w w
ater
lev
el i
s det
ecte
d;
dual
ret
icula
tion,
bac
kfl
ow
pre
ven
tio
n d
evic
es u
sed
to
iso
late
fro
m m
ain
s su
pp
ly
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
B.5
Figt
ree
Plac
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
98
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Pro
vis
ion
mad
e fo
r co
nver
sio
n t
o c
on
ven
tio
nal
pra
ctic
es (
i.e.
can
rev
ert
to m
ain
s su
pp
ly)
sho
uld
w
ater
qual
ity f
all
bel
ow
acc
epte
d l
evel
s o
r d
rou
gh
t o
ccu
r
Det
enti
on
bas
in p
rovid
es a
n o
pen
spac
e re
crea
tio
n a
rea
duri
ng d
ry s
pel
ls
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Irri
gat
ion o
ccurs
duri
ng n
igh
t hours
to m
inim
ise
risk
of
inges
tion
Su
rvey
of
resi
den
ts f
ou
nd
th
at 4
8%
of
resp
onden
ts u
sed
wat
er f
rom
th
e h
ot
tap
for
coo
kin
g;
rain
wat
er i
n h
ot
wat
er s
yst
ems
must
be
com
pli
ant
wit
h d
rinkin
g w
ater
sta
nd
ard
s
Bac
kfl
ow
pre
ven
tio
n d
evic
es i
sola
te r
ecycl
ed w
ater
sup
ply
fro
m p
ota
ble
su
pp
ly
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
W
ater
sav
ing a
pp
lian
ces
are
use
d
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Pote
nti
al f
or
und
etec
ted c
onta
min
ants
bei
ng r
elea
sed
in
to t
he
gro
un
dw
ater
an
d p
oll
uti
ng t
he
resi
den
ts' i
rrig
atio
n s
up
ply
an
d m
ovin
g t
o l
oca
tio
ns
do
wn
stre
am w
her
e o
ff-s
ite
use
rs o
f th
e re
sou
rce
may
als
o b
e af
fect
ed.
So
luti
on
: If
gro
un
dw
ater
qual
ity f
alls
bel
ow
acc
epta
ble
lev
els,
rai
nta
nk
over
flo
w a
nd
ru
no
ff a
rriv
ing a
t ce
ntr
al r
ech
arge
area
are
div
erte
d t
o t
he
Bu
s S
tati
on
dra
inag
e sy
stem
P
oss
ibil
ity t
hat
wat
er r
eten
tion p
ract
ices
mig
ht
pro
duce
a g
roundw
ater
mound a
dver
sely
aff
ecti
ng
the
footi
ngs
of
hom
es, as
wel
l as
cre
atin
g u
nac
cepta
bly
wet
co
nd
itio
ns
in l
oca
l bac
kyar
ds
and
gar
den
s. C
on
ver
sely
, d
isp
erse
d r
ech
arge
wit
h e
xtr
acti
on
fro
m a
cen
tral
wel
l m
ay l
ead
to s
ign
ific
ant
dra
wdow
n o
f gro
undw
ater
nea
r ex
trac
tion p
oin
t. S
olu
tion:
model
ling i
nves
tigat
ion s
how
ed t
hat
ex
isti
ng g
rou
nd
wat
er l
evel
s w
ou
ld b
e p
rese
rved
exce
pt
at r
echar
ge
regio
n w
her
e d
raw
do
wn
may
be
exp
erie
nce
d d
uri
ng s
um
mer
B.5
Figt
ree
Plac
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
99
Poss
ible
prob
lem
s…
Pote
nti
on
al f
or
dro
ugh
t co
nd
itio
ns
causi
ng s
erio
us
dis
rupti
on
to
in
-ho
use
su
pp
lies
. S
olu
tio
n:
bac
ku
p c
on
nec
tio
n t
o p
ota
ble
wat
er s
uu
ply
P
oss
ibil
ity o
f ex
trem
e ra
infa
ll c
ausi
ng s
ever
e fl
oodin
g o
f re
siden
tial
unit
s on t
he
site
. S
olu
tion:
flo
od
s of
gre
at m
agn
itu
de
than
1:5
0 y
r ev
ent
flo
w o
ver
lan
d t
o n
ort
her
n b
ou
nd
ary o
f d
evel
op
men
t an
d c
on
ven
tio
nal
dra
inag
e sy
stem
In
do
or
wat
er c
on
sum
pti
on
and
pro
port
ion
that
is
use
d f
or
ho
t w
ater
an
d t
oil
et f
lush
ing u
nkn
ow
n f
or
the
regio
n;
pre
sente
d d
iffi
cult
ies
in d
eter
min
ing t
he
volu
mes
of
tan
ks
and
cap
acit
y o
f pum
ps
to
del
iver
rai
nw
ater
to
th
e d
wel
lin
gs
Pote
nti
al f
or
hea
lth
pro
ble
ms
resu
ltin
g f
rom
in
ges
tio
n o
f u
nsa
nit
ary w
ater
co
llec
ted
fro
m r
oo
fs a
nd
u
sed
in
ho
t w
ater
syst
ems.
S
olu
tio
n:
roo
f w
ater
sam
pli
ng p
roje
ct c
on
clu
ded
th
at r
oo
f ru
no
ff w
as
vir
tual
ly e
qu
ival
ent
to r
ain
wat
er q
ual
ity a
par
t fr
om
hig
h T
SS
an
d a
sh c
on
ten
t; f
ail-
safe
pro
vis
ion
s in
clu
de:
if
hea
lth s
tand
ard
s no
t m
et,
hot
wat
er s
yst
em c
on
ver
ts t
o m
ain
s su
pp
ly,
sign
age
at h
ot
wat
er t
aps,
ten
ant
edu
cati
on
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Sig
nif
ican
t d
elay
s d
uri
ng d
evel
op
men
t st
age
cau
sed
by a
ppro
val
agen
cies
- c
on
cern
s th
at p
roje
ct
no
t ec
ono
mic
ally
via
ble
, d
ual
ret
icu
lati
on
was
not
com
pli
ant
wit
h A
ust
rali
an S
tan
dar
ds
and
th
at
con
tam
inat
ion
of
mai
ns
supp
ly c
ou
ld o
ccur;
no
in
stit
uti
on
al f
ram
ewo
rk f
or
acce
pta
nce
of
WS
UD
d
esig
n p
rin
cip
les,
lo
ng-t
erm
mai
nte
nan
ce r
equ
irem
ents
an
d c
ost
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Del
iver
y m
eth
od
pla
ys
cruci
al r
ole
in
succ
ess
or
fail
ure
of
inn
ovat
ive
pro
ject
s
Imp
erat
ive
that
sta
nd
ard
of
des
ign
do
cum
enta
tio
n f
or
no
vel
tec
hn
iques
be
abo
ve
aver
age
Ear
ly i
nvo
lvem
ent
of
con
stru
ctin
g c
ontr
acto
r w
ho
is
sym
pat
het
ic t
o p
roje
ct i
nn
ovat
ions
Ear
ly i
nvo
lvem
ent
of
app
roval
agen
cies
Surv
ey o
f te
nan
ts r
evea
led
sig
nif
ican
t ac
cep
tance
of
in-h
ou
se u
se o
f ra
inw
ater
co
llec
ted f
rom
ro
ofs
F
ail-
safe
pro
vis
ion
s an
d o
n-g
oin
g m
on
ito
rin
g p
rogra
m v
ital
ele
men
t o
f th
e p
roje
ct a
nd r
efle
ct i
ts
exp
erim
enta
l nat
ure
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Wat
er l
evel
s in
rai
nta
nks
use
d t
o s
upp
ly t
oil
et f
lush
ing a
nd
hot
wat
er u
ses
const
antl
y d
raw
n d
ow
n;
ensu
res
tan
ks
regu
larl
y h
ave
stora
ge
cap
acit
y a
vai
lab
le t
o a
ccep
t ro
of
runo
ff
Wh
o
New
mac
q C
om
mu
nit
y H
ou
sin
g C
om
pan
y m
anag
es s
ite,
New
cast
le C
ity C
ou
nci
l an
d t
he
NS
W
Sto
rmw
ater
Tru
st f
un
ds
pro
gra
m t
o m
on
ito
r per
form
ance
Key
lea
rnin
gs
B.5
Figt
ree
Plac
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
100
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Rai
nw
ater
tan
ks,
hot
wat
er s
yst
ems
and
pota
ble
su
pp
ly m
anu
ally
mo
nit
ore
d m
onth
ly f
or
faec
al
coli
form
s, t
ota
l co
lifo
rms,
het
erotr
op
hic
pla
te c
ou
nts
, p
seud
om
onas
spec
ies,
DO
, te
m,
pH
, B
OD
, E
C,
colo
ur,
TP
, N
Ox
, ch
lori
des
, sa
lin
ity,
tota
l so
lid
s, g
iard
ia,
cryp
tosp
ori
diu
m
Rai
nw
ater
tan
k q
ual
ity a
uto
mat
ical
ly m
on
itore
d e
ver
y s
ix h
ours
for
pH
, te
m,
EC
, D
O a
nd
turb
idit
y
Gro
un
dw
ater
qu
alit
y (
colo
ur
and c
onta
min
ant
level
s) r
egu
larl
y m
on
itore
d
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Wat
er u
se
Pre
ssu
re s
enso
rs i
n r
ain
wat
er t
ank a
dja
cen
t to
rec
har
ge
bas
in m
easu
re w
ater
dep
ths
ever
y s
ix h
ours
Pre
ssu
re s
enso
rs i
n b
ore
s m
on
ito
r w
ater
tab
le e
ver
y s
ix h
ou
rs
Pre
ssu
re s
enso
rs a
t ce
ntr
al r
ech
arge
area
an
d r
ech
arge
tren
ch d
eter
min
e in
filt
rati
on
rat
es a
nd
q
uan
tity
of
run
off
Oth
er
Auto
mat
ed m
on
itori
ng s
yst
em (
trig
ger
ed b
y r
ain
even
ts)
in a
dd
itio
n t
o m
anual
sam
pli
ng p
rogra
m
Mai
nte
nan
ce
Eco
no
mic
via
bil
ity
So
cial
acc
epta
nce
(via
qu
esti
onn
aire
of
26
ten
ants
) K
ey l
earn
ings
Imp
roved
tan
kw
ater
qu
alit
y w
ill
resu
lt f
rom
sep
arat
ion
of
firs
t fl
ush
rai
nfa
ll f
rom
in
flo
w t
o
rain
tan
ks
Hot
wat
er s
yst
ems
oper
ate
at t
emper
ature
s su
ffic
ient
to p
astu
eriz
e ta
nkw
ater
to p
rod
uce
qual
ity
com
pli
ant
wit
h A
ust
rali
an D
rin
kin
g W
ater
Gu
idel
ines
W
ater
tre
atm
ent
pro
cess
es o
f fl
occ
ula
tio
n,
sett
lem
ent
and
bio
reac
tio
n a
ppea
r to
oper
ate
in r
ain
wat
er
tanks
Sig
nif
ican
t te
nan
t ac
cepta
nce
(9
5%
) o
f th
e u
se o
f ro
of
run
off
fo
r ir
rigat
ion
, to
ilet
flu
shin
g,
ho
t w
ater
syst
ems,
clo
thes
was
hin
g a
nd
coo
kin
g.
Mo
der
ate
acce
pta
nce
(7
0%
) of
the
po
ssib
le u
se o
f ro
of
run
off
fo
r dri
nkin
g p
urp
ose
s.
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Mea
sure
men
t of
inte
rnal
wat
er u
se s
ho
wed
a 6
5%
red
uct
ion
in
pota
ble
wat
er c
on
sum
pti
on
du
rin
g
the
per
iod
Ju
ne
to D
ecem
ber
19
98
W
ate
r q
uali
ty
Gro
un
dw
ater
: co
mp
lies
wit
h A
ust
rali
an D
rin
kin
g W
ater
Sta
ndar
ds
for
all
par
amet
ers
exce
pt
pH
; ac
cep
tab
le f
or
irri
gat
ion
an
d b
us
was
hin
g p
urp
ose
s R
oo
f ru
noff
: o
ccas
ion
ally
ex
ceed
ed g
uid
elin
e val
ues
for
amm
on
ia,
pH
, ir
on
an
d l
ead
; o
ver
all
sam
ple
s fr
om
tan
ks
and
hot
wat
er s
yst
ems
wer
e fo
un
d c
om
pli
ant
wit
h c
hem
ical
an
d m
etal
p
aram
eter
s in
the
Au
stra
lian
Dri
nkin
g W
ater
Gu
idel
ines
W
ate
r q
ua
nti
ty
Infi
ltra
tio
n b
asin
: m
axim
um
obse
rved
em
pty
ing t
ime
less
th
an t
hat
det
erm
ined
to
in
dic
ate
acce
pta
ble
per
form
ance
B.5
Figt
ree
Plac
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
101
Per
form
an
ce c
on
t…
Rai
nta
nks:
11
-44%
red
uct
ion
in
mai
ns
wat
er u
se (
dif
fere
nce
s at
trib
uta
ble
to
co
nst
ruct
ion e
rro
rs w
rt
firs
t fl
ush
pit
s -
low
er v
alues
bec
ause
pit
s se
par
atin
g t
oo
much
run
off
); d
egre
e of
red
uce
d m
ains
wat
er u
se a
nd r
oof
wat
er u
tili
sati
on
dep
end
ent
on
th
e vo
lum
e of
rain
wat
er t
ank s
tora
ge,
roof
area
an
d w
ater
use
per
per
son
, an
d t
he
pro
po
rtio
n o
f ro
of
area
to r
ain
wat
er t
ank v
olu
me
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s R
ain
tan
ks:
per
form
ance
ass
esse
d u
sin
g m
eter
rea
din
gs,
rai
nfa
ll d
ata
and
tan
k l
evel
s K
ey l
earn
ings
Opport
unit
ies
for
impro
ved
des
ign i
n t
he
form
of
reduce
d p
lum
bin
g, el
imin
atio
n o
f bac
kfl
ow
p
reven
tio
n d
evic
es, ex
clu
sio
n o
f re
du
nd
ant
elem
ents
and
mo
re e
ffic
ient
con
stru
ctio
n p
ract
ices
The
exis
tin
g d
esig
n d
etai
ls c
an b
e fu
rth
er i
mp
roved
wit
h c
on
seq
uen
t lo
wer
cost
s
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$2
.7m
bas
ic d
evel
op
men
t, $
10
9,9
00
fo
r W
SU
D e
lem
ents
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
A
nal
ysi
s su
gges
ts t
hat
the
red
evel
op
men
t is
co
st-e
ffec
tive
wh
en c
onsi
der
ed a
s a
com
po
nen
t o
f "b
eyo
nd
cap
acit
y"
urb
an i
nfr
astr
uct
ure
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Pay
bac
k p
erio
d f
or
WS
UD
ele
men
ts w
ou
ld b
e lo
nger
than
th
e an
tici
pat
ed l
ife
of
the
pro
ject
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Over
all
red
uct
ion
in p
ota
ble
wat
er d
eman
d o
f ~
60
% (
40
-45%
by r
esid
ents
) co
mpar
ed w
ith
con
ven
tio
nal
dev
elo
pm
ents
Hig
h r
ain
fall
en
sure
s n
et e
xce
ss a
qu
ifer
rec
har
ge,
wat
er n
ot
req
uir
ed t
o m
eet
on
-sit
e dem
and
s u
sed
by a
dja
cent
bus-
was
hin
g f
acil
ity (
max
2000 k
L/y
r)
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t D
esig
ned
to
co
nta
ins
83
% o
f ru
no
ff (
surf
ace
run
off
fro
m s
even
un
its
in N
E c
orn
er p
asse
s d
irec
tly t
o
con
ven
tio
nal
dra
inag
e sy
stem
) fo
r al
l ev
ents
up
to
an
d i
ncl
ud
ing a
1 i
n 5
0 y
ear
even
t; f
lood
s o
f gre
ater
mag
nit
ud
e w
ill
flo
w o
ver
lan
d t
o s
tree
t at
no
rth
ern
bo
un
dar
y a
nd
pas
s in
to c
on
ven
tio
nal
d
rain
age
syst
em
Rai
nta
nk o
ver
flo
w d
irec
ted
to
so
akaw
ays
(gra
vel
tre
nch
es)
via
sto
rmw
ater
pip
es a
nd
rec
har
ged
to
th
e aq
uif
er;
tren
ches
75
0 m
m d
eep
an
d 1
00
0 m
m w
ide
layer
s o
f gra
vel
en
close
d i
n g
eofa
bri
c b
elo
w
30
0 m
m t
op
soil
lay
er,
over
flo
w f
rom
rai
nta
nks
dis
trib
ute
d w
ith
in t
ren
ches
by s
lott
ed p
ipes
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
S
torm
wat
er d
isch
arge
alm
ost
co
mp
lete
ly e
lim
inat
ed, re
du
ced
do
wn
stre
am f
loo
d p
eak a
nd
red
uce
d
stra
in o
n s
torm
wat
er i
nfr
astr
uct
ure
, in
cludin
g p
oll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
inst
alla
tions
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.5
Figt
ree
Plac
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
102
B.6
H
aw
kesb
ury
Wa
ter R
e-u
se S
ch
em
e
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e S
and
y B
oo
th
Lo
cati
on
G
om
ebee
ree
En
vir
on
s, U
niv
ersi
ty o
f W
este
rn S
yd
ney
, H
awkes
bu
ry C
amp
us
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s U
niv
ersi
ty o
f W
este
rn S
yd
ney
Syd
ney
Wat
er C
orp
ora
tio
n
Ric
hm
on
d T
AF
E
Haw
kes
bu
ry C
ity C
ou
nci
l
Cle
an U
p A
ust
rali
a
Ref
eren
ces
(Bo
oth
and
Ad
cock
)
(Bo
oth
et
al.,
20
03)
(Ste
war
t et
al.
, 20
03)
(Cle
an U
p A
ust
rali
a, 2
00
0)
(20
00)
S.
Bo
oth
, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
J. S
tew
art,
per
son
al c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e D
evel
opin
g i
nte
gra
ted e
nvir
onm
enta
l pre
cinct
focu
sing o
n l
ong-t
erm
iss
ues
of
sust
ainab
ilit
y
Siz
e 4
15
ha
catc
hm
ent
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
80
7.1
(M
L)
43
22
.0
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
11
4.8
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 1
29
7
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
Ter
tiar
y s
edim
ents
~20 m
thic
k w
ith l
ow
poro
sity
Com
ple
men
tary
res
earc
h r
egar
din
g s
oil
sust
ainab
ilit
y a
nd m
onit
ori
ng
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rta
ble
~
7 m
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
B.6
Haw
kesb
ury
Wat
er R
e-us
e Sc
hem
e
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
103
Aq
uif
er c
on
t…
Oth
er
Gro
un
dw
ater
gen
eral
ly o
f lo
w q
ual
ity,
no
t co
nsi
der
ed s
ign
ific
ant
as a
sup
ply
, sa
lin
ity ~
5 x
hig
her
th
an t
reat
ed e
fflu
ent,
mu
ch h
igh
er t
han
sto
rmw
ater
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Par
tly u
rban
ised
, ru
ral
catc
hm
ent;
un
iver
sity
cam
pu
s h
as h
isto
ry o
f ag
ricu
ltu
ral
and
ho
rtic
ult
ura
l st
ud
ies
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
To
sh
ow
case
an
inte
gra
ted
ap
pro
ach
to
eff
luen
t an
d s
torm
wat
er r
e-u
se a
nd
co
nst
ruct
ed w
etla
nd
te
chn
olo
gie
s, a
nd
pro
vid
e a
focu
s fo
r co
mm
un
ity a
war
enes
s o
f th
e p
ote
nti
al b
enef
its
of
wat
er r
e-u
se
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
R
elia
ble
su
pp
ly o
f b
oth
har
ves
ted
sto
rmw
ater
an
d t
reat
ed e
fflu
ent
O
per
ati
on
al
En
vir
on
men
tal
Man
agem
ent
Pla
n p
rep
ared
as
tech
nic
al r
efer
ence
, b
uil
ds
on
th
e A
S/N
ZS
IS
O 1
40
00
se
ries
gu
idel
ines
R
isk
ass
essm
ent
Init
ial
risk
ass
essm
ent
iden
tifi
ed t
he
pre
lim
inar
y r
isk m
anag
emen
t n
eeds
of
the
bro
ad r
ang o
f st
aff,
co
ntr
acto
rs, st
uden
ts a
nd g
ener
al p
ubli
c w
ho u
tili
se t
he
cam
pus
faci
liti
es
Oth
er
Gra
nt
com
mit
men
ts f
or
Maj
or
Infr
astr
uct
ure
:
(a)
dec
reas
e p
oll
uti
on
load
s to
Ric
kab
ys
Cre
ek
(b)
dev
elo
p s
ust
ain
able
and
inte
gra
ted
eff
luen
t an
d u
rban
sto
rmw
ater
man
agem
ent
and
dis
po
sal
bes
t p
ract
ices
(c
) p
ilo
t an
d s
ho
wca
se v
iab
le r
epu
tab
le u
rban
an
d r
ura
l st
orm
wat
er a
nd
tre
ated
sew
age
effl
uen
t re
-u
se
(d)
har
ves
t an
d s
tore
sto
rmw
ater
flo
ws
for
re-u
se p
artl
y a
s h
igher
qu
alit
y e
nvir
on
men
tal
flow
s
(e)
dev
elo
p s
ust
ain
able
sto
rmw
ater
man
agem
ent
and
dis
po
sal
bes
t pra
ctic
es
(f)
pil
ot
and
sho
wca
se v
iab
le a
nd
rep
uta
ble
urb
an a
nd
ru
ral
storm
wat
er r
e-u
se
Gra
nt
com
mit
men
ts f
or
Com
mu
nit
y A
war
enes
s an
d E
duca
tio
n
(a)
a ce
ntr
al f
ocu
es f
or
pas
sive
recr
eati
on
act
ivit
ies
(b)
pro
vid
e a
piv
ota
l an
d m
ean
ingfu
l li
nk w
ith
th
e S
torm
wat
er T
rust
fu
nd
ed Y
ello
w F
ish
Ro
ad
Pro
gra
m i
n R
ichm
ond
(c)
dev
elo
p c
om
mu
nit
y a
war
enes
s an
d e
duca
tio
n t
hro
ugh
sig
nag
e an
d e
du
cati
on
act
ivit
ies
(d)
pro
vid
e o
ngo
ing f
ocu
s fo
r st
orm
wat
er a
nd e
fflu
ent
re-u
se r
esea
rch
, ed
uca
tio
n a
nd
tra
inin
g
thro
ugh
UW
S a
nd
Ric
hm
on
d C
oll
ege
of
TA
FE
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
R
un
off
fro
m u
niv
ersi
ty c
amp
us
and
res
iden
tial
are
as o
f R
ich
mo
nd
to
wn
ship
co
llec
ted
via
co
nven
tio
nal
gu
tter
and
pip
e sy
stem
in
to o
pen
gra
ssed
chan
nel
s, c
oll
ecte
d i
n S
torm
wat
er D
eten
tio
n
Bas
in a
t ju
nct
ion
of
two
mai
n s
torm
wat
er d
rain
s
B.6
Haw
kesb
ury
Wat
er R
e-us
e Sc
hem
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
104
Coll
ecti
on
co
nt…
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) 6
0 (
Bas
in),
40
0 M
L s
torm
wat
er/y
r
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) ~
50%
D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Mo
del
led
by P
hD
stu
den
t (J
oel
Ste
war
t),
ver
ifie
d t
hro
ugh
co
llec
ted
dat
a; s
ever
al f
eatu
res
fro
m
exis
tin
g m
od
els
com
bin
ed t
o c
reat
e a
spre
adsh
eet
mo
del
to
rep
rese
nt
the
har
ves
tab
le y
ield
an
d
asso
ciat
ed w
ater
qu
alit
y;
seri
es o
f su
rfac
e m
ois
ture
sto
res,
lo
g-n
orm
ally
dis
trib
ute
d E
MC
po
llu
tan
t d
istr
ibuti
on
dat
a K
ey L
earn
ings
Sto
rmw
ater
qual
ity f
rom
th
e ca
tch
men
t co
mpar
ativ
ely l
ow
in
SS
, av
erag
e in
TN
, h
igh
in
TP
lo
ads;
m
od
el i
nd
icat
es t
hat
a r
elat
ivel
y s
mal
l p
art
of
the
catc
hm
ent
may
be
resp
onsi
ble
for
hig
h T
P l
evel
s,
repre
sen
tin
g a
go
od
op
po
rtu
nit
y f
or
inte
rven
tio
n o
n a
sm
all
scal
e to
pro
du
ce l
arge
pote
nti
al b
enef
it
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
P
um
ped
fro
m d
eten
tion b
asin
thro
ugh
fou
r w
etla
nds
(co
nst
ruct
ion
nea
ring c
om
ple
tio
n,
sto
rmw
ater
cu
rren
tly p
um
ped
dir
ectl
y f
rom
det
enti
on
bas
in t
o s
tora
ge
dam
) to
Set
tlin
g P
on
d w
her
e fi
ne
sed
imen
ts s
ettl
e o
ut
Capaci
ty (
ML
) W
etla
nd
s: 1
ha
area
eac
h,
15
0m
m a
ver
age
dep
th f
or
no
rmal
op
erat
ing l
evel
, 9
50
mm
to
p w
ater
lev
el,
8 M
L s
tora
ge
cap
acit
y o
f ea
ch w
etla
nd
ab
ove
mai
nte
nan
ce l
evel
s, 3
00
mm
fre
ebo
ard
Set
tlin
g p
on
d:
1.5
ha
area
, 2
.1 m
aver
age
dep
th,
31
.5 M
L t
ota
l st
ora
ge
capac
ity,
25
ML
eff
ecti
ve
stora
ge
cap
acit
y,
16
.5 M
L n
orm
al o
per
atin
g l
evel
, 1
5 M
L n
orm
al f
reeb
oar
d c
apac
ity
15
ML
des
igned
fre
eboar
d f
or
com
bin
ed w
etla
nd
syst
em a
nd
set
tlin
g p
on
d
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Alt
ern
atin
g s
erie
s of
shal
low
wet
lan
ds
area
s an
d d
eep
er o
xid
atio
n p
on
ds,
7 d
ays
tran
sit
tim
e th
rou
gh
w
etla
nd
s, 1
4 d
ays
tota
l tr
eatm
ent
tim
e (i
ncl
udin
g d
eten
tio
n i
n S
ettl
ing P
ond)
Set
tlin
g p
on
d p
rovid
es f
inal
tre
atm
ent
and
sto
rage
capac
ity f
or
trea
ted
sto
rmw
ater
fro
m t
he
wet
lan
ds
for
envir
on
men
tal
flo
ws
to R
ickab
ys
Cre
ek a
nd
sto
rage
in t
he
Tu
rkey
Nes
t D
am
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Des
ign a
llo
ws
a m
ult
itude
of
wet
land f
illi
ng a
nd h
old
ing s
cenar
ios,
this
wil
l al
low
fo
r fu
ture
co
mp
arat
ive
stu
die
s to
be
mad
e fo
r a
wid
e ra
nge
of
man
agem
ent
and
oth
er f
acto
rs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
C
urr
entl
y w
ater
in
th
e D
eten
tio
n B
asin
is
pum
ped
in
to a
Sto
rmw
ater
Turk
ey N
est
Dam
; on
ce t
he
wet
lands
are
com
ple
te, poli
shed
sto
rmw
ater
wil
l be
lift
ed f
rom
Hold
ing P
ond t
o T
urk
ey N
est
Dam
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 9
0 M
L
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Sto
rage
model
ling, ce
ntr
ed o
n a
wat
er a
nd
mas
s b
alan
ce, h
as b
een
uti
lise
d t
o d
escr
ibe
the
cap
ture
, tr
eatm
ent
and
sto
rage
of
storm
wat
er f
rom
th
e ca
tch
men
t.
