City of Bunbury Big Swamp Master Plan Swamp Master Plan 2005.pdfAn adopt an island scheme was undertaken in the late 1990s which involved groups undertaking rehabilitation works on

City of BunburyBig Swamp Master PlanScientific basis for management

A report by Acacia Springs Environmental, urbanplan and ERM December 2005

Big Swamp Master Plan

urbanplan ASE ERM i

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Scope............................................................................................................................................ 1

2 HISTORY OF BIG SWAMP .............................................................................................................. 3

3 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Maintaining water levels and water quality .......................................................................... 4

3.2 Biodiversity, conservation and eco-tourism .......................................................................... 8

3.3 Landscape and cultural considerations .................................................................................. 9

3.3 Considerations for eco tourism.............................................................................................. 10

3.4 Considerations for recreation................................................................................................. 12

4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................... 15

5 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 16

Figures

Figure 1 Historical air photos of Big Swamp showing land use and habitat quality. ........... 17

Figure 2 Relationship between the hierarchy of plans for Big Swamp.................................... 18

Appendices

Appendix 1 Opportunities and constraints for master management plan

Conservation master management plan

Eco-tourism and recreation master management plan

Appendix 2 Big Swamp signage concept

Big Swamp signage location

Appendix 3 Implementation strategy notes

Implementation strategy table of costs, staging

Appendix 4 Indicative planting scheme for rehabilitation of Big Swamp


urbanplan ASE ERM 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Big Swamp is situated in the City of Bunbury, Western Australia, approximately two kilometres

from the Bunbury CBD. The wetland supports a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic fauna

and flora and is particularly renowned for the diversity of birdlife it exhibits. Big Swamp is a

recognised System 6 conservation area and is currently managed by the City of Bunbury for the

purpose of conservation of flora, fauna and recreation.

Historically, the management of Big Swamp has been guided by the Big Swamp Development

Plan (Masters 1995), which contained the following key objectives:

• To create a diverse and stable ecosystem incorporating a maximum number of natural

habitats and in turn a major tourist attraction

• To provide passive recreation facilities

• To establish the area as an important study centre, noted for its representation of a

healthy South West wetlands, able to be maintained within an urban setting

• To encourage a sense of ownership and participation in the planning of the park by the

people living in the City and region; and

• To create a viable Bird Park operation.

Whilst the Big Swamp Development Plan was integral in guiding the management of Big

Swamp for many years following its preparation and many of its objectives successfully

achieved, the passage of time and additional information has rendered some sections of the

document out of date. Hence, in 2004 the City of Bunbury opted to commence the development

of a Master Management Plan that provides a clear framework for the future enhancement and

management of Big Swamp as one of the premier conservation wetlands and tourist attractions

of the Bunbury area.

1.2 Scope

This report provides a way forward and summarises the scientific basis for managing Big

Swamp wetland in Bunbury (Figure 1). It has been compiled from information gathered from a

number of sources, ie. 5 Mile Brook Restoration Plan (TME 2004), Big Swamp Conservation

Park (Whelans 1990), City of Bunbury Big Swamp Development Committee, B K Masters and

Associates, Friends of Big Swamp and Wildlife Park committee, local residents and interested

members of the public. While much of the previous management plan has been utilised in this

updated Master plan some additional sections have been added and other sections revised.

Only issues having an impact on providing a master management plan for the wetland have been

considered here.

This Master Plan for Big Swamp establishes the vision, sets the mission, and provides guidance

and direction for actions and activities and recommends the development of a number of

management sub plans (Figure 2) to refine and focus future activities.


urbanplan ASE ERM 2

The vision and mission are discussed in Section 4. Section 3 draws on the scientific summary

(Section 2) and describes opportunities and constraints to management under various themes

(Section 4). Diagrammatic representation of these management measures are provided in

Appendices 1 and 3. A way forward to implement the Master Plan in discussed in Appendix 3.

his document includes:

Opportunities and constraints for the master management plan Appendix 1

Conservation master management plan Appendix 1

Eco-tourism and recreation master management plan Appendix 1

Big Swamp signage concept Appendix 2

Big Swamp signage location Appendix 2

Implementation strategy notes Appendix 3

Implementation strategy table of costs, staging Appendix 3

Indicative species planting list Appendix 4


urbanplan ASE ERM 3

2 HISTORY OF BIG SWAMP

It has been stated that Big Swamp (Figure 1) is an artificially created wetland that was formed by

the clearing of native vegetation and the direction of subsequent increased drainage run-off into a

natural depression which became seasonally inundated, drying out over the summer period.