Act
ivit
ies
wit
hin
th
e ca
tch
men
t (i
ncl
ud
ing
catc
hm
ent
man
agem
ent
op
tio
ns)
an
d t
he
imp
act
on s
torm
wat
er q
ual
ity c
an b
e in
ves
tigat
ed t
hro
ugh
m
od
el v
aria
ble
s as
soci
ated
wit
h p
oll
uti
on
gen
erat
ion
rat
es a
nd
th
e o
per
atio
n o
f th
e st
orm
wat
er r
e-u
se i
nfr
astr
uct
ure
.
B.6
Haw
kesb
ury
Wat
er R
e-us
e Sc
hem
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
105
Sto
rage
con
t…
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t E
nvir
on
men
tal fl
ow
s, s
up
ply
Ric
hm
on
d T
AF
E's
irr
igat
ion
req
uir
emen
ts (
wh
ere
it g
oes
thro
ugh
its
o
wn
ser
ies
of
stora
ges
an
d f
ilte
rs),
bac
ku
p s
up
ply
fo
r tr
eate
d e
fflu
ent
(use
d t
o i
rrig
ated
pla
yin
g
fiel
ds,
pas
ture
s an
d R
ich
mo
nd g
olf
clu
b)
Ho
w
Irri
gat
ion
: S
han
die
d w
ith t
reat
ed e
fflu
ent
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Har
ves
tin
g a
nd
re-
use
mo
del
led
by P
hD
stu
den
t (J
oel
Ste
war
t)
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) 2
.5 (
aver
age
dai
ly f
low
), 9
27
(av
erag
e an
nual
pro
du
ctio
n)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
R
ich
mo
nd
ST
P
Tre
atm
ent
Tri
ckli
ng f
ilte
r te
chno
logy,
dis
infe
ctio
n (
new
in
term
itte
nt
dec
ante
d a
ero
bic
lag
oo
n p
lan
t to
be
com
ple
ted
in
lat
e 2
004
);
wet
wea
ther
flo
ws
from
ST
P c
aptu
red
an
d t
reat
ed i
n w
etla
nd
s p
rior
to
pu
mp
ing t
o s
tora
ge.
Sto
rag
e 93 M
L E
fflu
ent
Turk
ey N
est
Dam
, 84 M
L H
ort
icult
ure
Dam
, 76 M
L H
ills
ide
Dam
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
B.6
Haw
kesb
ury
Wat
er R
e-us
e Sc
hem
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
106
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se c
on
t…
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Sp
oil
mat
eria
l fr
om
Set
tlin
g P
on
d s
pre
ad o
n i
mm
edia
tely
ad
jace
nt
area
cre
atin
g ~
5 h
a su
itab
le f
or
pas
sive
com
mu
nit
y r
ecre
atio
n
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Shel
terb
elts
at
edge
of
pas
ture
s to
pre
ven
t publi
c fr
om
com
ing i
nto
conta
ct w
ith s
pra
y d
rift
Envir
onm
enta
l M
anag
emen
t P
lan (
bas
ed u
pon I
SO
14000),
pre
lim
inar
y r
isk a
sses
smen
t an
d a
n
on
go
ing p
rogra
m t
o d
evel
op
eff
ecti
ve
risk
co
mm
un
icat
ion
an
d m
anag
emen
t st
rate
gie
s
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Co
nsi
der
atio
n o
f th
e n
eed
fo
r so
il t
reat
men
t to
pre
ven
t gro
und
wat
er a
cces
sio
ns
and
to
aid
pla
nt
esta
bli
shm
ent
in w
etla
nd
s
Co
mp
lem
enta
ry r
esea
rch
into
poss
ible
gro
und
wat
er i
mp
acts
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
R
e-use
of
har
ves
ted
sto
rmw
ater
inte
gra
ted
wit
h u
se o
f tr
eate
d e
fflu
ent
Sch
eme
is p
art
of
a d
evel
op
ing i
nte
gra
ted
en
viro
nm
enta
l p
reci
nct
as
a h
ub
fo
r w
ide
ran
gin
g a
spec
ts
of
pra
ctic
al m
anag
emen
t, r
esea
rch
an
d c
om
mu
nit
y o
utr
each
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
RA
AF
bas
e nea
rby, in
crea
sed b
irdli
fe a
s a
resu
lt o
f co
nst
ruct
ed w
etla
nds,
min
imis
atio
n o
f av
ifau
na
inco
rpora
ted
in
wet
lan
ds
des
ign
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
The
Un
iver
sity
an
d T
AF
E a
re e
ach
res
po
nsi
ble
for
mai
nta
inin
g p
ipin
g a
nd
rel
ated
in
fras
truct
ure
(w
hic
h i
s fi
xed
to a
nd
sit
uat
ed o
n l
and
ow
ned
or
occ
up
ied b
y i
t) i
n g
oo
d w
ork
ing o
rder
and
con
dit
ion
Init
ial
pro
po
sed
pro
ject
lif
e is
10 y
ears
Wee
d m
anag
emen
t V
aria
ble
nat
ure
of
storm
wat
er h
arves
tin
g r
efle
cted
in
all
ow
ed w
etti
ng a
nd
dry
ing o
f w
etla
nd
s, a
nd
d
evel
op
ing e
nvir
on
men
tal
flo
w r
egim
e ab
ove
smal
l d
isch
arges
i.e
. m
imic
kin
g n
atu
ral sy
stem
of
swam
p a
nd
abso
rbin
g s
mal
ler
flo
ws
and
on
ly d
isch
argin
g a
bo
ve
this
Wh
o
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Mea
sure
d a
t ta
ps
loca
ted
on
outf
low
pip
es f
rom
maj
or
wat
er s
tora
ges
Wee
kly
: fa
ecal
co
lifo
rms,
enet
eroco
cci,
pH
, T
DS
, E
C,
DO
, B
OD
, tu
rbid
ity,
tem
, 2
54/5
10
nm
B.6
Haw
kesb
ury
Wat
er R
e-us
e Sc
hem
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
107
Mo
nit
ori
ng c
on
t…
Mo
nth
ly:
TN
, T
P, T
SS
, C
hl
a, c
hlo
rin
e re
sid
ual
Hal
f-yea
rly:
Na,
K,
Mg,
Ca,
Cl,
SO
4,
HC
O3,
CO
3
Yea
rly:
hea
vy m
etal
s (A
s, C
d,
Cr,
Hg, P
b),
pes
tici
des
So
il a
nd
gro
un
dw
ater
im
pac
ts
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Wee
kly
: st
ora
ge
dep
ths,
wat
er f
low
s F
low
met
er a
t en
d o
f tr
ansf
er p
ipe
fro
m t
he
un
iver
sity
to
the
TA
FE
; w
ater
su
pp
ly r
eco
rded
on
a
mo
nth
ly b
asis
Gro
un
dw
ater
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
Co
nsi
der
able
ad
dit
ion
al i
nfr
astr
uct
ure
in
th
e fo
rm o
f p
ipes
an
d p
um
ps
pro
vid
ed a
s in
-kin
d
con
trib
uti
ons
by a
ran
ge
of
ind
ust
ry a
nd b
usi
nes
s par
tner
s
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
) U
ser
pri
ce
Use
rs a
re n
ot
char
ged
per
kL
, h
ow
ever
Ric
hm
on
d T
AF
E c
on
trib
ute
to
cap
tial
in
fras
tru
cture
co
sts
and
mee
t a
shar
e o
f th
e o
ngo
ing o
per
atio
nal
co
sts,
wo
uld
be
inte
rest
ing t
o k
no
w i
f th
is l
eads
to
exce
ss w
ater
use
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Red
uce
d d
eman
d o
n p
ota
ble
wat
er s
up
pli
es
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Min
imis
ing i
mp
acts
of
effl
uen
t d
isch
arges
into
Haw
kes
bu
ry-N
epea
n R
iver
syst
em
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
N
utr
ient
recy
clin
g,
har
ves
tin
g a
nd
use
for
agri
cult
ura
l pro
duct
ion
E
nvi
ron
men
tal
flo
w
So
me
sto
rmw
ater
rel
ease
d t
o R
ickab
ys
Cre
ek a
s en
vir
on
men
tal
flo
ws
of
imp
roved
wat
er q
ual
ity
H
arves
ted
sto
rmw
ater
cri
tica
l bu
ffer
wit
hin
Sch
eme
B.6
Haw
kesb
ury
Wat
er R
e-us
e Sc
hem
e ..
.con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
108
B.7
H
om
eb
ush
Bay
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e A
nd
rzej
Lis
tow
ski
Lo
cati
on
S
ydney
, N
SW
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s S
yd
ney
Oly
mp
ic P
ark A
uth
ori
ty
Ref
eren
ces
A.
Lis
tow
ski,
per
son
al c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
(SO
PA
, 2
00
3)
(Mel
bou
rne
Wat
er, 2
00
3)
(Un
ited
KG
, 2
00
3)
(OC
A,
19
98
)
(OC
A,
19
99
)
(OC
A,
20
00
)
(SO
PA
, 2
00
2)
(DE
H, 2003)
(In
no
vat
ion
On
lin
e, 1
99
9)
(In
no
vat
ion
On
lin
e, 2
00
0)
(Ro
cla,
20
03)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
edev
elopm
ent
(res
iden
tial
est
ate,
sta
te s
po
rtin
g f
acil
itie
s, b
usi
nes
s p
ark a
nd
open
spac
e)
Siz
e 7
60
ha,
~4
00
of
wh
ich
is
par
kla
nd
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
W
ork
on
WR
P a
nd
WT
P c
om
men
ced
in S
epte
mb
er 1
99
9,
WR
AM
S c
om
men
ced
27
July
20
00
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t an
d a
llo
tmen
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
92
1.3
(M
L)
33
49
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
10
6.4
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 6
14
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
12
00
-13
00
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
B.7
Hom
ebus
h B
ay
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
109
Aq
uif
er c
on
t…
Oth
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Fo
rmer
ly u
sed
for
lan
dfi
ll,
abb
ato
irs
and
a n
avy a
rmam
ent
dep
ot
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
En
sure
co
mp
lian
ce w
ith
th
e en
vir
on
men
tal
und
erta
kin
gs
mad
e b
y t
he
NS
W G
over
nm
ent
in
Syd
ney
's B
id d
ocu
men
t, T
he
En
vir
on
men
tal
Gu
idel
ines
for
the
Su
mm
er O
lym
pic
Gam
es
(Sep
tem
ber
19
93
) E
nco
ura
ge
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
inn
ovat
ive
and
eff
ecti
ve
was
tew
ater
tre
atm
ent
tech
no
logie
s an
d
man
agem
ent
pra
ctic
es
Posi
tio
n t
he
NS
W G
over
nm
ent
in a
lea
din
g r
ole
by d
emo
nst
rati
ng s
ou
nd,
sust
ain
able
wat
er r
eso
urc
e m
anag
emen
t in
a h
igh p
rofi
le p
roje
ct
Red
uce
dem
and
for
pota
ble
wat
er f
rom
Syd
ney
Wat
er's
syst
ems
Red
uce
sew
age
dis
char
ge
to S
yd
ney
Wat
er's
syst
ems.
Imp
rove
the
qu
alit
y o
f st
orm
wat
er e
nte
rin
g H
om
ebu
sh B
ay a
nd
th
e P
arra
mat
ta R
iver
fro
m t
he
site
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
N
SW
Rec
ycl
ed W
ater
Co-o
rdin
atio
n C
om
mit
tee
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Oly
mp
ic C
oo
rdin
atio
n A
uth
ori
ty A
ct 1
995
Pro
tect
ion
of
the
En
vir
on
men
t O
per
atio
ns
Act
19
97
En
vir
on
men
tal P
lan
nin
g a
nd A
sses
smen
t A
ct 1
99
7
Sta
te E
nvir
on
men
t P
lann
ing P
oli
cy N
o 3
8 -
Oly
mp
ic G
ames
Pro
ject
s
Syd
ney
Reg
ion
al E
nv
iro
nm
enta
l P
lann
ing P
oli
cy N
o 2
4 -
Ho
meb
ush
Bay
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
G
utt
er a
nd
pip
e sy
stem
for
hig
h t
raff
ic a
reas
, sw
ales
in
lo
w t
raff
ic a
reas
E
xte
nsi
ve
use
of
per
mea
ble
pav
ers
(Ro
cla
Eco
Tri
hex
) an
d e
ngin
eere
d s
oil
s (t
hat
pre
ven
t co
mp
acti
on
) th
rou
gh
out
urb
an d
om
an a
reas
to
max
imis
e ra
inw
ater
abso
rpti
on
for
larg
e am
enit
y
tree
s
Som
e sp
ort
ing v
enu
es c
oll
ect
ow
n r
oo
f ru
no
ff
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
B.7
Hom
ebus
h B
ay .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
110
Co
llec
tio
n c
on
t…
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
P
rio
r to
sto
rage:
GP
Ts,
sw
ales
, co
nst
ruct
ed w
etla
nds
Ru
no
ff d
irec
ted
to
lit
ter
and
sed
imen
t co
ntr
ol
dev
ices
(G
PT
s, s
wal
es)
and
to
co
nst
ruct
ed w
etla
nd
s
3 w
ater
qu
alit
y c
on
tro
l p
ond
s co
llec
t fi
rst
flush
, al
low
sed
imen
ts t
o s
ettl
e an
d a
bso
rb n
utr
ien
ts v
ia
aqu
atic
pla
nts
Post
sto
rage:
mic
rofi
ltra
tio
n,
rever
se o
smosi
s, c
hlo
rin
e d
isin
fect
ion
, dec
hlo
rin
atio
n
Capaci
ty (
ML
) T
reat
men
t p
lant:
7M
L/d
ay
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Gab
ion
wal
ls e
nsu
re a
reas
of
op
en w
ater
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
L
ow
er l
evel
s o
f d
isu
sed
bri
ckp
it
Wet
lands
along H
asla
ms
Cre
ek s
tore
sto
rmw
ater
fro
m a
dja
cent
Par
kal
nds,
New
ingto
n a
nd t
he
Hil
l ro
ad c
ar p
ark (
seco
ndar
y s
tore
); s
epar
ate
pond
s fo
r dra
wd
ow
n a
nd
orn
amen
tal/
bio
div
ersi
ty
con
serv
atio
n p
urp
ose
s
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 3
50
ML
bri
ckp
it,
140
ML
wet
lan
ds
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Bri
ckpit
sto
rage
is c
orn
erst
one
of
sch
eme,
sto
rage
capac
ity f
ar g
reat
er t
han
irr
igat
ion
req
uir
emen
ts,
low
est
level
dra
wn
do
wn
to i
s ~
55
% d
uri
ng s
um
mer
02/0
3
Syst
em o
per
atio
nal
fo
r 3
yea
rs, n
o t
op
up
wit
h p
ota
ble
wat
er r
equ
ired
so
far
H
igh
nu
trie
nts
lev
els
in b
rick
pit
sto
re,
vis
ible
alg
al g
row
th,
curr
entl
y i
nves
tigat
ing o
pti
on
s fo
r n
utr
ien
t re
mo
val
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
, w
ater
fea
ture
s an
d o
ther
ou
tdo
or
use
s, t
oil
et f
lush
ing,
fire
fig
hti
ng,
envir
on
men
tal
flo
ws
Ho
w
Dual
ret
icu
lati
on
, 3
0 k
m o
f d
istr
ibuti
on
pip
elin
es
Lo
w v
olu
me
irri
gat
ion
syst
ems
inst
alle
d w
her
e p
oss
ible
; se
par
ate
irri
gat
ion
syst
ems
in s
om
e ar
eas
for
flex
ible
irr
igat
ion
(e.
g.
tree
s ca
n b
e w
ater
ed w
hil
e gra
ssed
are
as r
emai
n d
ry)
Capaci
ty (
ML
) u
p t
o 2
.5 M
L/d
ay,
on
aver
age
the
sch
eme
uti
lise
s 7
00 M
L o
f se
wag
e an
d 2
00 M
L o
f st
orm
wat
er p
er
yea
r
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 3
5%
tota
l w
ater
use
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Car
efu
l in
spec
tio
n o
f du
al r
etic
ula
tio
n s
yst
em h
as r
esu
lted
in
on
ly 2
cro
ss-c
on
nec
tio
ns,
nei
ther
in
re
sid
enti
al d
wel
lin
gs
B.7
Hom
ebus
h B
ay .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
111
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
R
un
off
fro
m s
tad
ium
an
d s
ho
wgro
un
d r
oofs
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e U
nd
ergro
un
d t
anks
Re-
use
Ir
rigat
ion
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) 2
.2 M
L/d
ay
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
) 3
0
Co
llec
tion
S
ewer
min
ing f
rom
New
ingto
n V
illa
ge,
sport
ing v
enues
and s
how
gro
unds
Tre
atm
ent
Rec
lam
atio
n p
lan
t: B
NR
, U
V d
isin
fect
ion
, se
con
dar
y e
fflu
ent,
cap
acit
y =
2.2
ML
sew
age/
day
T
reat
men
t p
lant:
mix
ed w
ith
sto
rmw
ater
fro
m b
rick
pit
, m
icro
filt
rati
on
, R
O,
chlo
rin
e d
isin
fect
ion
, d
ech
lori
nat
ion
, ca
pac
ity =
7M
L/d
ay
Sto
rag
e F
oll
ow
ing t
reat
men
t, (
sola
r p
ow
ered
) pu
mp
ed i
nto
dis
trib
uti
on
net
wo
rk f
or
re-u
se a
rou
nd t
he
site
; W
TP
has
7 M
L/d
ay u
nd
ergro
und
sto
rage
tan
k w
hic
h p
rovid
es b
uff
er s
tora
ge
du
rin
g s
um
mer
per
iod
; ex
cess
tre
ated
eff
luen
t st
ore
d i
n b
rick
pit
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
45
0 h
a o
f p
arkla
nd
s in
corp
ora
te c
onse
rvat
ion
of
hab
itat
of
an e
nd
anger
ed f
rog s
pec
ies
and
oth
er
fau
na
B.7
Hom
ebus
h B
ay .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
112
Sit
e A
men
ity c
on
t…
Pro
vis
ion
mad
e fo
r co
nver
sio
n t
o m
ain
s su
pp
ly f
or
emer
gen
cy/i
nfr
equen
t ev
ents
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
21
0 h
a id
enti
fied
as
conta
min
ated
so
ils;
rec
laim
ed a
nd
tre
ated
pri
or
to c
onst
ruct
ion
act
ivit
ies
Ou
tsid
e ta
ps
are
sign
ed
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
L
ow
-wat
er t
ole
rant
lan
dsc
ape
spec
ies
R
ehab
ilit
atio
n o
f m
ore
th
an 1
00 h
a of
wat
erw
ays
and
wet
lan
ds,
mo
st o
f w
hic
h w
ere
in a
deg
rad
ed
stat
e pri
or
to d
evel
opm
ent.
M
ore
than
1.4
mil
lion c
ubic
met
res
of
was
te r
emoved
and p
lace
d i
n a
co
nta
inm
ent
area
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
W
ater
cycl
e m
anag
emen
t co
nsi
der
s p
ota
ble
wat
er,
sew
erag
e se
rvic
es,
coll
ecti
on
, st
ora
ge
and
use
of
storm
wat
er f
or
irri
gat
ion
, re
clam
atio
n o
f w
ater
fro
m s
ewer
min
ing,
pro
vis
ion
of
GP
Ts
and
wat
er
qu
alit
y p
on
ds
and
wet
lan
ds
to m
ain
tain
sto
rmw
ater
qual
ity,
and
the
Wat
er R
ecla
mat
ion
and
Man
agem
ent
Sch
eme
(WR
AM
S)
Wat
er s
avin
g a
pp
lian
ces
are
use
d (
redu
ce w
ater
co
nsu
mpti
on
by 3
0%
co
mp
ared
to
tra
dit
ional
fi
ttin
gs)
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
wat
er q
ual
ity p
rob
lem
s in
sto
rage
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Dev
elo
ped
En
vir
on
men
tal
Man
gag
emen
t S
yst
em t
hat
co
mp
lies
wit
h I
SO
14
00
1;
the
EM
S r
equ
ired
E
nvir
on
men
tal M
anag
emen
t P
lans
for
all
dev
elo
pm
ent
stag
es f
or
all
ven
ues
an
d f
acil
itie
s
WR
AM
S o
per
ates
sew
age
trea
tmen
t h
ow
ever
Syd
ney
Wat
er c
oll
ects
mo
ney
for
this
ser
vic
e
Init
iall
y E
PA
wan
ted
war
nin
g s
ign
s o
n t
oil
ets
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Hig
h l
evel
of
pu
bli
c ap
pro
val
, su
rvey
in
dic
ates
no
sal
es o
f u
nit
s at
New
ingto
n l
ost
du
e to
rec
ycl
ed
wat
er
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Lit
tle
det
ail
avai
lab
le a
bo
ut
O&
M, h
ow
ever
syst
em a
ud
its
of
pro
ject
s u
nd
erta
ken
to d
eter
min
e ap
pro
pri
aten
ess
of
EM
S p
roce
dure
s
GP
Ts
and
po
lluti
on
boo
ms
Who
U
nit
ed K
G (
envir
on
men
tal
engin
eeri
ng c
om
pan
y),
for
25
yea
rs
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Mo
nit
ore
d c
onti
nu
ousl
y;
recy
cled
wat
er (
met
als,
nutr
ients
, b
acte
ria,
vir
use
s) a
nd
str
eam
s
20
mo
nit
ori
ng p
oin
ts p
lus
all
oth
er s
ignfi
can
t p
on
ds
and
wet
lan
ds
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Eco
logic
al s
tud
ies
of
salt
mar
sh, b
enth
ic i
nver
tebra
tes,
bir
ds,
mo
squ
ito
es,
the
Gre
en a
nd
Gold
en B
ell
Fro
g,
fish
an
d a
qu
atic
pla
nts
Ind
epen
den
t re
vie
ws
un
der
taken
by t
hre
e org
anis
atio
ns
B.7
Hom
ebus
h B
ay .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
113
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Com
pli
ance
rep
ort
s an
d c
erti
fica
tes
Au
dit
rep
ort
s
Mo
nth
ly a
nd
qu
arte
rly e
nvir
on
men
tal
rep
ort
s
Co
mp
end
ium
of
ES
D i
nit
iati
ves
an
d o
utc
om
es
En
vir
on
men
t re
port
s W
ate
r q
uali
ty
Red
uct
ion
in T
N, T
P, T
SS
in s
torm
wat
er p
assi
ng t
hro
ugh
wat
er q
ual
ity p
on
ds
~40 t
onnes
of
litt
er r
emoved
fro
m H
asla
ms
Cre
ek d
uri
ng 2
000 b
y b
oom
s an
d p
hysi
cal
clea
nin
g o
f b
anks
Duri
ng 2
00
1/2
00
2 a
tota
l of
148
to
nn
es o
f li
tter
, se
dim
ent
and v
eget
atio
n w
as c
oll
ecte
d f
rom
GP
Ts
and
po
lluti
on
bo
om
s
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s R
egula
tory
co
mp
lian
ce a
nd
en
vir
on
men
tal
per
form
ance
rep
ort
ed i
n q
uar
terl
y e
nvir
on
men
tal
rep
ort
s K
ey l
earn
ings
To
dat
e, a
ll w
ater
qu
alit
y m
on
ito
rin
g d
ata
of
the
recy
cled
wat
er c
om
pli
es w
ith
Au
stra
lian
wat
er
qu
alit
y s
tand
ard
s
Rec
entl
y r
ecei
ved
app
roval
to
use
rec
ycl
ed w
ater
in w
ash
ing m
ach
ines
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
WR
AM
S b
ud
get
$1
5.8
8m
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
$
30
m o
ver
25 y
ears
(o
per
atio
n a
nd
mai
nte
nan
ce)
(c
ost
s/kL
) $
1.8
0/k
L
Use
r pri
ce
77
.5 c
/kL
(se
t at
15
c/k
L c
hea
per
than
pota
ble
wat
er),
"sm
all
qu
arte
rly s
ervic
e ch
arges
"
Ben
efit
s
Red
uce
d d
ema
nd
for
po
tab
le
sup
ply
~5
0%
(u
p t
o 8
50
ML
) re
duct
ion
in a
nnu
al c
on
sum
pti
on o
f p
ota
ble
wat
er
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t C
apac
ity:
1 i
n 1
0 y
ear
even
t, c
onst
ruct
ed w
etla
nd
s o
ff H
asla
ms
Cre
ek a
ct a
s b
yp
ass
chan
nel
an
d
incr
ease
cap
acit
y u
p t
o 1
in
100
yea
r ev
ent
Gre
ater
than
90%
red
uct
ion
in t
he
dis
char
ge
of
sew
age
effl
uen
t to
wat
erw
ays
and
the
oce
an f
rom
th
e ar
ea s
erved
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Rec
eivin
g w
ater
s pro
tect
ed f
rom
sto
rmw
ater
an
d w
aste
wat
er d
isch
arges
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
R
edu
ced
volu
me
of
dis
char
ge
to S
yd
ney
's s
ewer
age
syst
em
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
H
abit
at f
or
thre
aten
ed f
lora
an
d f
auna
spec
ies
pro
tect
ed a
nd
en
han
ced
B.7
Hom
ebus
h B
ay .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
114
B.8
In
kerm
an
Oa
sis
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e G
ary S
piv
ak
Lo
cati
on
3
3 I
nker
man
St,
St
Kil
da,
VIC
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s C
ity o
f P
ort
Ph
illi
p
Inker
man
Dev
elo
pm
ents
Pty
Ltd
Wil
liam
s B
oag
Inte
gra
ted
eco
-Vil
lages
En
vir
on
men
t A
ust
rali
a
Nat
ional
Her
itag
e T
rust
So
uth
Eas
t W
ater
Ref
eren
ces
(Mel
bou
rne
Wat
er, 2
00
3)
(DE
H, 2003)
(CP
P, 2003)
(Sav
ewat
er, 2
00
3)
(CP
P, 2003)
(20
00)
(Sp
ivak
an
d K
eran
s, 2
00
1)
G.
Sp
ivak
, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
G.
Ker
ans,
per
son
al c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e
Red
evel
op
men
t (p
ub
lic-
pri
vat
e p
artn
ersh
ip t
o d
evel
op
23
7-u
nit
co
mm
un
ity-p
rivat
e h
ousi
ng
dev
elo
pm
ent)
Siz
e 1
.22
3 h
a
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
S
tage
1 c
om
ple
ted
Au
gu
st 2
00
2, S
tage
2 c
om
ple
ted
Au
gu
st 2
00
3 (
not
sure
if
this
is
tru
e fo
r S
tage
2)
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
S
ub
-div
isio
n a
nd
all
otm
ent
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
65
7.3
(M
L)
8.0
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
14
7.0
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 7
.6
B.8
Inke
rman
Oas
is
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
115
Rain
fall
con
t…
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
3.4
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Fo
rmer
Cit
y o
f S
t K
ild
a M
un
icip
al D
epo
t si
te
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Pro
ject
to
pro
vid
e:
(a)
mix
ed p
rivat
e an
d c
om
mu
nit
y h
ousi
ng
(b)
hig
h q
ual
ity u
rban
des
ign
an
d a
rch
itec
ture
, in
clu
din
g i
nte
gra
ted a
rtw
ork
s
(c)
bes
t pra
ctic
e ec
olo
gic
ally
su
stai
nab
le d
esig
n
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Dev
elo
per
sub
contr
acte
d d
esig
n o
f w
ater
rec
ycli
ng s
trat
egy a
nd
neg
oti
atio
n o
f re
gu
lato
ry a
pp
roval
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
(a
) G
utt
er a
nd p
ipe
(All
fir
st f
lush
roof
and
gro
un
d r
un
off
)
(b)
Nat
ura
l dra
inag
e (w
ater
see
pag
e o
ff l
and
scap
ed a
reas
ret
urn
s to
wet
land
s an
d t
erti
ary t
reat
men
t ta
nk,
ensu
rin
g c
lose
d l
oo
p s
yst
em)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
(a
) G
PT
(b)
pri
mar
y t
reat
men
t in
con
stru
cted
wet
lan
d
(c)
tert
iary
tre
atm
ent
by K
ub
ota
tan
k
po
st s
tora
ge:
UV
dis
infe
ctio
n
Cap
aci
ty
0.0
4 h
a w
etla
nd
, 1
0.8
kL
ter
tiar
y t
reat
men
t ta
nk
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
GP
T o
n b
oth
en
ds
of
the
wet
land
B.8
Inke
rman
Oas
is .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
116
Tre
atm
ent
con
t…
Pri
mar
y:
filt
rati
on
thro
ugh
so
il-g
ravel
med
ium
an
d a
bso
rpti
on
by w
etla
nd
s p
lants
to
rem
ove
par
ticl
es a
nd
nutr
ien
ts
Wet
land d
esig
ned
for
both
ver
tica
l an
d h
ori
zonta
l su
b-s
urf
ace
flow
s to
enco
ura
ge
full
uti
lisa
tion o
f m
edia
surf
ace
area
Ter
tiar
y:
mem
bra
ne
bio
-rea
ctor
tan
k -
aer
ob
ic s
and
fil
ter,
mem
bra
ne
mic
rofi
ltra
tio
n
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
C
om
bin
ed s
torm
wat
er a
nd
bat
hro
om
gre
yw
ater
hel
d i
n s
tora
ge
tan
k
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 0
.04
5
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 0
.60%
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t S
ub
-su
rfac
e gar
den
irr
igat
ion
, to
ilet
flu
shin
g
Ho
w
reti
cula
ted
by t
wo
co
nst
ant
pre
ssure
pu
mp
s
Ca
pa
city
2
50
0 s
q.m
. la
ndsc
aped
are
as
All
toil
ets
wit
hin
the
dev
elopm
ent
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Irri
gat
ion
: co
ntr
oll
ed t
o r
elea
se w
ater
to
dry
are
as t
hro
ugh
582
5m
of
slo
w r
elea
se d
rip
per
pip
ing b
y
12
so
leno
ids
trig
ger
ed b
y a
co
mp
ute
r an
d m
ois
ture
sen
sors
To
ilet
: el
ectr
ical
ly p
ow
ered
pu
mp
wh
ich
dis
trib
ute
s w
ater
th
rou
gh
the
rin
g m
ain
syst
em,
mai
ns
pre
ssure
fed
hea
der
tan
k a
s b
ack u
p
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Fir
st g
rey w
ater
rec
ycl
ing o
f it
s kin
d i
n V
icto
ria
and
the
on
ly p
roje
ct c
om
bin
ing s
torm
wat
er a
nd
gre
y w
ater
in
Au
stra
lia
of
this
typ
e an
d i
n t
his
den
sity
of
ho
usi
ng
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
B.8
Inke
rman
Oas
is .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
117
Wa
stew
ate
r co
nt…
C
oll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 1
40
of
the
237
un
its
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
G
reyw
ater
fro
m b
athro
om
s
Tre
atm
ent
Hai
r an
d l
int
trap
s, p
rim
ary t
reat
men
t in
15
kL
aer
atio
n b
alan
ce t
ank t
o r
emo
ve
susp
end
ed s
oli
ds,
th
en j
oin
s st
orm
wat
er f
or
tert
iary
tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Un
its
gen
eral
ly h
ave
an e
ner
gy s
tar
rati
ng o
f b
etw
een
3.5
and
4.5
sta
rts
thro
ugh
mat
eria
ls s
elec
tio
n,
un
it d
esig
n a
nd
enco
ura
gem
ent
of
low
en
ergy
/res
ourc
e ef
fici
ent
app
lian
ces
and
fix
ture
s
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Co
nta
min
ated
so
ils
req
uir
ed r
emed
iati
on
pri
or
to d
evel
op
men
t
Pea
k s
torm
wat
er f
low
s d
iver
ted
to c
on
ven
tio
nal
dra
inag
e sy
stem
Gre
yw
ater
div
erte
d t
o c
on
ven
tio
nal
sew
age
syst
em w
hen
rai
nfa
ll i
s d
etec
ted
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
P
rim
aril
y n
ativ
e an
d i
nd
igen
ou
s p
lant
spec
ies
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
R
oo
f gar
den
s o
ver
24
0 c
ar s
ub
-bas
emen
t ca
r p
ark
Do
mes
tic
gre
yw
ater
fro
m ~
50%
of
un
its
recy
cled
; re
duce
d s
ewer
lo
adin
gs
into
Bay
via
ST
P
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Lan
d r
ezon
ed f
rom
Pu
bli
c P
urp
ose
-Lo
cal
Go
ver
nm
ent
to M
ixed
Use
Co
un
cil
acce
pta
nce
of
bu
ild
ing h
eigh
ts a
nd
un
it d
ensi
ty
Unab
le t
o r
each
an
agre
emen
t w
ith
lo
cal
wat
er a
uth
ori
ty i
n t
erm
s of
red
uce
d w
ater
sup
ply
an
d
dra
inag
e ch
arges
Oth
er
Un
der
too
k c
om
mu
nit
y c
onsu
ltat
ion
Key L
earn
ings
Som
e ori
gin
al E
SD
fea
ture
s (e
.g. in
tensi
ve
roof
gar
den
s, s
ola
r pow
er)
om
itte
d f
rom
pla
n b
ecau
se
they
wer
e n
ot
com
mer
cial
ly v
iab
le w
hil
e o
ther
fea
ture
s w
ere
enh
ance
d (
e.g.
wat
er r
e-u
se)
B.8
Inke
rman
Oas
is .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
118
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
con
t…
Pro
ject
ach
ieves
quad
ruple
bott
om
lin
e su
stai
nab
ilit
y:
soci
al, en
vir
onm
enta
l, e
conom
ic a
nd c
ult
ura
l T
he
val
ue
of
a jo
int
ven
ture
bet
wee
n l
oca
l go
ver
nm
ent
and
a p
rivat
e d
evel
op
er t
o a
chie
ve
a b
est
pra
ctic
e p
roje
ct a
cro
ss a
ran
ge
of
area
s -
hav
e b
een
ab
le t
o c
om
bin
e b
oth
par
ties
' skil
ls,
role
s an
d
exp
erie
nce
Lac
k o
f w
ater
in
du
stry
/au
tho
rity
exp
erie
nce
an
d p
oli
cies
. F
or
pio
nee
rin
g p
roje
cts,
th
e n
ego
tiat
ion
, as
sess
men
t an
d a
pp
roval
pro
cess
is
extr
emel
y s
low
an
d r
eso
urc
e in
tensi
ve.
L
ack o
f d
evel
op
er f
ron
t-en
d i
nce
nti
ves
. C
apit
al c
ost
s fo
r W
SU
D i
s u
nab
le t
o b
e re
com
pen
sed
at
any t
ime
in t
he
pro
ject
sin
ce m
arket
dem
and f
or
WS
UD
is
no
t co
mpen
sate
d b
y t
he
pri
ces
un
its
can
se
ll f
or.
Lea
rnin
g e
xp
erie
nce
in
ter
ms
of
ho
w W
SU
D d
ovet
ails
wit
h t
he
con
stru
ctio
n p
roce
ss a
nd
co
nst
ruct
ion r
equ
irem
ents
- i
.e.
sched
uli
ng c
on
stru
ctio
n o
f th
e w
etla
nds
and
ass
oci
ated
co
nst
ruct
ion
m
anag
emen
t is
sues
, giv
en a
gen
eral
unfa
mil
iari
ty w
ith c
on
stru
ctin
g W
SU
D f
eatu
res.
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Gre
yw
ater
div
erte
d t
o c
on
vet
ion
al s
ewag
e sy
stem
wh
en r
ainfa
ll i
s d
etec
ted.
Aft
er a
ll t
he
trea
ted
st
orm
wat
er h
as b
een r
e-use
d i
nto
th
e to
ilet
s, t
he
syst
em r
ever
ts t
o c
oll
ecti
ng g
reyw
ater
agai
n.
Ter
tiar
y t
reat
men
t ta
nk i
s d
up
lica
ted
to
per
mit
mai
nte
nan
ce o
n e
ach
in
div
idu
al m
emb
rane
mo
du
le
wit
ho
ut
the
syst
em r
ever
tin
g t
o a
co
nven
tio
nal
syst
em (
wh
ere
was
te g
oes
to
th
e se
wer
age
syst
em)
Who
B
od
y c
orp
ora
te r
esp
on
sib
le f
or
lon
g-t
erm
mai
nte
nan
ce a
nd
ser
vic
ing o
f th
e p
lan
t an
d e
qu
ipm
ent
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Cu
rren
tly m
on
ito
rin
g o
ut
of
trea
tmen
t sy
stem
an
d s
oil
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Pla
n t
o m
on
ito
r fl
ow
at
five
po
ints
th
rou
gh
syst
em
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s K
ey l
earn
ings
Pla
n t
o k
eep s
torm
wat
er a
nd
gre
yw
ater
sep
arat
e in
futu
re d
evel
op
men
ts, st
orm
wat
er i
s o
f hig
her
q
ual
ity,
wan
t to
use
fo
r h
ot
wat
er s
up
ply
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$5
0 m
, $
434
,000
for
WS
UD
ele
men
ts
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
m
ainte
nan
ce c
ost
~$25/y
r/re
sid
ent
B.8
Inke
rman
Oas
is .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
119
Cost
s co
nt…
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s
Red
uce
d d
ema
nd
for
po
tab
le
sup
ply
~4
0%
in s
um
mer
, ~
20%
in w
inte
r
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t O
nce
fir
st f
lush
sto
rmw
ater
fil
ls w
etla
nd, cl
ean f
low
s ar
e dir
ecte
d t
o c
onven
tional
sto
rmw
ater
dra
ins
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Nat
ura
l fe
rtil
isat
ion o
f gar
den
s fr
om
nutr
ients
in t
reat
ed w
aste
wat
er a
nd p
reven
tion o
f m
anufa
cture
d
fert
ilis
er a
ppli
cati
ons
~14 t
onnes
of
nit
rogen
and p
hosp
hat
es w
ill
be
pre
ven
ted f
rom
ente
ring P
ort
Phil
lip B
ay p
er y
ear
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
R
educe
d l
oad
ing o
n t
he
sew
age
syst
em a
nd r
educe
d s
ewer
load
ings
goin
g t
o P
ort
Ph
illi
p B
ay
Pre
ven
tio
n o
f th
e n
eed
for
pip
ing i
nfr
astr
uct
ure
to b
e u
psi
zed
as
wo
uld
oth
erw
ise
be
req
uir
ed i
n a
co
nven
tio
nal
dev
elo
pm
ent
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.8
Inke
rman
Oas
is .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
120
B.9
K
ogara
h T
ow
n S
qu
are
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e P
eter
Sm
ith
Lo
cati
on
K
ogar
ah,
Syd
ney
, N
SW
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s K
ogar
ah M
un
icip
al C
ou
nci
l
Syd
ney
Wat
er
Inst
itute
fo
r S
ust
ain
able
Futu
res
Hig
h T
rade
Pty
Ltd
Ref
eren
ces
(DE
H, 2003)
(KM
C,
20
03)
P.
Sm
ith
, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
(Mou
ritz
, 2
000
)
(Lo
cal
Go
ver
nm
ent
Fo
cus,
20
01)
(KM
C)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
edev
elo
pm
ent
Mix
ed-u
se c
om
ple
x:
reta
il a
nd
co
mm
erci
al s
pac
e, 1
90
apar
tmen
ts, li
bra
ry,
un
der
gro
un
d p
arkin
g
Siz
e 1
ha
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
ea
rly 2
00
3
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
su
b-c
atch
men
t? (
tow
n s
qu
are)
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
11
02
.4
(
ML
) 1
1.0
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
12
9.4
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 9
.4
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
B.9
Kog
arah
Tow
n Sq
uare
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
121
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Sit
uat
ed o
n t
he
rid
ge
bet
wee
n t
he
den
sely
urb
anis
ed c
atch
men
ts o
f th
e C
oo
ks
Riv
er a
nd
th
e G
eorg
es
Riv
er t
hat
flo
w i
nto
Bo
tan
y B
ay.
Bo
th r
iver
s h
ave
deg
rad
ed w
ater
qu
alit
y a
nd
are
su
bje
ct to
p
ress
ure
s fr
om
in
crea
sin
g u
rban
co
nso
lidat
ion
, tr
affi
c d
ensi
ties
an
d i
nd
ust
rial
act
ivit
ies.
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Q
uan
tity
- a
vo
idan
ce o
f fl
oo
din
g a
nd
th
e re
quir
emen
t fo
r sy
stem
am
pli
fica
tio
n d
ow
nst
ream
Q
ual
ity -
all
wat
er d
isch
argin
g f
rom
the
site
sh
ou
ld h
ave
min
imal
im
pac
t o
n r
ecei
vin
g w
ater
C
on
serv
atio
n -
tak
e ad
van
tage
of
the
rain
wat
er t
o r
educe
th
e dem
and f
or
pota
ble
mai
ns
wat
er
Aes
thet
ic/s
oci
al -
th
e w
ater
syst
em s
ho
uld
be
inco
rpora
ted
into
th
e ae
sthet
ic e
lem
ent
of
the
des
ign
an
d p
rovid
e an
opp
ort
un
ity f
or
the
com
mu
nit
y t
o g
ain a
n e
nhan
ced
app
reci
atio
n o
f w
ater
as
an
esse
nti
al e
lem
ent
of
the
urb
an e
nvir
on
men
t
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
U
nd
ergro
un
d p
ipes
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 85%
of
7500 k
L o
f ra
inw
ater
fal
ling o
n s
ite
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Fir
st f
lush
ru
noff
div
erte
d
Su
rge
tan
k h
and
les
hig
h s
torm
wat
er f
low
s
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
G
ard
en b
eds
wit
h b
iolo
gic
ally
en
gin
eere
d s
oil
Ele
ctro
mag
net
ic f
ilte
r fu
rther
tre
ats
wat
er u
sed i
n w
ater
fea
ture
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
U
nd
ergro
un
d s
tora
ge
tan
ks
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 3
hea
der
tan
ks,
tota
l d
eten
tio
n:
0.1
28
; 3
sto
rage
tan
ks,
tota
l st
ora
ge:
1.3
1
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 1
5%
B.9
Kog
arah
Tow
n Sq
uare
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
122
Sto
rage
con
t…
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t T
oil
et f
lush
ing,
car
was
hin
g,
wat
er f
eatu
res,
irr
igat
ion
Ho
w
Capaci
ty (
ML
) S
up
pli
es a
t le
ast
70
% o
f th
e to
ilet
flu
shin
g d
eman
d
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Re-
use
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
B.9
Kog
arah
Tow
n Sq
uare
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
123
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se c
on
t…
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
In p
erio
ds
of
hig
h s
torm
wat
er f
low
, su
rge
tanks
regu
late
th
e w
ater
flo
w
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
W
ater
eff
icie
nt
fitt
ings
and
ap
pli
ance
s
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
It i
s w
ell
wo
rth
try
ing t
o i
nco
rpo
rate
th
ese
types
of
init
iati
ves
in
pla
nn
ing c
ontr
ols
an
d e
spec
iall
y
pu
bli
c p
roje
cts,
but
yo
u n
eed
to s
pel
l o
ut
yo
ur
ob
ject
ives
, but
be
flex
ible
ab
out
the
solu
tio
n
The
ten
der
ers
and
thei
r d
esig
n t
eam
s al
l re
spon
ded
wel
l to
the
envir
on
men
tal
obje
ctiv
es o
f th
is
pro
ject
So
me
dev
elo
per
s ca
n s
ee t
he
lon
g t
erm
ben
efit
of
lear
nin
g h
ow
to
ap
ply
an
d d
emo
nst
rate
bes
t p
ract
ice
des
ign a
s p
art
of
a lo
ng-t
erm
bu
sin
ess
stra
tegy t
o b
e se
en a
s "g
reen
"
Yo
u n
eed
to
get
th
e w
ho
le o
f th
e C
ou
nci
l, p
lus
the
staf
f to
su
pp
ort
the
inn
ovat
ion
, an
d s
ee t
hat
th
ey
hav
e a
role
to
pla
y i
n m
akin
g i
t h
app
en
A p
artn
ersh
ip a
ppro
ach
nee
ds
to b
e ad
opte
d b
etw
een
th
e dev
elo
per
, th
eir
des
ign
tea
m a
nd
th
e C
ou
nci
l -
it i
s a
lear
nin
g e
xp
erie
nce
If y
ou
can
get
gra
nts
to
hel
p w
ith $
$$
that
is
go
od
, b
ut
don
't fo
rget
th
at m
anag
ing g
ran
ts t
akes
lots
o
f ti
me
and
eff
ort
(so
met
hin
g v
ery f
ew d
evel
op
ers
wo
uld
bo
ther
wit
h)
A p
artn
ersh
ip a
ppro
ach
wit
h k
ey a
gen
cies
and
res
earc
her
s h
elp
s (i
n t
his
cas
e S
yd
ney
Wat
er a
nd
Inst
itute
fo
r S
ust
ain
able
Futu
res)
Co
mm
un
icat
ing t
he
inno
vat
ion
s to
th
e b
uyer
s an
d t
he
wid
er c
om
mun
ity i
s im
po
rtan
t
Sta
rt w
ith
tal
kin
g t
o t
he
com
mu
nit
y:
this
wo
uld
hav
e re
duce
d c
ost
s to
co
unci
l an
d g
reat
ly r
edu
ced
ti
mef
ram
es a
sso
ciat
ed w
ith
the
pro
ject
's i
mp
lem
enta
tio
n
Tra
nsp
aren
cy:
it i
s cr
uci
al t
hat
all
sta
keh
old
ers
are
kep
t in
form
ed
Tho
rou
gh
nes
s: e
val
uat
ing t
he
wh
ole
pro
cess
(fr
om
des
ign a
ll t
he
way
thro
ugh
) is
ess
enti
al
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
No f
orm
al m
ainte
nan
ce p
lan
, h
ave
taken
a "
wai
t an
d s
ee"
app
roac
h;
exp
ect
that
fil
ters
on
pum
ps
wil
l n
eed
to b
e cl
eaned
an
nu
ally
an
d t
anks
wil
l n
eed
to b
e em
pti
ed a
nd
cle
aned
ever
y 5
-6 y
ears
B.9
Kog
arah
Tow
n Sq
uare
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
124
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce c
on
t…
Who
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Ori
gin
ally
pla
nn
ed f
or
Syd
ney
Wat
er t
o c
arry
ou
t an
eval
uat
ion
of
the
pro
ject
an
d m
on
itor
wat
er u
se
as w
ell
as w
ater
qual
ity
No
cu
rren
tly m
on
ito
rin
g,
pla
n t
o b
ut
con
sid
er n
on
-cri
tica
l b
ecau
se r
e-use
is
non
-co
nta
ct
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$1
.6m
tota
l pro
ject
, $6
29
00
0 u
rban
sto
rmw
ater
in
itia
tives
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
) In
corp
ora
ted
into
bo
dy c
orp
ora
te f
ee
Use
r pri
ce
WS
UD
ele
men
ts a
dd
$1
00
0/a
par
tmen
t to
pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
C
on
ven
tio
nal
dev
elo
pm
ent
of
com
par
able
siz
e an
d n
um
ber
of
un
its
wo
uld
hav
e a
tota
l w
ater
d
eman
d o
f ~
33
,00
0 k
L f
or
inte
rnal
use
and
car
was
hin
g -
cap
turi
ng a
nd
reu
sin
g ~
5,7
00
kL
of
storm
wat
er e
qu
ates
to a
~17
% s
avin
g o
f m
ain
s w
ater
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Red
uct
ion
in p
oll
ute
d s
torm
wat
er e
nte
rin
g t
he
Co
oks
Riv
ers,
Geo
rge
Riv
er a
nd
Bo
tan
y B
ay p
rote
cts
and
enh
ance
s co
asta
l an
d m
arin
e w
ater
qual
ity
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.9
Kog
arah
Tow
n Sq
uare
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
125
B.1
0
Ma
nly
Sto
rm
wa
ter T
rea
tmen
t a
nd
Re-u
se (
ST
AR
) P
ro
ject
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e Jo
anne
Sca
rsb
rick
, P
aul
Sm
ith
Lo
cati
on
M
anly
Bea
ch &
Sm
ith
St
No
rth
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s M
anly
Co
un
cil
En
vir
on
men
t A
ust
rali
a
Un
iver
sity
of
New
So
uth
Wal
es
Ref
eren
ces
(DE
H, 2003)
(AC
, 2
00
3)
J. S
cars
bri
ck,
per
sonal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
P.
Sm
ith
, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
(Lo
cal
Go
ver
nm
ent
Fo
cus,
20
02)
(Lo
cal
Go
ver
nm
ent
Fo
cus,
20
00)
(Sca
rsbri
ck,
20
02)
(McR
ae, 2
00
2)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e P
ilo
t pro
ject
, st
orm
wat
er m
anag
emen
t fo
r M
anly
Oce
an B
each
/Pin
e S
tree
t ca
tch
men
t
Siz
e 3
ha
catc
hm
ent
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
su
b-c
atch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
12
20
.6
(M
L)
36
.6
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
13
3.1
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 2
7.5
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
san
dy s
oil
s
Aq
uif
er
Wa
tert
able
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
B.1
0 M
anly
Sto
rmw
ater
Tre
atm
ent a
nd R
e-us
e (S
TAR
) Pr
ojec
t
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
126
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Full
y d
evel
op
ed u
ltra
-urb
an s
ub
urb
wit
h a
hig
h p
op
ula
tio
n d
ensi
ty a
nd
lar
ge
nu
mb
ers
of
touri
sts,
u
rban
run
off
co
nta
ins
rela
tivel
y h
igh
lev
els
of
po
llu
tant
load
ing
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Pro
tect
and
im
pro
ve
surf
ace
wat
er q
ual
ity b
y d
evel
op
ing s
ub
-cat
chm
ent
pro
gra
ms
that
purs
ue
the
foll
ow
ing o
bje
ctiv
es:
* R
edu
ce t
he
po
llu
tio
n l
oad
an
d c
on
cen
trat
ion
in
sto
rmw
ater
* A
tten
uat
e th
e fl
ow
to
red
uce
flo
od
ing
* I
nfi
ltra
te s
torm
wat
er t
o g
roun
d w
ater
* T
reat
, co
llec
t an
d r
e-u
se s
torm
wat
er
* R
edu
ce t
he
tran
spo
rtat
ion
of
po
llu
tan
ts
* F
ind
a c
ost
eff
ecti
ve
and
eco
logic
ally
su
stai
nab
le w
ay t
o a
chie
ve
thes
e o
utc
om
es
* D
evel
op
pro
toty
pe
mo
del
fo
r use
els
ewh
ere
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t In
itia
l ri
sk a
sses
smen
t su
gges
ted t
he
hea
lth
ris
k a
sso
ciat
ed w
ith
sto
rmw
ater
re-
use
was
bel
ow
th
e gen
eral
ly a
ccep
ted
lim
its
for
the
re-u
se o
f w
ater
Mai
ns
sup
ply
lin
ked
to i
rrig
atio
n s
yst
em a
s a
risk
man
agem
ent
pre
cauti
on
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
5
00
m s
ecti
on
No
rth
Ste
yn
e ca
ptu
res
storm
wat
er f
rom
eas
tern
cam
ber
of
adja
cen
t ro
ad a
nd c
ar p
ark
catc
hm
ent
Capaci
ty (
ML
) "h
igh
flo
ws"
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Ro
adb
ase
is s
imil
ar t
o n
orm
al t
ransp
ort
auth
ori
ty s
tand
ard
s ex
cep
t fo
r th
e lo
wer
per
cen
tage
of
mat
eria
l th
at i
s le
ss t
han
1m
m i
n s
ize
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
P
erm
eab
le p
avem
ent,
160
m2 (
500
x0
.32
m),
Atl
anti
s A
qu
a P
ave
Scr
een
s, b
oth
exte
rnal
(ca
ptu
re l
itte
r an
d s
edim
ent)
an
d i
nte
rnal
(ca
ptu
re o
ils,
fin
e se
dim
ents
an
d
gre
ase)
B.1
0 M
anly
Sto
rmw
ater
Tre
atm
ent a
nd R
e-us
e (S
TAR
) Pr
ojec
t ...
cont
inue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
127
Tre
atm
ent
con
t…
Atl
anti
s E
coso
ils
- ex
pan
ded
po
lym
er m
ade
fro
m r
ecycl
ed p
last
ics
des
ign
ed w
ith
su
ffic
ient
stre
ngth
to
car
ry n
orm
al p
avem
ent
load
s, c
on
tain
s n
atu
rall
y o
ccu
rrin
g a
nd
bio
-en
gin
eere
d m
icro
org
anis
ms
to
bio
logic
ally
deg
rad
ed a
nd
rem
edia
te t
ox
ic c
hem
ical
s
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Soil
has
hig
h c
atio
n e
xch
ange
cap
acit
y,
bio
film
to
rem
ove
bac
teri
a K
ey L
earn
ings
Co
nce
ntr
atin
g p
oll
uta
nts
to o
ne
po
int
bef
ore
ru
nn
ing t
hro
ugh
tre
atm
ent
syst
em d
ecre
ases
tre
atab
le
flo
w r
ate
and
incr
ease
s m
ainte
nan
ce r
equ
irem
ents
Sto
rag
e H
ow
S
torm
wat
er i
nfi
ltra
tes
thro
ugh
Eco
soil
s in
to A
tlan
tis
Eco
logic
al C
han
nel
s fr
om
wh
ich
th
e w
ater
p
asse
s in
to A
tlan
tis
Eco
logic
al T
anks
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 0
.4
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 1
.4%
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Ex
cess
wat
er o
ver
flo
ws
and p
erco
late
s th
rou
gh
the
exis
tin
g s
and
y s
oil
s to
rec
har
ge
gro
un
dw
ater
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
of
Norf
olk
Isl
and
pin
es a
nd p
rom
enad
e ar
ea a
lon
g t
he
fore
shore
H
ow
M
ixed
wit
h m
ain
s su
pp
ly,
spra
y i
rrig
atio
n u
sing a
pu
mp
syst
em
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
B.1
0 M
anly
Sto
rmw
ater
Tre
atm
ent a
nd R
e-us
e (S
TAR
) Pr
ojec
t ...
cont
inue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
128
Wa
stew
ate
r co
nt…
T
reatm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Fo
ur
storm
wat
er d
rain
s o
n O
cean
Bea
ch, re
mo
val
of
thes
e p
ipes
hig
h o
n c
om
mu
nit
y a
gen
da
in t
erm
s o
f vis
ual
po
lluti
on
, re
loca
tin
g p
ipes
aw
ay f
rom
bea
ch w
ou
ld b
e o
ver
$32
mil
lion (
does
not
off
er
storm
wat
er t
reat
men
t)
Sm
ith
St
No
rth
: m
ajor
issu
e fo
r a
traf
fic
per
mea
ble
su
rfac
e is
a s
uit
able
su
bsu
rfac
e dra
inag
e sy
stem
u
nd
ern
eath
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Mai
ns
sup
ply
als
o l
inked
to i
rrig
atio
n s
yst
em, to
wn w
ater
mix
ed w
ith t
reat
ed s
torm
wat
er a
s ri
sk
man
agem
ent
pre
cauti
on
an
d t
o s
up
ple
men
t su
pp
ly i
n e
xte
nded
dry
per
iod
s
Ex
cess
sto
rmw
ater
byp
asse
s to
co
nven
tio
nal
dra
inag
e sy
stem
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
M
ajor
touri
st d
esti
nat
ion
; in
tensi
ve
dev
elo
pm
ents
wit
h h
igh
tra
nsi
ent
po
pu
lati
on
s giv
e ri
se t
o g
reat
er
than
no
rmal
am
ou
nt
of
veh
icle
s an
d l
itte
r P
avin
g s
yst
em m
ust
be
stro
ng a
nd d
ura
ble
eno
ugh
to
han
dle
tra
ffic
are
as w
hil
e re
tain
ing i
nfi
ltra
tio
n
cap
acit
y
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
S
mit
h S
t N
ort
h:
Rocl
a E
colo
c p
erm
eab
le p
aver
s; c
on
cret
e in
terl
ock
ing p
aver
s th
at p
rovid
e d
rain
age
(in
filt
rati
on
>2
00
mm
/hr)
vo
ids
bet
wee
n p
aver
s o
n a
bas
e of
clea
n 5
mm
aggre
gat
e; n
o-f
ines
ro
adb
ase
enab
les
sto
rmw
ater
to i
nfi
ltra
te t
hro
ugh
to s
and
y s
ub
gra
de
bel
ow
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Imp
lica
tio
ns
for
pla
nn
ing r
egu
lati
on
, u
rban
des
ign
an
d c
om
mu
nit
y i
nvo
lvem
ent
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Co
mm
un
ity c
all
wan
t st
orm
wat
er p
ipes
rem
oved
fro
m t
he
bea
chfr
ont
(vis
ual
po
llu
tio
n)
B.1
0 M
anly
Sto
rmw
ater
Tre
atm
ent a
nd R
e-us
e (S
TAR
) Pr
ojec
t ...
cont
inue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
129
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
con
t…
Pub
lic
acce
pta
nce
of
per
mea
ble
pav
ers
stro
ng
du
e to
th
e re
duct
ion i
n s
urf
ace
flo
ws
and
vis
ual
ap
pea
l
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Man
ufa
cture
r sp
ecif
icat
ion
: o
nce
ever
y 1
0 y
ears
eco
soil
s sh
ou
ld b
e har
ves
ted
an
d a
ccu
mu
late
d
po
llu
tants
ex
trac
ted
W
ho
M
ain
ten
ance
pro
gra
m s
up
pose
d t
o b
e dev
ised
by e
xte
rnal
bod
y i
nc.
tre
atab
le f
low
rat
es a
s a
fun
ctio
n
of
catc
hm
ent
load
s, t
o d
ate
this
has
n't
bee
n d
one
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Ther
e is
curr
entl
y n
o d
efin
ed f
eed
bac
k m
ech
anis
m t
o d
eter
min
e w
het
her
th
e m
ain
ten
ance
fre
qu
ency
fo
r th
e ec
oso
ils
is a
deq
uat
e
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
UN
SW
's W
ater
Res
earc
h L
abo
rato
ry a
nd
Syd
ney
Wat
er
Co
mp
arat
ive
sub
-cat
chm
ent
wat
er q
ual
ity m
on
ito
rin
g a
nd
an
alysi
s b
etw
een
th
e tr
eate
d a
nd u
ntr
eate
d
catc
hm
ents
Mo
nit
ori
ng o
f th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of
inte
rven
tion
s u
sed
Mo
nit
ori
ng o
f th
e se
dim
ents
coll
ecte
d
Fae
cal
conta
min
atio
n i
n s
tora
ge
tan
k,
20
0-6
00
cfu
/?
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Infi
ltra
tio
n r
ates
Surf
ace
runo
ff
Oth
er
Curr
entl
y a
co
nst
ruct
ion
sit
e d
irec
tly a
cro
ss f
rom
Oce
an B
each
dew
ater
ing;
pro
vid
es a
n o
pp
ort
un
ity
to a
sses
s sy
stem
eff
icie
ncy
; w
ater
pu
mp
ed t
o t
reat
men
t ta
nk,
kn
ow
n d
isch
arge
vo
lum
e, 5
min
ute
sa
mpli
ng r
egim
e -
only
mis
sin
g p
oll
ute
d w
ater
! i
.e. under
lyin
g g
roundw
ater
of
good q
ual
ity, so
ca
n't
mea
sure
po
llu
tan
t re
mo
val
rat
e, h
ave
det
ecte
d s
ligh
t d
ecre
ase
in s
alin
ity
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Only
1 s
amp
ling p
oin
t to
mea
sure
qu
alit
y o
f ru
no
ff,
no
mon
itori
ng o
f o
utf
low
, p
oss
ibly
a s
ensi
tive
po
int
- co
un
cil
dis
sati
sfie
d w
ith m
on
itori
ng p
rogra
m &
may
be
takin
g t
his
furt
her
M
on
itori
ng p
rogra
m f
or
tan
ks
con
sider
ed i
nad
equ
ate
in t
erm
s of
sam
pli
ng f
req
uen
cy a
nd
co
nsi
der
atio
n o
f se
ason
al v
aria
nce
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Mo
nit
ori
ng p
aram
eter
s ar
e w
ithin
ex
pec
ted
lim
its
for
urb
an s
urf
ace
flo
ws
Bo
re h
ole
-tes
tin
g r
esu
lts
sho
w t
hat
th
ere
is n
o c
han
ge
in a
nal
yte
s an
d c
on
tam
inat
ion
is
wit
hin
ris
k
level
s
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Su
rfac
e ru
no
ff r
edu
ced
by 7
0%
Mo
nit
ori
ng h
as n
ot
confi
rmed
wh
ether
over
flo
w h
as o
ccurr
ed, as
yet
tan
k h
as n
ot
bee
n e
mp
tied
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
B.1
0 M
anly
Sto
rmw
ater
Tre
atm
ent a
nd R
e-us
e (S
TAR
) Pr
ojec
t ...
cont
inue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
130
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$1
.3 m
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
N
o f
orm
al o
per
atin
g c
ost
s ca
lcu
late
d,
nor
life
cycl
e &
ener
gy a
pp
rais
al (
i.e.
inc.
exte
rnal
itie
s)
(c
ost
s/kL
) C
ost
s w
ou
ld i
ncl
ud
e p
um
p e
ner
gy,
mai
nte
nan
ce (
stre
et s
wee
pin
g,
of
ecoso
ils,
tri
ckle
irr
igat
ion
sy
stem
, p
um
ps
etc.
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t S
mit
h S
t N
ort
h r
oad
su
b-g
rad
e w
as e
ngin
eere
d t
o c
onta
in a
1:1
0 y
ear
storm
even
t, w
ith
a 3
0%
st
ora
ge
cap
acit
y
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Imp
roved
sto
rmw
ater
qu
alit
y d
isch
argin
g o
nto
Oce
an B
each
Red
uce
d p
ote
nti
al h
ealt
h r
isk t
o t
he
bea
ch u
sers
Pre
ven
tin
g p
oll
uti
on
by e
duca
tio
n a
nd
sig
nag
e In
fra
stru
ctu
re
Chea
per
alt
ernat
ive
to r
emo
val
of
sto
rmw
ater
dra
ins
fro
m b
each
fron
t (e
stim
ated
co
st o
f $
32
m t
o
relo
cate
pip
es o
nly
)
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.1
0 M
anly
Sto
rmw
ater
Tre
atm
ent a
nd R
e-us
e (S
TAR
) Pr
ojec
t ...
cont
inue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
131
B.1
1
Oa
kla
nd
s P
ark
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e B
ill
Mo
le,
Nei
l K
erb
y
Lo
cati
on
O
akla
nd
s Ju
nct
ion
, V
IC
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s H
NJ
Ho
ldin
gs
Pty
Ltd
Ref
eren
ces
(Fo
ster
, 2
00
0)
W.
Mo
le,
per
son
al c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
K.
Fu
rnis
s, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
N.
Ker
by,
per
sonal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
(Win
kfi
eld
Pty
. L
td.,
20
03
)
(Win
kfi
eld
Pty
. L
td.,
20
02
)
(AG
P C
on
sult
ing,
19
94
)
(Sav
ewat
er, 2
00
3)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e G
reen
fiel
ds
Siz
e 1
74
ha,
12
1 o
f w
hic
h i
s o
pen
spac
e
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
B
egu
n i
n 1
99
7
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t an
d a
llo
tmen
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
54
8.7
(
ML
) 9
53
.0
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
14
1.0
1 y
r in
ten
sity
(1
hou
r du
rati
on
) 1
2.7
2
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 7
5
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
10
00
-11
00
Geo
log
y
Poo
r dev
elo
ped
to
pso
il o
f cl
ay,
soil
per
cola
tion
<1
2.5
mm
/hr,
no e
vid
ence
of
wat
er l
oggin
g
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
~
30
m,
bra
ckis
h
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
No
hig
hly
per
mea
ble
aq
uif
ers
foun
d i
n i
nit
ial
surv
ey o
f si
te
Sit
e H
isto
ry
B.1
1 O
akla
nds
Park
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
132
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Pio
nee
r ec
olo
gic
ally
su
stai
nab
le p
rin
cip
les
(ad
dre
ss t
riple
bo
tto
m l
ine)
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
C
ity o
f H
um
e fo
r ro
ads
& d
rain
age
work
s
Op
erati
on
al
Wes
tern
Wat
er t
ech
nic
al s
tan
dar
ds
for
wat
er r
etic
ula
tio
n c
onst
ruct
ion
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
(a
) R
oo
f-ru
noff
use
d t
o h
arves
t po
tab
le w
ater
, o
n a
n i
nd
ivid
ual
lo
t-b
asis
(b
) R
un
off
fro
m r
oad
s an
d o
pen
spac
e h
arves
ted
; open
sw
ale
dra
ins
alo
ng r
oad
s (c
) P
um
pin
g f
rom
nea
rby r
iver
is
a la
st r
esort
(an
d s
ubje
ct t
o m
inim
um
riv
er f
low
req
uir
emen
ts)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Sw
ales
slo
w w
ater
flo
ws,
min
imis
e er
osi
on a
nd i
ncr
ease
poin
t of
conta
ct g
roundw
ater
infi
ltra
tion;
no
evid
ence
of
des
ign
fo
r sp
ecif
ic t
reat
men
t ob
ject
ives
. U
sed
vo
lum
etri
c ru
no
ff c
oef
fici
ent
scal
ed
acco
rdin
g t
o t
ota
l m
on
thly
rai
nfa
ll (
to a
cco
unt
for
soil
mois
ture
).
Bas
ed 'w
ors
t-ca
se' d
eman
d a
nd
su
pp
ly o
n 1
98
2-8
3 d
rou
gh
t.
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Rel
iance
on c
atch
men
t ex
tern
al t
o t
he
site
(hen
ce o
uts
ide
dir
ect
contr
ol)
pla
ces
supply
rel
iabil
ity a
t ri
sk.
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
N
on
-po
tab
le w
ater
co
nvey
ed t
hro
ugh
open
sw
ale
dra
ins
(tre
atm
ent
for
sed
imen
t)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Sw
ales
des
ign
ed u
sed
Man
nin
g's
eq
uat
ion
, to
typ
ical
sta
nd
ard
s (t
o s
afel
y c
on
vey
5 y
ear
AR
I fl
ow
).
No
rea
l at
tenti
on
pai
d t
o t
yp
e o
f veg
etat
ion
, no
r sp
ecif
ic t
reat
men
t p
erfo
rman
ce r
equ
irem
ents
.
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
T
hre
e la
ke
syst
em (
wit
h u
nd
ergro
un
d p
ipe
reti
cula
tio
n b
ack t
o i
nd
ivid
ual
lo
ts)
Capaci
ty (
ML
) O
rigin
ally
mo
del
led
to
sto
re 3
7 M
L i
n t
hre
e st
ora
ges
, d
ue
to m
od
ific
atio
ns
du
rin
g c
onst
uct
ion
the
dam
s cu
rren
tly c
on
tain
49 M
L
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 5
0%
(d
esig
n),
65%
as
const
ruct
ed
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Model
ling b
ased
on p
roje
cted
dem
and f
or
sum
mer
(3 m
onth
s duri
ng N
ov-M
ar)
pea
k
(80
kL
/lot/
mo
nth
) an
d r
emai
nin
g p
erio
d (
6kL
/lo
t/m
onth
); r
equ
ired
sto
rage
did
no
t in
clu
de
river
pum
pin
g. 1
00 y
ear
AR
I sp
illw
ay i
nst
alle
d o
n s
tora
ges
. E
vap
ora
tion b
ased
on f
igu
re
B.1
1 O
akla
nds
Park
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
133
Sto
rage
con
t…
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
10
0 y
ear
AR
I fl
ood
pro
tect
ion n
eed
ed. E
vap
ora
tio
n c
an b
e m
ade
issu
e in
dro
ugh
t p
erio
d (
hen
ce
SA
:Vo
l is
im
po
rtan
t -
and
so w
ater
pre
fere
nti
ally
sto
red
in d
am w
ith
low
est
SA
:Vo
l).
Ther
efore
, n
eed
to
all
ow
fo
r w
ater
to
be
mo
ved
fro
m o
ne
store
to
th
e o
ther
Re-
use
W
ha
t N
on
-po
tab
le a
nd
fir
efig
hti
ng,
som
e h
ouse
s p
lum
bed
for
toil
et f
lush
ing
Ho
w
Ret
icu
lati
on
syst
em,
mai
ns
pre
ssure
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) G
uar
ante
ed c
on
tinu
ity o
f su
pp
ly t
o 8
0 l
ots
usi
ng 8
0,0
00
L/m
on
th/l
ot
in s
um
mer
and
6,0
00
L
/mo
nth
/lot
at o
ther
tim
es (
bas
ed o
n 8
2/3
dro
ugh
t as
wo
rst-
case
sce
nar
io)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) T
yp
ical
an
nual
no
n-p
ota
ble
dem
and (
6.9
Ml/
a) a
ppro
xim
atel
y 1
0%
of
mea
n a
nn
ual
ru
noff
(7
5
ML
/a)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Syst
em b
uil
t to
Mel
bo
urn
e W
ater
sta
ndar
ds
(use
s p
iped
ret
icu
lati
on
fro
m s
tora
ges
)
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Import
ant
to u
nder
take
reli
able
model
ling o
f li
kel
y d
eman
d. W
ill
be
inte
rest
ing t
o m
onit
or
whet
her
th
e la
ck o
f co
st f
or
use
of
no
n-p
ota
ble
wat
er l
ead
s to
ab
ove-
aver
age
consu
mpti
on
.
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) T
anks
hav
e m
inim
um
cap
acit
y o
f 7
0,0
00
L (
x 8
0 l
ots
= 5
.6 M
L):
mo
del
led
dem
and =
1
00
L/p
erso
n/d
ay
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 7
%
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
) 6
3.9
26
94
06
39
26
94
(T
ank s
tora
ge
vo
lum
e /
Po
tab
le w
ater
dem
and)
Coll
ecti
on
G
utt
er
Tre
atm
ent
Fir
st f
lush
div
ersi
on
dev
ices
, n
atu
ral
sed
imen
tati
on
pro
cess
es i
n t
anks
Sto
rag
e T
ank
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
E
ach
in
div
idu
al l
ot
has
a s
yst
em t
o p
rod
uce
tre
ated
wat
er s
uit
able
fo
r ir
rigat
ion
Tre
atm
ent
Sep
tic
tan
ks
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) se
e w
aste
wat
er
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
B.1
1 O
akla
nds
Park
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
134
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se c
on
t…
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Pro
vis
ion
for
wat
er t
o b
e p
um
ped
fro
m D
eep
Cre
ek (
wh
ich
form
s o
ne
bo
un
dar
y o
f th
e dev
elo
pm
ent)
to
supple
men
t st
ora
ge
pond f
illi
ng i
n t
imes
of
low
rai
nfa
ll;
this
pro
vis
ion w
ill
also
more
than
co
mp
ensa
te f
or
any p
ote
nti
al l
oss
of
catc
hm
ent
area
(so
me
is e
xte
rnal
)
18
0 m
2 m
inim
um
ho
use
siz
e (t
o e
nsu
re a
deq
uat
e co
llec
tio
n o
f p
ota
ble
wat
er),
ro
of
mat
eria
l an
d
slope
requir
emen
ts o
pti
mis
e co
llec
tion e
ffic
iency
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
En
sure
d t
hat
ro
ad c
ulv
erts
had
cap
acit
y u
p t
o 1
0 y
ear
AR
I, s
tora
ge
spil
lway
s ca
pac
ity u
p t
o 1
00
yea
r A
RI.
D
rain
age
syst
em s
afel
y c
on
vey
s 5
yea
r (a
ssu
me?
) fl
ow
s, w
ith
ou
t ri
sk o
f er
osi
on
, o
r ex
cess
ive
dep
ths
(lit
tle
det
ail
giv
en h
ere)
.
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
R
esid
ents
are
en
cou
raged
to
pla
nt
dro
ugh
t to
lera
nt
loca
l n
ativ
e p
lants
to
min
imis
e ir
rigat
ion
nee
ds
Lo
call
y n
ativ
e tr
ees,
sh
rub
s an
d g
rass
es a
re p
lan
ted
alo
ng s
tree
ts a
nd
in
op
en s
pac
e re
serv
es
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
N
on
-po
tab
le m
ain
s pre
ssu
re w
ater
is
met
ered
to
dis
cou
rage
was
te
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Eco
nom
ic v
iabil
ity -
so
me
buyer
rel
uct
ance
was
exper
ien
ced i
nit
iall
y i
n t
he
mar
ket
ing o
f O
akla
nds
Par
k b
ecau
se i
t w
as d
iffe
ren
t; t
hro
ugh
per
sist
ence
an
d o
ver
tim
e th
e d
evel
op
er w
as a
ble
to
per
suad
e p
rosp
ecti
ve
pu
rch
aser
s th
at t
hei
r id
eas
wo
uld
work
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Rep
ort
edly
lit
tle
supp
ort
or
invo
lvem
ent
fro
m r
elev
ant
inst
itit
uti
ons
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Wee
d m
anag
emen
t an
d r
emo
val
pro
gra
m f
or
op
en s
pac
e ar
eas
Pu
mps
hav
e se
lf-c
lean
ing f
ilte
rs (
bac
kw
ash
ever
y w
eek),
rem
oved
and
pre
ssu
re w
ash
ed e
ver
y 3
m
on
ths
Lak
es:
mai
nta
in g
rass
co
ver
, en
sure
rock
lin
ing r
emai
ns
in p
lace
, at
ten
d t
o a
ny l
eakag
e; i
n t
he
lon
g
term
sil
t re
mo
val
may
be
req
uir
ed t
o m
ain
tain
fu
ll s
tora
ge
cap
acit
y
Who
K
eith
Fu
rnis
s (s
ite
man
ager
)
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Lit
tle
mai
nte
nan
ce r
equ
ired
ap
art
fro
m p
um
pin
g w
ater
bet
wee
n s
tora
ges
, d
ams
do
not
leak
e
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
B.1
1 O
akla
nds
Park
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
135
Mo
nit
ori
ng c
on
t…
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
No
pro
ble
ms,
sit
e m
anag
er d
rin
ks
wat
er f
rom
lak
es
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Pu
mp
ing f
rom
Dee
p C
reek
req
uir
ed o
nly
on
ce (
to i
nit
iall
y f
ill
the
lakes
)
On
ly p
rob
lem
s ex
per
ience
d w
ith
su
pp
ly t
o d
ate
hav
e o
ccurr
ed d
uri
ng p
ow
er s
hort
ages
(p
um
ps
swit
ch o
ff)
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Wat
er s
upp
ly a
deq
uat
e fo
r n
on
-pota
ble
req
uir
emen
ts,
no
res
iden
ts h
ave
use
d t
hei
r fu
ll 1
50
kL
/yr
allo
cati
on
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
No
n-p
ota
ble
wat
er s
up
ply
$7
3,0
00
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Bo
dy c
orp
ora
te f
ee $
80
0/l
ot/
yr,
in
clu
des
cost
of
150
kL
rec
ycl
ed w
ater
, use
rs c
har
ged
fo
r an
y e
xtr
a
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Sit
e n
ot
con
nec
ted
to
mai
ns
wat
er
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.1
1 O
akla
nds
Park
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
136
B.1
2
Pa
rafi
eld
Sto
rm
wa
ter H
arvest
ing
Fa
cili
ty
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e C
oli
n P
itm
an
Lo
cati
on
P
araf
ield
Air
port
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s C
ity o
f S
alis
bu
ry
Par
afie
ld A
irp
ort
Man
agem
ent
SA
Sta
te G
over
nm
ent
No
rther
n A
del
aid
e an
d B
aross
a C
atch
men
t W
ater
Man
agem
ent
Boar
d
GH
Mic
hel
l &
Sons
Aust
rali
a P
ty L
td
Ref
eren
ces
(Pit
man
, 2
00
3)
(CS
, 2
00
3)
(DE
H, 2003)
(CS
)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
etro
fit
(Sta
ge
1)
Siz
e 1
60
0 h
a ca
tch
men
t, 1
1.2
ha
site
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
E
arly
2003
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
46
0.5
(M
L)
73
68
.0
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
11
6.8
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 2
21
0
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
11
00
-12
00
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
Sal
ine
lim
esto
ne
aquif
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
137
Ob
ject
ives
Flo
od
pro
tect
ion
Pro
vis
ion
of
recr
eati
on
al a
men
itie
s
En
vir
on
men
tal
man
agem
ent,
incl
ud
ing h
abit
at c
reat
ion
, pro
tect
ion
of
the
Bar
ker
Inle
t (b
reed
ing
gro
un
d a
nd
nurs
ery f
or
mu
ch o
f S
A's
fis
her
ies)
, dec
reas
ed d
epen
den
ce o
n M
urr
ay R
iver
Eco
no
mic
dev
elo
pm
ent
Sh
ow
case
dev
elo
pm
ent
in c
on
ver
tin
g s
torm
wat
er f
rom
an
urb
an n
uis
ance
an
d p
oll
uta
nt
thre
at i
nto
a
val
uab
le r
esou
rce
for
indu
stry
an
d t
he
com
mun
ity
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
R
ech
arge
wat
er q
ual
ity h
as t
o m
eet
the
EP
A r
equ
irem
ents
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t E
MP
incl
ud
ed r
isk a
nal
ysi
s to
co
ntr
ol
and
min
imis
e im
pac
t fr
om
dust
, tr
ansm
issi
on
of
pat
ho
gen
s,
chem
ical
s, f
uel
s an
d o
ther
poll
uta
nts
, er
osi
on
, n
ois
e an
d t
raff
ic m
ovem
ent
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
G
utt
er, p
ipe,
chan
nel
S
torm
wat
er f
rom
lo
cal
catc
hm
ent
div
erte
d f
rom
the
trun
k d
rain
into
a s
erie
s of
cap
ture
, h
old
ing a
nd
cl
ean
sin
g b
asin
s A
wei
r in
th
e P
araf
ield
Dra
in d
iver
ts f
low
in
to a
n i
nst
ream
cap
ture
bas
in v
ia s
even
10
50
mm
d
iam
eter
cu
lver
ts
A 3
00
mm
dia
met
er b
yp
ass
culv
ert
loca
ted
thro
ugh
the
wei
r to
re-
dir
ect
low
wat
er f
low
s d
etec
ted t
o
be
of
un
sati
sfac
tory
qu
alit
y f
or
captu
re
Pu
mped
fro
m c
aptu
re b
asin
to
ho
ldin
g b
asin
Capaci
ty (
ML
) U
p t
o a
1:1
0 y
ear
sto
rm e
ven
t, 5
0 M
L c
aptu
re b
asin
(39
000
m3
), s
imil
ar c
apac
ity h
old
ing b
asin
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
W
etla
nd
s
Gra
vit
ates
to
and
flo
ws
conti
nu
ousl
y t
hro
ugh
den
sely
-pla
nte
d r
eed
bed
, b
iolo
gic
ally
fil
tere
d
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 2
ha
(15
000
0 m
3)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Res
iden
cy p
erio
d o
f w
ater
in
tre
atm
ent
pon
ds
is b
etw
een
7 a
nd
10
day
s, d
epen
din
g o
n q
ual
ity o
f in
flow
wat
er
B.1
2 Pa
rafi
eld
Stor
mw
ater
Har
vest
ing
Faci
lity
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
138
Tre
atm
ent
con
t…
Bir
d-p
roo
f n
eeti
ng o
ver
po
nds
to r
educe
bir
d p
op
ula
tio
ns
aro
und
air
po
rt a
nd
ris
k o
f b
ird
str
ike
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Rem
oves
~9
0%
of
nu
trie
nt
and
po
llu
tan
t lo
ads
Sto
rag
e H
ow
A
SR
, cl
ean
sed
sto
rmw
ater
ex
cess
to
th
e n
eeds
of
loca
l in
du
stry
is
sto
red
in
nat
ura
l u
nder
gro
un
d
aqu
ifer
s fo
r re
cover
y a
t ti
mes
of
low
rai
nfa
ll
Capaci
ty (
ML
) ~
65
0 M
L i
nje
cted
und
ergro
un
d a
nn
ual
ly (
des
ign
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
AS
R w
ell
fiel
d c
om
pri
ses
two
wel
ls,
bo
th 1
90
m d
eep,
35
L/s
inje
ctio
n r
ate
Init
ial
bu
ffer
of
2,0
00
ML
as
bal
anci
ng s
tora
ge
to o
ver
com
e yea
rly v
aria
tio
ns
in A
SR
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t W
oo
l cl
ean
sin
g (
GH
Mic
hel
l &
So
ns
Aust
rali
a P
ty L
td m
ajor
reci
pie
nt)
, ir
rigat
ion
H
ow
C
lean
sed w
ater
pu
mp
ing s
tati
on
pu
mps
dis
char
ge
fro
m t
he
reed
bed
via
30
0 m
m d
iam
eter
ris
ing
mai
n,
dis
trib
ute
d b
y p
ipel
ine
to a
tan
k a
t G
H M
ich
ell
& S
on
s A
ust
rali
a C
apaci
ty (
ML
) 1
50
0 M
L/y
r m
ax y
ield
, G
H M
ich
ell
use
~1100
ML
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 9
0%
D
esig
n m
eth
ods
An
nu
ally
, 5
00
ML
pu
mp
ed d
irec
tly t
o G
H M
ich
ell,
50
0 M
L d
raw
n f
rom
AS
R,
up
to 4
00
ML
to
oth
er c
on
sum
ers
alo
ng p
ipel
ine
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
15
0-2
50
pp
m s
up
ply
wat
er s
alin
ity,
wh
ich
is
less
th
an t
he
sali
nit
y o
f th
e R
iver
Murr
ay (
usu
ally
gre
ater
th
an 4
00
mg/L
)
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
B.1
2 Pa
rafi
eld
Stor
mw
ater
Har
vest
ing
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
139
Gre
yw
ate
r co
nt…
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Co
nsi
der
atio
n o
f p
oss
ible
dis
rupti
on
to
air
po
rt a
ctiv
itie
s
Acc
ess
to s
yst
em (
bec
ause
air
port
is
a se
cure
are
a)
Em
ergen
cy R
esp
on
se P
lan
dev
elo
ped
for
the
pro
ject
in
ord
er t
o e
nsu
re e
ffec
tive
and e
ffic
ien
t re
spo
nse
s to
in
cid
ents
that
may
thre
aten
to
adver
sely
im
pac
t th
e pro
ject
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Bir
d s
trik
e m
anag
emen
t
Mo
squ
ito
man
agem
ent
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
W
ind
sh
ear
contr
ol
(chan
ges
in t
op
ogra
ph
y)
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
C
om
pet
itiv
e w
ater
pri
cing
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Co
un
cil
op
ted
fo
r p
ayb
ack p
erio
d o
f 1
0 y
ears
& w
ill
ensu
re r
ecycl
ed w
ater
s al
way
s co
mp
etit
ivel
y
pri
ced
co
mp
ared
to
mai
ns
wat
er
Mo
del
fo
r in
du
stry
, lo
cal,
sta
te a
nd
fed
eral
gover
nm
ent
par
tner
ship
Reg
ula
tory
an
d l
egal
ref
orm
s te
sted
R
equ
ired
lic
ense
s (f
rom
EP
A a
nd
Dep
artm
ent
of
Wat
er R
esou
ces)
an
d d
evel
op
men
t ap
pro
val
s;
un
der
too
k d
etai
led
tec
hn
ical
and
leg
al a
sses
smen
t of
the
pro
ject
in
ord
er t
o e
nsu
re r
egu
lato
ry
app
roval
s re
ceiv
ed i
n t
ime
to k
eep
to t
imin
g s
ched
ule
Oth
er
Co
un
cil
pro
vid
es e
con
om
ic i
nce
nti
ves
to
ex
isti
ng a
nd
new
in
du
stri
es i
n t
he
regio
n
Ind
igen
ou
s her
itag
e is
sues
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
O&
M M
anu
al d
evel
op
ed f
or
pro
ject
B.1
2 Pa
rafi
eld
Stor
mw
ater
Har
vest
ing
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
140
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce c
on
t..
Syst
em c
ontr
ol
& d
ata
acq
uis
itio
n (
SC
AD
A)
syst
em l
inked
to
cen
tral
co
ntr
ol
syst
em a
t C
ou
nci
l o
ffic
es
Who
O
n-g
oin
g q
ual
ity c
on
tro
l pro
vid
ed T
echn
ical
Ad
vis
ory
Com
mit
tee,
co
mpri
sed
of
exp
ert
per
sonn
el
fro
m c
ou
nci
l, a
irp
ort
, G
H M
ich
ell,
NA
BC
WM
B,
EA
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Par
afie
ld D
rain
, b
asin
s, g
rou
nd
wat
er
Usi
ng i
n-l
ine
real
tim
e m
on
itori
ng (
pH
, T
DS
an
d s
ettl
eab
le s
oli
ds)
, gra
b s
amp
les
& c
om
posi
te
sam
pli
ng
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Gro
un
dw
ater
lev
els
Oth
er
Mac
ro-i
nver
teb
rate
s, n
ativ
e fi
sh, te
rres
tria
l in
ver
tebra
tes
(mo
squ
itoes
an
d o
ther
inse
cts)
, se
dim
ents
(w
ith
in b
asin
s)
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
AS
R i
nje
ctio
n w
ater
qual
ity m
eets
Aust
rali
an D
rinkin
g W
ater
Guid
elin
es
Har
ves
tin
g a
nd
tre
atin
g s
torm
wat
er t
hro
ugh
wet
lan
ds
typ
ical
ly r
edu
ces
the
nu
trie
nt
and
poll
uta
nt
load
s b
y u
p t
o 9
0%
, w
hil
e th
e th
e sa
lin
ity o
f th
e tr
eate
d s
torm
wat
er i
s le
ss t
han
25
0 m
g/L
(th
ese
are
the
gen
eral
fig
ure
s fo
r al
l o
f S
alis
bu
ry's
wet
lan
ds)
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
GH
Mic
hel
l &
So
ns
Aust
rali
a ar
e p
leas
ed w
ith
the
qu
alit
y o
f th
e w
ater
P
rovid
es s
olu
tio
n t
o s
torm
wat
er f
lood
ing o
f P
araf
ield
Air
po
rt, re
nta
l in
com
e h
elp
s to
off
set
cost
of
run
nin
g a
irp
ort
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$4
.5m
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
) 3
0 c
/kL
(ex
clu
din
g c
ost
of
cap
ital
, co
mpar
ed w
ith c
ost
of
mai
ns
wat
er f
rom
Riv
er M
urr
ay o
f $
1.0
0/k
L)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
1.5
bil
lion l
itre
s of
wat
er t
hat
was
pum
ped
annual
ly f
rom
the
Riv
er M
urr
ay s
tays
in t
he
river
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t F
loodin
g p
roble
ms
at P
araf
ield
Air
port
eli
min
ated
P
oll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Co
ntr
ibute
s to
th
e el
imin
atio
n o
f ~
500
0 M
L o
f st
orm
wat
er f
low
ing i
nto
th
e B
arker
In
let
ann
ual
ly
and
ass
oci
ated
po
lluta
nts
B.1
2 Pa
rafi
eld
Stor
mw
ater
Har
vest
ing
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
141
Ben
efit
s co
nt…
In
fra
stru
ctu
re
Enhan
ced l
oca
l jo
b o
pport
unit
ies
and e
conom
ic s
tabil
ity -
cost
s to
GH
Mic
hel
l in
mai
ns
wat
er u
se
and
sew
age
dis
po
sal
wer
e oth
erw
ise
suff
icie
ntl
y h
igh
to
forc
e th
e co
mp
any t
o c
onsi
der
rel
oca
tin
g
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
M
ore
than
a b
illi
on l
itre
s of
wat
er t
hat
was
pum
ped
annual
ly f
rom
the
Riv
er M
urr
ay s
tays
in t
he
river
to
hel
p e
nhan
ce f
low
an
d a
rres
t ri
sin
g s
alin
ity
B.1
2 Pa
rafi
eld
Stor
mw
ater
Har
vest
ing
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
142
B.1
3
Pa
rfit
t S
qu
are
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e U
WR
C
Lo
cati
on
B
ow
den
, S
A
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s C
ity o
f C
har
les
Stu
rt
Urb
an W
ater
Res
ou
rces
Cen
tre,
Un
iver
sity
of
So
uth
Au
stra
lia
Ref
eren
ces
(UW
RC
, 2
00
3)
(PC
WM
B e
t al
., 2
00
2)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
e-d
evel
op
men
t in
an i
nn
er s
urb
urb
(2
7 r
esid
ence
s, 2
50
m o
f ro
ad,
a ca
r p
ark a
nd
an
open
sp
ace
rese
rve)
Siz
e 1
.3 h
a re
crea
tio
nal
par
k w
ith 0
.3 h
a ad
join
ing m
ediu
m d
ensi
ty h
ou
sin
g
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
M
arch
19
97
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
55
8.4
(M
L)
7.3
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
12
0.3
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 2
.2
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
16
00
-17
00
Geo
log
y
Dom
inan
t so
il i
s a
low
per
mea
ble
cla
y, per
mea
bil
ity t
ests
rev
eal th
e so
il t
o h
ave
low
hydra
uli
c co
nd
uct
ivit
y (
k6
0=
8x
10
-7 m
/s)
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
1
2 m
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t ~
12 m
/yr
Oth
er
Qu
ater
nar
y a
qu
ifer
, ~
1.5
m t
hic
k,
com
pri
ses
coar
se r
iver
gra
vel
, T
DS
18
00
mg/L
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
To r
etai
n a
ll s
torm
ru
noff
flo
ws
up
to a
nd
in
clu
din
g t
he
1:1
00
yr
storm
ru
noff
T
o r
etai
n a
nd
man
age
all
surf
ace
po
llu
tio
n g
ener
ated
in
the
catc
hm
ent
in a
ll s
torm
even
ts u
p t
o a
nd
in
clu
din
g t
he
1:1
00
yr
even
t
To d
iver
t th
e bulk
of
reta
ined
sto
rm r
un
off
to
sto
rage
in t
he
und
erly
ing u
pp
er Q
uat
ern
ary a
qu
ifer
B.1
3 Pa
rfitt
Squ
are
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
143
Ob
ject
ives
con
t…
To
ret
riev
e st
ore
d s
torm
wat
er t
o p
rovid
e ir
rigat
ion
fo
r th
e 0
.6 h
a re
serv
e
To
pro
vid
e a
qu
alit
y e
nvir
on
men
t fo
r p
assi
ve
recr
eati
on
al a
ctiv
ity
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
G
utt
er, si
ngle
en
try p
oin
t in
car
par
k a
rea
Capaci
ty (
ML
) A
ll s
torm
wat
er f
rom
the
upst
ream
su
b-c
atch
men
ts
Des
ign c
ater
s fo
r tw
o 1
00
-yr
AR
I st
orm
co
ndit
ion
s, p
eak d
esig
n f
low
= 2
00
L/s
(cr
itic
al s
torm
= 2
0
min
s),
des
ign r
un
off
volu
me
= 1
20
0 m
3 (
4 h
r st
orm
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
3
0m
lo
ng g
rate
d s
edim
ent
trap
an
d 3
00
m2 g
ravel
ree
d b
ed (
sed
imen
tati
on
, fi
ltra
tio
n a
nd
ad
sorp
tio
n),
over
flo
w a
nd
in
filt
rati
on
fro
m r
eed
bed
ente
rs s
ub
terr
anea
n g
ravel
-fil
led
tre
nch
ben
eath
a
gra
ssed
sw
ale
(fu
rther
fil
trat
ion
), c
lean
sed
sto
rmw
ater
is
then
co
nvey
ed t
o r
ech
arge
wel
ls f
or
stora
ge;
bo
re h
ead
wo
rks
incl
ud
es d
ou
ble
thic
knes
s o
f geo
texti
le t
o p
rovid
e fi
nal
fil
teri
ng
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Fo
reb
ay o
f re
ed b
ed d
esig
ned
to
co
nvey
pea
k f
low
D
esig
ned
to
sto
re a
ll s
usp
end
ed m
ater
ial
exp
ecte
d t
o b
e m
ob
ilis
ed i
n t
he
catc
hm
ent
over
an
es
tim
ated
10
0 y
r p
erio
d
Bo
th t
he
gra
vel
ree
d b
ed a
nd
tre
nch
are
sep
arat
ed f
rom
th
e su
rro
und
ing s
oil
by g
eote
xti
le
Tre
nch
100
m l
on
g a
nd
4 m
2 i
n c
ross
-sec
tio
n, en
tran
ce t
o b
ore
sit
uat
ed 1
00 m
m a
bo
ve
bott
om
of
tren
ch t
o a
llow
for
filt
rati
on
of
storm
wat
er t
hro
ugh
to s
urr
ou
nd
ing s
oil
an
d v
eget
atio
n i
n b
etw
een
st
orm
even
ts
Anal
ysi
s o
f d
rain
age
des
ign p
erfo
rmed
usi
ng I
LS
AX
co
mp
ute
r so
ftw
are,
obta
ined
pea
k f
low
into
p
ark,
infl
ow
hyd
rogra
ph
an
d p
eak s
tora
ge
hei
gh
t
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
F
ou
r re
char
ge
wel
ls i
n a
po
nd
ing a
rea,
AS
R
B.1
3 Pa
rfitt
Squ
are
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
144
Sto
rage
con
t…
Capaci
ty (
ML
) tr
ench
: ~
135
m3
, p
ark a
cts
as 9
00
m3
det
enti
on
bas
in
Qu
ater
nar
y 1
aq
uif
er u
nd
erli
es m
ost
of
Ad
elai
de
Met
rop
oli
tan
are
a an
d i
s es
tim
ated
to
hav
e a
stora
ge
cap
acit
y o
f 5
0,0
00
ML
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Sto
rage
vo
lum
e n
eed
ed w
ith
in l
and
scap
ed r
eser
ve
des
ign
ed b
y d
eter
min
ing r
ate
of
rech
arge
usi
ng a
si
mple
co
mp
ute
r m
od
el,
dev
elo
ped
usi
ng s
tand
ard
spre
adsh
eet
tech
niq
ues
an
d a
ssu
mes
tra
nsi
ent
con
dit
ions
(par
ticu
lar
par
amet
ers
giv
en i
n "
Par
fitt
Sq
uar
e S
tuff
" d
oc)
L
and
scap
ing o
f re
serv
e pro
vid
es 9
00 m
3 s
tora
ge
bel
ow
car
riag
eway
in
ver
t, w
ith
all
ab
ove-
gro
un
d
stora
ge
uti
lise
d i
n a
4 h
r 100 y
rs e
ven
t th
e fo
ur
rech
arge
bore
s ar
e ex
pec
ted t
o c
onvey
20 L
/s o
f cl
ean
sto
rmw
ater
to
th
e aq
uif
er
An
tici
pat
ed a
nn
ual
rec
har
ge
~ 1
.7 M
L
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
H
ow
D
isch
arge
bore
an
d p
um
p 1
0m
do
wn
stre
am f
rom
nea
rest
rec
har
ge
bore
, al
low
s "p
lug"
of
sto
rmw
ater
in
ject
ed i
n w
inte
r to
be
cen
tred
aro
un
d p
rod
uct
ion
bore
in
su
mm
er
Cle
anse
d s
torm
wat
er m
ixes
wit
h g
rou
nd
wat
er,
sup
ply
wit
h s
alin
ity a
rou
nd
500
mg/L
su
itab
le f
or
irri
gat
ion
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
If r
ech
arge
and
ret
riev
al v
olu
mes
are
kep
t ap
pro
xim
atel
y i
n b
alan
ce a
dver
se p
ress
ure
flu
ctuat
ion
s w
ill
be
avoid
ed a
nd t
he
aquif
er w
ill
in t
ime
show
a g
radual
red
uct
ion i
n s
alin
ity
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
R
oo
f ru
noff
fro
m n
ewly
co
nst
ruct
ed h
ou
ses
dir
ectl
y c
on
nec
ted
to
gra
vel
tre
nch
via
PV
C p
ipes
Tre
atm
ent
GP
Ts
(mes
h t
rap
s), 100 m
long, gra
vel
-fil
led t
ren
ch f
or
stora
ge
and i
nfi
ltra
tion
Sto
rag
e A
SR
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
B.1
3 Pa
rfitt
Squ
are
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
145
Wa
stew
ate
r co
nt…
C
oll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Co
mm
un
ity e
xp
ecta
tio
ns
for
acti
ve
and
pas
sive
recr
eati
on
Nee
ds
of
an a
dja
cent
sch
oo
l
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Str
on
g s
ense
of
com
mu
nit
y i
n n
eigh
bo
urh
oo
d -
req
uir
e re
sid
ent
man
dat
e fo
r st
orm
wat
er s
yst
em -
co
mm
un
ity i
nvo
lvem
ent
and
co
oper
atio
n s
ough
t at
ear
lies
t st
age
of
dev
elo
pm
ent
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Wh
o
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Lo
ng
-ter
m m
on
itori
ng
B.1
3 Pa
rfitt
Squ
are
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
146
Mo
nit
ori
ng c
on
t…
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s
Red
uce
d d
ema
nd
for
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Red
uct
ion, an
d i
n s
om
e ca
ses
the
elim
inat
ion o
f, m
ains
wat
er f
or
irri
gat
ion
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t R
edu
ces
do
wn
stre
am f
loo
din
g;
all
sto
rm r
un
off
up t
o a
nd i
ncl
ud
ing t
he
1:1
00
yr
sto
rm e
ven
t re
tain
ed
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Poll
uti
on
gen
erat
ed i
n t
he
catc
hm
ent
in a
ll s
torm
even
ts u
p t
o a
nd
in
clu
din
g t
he
1:1
00
yr
even
t tr
eate
d o
n-s
ite
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
L
oca
lise
d t
reat
men
t o
f st
orm
wat
er w
ill
no
t co
ntr
ibute
to
do
wn
stre
am p
rob
lem
s
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
R
eple
nis
hm
ent
of
the
aqu
ifer
B.1
3 Pa
rfitt
Squ
are
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
147
B.1
4
Pow
ells
Cree
k
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e Ja
ke
Mat
uzi
c
Lo
cati
on
C
on
cord
, N
SW
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s C
ity o
f C
anad
a B
ay C
ou
nci
l
Atl
anti
s C
orp
ora
tio
n
NS
W E
PA
Ref
eren
ces
(NS
W E
PA
, 2003)
(AC
, 2
00
3)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e D
emo
nst
rati
on
pro
ject
, re
trofi
t ker
b g
ull
y b
yp
ass
syst
em
Siz
e ~
0.1
33
ha/
stre
et (
x 5
str
eets
= 0
.67
ha)
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
D
ecem
ber
199
8
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
ca
tch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
92
1.3
(ML
) 6
.1
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
10
6.4
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 3
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
Nat
ive
sub-s
urf
ace
consi
sts
of
topso
il a
nd f
ill,
over
layin
g s
ilty
cla
ys
and w
eath
ered
shal
e. N
atura
l si
lty c
lays
pre
sent
at d
epth
s of
2.1
-3.0
m w
ith p
ock
ets
of
man
-mad
e fi
ll. S
oil
per
mea
bil
ity t
ests
in
dic
ated
a c
lay w
ith p
erm
eabil
ity o
f 10-7
cm
/s
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
O
ther
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Pro
ject
sit
e is
a s
erie
s of
stre
ets
in C
onco
rd t
hat
ru
n w
estw
ard
fro
m G
eorg
e S
t to
Po
wel
ls C
reek
.
The
Cre
ek a
t th
e p
oin
ts o
f d
isch
arge
fro
m t
hes
e st
reet
s is
a t
idal
co
ncr
ete
lin
ed t
rap
ezo
idal
ch
annel
, h
ow
ever
th
e m
ore
nat
ura
l se
ctio
n o
f P
ow
ells
Cre
ek c
onsi
stin
g o
f m
angro
ve
wet
lan
ds
is j
ust
d
ow
nst
ream
.
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
B.1
4 Po
wel
ls C
reek
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
148
Ob
ject
ives
To
co
llec
t an
d t
reat
ro
ad r
un
off
fro
m t
he
catc
hm
ent
area
of
five
stre
ets
run
nin
g f
rom
Geo
rge
Str
eet
tow
ard
s P
ow
ells
Cre
ek,
dem
on
stra
tin
g b
est
pra
ctic
es f
or
man
agin
g s
torm
wat
er r
un
off
T
o p
rovid
e a
bre
akth
rou
gh
ro
le m
odel
for
ecolo
gic
ally
su
stai
nab
le a
nd
cost
eff
ecti
ve
subu
rban
d
evel
op
men
t
To
im
ple
men
t an
in
no
vat
ive
dis
trib
ute
d-s
ourc
e so
luti
on f
or
storm
wat
er f
iltr
atio
n a
nd
man
agem
ent
syst
em f
or
a su
bu
rban
are
a
To
pro
tect
wil
dli
fe h
abit
ats,
res
tore
bio
logic
al d
iver
sity
, im
pro
ve
recr
eati
on
al a
reas
an
d C
on
cord
co
mm
un
ity a
men
titi
es a
nd
bea
uti
fy t
he
cree
k
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Co
llecti
on
H
ow
G
utt
er,
infi
ltra
tio
n s
yst
em
Ker
b g
ull
y b
yp
ass
syst
em,
poro
us
road
sh
ou
lder
co
nsi
stin
g o
f A
tlan
tis
Gra
ss C
ells
an
d s
elec
ted t
urf
gra
ss
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Des
ign
bas
ed o
n t
he
Atl
anti
s S
torm
wat
er P
uri
fica
tio
n a
nd
Re-
use
Syst
em f
or
Road
s, w
ith
ap
pro
pri
ate
mo
dif
icat
ions
for
this
sch
eme
Dra
inag
e ce
ll d
esig
ned
to r
e-o
xygen
ated
sto
rmw
ater
H
igh d
ensi
ty p
oly
ethyle
ne
gri
d s
truct
ure
, d
istr
ibu
tes
load
s fr
om
ped
estr
ian
and
veh
icle
tra
ffic
to
bas
e co
urs
e, m
inim
ises
gra
ss a
nd r
oot
com
pac
tion (
mai
nta
ins
infi
ltra
tion c
apab
ilit
y),
lat
eral
des
ign
cap
abil
itie
s pre
ven
t ce
ll b
lock
ing
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
F
ilte
rs t
hro
ugh
gra
ss c
ells
and
then
th
rou
gh
Atl
anti
s E
coso
il i
nto
Atl
anti
s E
colo
gic
al C
han
nel
wh
ich
co
nti
nues
fil
trat
ion
pro
cess
Irri
gat
ion
wat
er a
bso
rbed
in
to t
he
surr
ou
nd
ing s
oil
s o
r ev
apo
-tra
nsp
ired
thro
ugh
surr
ou
nd
ing
veg
etat
ion
"ph
yto
-rem
edia
te"
hea
vy m
etal
s an
d n
utr
ients
Eco
soil
ph
ysi
call
y a
nd
bio
logic
ally
en
gin
eere
d t
o t
reat
PC
Bs,
PA
Hs,
org
ano
ph
osp
hat
es,
coal
tar
s,
pes
tici
des
an
d h
erb
icid
es,
and
tai
lore
d t
o s
uit
the
site
's s
pec
ific
soil
an
d w
ater
pro
per
ties
B.1
4 Po
wel
ls C
reek
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
149
Tre
atm
ent
con
t…
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Co
nsi
der
atio
ns
incl
ud
e su
itab
le c
om
pac
tio
n o
f th
e fi
lter
med
ium
to
mai
nta
in r
oad
su
rfac
e in
tegri
ty,
mai
nta
inin
g o
pti
mum
infi
ltra
tio
n r
ates
, su
pp
ort
ing g
row
th o
f gra
ss;
requ
ired
to a
chie
ve
a per
mea
bil
ity o
f at
lea
st 0
.1 c
m/s
(1.0
1 l
/s/m
2)
Eco
logic
al C
han
nel
co
mpri
sed
of
Atl
anti
s ver
tica
l ce
lls
wit
h d
imen
sio
ns
of
18
00
x30
0x
80
mm
an
d
wra
pp
ed i
n 2
mm
Atl
anti
s F
iltr
atio
n G
eote
xti
le.
On
e si
de
of
the
chan
nel
is
flu
sh w
ith
th
e ex
cavat
ion,
the
oth
er w
ith
th
e ta
nk.
Ch
annel
is
also
des
ign
ed t
o r
e-o
xygen
ate
sto
rmw
ater
. C
han
nel
des
ign
ed t
o f
oll
ow
in
her
ent
con
tou
rs o
f la
ndfo
rm (
emu
lati
ng f
low
of
nat
ura
l su
b s
urf
ace
wat
erw
ay),
th
is d
esig
n c
reat
es v
erti
cal
flo
w,
turb
ule
nce
an
d r
educe
s o
ver
all
flo
w v
elo
city
, p
erm
eab
le w
alle
d c
han
nel
s al
low
inte
ract
ion
of
wat
er w
ith
so
ils
(in
crea
sin
g a
ero
bic
cap
acit
y o
f ch
annel
)
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
D
iver
ted
by E
colo
gic
al C
han
nel
in
to u
nder
gro
un
d A
tlan
tis
Eco
logic
al T
anks,
co
mp
rise
d o
f 1
5 c
ells
, ea
ch 4
10
x4
67
x61
0 m
m
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 0
.00
17
5
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 0
.06%
D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Due
to l
ow
per
mea
bil
ity r
ate
of
the
subso
il, sy
stem
would
be
unab
le t
o i
nfi
ltra
te a
ll w
ater
sto
red i
n
the
tan
k
Duri
ng l
arge
storm
even
ts a
n o
ver
flo
w s
yst
em d
iver
ts e
xce
ss t
reat
ed w
ater
to a
n a
ppro
pri
ate
outl
et
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
, gro
un
dw
ater
rec
har
ge,
dis
char
ge
to P
ow
ells
Cre
ek
Ho
w
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 4
50
0 m
2 i
rrig
atio
n a
rea
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
B.1
4 Po
wel
ls C
reek
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
150
Ro
of
run
off
con
t…
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Su
bsu
rfac
e sy
stem
fre
es u
p s
pac
e
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
La
nd
sca
pe
Req
uir
emen
ts
Spec
ific
veg
etat
ion
typ
es u
sed
fo
r ev
apo
-tra
nsp
irat
ion
form
par
t o
f th
e sy
stem
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Who
Key
lea
rnin
gs
B.1
4 Po
wel
ls C
reek
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
151
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Mo
nit
ore
d f
or
six
mo
nth
s fo
llo
win
g c
on
stru
ctio
n;
sto
rmw
ater
tes
ted
at
surf
ace
level
, af
ter
infi
ltra
tio
n a
nd
sto
rage
in t
anks;
10
rai
nfa
ll e
ven
ts s
amp
led
, te
sted
for
pH
, T
N, T
P, P
AH
, E
C,
turb
idit
y, S
S, C
u, Z
n, P
b
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Over
90
% e
ffic
ien
cy i
n r
emo
val
of
met
als,
~25
% r
emo
val
rat
e fo
r n
utr
ients
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$4
00
,000
Co
sts
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Use
of
recy
cled
wat
er f
or
irri
gat
ing p
arks
and o
ther
lan
dsc
ape
area
s
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Mic
ro-o
rgan
ism
s in
Eco
soil
s b
iolo
gic
ally
deg
rad
e p
oll
uta
nts
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
R
edu
ced
mai
nte
nan
ce o
f st
orm
wat
er s
yst
ems
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
E
xce
ss r
emed
iate
d w
ater
dis
char
ged
into
Po
wel
ls C
reek
as
envir
on
men
tal
flo
ws
of
imp
roved
wat
er
qu
alit
y
B.1
4 Po
wel
ls C
reek
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
152
B.1
5
Sa
nta
Mo
nic
a U
rb
an
Ru
noff
Recy
clin
g F
acil
ity
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e
Lo
cati
on
S
anta
Mo
nic
a, U
SA
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s C
ity o
f S
anta
Mo
nic
a
Ref
eren
ces
(Am
aro
, 2
00
1)
(An
tich
et
al.,
20
02
)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e
Siz
e P
ico
-Ken
ter
and
Pie
r st
orm
dra
ins
dra
in 1
,68
0 a
nd
360
ha
resp
ecti
vel
y (
4,2
00
and
90
0 a
cres
)
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
B
egan
op
erat
ion i
n F
ebru
ary 2
00
1
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
1 y
r in
ten
sity
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wa
tert
able
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Cit
y o
f S
anta
Monic
a is
a p
rim
aril
y u
rban
are
a w
ith 8
5,0
00 r
esid
ents
, occ
upie
s 2.2
. m
iles
of
coat
al
zon
e
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Pri
mar
y:
To
eli
min
ate
po
llu
tio
n o
f S
anta
Monic
a B
ay c
ause
by d
ry-w
eath
er r
un
off
S
eco
nd
ary:
To
tre
at a
nd
pro
duce
co
st-e
ffec
tive
and
hig
h-q
ual
ity w
ater
for
re-u
se i
n l
and
scap
e ir
rigat
ion
; to
rai
se p
ub
lic
awar
enes
s o
f S
anta
Mo
nic
a B
ay p
oll
uti
on
thro
ugh
app
rop
riat
e ed
uca
tion
al
exhib
its
at o
r nea
r th
e tr
eatm
ent
faci
lity
; to
const
ruct
an a
esth
etic
ally
ple
asin
g a
nd f
unct
ional
fa
cili
ty w
ith
an
app
rop
riat
e em
ph
asis
on
art
ele
men
ts
B.1
5 Sa
nta
Mon
ica
Urb
an R
unof
f R
ecyc
ling
Faci
lity
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
153
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
(re
gu
lati
on
) Q
ua
lity
Ir
rigat
ion
re-
use
of
recy
cled
was
tew
ater
is
regu
late
d b
y T
itle
22
of
the
Cal
iforn
ia D
epar
men
t o
f H
ealt
h S
ervic
es,
alth
ou
gh
it
was
dev
elo
ped
for
was
tew
ater
rec
ycl
ing a
nd
do
es n
ot
curr
entl
y c
over
re
cycl
ed u
rban
run
off
an
d s
torm
wat
er.
Reg
ula
tory
co
mp
lian
ce w
as j
ud
ged
on
th
e b
asis
of
the
app
lica
tio
n o
f bes
t av
aila
ble
tec
hn
olo
gy a
s a
bes
t m
anag
emen
t pra
ctic
e co
ver
ed u
nder
th
e L
os
An
gel
es C
ounty
Min
icip
al S
torm
wat
er N
atio
nal
Poll
uta
nt
Dis
char
ge
Eli
min
atio
n S
yst
em P
erm
it
Rem
oval
of
oil
, gre
ase
and
lar
ge
soli
ds
duri
ng t
he
pre
lim
inar
y t
reat
men
t pro
cess
Rem
oval
of
org
anic
an
d i
no
rgan
ic c
om
po
unds
and
turb
idit
y d
uri
ng s
eco
nd
ary t
reat
men
t
Rem
oval
of
pat
ho
gen
s d
uri
ng t
he
dis
infe
ctio
n s
tage
Qu
an
tity
A
ver
age
dry
-wea
ther
flo
ws
fro
m P
ico
-Ken
ter
and
Pie
r st
orm
dra
ins
assu
med
to
be
aro
un
d 2
25
,00
0
gp
d a
nd
40
,00
0 g
pd
res
pec
tivel
y b
ased
on
vis
ual
ob
serv
atio
ns
and a
ctu
al f
ield
mea
sure
men
ts;
pea
k
flo
ws
esti
mat
ed t
o b
e 4
50
,00
0 a
nd
50,0
00
gpd
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
L
ow
-flo
w d
ry-w
eath
er r
un
off
div
erte
d f
rom
Pic
o-K
ente
r an
d P
ier
(cit
y's
tw
o m
ain
) st
orm
dra
ins
Op
erat
es i
n d
ry w
eath
er s
easo
n (
Ap
ril
to O
ctob
er)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
T
reat
men
t tr
ain
co
nsi
stin
g o
f: c
oar
se a
nd
fin
e b
ar s
cree
ns,
flo
w e
qu
alis
atio
n,
dis
solv
ed a
ir f
lota
tio
n,
deg
ritt
ing s
yst
ems,
mic
rofi
ltra
tion a
nd U
V d
isin
fect
ion
Capaci
ty (
ML
) ~
1.9
ML
/day
(5
00
,00
0 g
allo
ns/
day
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
An e
val
uat
ion w
as c
onduct
ed o
f var
ious
wat
er t
reat
men
t pro
cess
es t
o d
eter
min
e th
eir
abil
ity t
o
pro
duce
a r
ecla
imed
eff
luen
t su
itab
le f
or
lan
dsc
ape
irri
gat
ion
an
d t
oil
et f
lush
ing b
ased
on
sp
ecif
ic
regu
lati
ons,
dis
char
ge
lim
itat
ions,
and m
inim
um
tre
atm
ent
requir
emen
ts
Pre
lim
inar
y:
pro
cess
es e
val
uat
ed i
ncl
ude
rack
s, s
cree
ns,
co
mm
inu
tors
, gri
nder
s, g
rit
cham
ber
s,
flo
tati
on
un
its,
an
d f
low
-eq
ual
izat
ion
bas
ins;
pro
cess
es c
ho
sen
wer
e d
eem
ed b
est
fro
m t
he
vie
wp
oin
t o
f sp
ace
const
rain
ts,
op
erat
ion
an
d m
ain
ten
ance
, an
d r
esid
ual
s m
anag
emen
t
B.1
5 Sa
nta
Mon
ica
Urb
an R
unof
f R
ecyc
ling
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
154
Tre
atm
ent
con
t…
Sec
ondar
y:
pro
cess
es e
val
uat
ied i
ncl
ude
fine
scre
enin
g, sa
nd f
iltr
atio
n, m
icro
filt
rati
on, tw
o-s
tage
filt
rati
on, li
me
soft
enin
g, re
ver
se o
smosi
s, g
ranula
ted a
ctiv
ated
car
bon, an
d i
on e
xch
ange
filt
ers;
se
lect
ion
cri
teri
a w
ere
abil
ity t
o r
emo
ve
the
iden
tifi
ed c
onta
min
ants
an
d f
or
issu
es t
hat
lim
its
appli
cabil
ity i
ncl
udin
g f
ootp
rint,
res
idu
als
man
agem
ent,
an
d f
amil
iari
ty o
f o
per
atio
n a
nd
m
ainte
nan
ce;
mic
rofi
ltra
tion c
hose
n f
or
its
smal
l fo
otp
rint,
the
abil
ity t
o h
andle
a w
ide
range
of
var
iab
le i
nfl
uen
t w
ater
qu
alit
y,
and
it
wo
uld
als
o a
llo
w c
ost
-eff
ecti
ve
con
ver
sio
n t
o r
ever
se o
smo
sis
in t
he
futu
re a
nd p
oss
ibly
use
the
trea
ted
wat
er f
or
gro
und
wat
er r
ech
arge
Dis
infe
ctio
n:
pro
cess
es e
val
uat
ed i
ncl
ud
e th
e u
se o
f o
zon
e, U
V r
adia
tio
n a
nd
so
diu
m h
yp
och
lori
te;
sele
ctio
n c
rite
ria
incl
ud
ed f
ootp
rin
t re
qu
irem
ents
, co
mm
un
ity s
afet
y,
regu
lato
ry a
ccep
tan
ce,
pil
oti
ng e
xp
erie
nce
, o
per
atio
n a
nd
mai
nte
nan
ce,
regro
wth
, o
rgan
ics
rem
oval
, co
st, an
d
envir
on
men
tal
imp
act;
UV
sel
ecte
d f
or
its
smal
l p
hysi
cal
site
lay
ou
t re
qu
irem
ents
, m
inim
al
chem
ical
han
dli
ng,
red
uce
d e
nvir
on
men
tal
imp
act,
and
pre
sen
t lo
w-w
ort
h c
ost
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
C
on
cret
e ta
nk
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
One
sid
e nee
ded
to
be
des
igned
as
a re
tain
ing w
all
for
a fr
eew
ay o
n-r
amp
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t Ir
rigat
ion
(in
c. t
wo
par
ks,
a c
emet
ery,
a m
idd
le s
cho
ol,
sev
eral
gre
enbel
t ro
adw
ay m
edia
ns,
th
e ci
vic
cen
ter
area
, a
maj
or
off
ice
bu
ild
ing c
om
ple
x),
to
ilet
flu
shin
g
Ho
w
Du
al-p
lum
bed
syst
ems
for
toil
et f
lush
ing
Capaci
ty (
ML
) A
stu
dy o
f th
e n
um
ber
, ty
pe
and
lo
cati
on
of
po
tenti
al r
e-u
se s
ites
in
dic
ated
th
at 3
3 s
ites
wit
hin
a
two
-mil
e ra
nge
of
the
SM
UR
RF
had
an
aver
age
dai
ly d
eman
d o
f ~
4.5
ML
(1
.2 M
gal
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
B.1
5 Sa
nta
Mon
ica
Urb
an R
unof
f R
ecyc
ling
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
155
Roof
run
off
con
t…
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Ed
uca
tio
n i
nfo
rmat
ion
pla
zas
loca
ted
in
pla
nt
over
vie
w a
reas
; ar
t an
d a
rch
itec
tura
l el
emen
ts
des
ign
ed t
o 1
. E
xpla
in t
he
work
ings
of
the
faci
lity
, 2. P
lace
th
e fa
cili
ty i
n t
he
larg
er c
onte
xt
of
the
San
ta M
on
ica
urb
an w
ater
shed
, an
d 3
. In
form
cit
izen
s w
hat
they
can
do t
o d
ecre
ase
or
elim
inat
e p
oll
uti
on
in
urb
an r
un
off
Key L
earn
ings
Coll
abo
rati
ve
des
ign
ap
pro
ach
bet
wee
n t
he
arti
st, en
gin
eer,
an
d p
ub
lic
wo
rks
tran
sfo
rms
a pote
nti
ally
unsi
ghtl
y w
aste
wat
er f
acil
ity i
nto
a m
ajor
publi
c des
tinat
ion
Ad
dit
ion
al c
ost
of
inco
rpora
tin
g a
rt i
n p
ub
lic
wo
rks
min
iscu
le c
om
par
ed t
o t
he
lon
g-t
erm
pu
bli
c ed
uca
tio
nal
ben
efit
s an
d t
he
pu
bli
c ac
cepta
nce
of
a tr
eatm
ent
faci
lity
nea
r a
maj
or
touri
st a
ttra
ctio
n
B.1
5 Sa
nta
Mon
ica
Urb
an R
unof
f R
ecyc
ling
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
156
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Dai
ly m
ain
ten
ance
of
pre
-tre
atm
ent
syst
em
Maj
or
chal
len
ge
is t
he
con
tro
l o
f al
gae
; w
eekly
cle
anin
g i
s re
qu
ired
to
pre
ven
t th
e bu
ild
up
of
algae
Who
K
ey l
earn
ings
Init
ial
des
ign
req
uir
ed t
he
inje
ctio
n o
f a
bac
kgro
un
d l
evel
of
chlo
rin
e w
ithin
th
e d
istr
ibu
tion
lin
e.
Ho
wev
er,
the
Cit
y h
as f
oun
d t
hat
alg
ae g
row
s al
mo
st e
ver
yw
her
e w
ith
in t
he
faci
lity
, es
pec
iall
y i
n
the
fin
ish
ed r
eser
vo
ir.
Th
e C
ity i
s co
nsi
der
ing a
dd
ing c
hlo
rin
e ea
rlie
r in
the
trea
tmen
t tr
ain
to
re
duce
alg
al g
row
th
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Oil
an
d g
reas
e ar
e m
on
itore
d t
o a
vo
id h
igh
co
nce
ntr
atio
ns
(fro
m s
pil
ls)
fro
m e
nte
rin
g t
he
faci
lity
an
d e
xce
edin
g t
he
syst
em's
par
amet
ers
"Spec
ial
monit
ori
ng o
f m
icro
filt
rati
on s
yst
em t
o e
nsu
re p
roper
oper
atio
n a
nd l
ong-t
erm
dura
bil
ity
and r
elia
bil
ity"
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
US
$1
2 m
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
) U
S$
1.5
3/L
(U
S$
5.8
0/g
al)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Cost
-eff
ecti
ve
sourc
e o
f al
tern
ativ
e w
ater
su
pp
ly f
or
the
Cit
y o
f S
anta
Mo
nic
a; d
isp
lace
men
t of
up
to
4%
of
pota
ble
wat
er d
eman
d
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Red
uce
s p
oll
uti
on
in t
he
San
ta M
on
ica
Bay
In
fra
stru
ctu
re
Res
ourc
e co
nse
rvat
ion
, p
oll
uti
on
pre
ven
tio
n, p
ub
lic
hea
lth
pro
tect
ion a
spec
ts;
opp
ort
un
ity t
o
educa
te p
ubli
c w
rt s
ust
ainab
ilit
y
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.1
5 Sa
nta
Mon
ica
Urb
an R
unof
f R
ecyc
ling
Faci
lity
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
157
B.1
6
So
lan
der
Pa
rk
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e L
ean
ne
Dal
lmer
-Ro
ach
, Pet
er D
on
ley
Lo
cati
on
E
rskin
evil
le,
Syd
ney
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s S
ou
th S
yd
ney
Co
un
cil
Ref
eren
ces
(Dal
lmer
, 2002)
(Dal
lmer
Roac
h,
200
1)
(SS
CC
, 2
00
2)
L.
Dal
lmer
Ro
ach
, p
erso
nal
co
mm
un
icat
ion
P.
Don
ley,
per
son
al c
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
edev
elo
pm
ent
(of
a su
burb
an p
ark)
Sta
ge
1 o
f a
thre
e st
age
pro
ject
that
wil
l ev
entu
ally
com
bin
e to
upgra
de
storm
wat
er q
ual
ity f
rom
ap
pro
xim
atel
y 7
5%
of
the
sub
-cat
chm
ent
bef
ore
it
ente
rs t
he
dow
nst
ream
rec
eivin
g w
ater
s o
f A
lex
and
ra C
anal
Siz
e ~
22
0 h
a ca
tch
men
t, ~
65
ha
curr
ent
coll
ecti
on a
rea
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
G
PT
in
stal
led
in
mid
-20
01
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
C
atch
men
t
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
11
02
.4
(M
L)
71
6.6
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
12
9.4
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 2
50
.8
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
15
00
-16
00
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wate
rtable
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Cat
chm
ent
is p
red
om
inan
tly r
esid
enti
al w
ith
so
me
com
mer
cial
an
d o
pen
sp
ace
Par
k i
s fo
rmer
rec
reat
ion
are
a an
d c
ou
nci
l d
epo
t
B.1
6 So
land
er P
ark
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
158
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
Imp
rove
storm
wat
er q
ual
ity e
nte
rin
g A
lex
and
ra C
anal
Use
tec
hn
iques
an
d d
evic
es t
o i
mp
rove
oth
er c
atch
men
ts
Inte
gra
te c
urr
ent
syst
ems
wit
h a
ho
list
ic a
pp
roac
h t
o s
torm
wat
er p
oll
uti
on
pre
ven
tio
n
Dem
on
stra
te s
afe
storm
wat
er r
e-u
se
Pro
vid
e an
d d
evel
op
ed
uca
tio
nal
op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
stu
den
ts a
nd
the
com
mu
nit
y t
o l
earn
fro
m a
nd
u
nd
erst
and
thes
e p
roce
sses
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Ap
pro
val
of
des
ign
an
d i
nst
alla
tio
n o
f S
yd
ney
Wat
er r
equ
ired
(ow
ner
of
sto
rmw
ater
dra
ins)
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
(a
) G
PT
inte
rcep
ts f
low
s fr
om
tw
o p
aral
lel
trunk d
rain
s pas
sin
g t
hro
ugh
Sola
nd
er p
ark
(b)
over
lan
d f
low
in
filt
rati
on
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) G
PT
: ac
com
odat
es 6
mon
th A
RI
Over
lan
d f
low
: gra
din
g o
f p
ark i
nco
rpora
tes
on
-sit
e st
ora
ge
cap
acit
y o
f ~
45
0 m
3 o
r 1
00
% o
f ra
infa
ll
up
to
a 1
in
20
yea
r A
RI
sto
rm e
ven
t D
esig
n m
eth
ods
In-l
ine
GP
T, p
ipe
dis
char
ge
calc
ula
ted
usi
ng a
sm
all
wei
r in
th
e p
ipe
and
a d
opp
ler
curr
ent
met
er t
o
mea
sure
vel
oci
ty w
hen
th
e w
eir
was
no
lo
nger
val
id,
des
ign
flo
wra
te o
f 4
m3/s
, 1
5.5
m l
ong x
4.5
m
wid
e x
3.9
m d
eep
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
F
rom
tru
nk d
rain
s: E
coso
l R
SF
60
00
GP
T,
hold
ing t
ank,
"Ele
ctro
pu
re"
elec
tro
lysi
s tr
eatm
ent
un
it
Over
lan
d f
low
: sa
nd
fil
trat
ion
bed
, su
b-s
urf
ace
dra
inag
e p
ipes
th
en c
on
vey
wat
er t
o r
eten
tio
n t
ank
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 1
2 k
L h
old
ing t
ank
2 x
1kL
tre
atm
ent
tan
ks
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) D
esig
n m
eth
ods
GP
T:
des
ign
ed t
o c
aptu
re 9
5%
of
gro
ss s
oli
ds
and
95%
of
sed
imen
t p
arti
cles
over
2 m
m i
n d
iam
eter
B.1
6 So
land
er P
ark
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
159
Tre
atm
ent
con
t…
San
d f
iltr
atio
n:
0.3
m t
op
soil
, 0
.6 m
san
d,
0.1
m g
ravel
K
ey L
earn
ing
s E
lect
roly
sis
alte
rnat
ive
trea
tmen
t te
chn
iqu
e, s
ho
wn
to
rem
ove
98
-99
% o
f su
spen
ded
so
lid
s d
ow
n t
o
and
in
clu
din
g l
arge
dis
solv
ed m
ole
cule
s (i
nc.
bac
teri
a, a
lgae
)
Typ
ical
ly r
equ
ires
les
s th
an 2
5%
of
the
amoun
t of
alu
min
ium
ad
ded
ele
ctro
lyti
call
y t
o c
lear
a w
ater
sa
mp
le t
han
wh
en a
dd
ed a
s al
um
Sto
rage
Ho
w
Un
der
gro
un
d r
eten
tion
tan
k
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 0
.22
5
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 0
.09%
D
esig
n m
eth
ods
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t P
ark i
rrig
atio
n
Ho
w
Irri
gat
ion
syst
em, p
op
-up
spri
nkle
rs
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
All
ow
s fo
r o
ver
90%
of
wat
er u
sed f
or
irri
gat
ion
wit
hin
th
e p
ark t
o b
e so
urc
ed f
rom
re-
use
st
orm
wat
er
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Coll
ecti
on
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
B.1
6 So
land
er P
ark
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
160
Gre
yw
ate
r co
nt…
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Imp
roved
vis
ual
am
enit
y a
s re
sult
of
redev
elo
pm
ent
of
par
k,
all
elem
ents
are
inte
gra
ted
into
a t
ota
l m
anag
emen
t ap
pro
ach a
nd d
o n
ot
obst
ruct
the
aest
het
ics
or
the
use
abil
ity o
f th
e par
k
Inte
rpre
tati
ve
artw
ork
s
Pro
vis
ion
fo
r m
ain
s w
ater
to t
op
up
ret
enti
on
tan
k d
uri
ng d
ry c
ond
itio
ns
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
Rem
edia
tio
n o
f co
nta
min
ated
so
ils
on
th
e si
te
Over
flo
w f
rom
tre
atm
ent
un
it, fl
ush
tan
k a
nd
ret
enti
on
tan
k i
nto
GP
T b
y g
ravit
y,
exce
ss r
elea
sed
to
re
ceiv
ing w
ater
way
GP
T i
s b
yp
asse
d o
nce
cap
acit
y e
xce
eded
Lan
dsc
ap
e R
equ
irem
ents
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Pub
lic
con
sult
atio
n a
nd
involv
emen
t fr
om
beg
inn
ing o
f p
roje
ct
Key L
earn
ings
Co
nst
ruct
ion
ori
gin
ally
co
mm
issi
on
ed i
n l
ast
19
99
, ho
wev
er i
nst
alla
tio
n w
as d
elay
ed u
nti
l m
id-
20
01
due
to "
site
rel
ated
iss
ues
"
Com
mu
nit
y c
on
sult
atio
n a
nd
art
wo
rk d
evel
op
men
t has
res
ult
ed i
n l
oca
l co
mm
un
ity i
nte
rest
an
d
ow
ner
ship
of
the
sch
eme
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
GP
T c
lean
ed e
ver
y 3
-4 m
on
ths
and
at
each
cle
anin
g t
her
e ar
e 6
-8 t
on
nes
of
mat
eria
l re
mo
ved
Who
B.1
6 So
land
er P
ark
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
161
Op
era
tio
n a
nd
ma
inte
na
nce
co
nt…
K
ey l
earn
ings
Mai
nte
nan
ce m
ay h
ave
bee
n n
egle
cted
as
tim
e si
nce
co
mp
leti
on o
f co
nst
ruct
ion h
as i
ncr
ease
d,
no
in
form
atio
n
abo
ut
pro
gre
ss o
f su
bse
qu
ent
stag
es o
f p
roje
ct
Mon
ito
rin
g
Wate
r q
ua
lity
P
re-c
onst
ruct
ion:
even
t &
bas
elin
e m
on
ito
ring
up
stre
am o
f G
PT
Po
st-c
onst
ruct
ion:
even
t &
bas
elin
e m
onit
ori
ng u
pst
ream
& d
ow
nst
ream
of
GP
T,
vid
eo s
urv
eill
ance
duri
ng
sto
rm e
ven
ts,
gra
b s
amp
les
fro
m r
e-use
tan
k,
Ele
ctro
pure
syst
em
Par
amet
ers:
hea
vy
met
als
(Ca,
Cu
, P
b,
Fe,
Zn),
gre
ase
& o
ils,
FC
, p
H,
SS
, D
S,
N &
P
Wate
r q
ua
nti
ty
Eff
ecti
ven
ess
of
GP
T w
rt h
ead l
oss
Oth
er
Man
ly V
alue
Hydra
uli
cs L
abo
rato
ry i
nst
alle
d a
nd o
per
ated
mo
nit
ori
ng a
nd s
amp
ling e
qu
ipm
ent
Po
st-c
onst
ruct
ion:
sed
imen
t im
pac
t m
on
ito
ring
Perf
orm
an
ce
Again
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Nu
mber
of
org
anis
atio
ns
inte
rest
ed i
n t
he
schem
e an
d t
he
SS
C i
s se
eing a
nu
mber
of
dev
elo
per
s in
corp
ora
ting
WS
UD
pri
nci
ple
s an
d u
sing s
imil
ar t
echno
log
ies
in t
he
area
W
ate
r q
ua
lity
P
re-c
onst
ruct
ion:
hea
vy m
etal
s, F
C,
SS
, N
& P
ele
vat
ed (
cf A
NZ
EC
C G
uid
elin
es f
or
Fre
sh a
nd
Mar
ine
Wat
er
Qual
ity
1992)
Po
st-c
onst
ruct
ion r
epo
rt n
ot
avai
lable
Wate
r q
ua
nti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hods
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tla
y
$615 0
00 f
or
des
ign a
nd c
onst
ruct
ion,
$200 0
00 f
or
par
k r
edev
elo
pm
ent,
$400 0
00 f
or
rem
edia
tio
n,
$100 0
00
for
com
mu
nit
y ar
twork
s
Cost
s
An
nu
al
op
era
tin
g
(cost
s/kL
) E
lect
ropure
unit
co
sts
$20-5
0/M
L f
or
mo
st p
oll
ute
d w
ater
(re
f: (
Ro
bin
son,
1999))
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
educe
d d
emand f
or
pota
ble
supply
O
n-s
ite
sto
rmw
ater
sto
rage
and r
eten
tio
n r
epre
sents
a s
ignif
ican
t sa
vin
g o
f pota
ble
wat
er
Flo
w m
anag
emen
t F
loo
d m
itig
atio
n a
nd
over
land
flo
w p
ath m
anag
emen
t (t
her
e w
as a
n e
xis
ting
flo
od
pro
ble
m w
ith
in l
oca
l st
reet
s an
d a
n o
ver
land f
loo
d r
oute
thro
ugh t
he
par
k c
ontr
ibute
d t
o r
egu
lar
flo
odin
g o
f ho
use
s su
rro
und
ing t
he
par
k)
Po
llu
tio
n c
on
tro
l G
ross
po
llu
tant
cap
ture
, re
hab
ilit
atio
n o
f th
e p
ark
's s
oil
s In
frast
ruct
ure
C
ounci
l ap
ply
in
form
atio
n a
nd t
echniq
ues
dev
elo
ped
to o
ther
cat
chm
ents
that
dis
char
ge
to A
lexan
dra
Can
al
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
S
torm
wat
er e
nte
rin
g r
ecei
vin
g w
ater
way
(A
lex
andra
Can
al)
of
imp
roved
qu
alit
y
B.1
6 So
land
er P
ark
...c
ontin
ued
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
162
B.1
7
Taro
nga
Zoo
Co
nta
ct I
nfo
rmati
on
Con
tact
Nam
e D
aryl
Ed
war
ds
Lo
cati
on
M
osm
an,
Syd
ney
, N
SW
Pro
ject
Part
ner
s T
aronga
Zoo
Cle
an U
p A
ust
rali
a
Syd
ney
Wat
er
Ref
eren
ces
(TZ
, 2003)
D.
Ed
war
ds,
per
son
al c
om
mun
icat
ion
(19
97)
(AT
S,
20
03
)
Gen
eral
Sit
e D
etail
s:
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Typ
e R
etro
fit
Siz
e 0
.83
ha
Da
te o
f co
mm
issi
on
S
epte
mb
er 1
99
6
Sca
le o
f im
ple
men
tati
on
S
ub
-cat
chm
ent
Rain
fall
R
ain
fall
(m
m/y
r)
12
19
.8
(M
L)
10
.1
No
. ra
infa
ll d
ays
/yr
13
8.2
Mea
n a
nnu
al
runo
ff (
ML
) 6
.6
Po
ten
tia
l ev
ap
otr
ansp
irati
on
(m
m)
3.9
Geo
log
y
Aq
uif
er
Wa
tert
able
Gro
un
dw
ate
r m
ove
men
t
Oth
er
Sit
e H
isto
ry
Sys
tem
Req
uir
emen
ts
Ob
ject
ives
B.1
7 Ta
rong
a Z
oo
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
163
En
d-u
se r
equ
irem
ents
Q
ua
lity
(reg
ula
tio
n)
Qu
an
tity
Op
erati
on
al
Ris
k a
sses
smen
t
Oth
er
Sys
tem
Com
po
nen
ts:
Coll
ecti
on
H
ow
F
irst
flu
sh s
torm
wat
er c
oll
ects
in
sto
rmw
ater
bas
in i
n f
ront
of
trea
tmen
t p
lant
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 1
20
0 k
L/d
ay
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 6
.6%
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Bas
in a
cts
to p
rovid
e fl
ow
eq
ual
isat
ion
wh
en r
equ
ired
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Trea
tmen
t H
ow
S
cree
n a
nd
gri
t co
llec
tio
n c
ham
ber
, b
iolo
gic
al t
reat
men
t (A
NI-
Kru
ger
pro
cess
rem
oves
N a
nd
P),
ae
rati
on
(p
asvee
r ch
ann
el),
cla
rifi
er,
buff
er t
ank,
mic
rofi
ltra
tio
n a
nd
dis
infe
ctio
n (
Mem
tec
Co
nti
nu
ous
Mic
rofi
ltra
tio
n, M
CF
) an
d U
V d
isin
fect
ion
(p
ost
-ho
ldin
g t
ank)
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Bac
kw
ash
fro
m C
MF
un
it r
eturn
s to
aer
atio
n t
ank
Wei
r d
iver
ts a
ny e
xce
ss f
low
en
teri
ng b
uff
er t
ank t
o t
he
UV
dis
infe
ctio
n c
ham
ber
pri
or
to h
arb
ou
r d
isch
arge
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Sto
rag
e H
ow
P
um
ped
to
ho
ldin
g t
ank a
t to
p o
f si
te
Capaci
ty (
ML
) 0
.5
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
) 7
.6%
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Re-
use
W
ha
t A
nim
al e
xhib
it w
ash d
ow
n, ex
hib
it a
nd o
rnam
enta
l m
oat
fil
lin
g, to
ilet
flu
shin
g, ir
rigat
ion
Ex
cess
tre
ated
wat
er d
isch
arged
to
Syd
ney
Har
bou
r H
ow
R
ecycl
ed w
ater
su
pp
ly p
ipe,
in
clu
des
1,3
00
m o
f ri
ng m
ain
(1
00
mm
dia
met
er P
VC
pip
e) a
nd
1,2
00
m
of
var
ious
size
d b
ranch
lin
es;
hose
tap
s, s
pri
nkle
r sy
stem
s, m
oat
fil
lin
g v
alves
an
d t
oil
et b
lock
s
Capaci
ty (
ML
)
B.1
7 Ta
rong
a Z
oo .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
164
Re-
use
co
nt…
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
Des
ign
met
ho
ds
Key
Lea
rnin
gs
Oth
er W
ate
r fo
r R
e-u
se
Ro
of
run
off
if
trea
ted
an
d u
sed
sep
ara
tely
C
apaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% m
ean
an
n.
run
off
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Wa
stew
ate
r C
apaci
ty (
ML
)
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
W
aste
wat
er f
rom
anim
al c
age
ho
sed
ow
ns
Tre
atm
ent
Inco
rpora
ted
wit
h s
torm
wat
er
Sto
rag
e
Greyw
ate
r
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Oth
er W
ate
r f
or R
e-u
se
Capaci
ty (
ML
) n
/a
(
% t
ota
l w
ate
r use
)
Co
llec
tion
Tre
atm
ent
Sto
rag
e
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
Iss
ues
Sit
e A
men
ity
Pu
bli
c S
afe
ty
La
nd
sca
pe
Req
uir
emen
ts
Inte
grati
on
in
to t
ota
l u
rb
an
wa
ter c
ycle
B.1
7 Ta
rong
a Z
oo .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
165
Poss
ible
Pro
ble
ms
Pre
ssu
re i
n h
ose
s u
sed
fo
r ca
ge
was
hd
ow
n
Inst
itu
tio
nal
Oth
er
Key L
earn
ings
Oth
er I
ssu
es
Op
erati
on
an
d m
ain
ten
an
ce
Ho
w
Ala
rm s
yst
em m
on
ito
rs o
per
atio
n o
f tr
eatm
ent
pla
nt
Wh
o
Zo
o o
per
ates
tre
atm
ent
pla
nt,
co
ntr
acto
r m
ainta
ins
reti
cula
tio
n a
nd
pu
mp
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Mo
nit
orin
g
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Zo
o:
over
flo
w a
nd
dis
char
ge
to h
arb
ou
r m
on
ito
red
mo
nth
ly f
or
BO
D,
SS
, p
H
Co
ntr
acto
r: o
ver
flo
w,
dis
char
ge
and
fil
trat
ion u
nit
mo
nit
ore
d m
on
thly
fo
r co
lifo
rms
and
eve
ry s
ix
mo
nth
s fo
r b
acte
ria,
par
asit
es a
nd
fae
cal
coli
form
s
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Flo
w i
n a
nd
out
of
pla
nt,
wat
er u
se
Oth
er
Per
form
an
ce
Ag
ain
st o
bje
ctiv
es
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Wa
ter
qu
anti
ty
Ass
essm
ent
met
hod
s
Key
lea
rnin
gs
Co
st/B
enef
its
Ca
pit
al
ou
tlay
$2
.2 m
C
ost
s
An
nu
al
op
erati
ng
(c
ost
s/kL
)
Use
r pri
ce
Ben
efit
s R
edu
ced
dem
an
d f
or
po
tab
le
sup
ply
Red
uce
d r
elia
nce
on
mai
ns
wat
er s
up
ply
Sav
e $
70
,00
0/y
r o
n w
ater
co
sts
Flo
w m
an
ag
emen
t R
edu
ced
dry
wea
ther
dis
char
ge
into
Syd
ney
Har
bo
ur
Poll
uti
on c
ontr
ol
Infr
ast
ruct
ure
En
viro
nm
enta
l fl
ow
B.1
7 Ta
rong
a Z
oo .
..con
tinue
d
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
166
167
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
Appendix C
This appendix contains information on stormwater
treatment measures built for re-use but designed using
the same principles as systems used solely for
pollution control.
C.1 Swales and Buffers
CSU Thurgoona – Appendix B.4
At this site contour banks are used to direct runoff to
swales. The swales are both grassed and rocky and
allow sedimentation to occur (Figure C.1). Treatment
wetlands are also positioned on swales. The swales
meander over the landscape to control erosion as well
as provide aesthetic features.
Oaklands Park – Appendix B.11
Grassed swales alongside roadways are used to collectgeneral runoff as well as slow water flow, minimiseerosion, increase point of contact for infiltration andconvey runoff to storage (Figure C.2). The swales aredesigned to typical minor/major standards; believed tosafely convey 5 year ARI storm event as suggested byAustralian Rainfall and Runoff (2003) (where <5yrARI is conveyed within the drainage system, and >5 yrARI is conveyed along the road). No real attentionappears to have been paid to type of vegetation orspecific treatment performance requirements. 'Worst-case' demand and supply was based on the 1982-83drought.
Homebush Bay – Appendix B.7
A conventional gutter and pipe system is used tocollect runoff in high traffic areas at Homebush Bay,
Figure C.1 Grassed Swales for Collection and Rocky Swales betweenTreatment Wetlands at CSU Thurgoona (source: CSU)
Figure C.2 Swales Alongside Roadways at OaklandsPark Collect Runoff and Allow Sedimentation(source: savewater.com.au)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
168
however vegetated swales have been constructed
alongside roadways in low traffic areas (Figure C.3).
These swales facilitate collection, sedimentation and
convey of runoff to the treatment wetlands.
C.2 Bio-filters
Parfitt Square – Appendix B.13
A gravel-filled trench beneath a grassed swale conveys
treated water from the treatment wetland to the
infiltration basin at Parfitt Square (Figure C.4). It also
serves to further filter the stormwater and provides 135
kL of temporary storage. The trench, which is 100 m
long and has a cross-section of 4 m2, is separated from
surrounding soil by geotextile. The outlet pipe is
situated 100 mm above the bottom of the trench to
allow for some infiltration of stormwater through to
the surrounding soil and vegetation.
Altona Green Park – Appendix B.1
Beneath the grassed swale at Altona Green Park is the
central filter zone, which consists of a layer of sand
and a porous pipe at the bottom of the trench to convey
treated water to storage. The trench also facilitates
sedimentation and biological treatment (removal of
fine oil particles, dissolved organic matter, and
nutrients).
Figure C.3 Swales Collect Runoff from Low Traffic Areas at Homebush Bay
Figure C.4 Grassed Gravel-filled Trench atParfitt Square (source: UniSa)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
169
C.3 Porous Pavement
There were three types of porous pavement found
incorporated into stormwater re-use schemes, as
described below:
1. The Manly Stormwater Treatment and Re-use
(STAR) Project (Appendix B.10) uses Atlantis
Aqua Pave permeable pavers in the Ocean Beach
carpark for the collection and initial treatment of
general runoff (Figure C.5). These pavers have acrush strength of ~14,000 kN/m2 and can infiltrateup to 20 L/s/m2.
2. Sydney Olympic Park in Homebush Bay(Appendix B.7) incorporates ~6.7 ha of RoclaEcoTrihex pavers to collect, treat and infiltraterunoff directly to trees (Figures C.6, C.7). Thesepavers have a compressive strength of 55x10-6
N/m2 and an abrasion resistance of 4.
Figure C.5 Atlantis Aqua Pave at ManlyBeach (source: AtlantisCorporation)
Figure C.6 Rocla Ecotrihex Pavers at Homebush Bay (source: Rocla and B. Hatt)
Figure C.7 Rocla EcoTrihex Pavers (source: Rocla)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
170
3. The stormwater treatment and re-use system at
Powells Creek (Appendix B.14) in Sydney, NSW
uses Atlantis Turf Cells (Figure C.8) as part of the
treatment process. These cells are a grid structure
designed to house turf grass and are constructed
using high density polyethylene (Figure C.9). This
structure enables the distribution of loads from
pedestrian and vehicle traffic to the base course
and has a crush strength of 1457.60 kN/m2.
Infiltration capacity is maintained through the use
of individual cells in the grass paver to minimise
grass and root compaction.
C.4 Infiltration Basins/Trenches
Figtree Place – Appendix B.5
The 250 m2 grassed dry detention basin is located inthe centre of the Figtree Place development (FigureC.10). General runoff filters through 300 mm oftopsoil overlaying a 750 mm layer of gravel enclosedin geotextile followed by infiltration to the underlyingaquifer. Infiltration trenches around the perimeter ofthe development capture, filter and infiltrate overflowfrom the rainwater tanks. This system is designed todetain 83% of all runoff up to a 1:50 year ARI stormevent.
Figure C.9 Atlantis Turf Cells at Powells Creek (source: NSWStormwater Trust)
Figure C10 Detention Basin (dry and during a storm event) at Figtree Place (source: Coombes)
Figure C.8 Atlantis Turf Cell (source:Atlantis Corporation)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
171
Parfitt Square –Appendix B.13
The detention basin at Parfitt Square acts to detaintreated stormwater for injection to the underlyingaquifer. There are four recharge wells within the basinwhich are expected to convey up to 20 L/s of cleanstormwater to the aquifer. The required detentionvolume was designed by determining the rate ofrecharge using a simple computer model which wasdeveloped using standard spreadsheet techniques andassumes transient conditions. The parameters requiredfor the model are as follows:
bore diameter 0.150 m
aquifer thickness 3 m
depth to aquifer 10 m
watertable level 11.5 m
transmissibility 336 m2/day
storage coefficient 0.09
In addition, the detention basin provides 900 kL oftemporary storage for large storm events.
Solander Park – Appendix B.15
The grassed infiltration bed at Solander Park (FigureC.11) has a detention capacity of 450 kL or 100% ofrainfall in a 1:20 year ARI storm event. A 300 mmlayer of topsoil overlays 600 mm of sand on top of 100mm of gravel. Perforated pipes beneath the gravellayer then convey the filtered water to the storage tank.
C.5 Wetlands
The design of constructed wetlands varies widely,however they typically have a pollution control/inletzone, which serves to trap coarse sediment (it isimportant to reduce the frequency of requiredmaintenance for the macrophyte component) anddistribute flow, followed by densely vegetated marshesthat trap fine sediment and soluble pollutants.Generally, the longer water is detained within thewetland the more improved the water quality is.However, as a rule there is a time threshold abovewhich water quality is likely to deteriorate due tochemical and biological processes within the wetland.
Figure C.11 Looking Across Solander Park to Infiltration Bed
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
172
Local climate affects the behaviour of a wetlandssystem; however pollutant removal is predominantlyinfluenced by the catchment runoff characteristics ofthe site, and the design and surface area of the pond(Wong et al., 1998).
Bobbin Head Road – Appendix B.2
The constructed wetland at Bobbin Head Road wasdesigned to settle sediments, and remove nutrients andheavy metals. It was to be a subsurface flow wetland,have a surface area of 200 m2 and an average depth of0.8m
Parfitt Square – Appendix B.13
The gravel reed bed at Parfitt Square (Figure C.12) hasa surface area of 300 m2 and provides initial treatmentfor low quality flow from the roadways and carpark(roof runoff flows directly to bio-filter). This wetlandfacilitates sedimentation, filtration and adsorption, andis designed to store all the suspended materialexpected to be mobilised in the catchment over anestimated 100 yr period. The wetland is separatedfrom the surrounding soil by a geotextile layer. Thedrainage design was analysed using ILSAX computer
software, including peak flow into park, inflow
hydrograph and peak storage height.
Inkerman Oasis – Appendix B.8
The treatment wetland at Inkerman Oasis is a baffled
subsurface flow rock filter with a surface area of
400m2. The wetland offers sedimentation and nutrient
removal. It contains a soil-gravel filter medium and
emergent plants, and is designed for both vertical and
horizontal flow to fully utilise the media surface area.
CSU Thurgoona – Appendix B.4
The instream treatment wetlands at CSU Thurgoona
provide sedimentation, nutrient removal and aeration
of inflowing runoff. At the point of inflow is a rock-
based water baffle to aerate the stormwater, followed
by a sedimentation pool at least 4 m deep with steep
sides (Figure C.13-a). This pool progressively
becomes shallower over a length of 5-10 m, leading to
a macrophyte zone (Figure C.13-b). These system are
self-sustaining and self-optimising, and their positions
on the swales are selected with respect to function and
aesthetic appeal.
Figure C.12 Gravel Reed Bed (in foreground) at Parfitt Square (source: UniSA)
Figure C.13 (a) Sedimentation Pond and (b) Macrophyte Zone at CSU Thurgoona (source: CSU)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
173
Hawkesbury – Appendix B.6
The stormwater treatment wetland system at UWS
Hawkesbury is comprised of four one hectare surface
flow wetlands. Within each wetland is an alternating
series of shallow wetlands areas and deeper oxidation
ponds. The normal operating level has an average
design depth of 150 mm and a detention time of seven
days. The design allows for multitude of wetland
filling and holding scenarios, this allows studies of
management and other factors to be incorporated into
the scheme. Another design consideration was the
minimisation of avifauna since there is a nearby RAAF
base.
Homebush Bay – Appendix B.7
Homebush Bay incorporates over 100 ha of
constructed wetlands and waterways that follow the
original drainage line (Figure C.14). Three water
quality control ponds collect and detain first flush
runoff, this allows sedimentation. Aquatic plantsthroughout the system facilitate nutrient removal.Submerged gabion walls contain microphyte growth toensure areas of open water and hence aerobicconditions. There is a bypass channel for high flows,which also acts as secondary storage.
Parafield – Appendix B.12
The treatment system at Parafield is a two hectare,densely planted, surface flow reed bed whichfacilitates sedimentation, and the removal of nutrientsand pollutants. There is bird-proof netting over thesystem to minimise avifauna and thus reduce birdstrike for the airport. Detention time may be variedbetween seven and ten days depending on the qualityof the incoming stormwater
It can be seen that the Surface Area / Catchment Arearatio varies widely for small catchment areas (FigureC.15 (a)). This is most likely due to space constraints.
Figure C.14 (a) Wetland System at Homebush Bay. (b) Gabion Walls Visible in Pond Drawn Down for Maintenance
Figure C.15 (a) Catchment Area vs. Surface Area/Catchment Area for Treatment Wetlands
Catchment Area vs. Wetland Surface Area/Catchment Area
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Catchment Area (ha)
Su
rga
ce
Are
a/C
atc
hm
en
t A
rea
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
174
However, as catchment area increases, the SurfaceArea/Catchment Area ratio decreases. This mayindicate that wetlands are more efficient for largercatchments than for smaller.
An approximate decrease in the Surface Area /Catchment Area ratio as annual rainfall increases canbe seen in Figure C.15 (b), although the treatmentwetlands at Parafield do not follow this trend. There
does not seem to be any relationship between rainfall
seasonality and the wetland Surface Area / Catchment
Area ratio (Figure C.15 (c)).
Water quality emanating from these systems can be
highly variable. It is not clear how this was
incorporated into the designs (i.e. is treated stormwater
always fit for re-use?).
Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Wetland Surface Area/Catchment Area
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Annual Rainfall (mm)
Su
rfa
ce
Are
a/C
atc
hm
en
t A
rea
Parafield
Figure C.15 (c) Winter/Summer Rainfall vs. Surface Area/Catchment Area for treatment wetlands
Figure C.15 (b) Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Surface Area/Catchment Area for treatment wetlands
Winter/Summer Rainfall vs Wetland Surface Area/Catchment Area
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
winter/summer rainfall
Su
rfa
ce
Are
a/C
atc
hm
en
t A
rea
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
175
Provision of a bypass channel is important to protectwetland systems from potential re-suspension andscour during high flows. Homebush Bay incorporatesa bypass channel that upgrades the storm capacityfrom a 1:10 year ARI to a 1:100 year ARI event.Hawkesbury and Parafield also both have provisionfor flood protection of a different form. AtHawkesbury the large detention basin prior to thewetland system offers flood protection, and if thecapacity of this were exceeded inflowing water can bepumped past the wetland system. Parafield also has adetention basin prior to the reed bed that will providesome flood protection. In addition, beyond a certainstorm event, water will overflow the diversion weir inthe conventional drainage system.
C.6 Ponds, Basins and Lakes
Bowies Flat – Appendix B.3
The main design objective for the Bowies Flattreatment system was to provide flows of improvedquality to Bridgewater Creek; re-use of stormwater forpark irrigation was an afterthought and not specificallyincorporated into the design. Stormwater for re-use is
pumped from the settling pond (Figure C.16), whichprimarily serves as the inlet zone for the treatmentwetlands, hence it is considered under this category(wetland system is downstream of the intake for re-use). The pond has a surface of 0.1 ha, a constantdesign depth of around two metres and is fringed byaquatic vegetation. The pond serves to remove coarsesediments and associated pollutants. It is designed foreasy maintenance and there is a high flow bypassspillway.
Hawkesbury – Appendix B.6
Stormwater collected from the conventional drainagesystem is detained in a 60 ML basin (Figure C.17 (a)).This allows some sedimentation to occur prior to entryinto the treatment wetlands. A settling pond at the endof wetlands allows further settling (Figure C.17 (b)).This pond has a surface area of 1.5 ha, an averagedepth of 2.1 m, and an effective storage capacity of 25ML (6.5 ML water quality proportion). The pondprovides final treatment and temporary storage forcleansed stormwater from the wetlands prior to eitherre-use as environmental flows or pumping to the 90ML storage dam.
Figure C.16 Settling pond at Bowies Flat Wetland (source: BCC, 2003)
Figure C.17 (a) 60 ML detention pond and (b) 25 ML settling pond at Hawkesbury
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
176
CSU Thurgoona – Appendix B.4
Three interconnected reservoirs at the bottom of CSU
Thurgoona store clean stormwater (Figure C.18). The
stored water is pumped by windmill and solar powered
pump up to a turkey nest dam as required for re-use as
environmental flows or for irrigation. The three
reservoirs have a combined storage capacity of 56.5
ML, and are sized so that natural supply of rainfall will
exceed requirements at least once every five years.
Overflow will discharge into a nearby creek to reduce
salt buildup in the storages.
Oaklands Park – Appendix B.11
A system of three interconnected dams at Oaklands
Park is used for storage (Figure C.19). This system
was originally modelled to store 37 ML or 50% of
mean annual runoff, in the three storages. However
due to modifications during the construction of the
dams, the storages currently contain 49 ML (or 65% of
mean annual runoff). Modelling was based on
projected demands for the summer peak
(80kL/lot/month for three months) and the remaining
period (6kL/lot/month). Modelling of the required
storage did not include river pumping, although there
is provision for this as a backup supply (subject to
flow). There is a 1:100 yr ARI spillway on the bottom
storage, which discharges to the nearby creek. Water
can be pumped or siphoned between storages, to
ensure that the storage with the lowest Surface
Area/Volume ratio can be used during drought (to
minimise evaporation).
Figure C.18 Turkey nest dam at top of site (source: CSU)
Figure C.19 Front storage and bottom storage at Oaklands Park (source: Neil Kerby and B. Hatt)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
177
Homebush Bay – Appendix B.7
Following consideration of storage options it wasdecided to use lower levels of an on-site disusedbrickpit (Figure C.20). This storage has a 350MLcapacity and is the cornerstone of re-use scheme atHomebush Bay; the storage capacity is far greater thandemand. Shallow ponds surrounding the brickpit alsoprovide habitat for a local endangered frog species.
Parafield– Appendix B.12
Stormwater is diverted from the main Parafield trunkdrain into a 50 ML capture basin then pumped tosimilar capacity holding basin prior to flowing into thetreatment wetlands. These ponds have a 1:10 year ARIstorm event capacity and are covered in netting tominimise avifauna.
From Figure C.21 (a), it can be concluded that there isno evident relationship between the Storage Capacity /Catchment Area ratio and Catchment area, howeverthis is not unexpected, since the ponds studied hereincorporate different combinations of functions.
Figure C.20 Stormwater stored in old brickpit at Homebush Bay, shallowponds in foreground provide habitat for local endangered frog
Figure C.21 (a) Catchment Area vs. Storage Capacity / Catchment Area for Ponds
Catchment Area vs. Pond Storage Capacity: Catchment Area
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Catchment Area (ha)
Sto
rag
e C
ap
ac
ity
/Ca
tch
me
nt
Are
a
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
178
It can be seen that the Storage Capacity / CatchmentArea ratio increases with annual rainfall (Figure C.21(b)). Only the Bowies Flat pond/wetland does notfollow this trend; it is likely that this is entirely due toits unique construction (the settling pond of a primarilypollution control wetland is used for re-use storage asan afterthought). The same is true for the relationshipbetween PC/CA and the seasonality of rainfall,although this graph is not shown.
C.7 Litter and Sediment Traps
The following are some examples of the litter andsediment traps utilised:
• The GPT installed at Solander Park is an EcosolRSF 6000; a wet vault trap that straddles the twotrunk drains passing under the park. A weir divertsrunoff into a deep separation chamber, thenthrough a 3 mm mesh screen into a parallel by-passflume. The GPT is designed to capture 95% ofsediment greater than 2 mm and accommodate a 6month ARI flowrate of 4 m3/s.
• External screens capture litter and sediment at
Manly, while internal screens trap oils, fine
sediments and grease.
• The first stage in the treatment plant Taronga Zoo
involves passing the collected stormwater through
10mm bar screens followed by a grit collection
chamber.
• GPTs are positioned on the inlets to the wetland at
Inkerman Oasis and the settling pond at Bowies
Flat.
• Floating booms in Haslams Creek collect floating
debris prior to entry into the wetland system at
Homebush Bay.
• Parfitt Square features a 30 m long grated sediment
trap prior to the gravel reed bed.
• Coarse and fine bar screens and a degritting system
form part of the treatment process at Santa
Monica.
Figure C.21 (b) Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Storage Capacity/Catchment Area for ponds
Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Pond Storage Capacity: Catchment
Area
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)
Sto
rag
e C
ap
ac
ity
/Ca
tch
me
nt
Are
a
Bowies
Flat
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
179
C.8 Tanks
There are a wide variety of tanks utilised by the
surveyed re-use schemes for storage. These include
conventional above ground tanks, underground
concrete structures, underground tanks made up of
small cells, underground tanks that incorporate
infiltration into the surrounding soil and header tanks.
Performance targets for storage tanks include:
• sufficient capacity to ensure re-use demand can be
achieved, or provision for topping up the tank with
mains water as a backup;
• sufficient capacity to ensure that available capacity
prior to storms will provide flood mitigation
storage;
• noise emissions from pumps (there is a limit on
how much the ambient background noise levels
can be exceeded by).
From Figure C.22, it can be seen that there is adecrease in the tank capacity: catchment area ratio ascatchment area increases. This is not surprising, giventhat the larger the catchment area the more runoff thereis to be collected i.e. storage tanks will fill faster inlarger catchments.
Solander Park is excluded from the graph presented inFigure C.22 (a) because it is a huge outlier and as aresult the relationship is difficult to see. While thestorage capacity of the tank at Solander Park iscomparable to the capacities of tanks at other sites, itscatchment area is much larger relative to other siteswith tank storages. While the GPT and infiltrationbasin are each capable of detaining up to a 1:20 yearARI storm event, it is suspected that the tank wouldnot be capable of storing such a volume. The treatedstormwater is used to irrigate a small park, hence thedemand would be very low relative to the potentialsupply. Most treated stormwater would be releaseddownstream as flows of improved quality.
Figure C.22 (a) Catchment Area vs. Tank Capacity / Catchment Area
Catchment Area vs. Tank Capacity/Catchment Area
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5
Catchment Area (ha)
Ta
nk
Ca
pa
cit
y/C
atc
hm
en
t A
rea
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
180
It must also be noted that the tanks at Taronga Zoo andInkerman Oasis stores treated wastewater as well asstormwater. While Taronga Zoo fits the trend,Inkerman Oasis does not. A possible reason for this isthat Inkerman Oasis only collects first flush anddischarges subsequent runoff to the conventionaldrainage system.
A general decrease in the Tank Capacity / CatchmentArea ratio as annual rainfall increases can be seen(Figure C.22 (b)). The exception to this trend is
Kogarah, however this is likely to be explained by a
number of factors; high imperviousness in the
catchment, collection of first flush runoff only, and
separate collection and storage of rainwater.
C.9 General Storage
There is a clear increase in the Tank Capacity /
Catchment Area ratio as rainfall seasonality increases
(Figure C.22 (c)), although there a couple of
exceptions (Manly, Kogarah and Powells Creek).
Figure C.22 (b) Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity / Catchment Area
Figure C.22 (c)Winter/Summer Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity / Catchment Area
Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity/Catchment Area
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Annual Rainfall (mm)
Ta
nk
Ca
pa
cit
y/C
atc
hm
en
t A
rea
Kogarah
Winter/Summer Rainfall vs. Tank Capacity/Catchment Area
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20
Winter/Summer Rainfall
Ta
nk
Ca
pa
cit
y/C
atc
hm
en
t A
rea
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
181
It can be seen that there is a clear positive correlation
between catchment area and storage capacity (Figure
C.23). This is not surprising, since the larger the
catchment area the more runoff that is available for
collection for re-use.
When all study sites are considered there is no
apparent pattern between Winter : Summer rainfall
ratio and storage capacity evident (Figure C.24).
However, when only the smaller catchments (i.e. <5ha
and 5-200 ha) are considered, a positive correlation is
apparent (Figure C.24). At these sites the storage
method employed is for storage for re-use only i.e. no
other benefits such as habitat provision, aesthetic
appreciation etc. Multi-functionality therefore has animportance influence on the design storage capacity.
There is a clear positive correlation between meanannual runoff and storage capacity (Figure C.25).Bowies Flat does not fit the trend, however thisscheme was initially designed only to control runoffpollution. Re-use for irrigation purposes was added inas an afterthought.
It must be noted that mean annual runoff wasestimated. It was not possible to obtain actualimpervious area figures so land use type and otherinformation was used to estimate imperviousness.
Catchment Area vs. Storage
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Catchment Area (ha)
Sto
rag
e (
ML
)
Figure C.23 Catchment Area vs. Storage Capacity
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
182
Figure C.24 Relationship between Winter:summer Rainfall Ratio and Storage Capacity
Winter:Summer Rainfall vs. Storage
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Winter/Summer Rainfall
Sto
rag
e (
ML
)
Winter:Summer Rainfall vs. Storage
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
Winter/Summer Rainfall
Sto
rag
e (
ML
)
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
183
It follows that, as rainfall increases, the storage/rainfallratio should decrease, since less provision is needed.Figure C.25 reveals a general decrease instorage/rainfall ratio as rainfall increases.
For large surface storage systems, such as ponds,urban lakes, or wetlands, an attempt was made to findinformation on the ratio of their total volume andstorage capacity, as well as the designed variations intheir water levels. These are important design features;the ratio is important for water quality in the store (if
majority of the water is drawn from the system, water
quality will deteriorate dramatically), while the level
variation is important for aesthetics and safety of the
system.
Almost no data was gathered on total volume/storage
capacity and the maximum level variations. The only
relevant finding was that at Homebush Bay the
brickpit storage was drawn down to 55% in summer
2002 resulting in high nutrient levels in the store.
Figure C.25 Relationship between Mean Annual Runoff and Storage Capacity
Figure C.26 Relationship between Storage : Rainfall and Mean Annual Rainfall
Mean Annual Runoff vs. Storage
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0
Mean Annual Runoff (ML)
Sto
rag
e (
ML
)
Bowies
Flat
Mean Annual Rainfall vs. Storage/Rainfall
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Mean Annual Rainfall (mm)
Sto
rag
e/M
ea
n A
nn
ua
l R
ain
fall
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
184
C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H C E N T R E F O R C A T C H M E N T H Y D R O L O G Y
Established and supportedunder the Australian
Government’s CooperativeResearch Centre Program
The Cooperative Research Centre forCatchment Hydrology is a cooperative ventureformed under the Australian Government’sCRC Programme between:
• Brisbane City Council
• Bureau of Meteorology
• CSIRO Land and Water
• Department of Infrastructure, Planning andNatural Resources, NSW
• Department of Sustainability andEnvironment, Vic
• Goulburn-Murray Water
• Griffith University
• Melbourne Water
• Monash University
• Murray-Darling Basin Commission
• Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, Qld
• Southern Rural Water
• The University of Melbourne
• Wimmera Mallee Water
ASSOCIATE:
• Water Corporation of Western Australia
RESEARCH AFFILIATES:
• Australian National University
• National Institute of Water and AtmosphericResearch, New Zealand
• Sustainable Water Resources ResearchCenter, Republic of Korea
• University of New South Wales
INDUSTRY AFFILIATES:
• Earth Tech
• Ecological Engineering
• Sinclair Knight Merz
• WBM
CENTRE OFFICECRC for Catchment HydrologyDepartment of Civil EngineeringBuilding 60 Monash University Victoria 3800 Australia
Tel +61 3 9905 2704Fax +61 3 9905 5033email [email protected]