While this may be true of recent history, studies of shell deposits taken from Big Swamp clearly

indicate that it was an estuarine lagoon with a restricted marine fauna (oysters, molluscs, pippies)

as recently as 4,000 years ago (Kendrick, 1994). At this time, sea level fall would have resulted

in a reduced contact with the oceanic influence and the wetland reducing in size and converting

from brackish to more fresh conditions. Further drying would have resulted in it probably

becoming a seasonally inundated dampland or sumpland with water levels generally less than

0.2m prior to European settlement (Masters undated).

Clearing of the native dampland vegetation was undertaken at some time around the turn of the

century and the area converted to grazing and annual horticulture. During summer, cattle were

grazed on grasses growing on the dry bed of the swamp and the fence posts at present projecting

above the surface of the water are a reminder of this past use. Market gardens were established

around the swamp, the outline of which is clearly visible on aerial photographs (Figure 1).

In 1962, landfill operations were commenced along the south western and eastern margins of the

swamp. These operations continued for approximately 15 years, closing down in the late

seventies.

Also in the late 1970’s, an adjustable overflow weir was installed in the Hayward Street outlet

drain to control and maintain the water level in the swamp over summer. The water level is

currently maintained at around 0.5m AHD, however, high evaporation rates in summer make it

necessary to divert water into the swamp from the nearby 5 Mile Brook drain late in winter to

achieve this. Big Swamp also acts as a compensating basin for several local stormwater drains

which feed into the swamp along its northern and eastern boundaries.

In 1981 a bird park was built in the south western corner of the swamp, on part of the filled

areas. The avicultural society secured a lease of land from the City of Bunbury and construction

was achieved through a combination of volunteer effort and commercial sponsorship.

The location of the Bird Park at Big Swamp resulted from the attraction of the swamp wildlife.

This was formally recognised with the areas inclusion in the System 6 Report - Conservation

Reserves for Western Australia. The wide range of birds (up to 28 bird species), and potential

for study were identified and the recommendation made that the swamp be managed for

conservation of flora, fauna and recreation. The City of Bunbury’s Town Planning Scheme No.

7 now contains policy statements recognising the importance of the area for wildlife.

In 1994 a significant upgrading of the wetland was undertaken with the creation of numerous

islands and channels around the wetland (Figure 1). Removal of exotic weeds (Typha, Pampas

grass), establishment of a dual use path around the wetland. Construction of an elevated

boardwalk and bird hide were also undertaken. This work significantly increased the value of

the wetland in terms of wildlife habitat and as a cultural experience as well as improving its

ability to buffer inputs of pollutants through the resulting increase in fringing vegetation

assemblages.


urbanplan ASE ERM 4

An adopt an island scheme was undertaken in the late 1990s which involved groups undertaking

rehabilitation works on an 'adopted' island. Significant improvement to vegetation cover was the

result on many islands but there was poor or no establishment of vegetation on other islands.

More recently continuing infill development on the western and northern perimeters has

continued. Friends of Big Swamp and other community groups have continued significant

replanting and rehabilitation works around the swamp and the City has maintained its weed (eg.

Typha) and feral (introduced domestic) bird and animal removal programs.

3 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The following discussion is a brief synopsis of opportunities and constraints for management of

the wetland. They are grouped under particular themes.

3.1 Maintaining water levels and water quality

One of the main threats to the continuing ecological health of the wetland is that of maintaining and enhancing water quality. The wetland has experienced a number of events, which threaten its water quality through excessive nutrient or other pollutant inputs including:

• Former grazing and market garden site within and around the wetland;

• Former rubbish tip site in and around the wetland;

• Acid sulfate soils within and around the wetland;

• Poor circulation causing stagnant pockets;

• Stormwater inputs from drains in the immediate catchments around the wetland; and

• Inputs from 5 Mile Brook in late winter.

Nutrient intensive historical land uses

Historical rubbish tips and market gardens constitute a possible source of leachates into the

wetland through contaminated plumes of groundwater entering the wetland for extended periods

of time. Possible inputs from these types of sources may be highly variable in space and time

and difficult to quantify accurately.

In time, the nitrogen content of these inputs tends to diminish through natural processes of

denitrification by soil microbes. In soils with very low levels of iron and aluminium oxides like

the surrounds of Big Swamp however, this can lead to a decrease in the N:P ratio favouring blue

green algae in receiving wetlands. Toxic blue green algae (Anabaena, Microcystis) can fix

atmospheric N like legumes and have been regularly observed in many wetlands on the coastal

plain where low N:P ratio inputs have occurred even though N inputs themselves have been

relatively low.


urbanplan ASE ERM 5

Threats from the old tip sites and historical grazing and market gardens within and around the

wetlands will need to be quantified and managed. The DOE has requested a tip closure

management plan be prepared for the area. Any development (including revegetation), needs to

be preceded by capping and/or interception of potential leachates in the areas of, or immediately

down gradient of the old tip sites and the market gardens. Strategic monitoring of groundwater

flowing into the wetland and phytoplankton levels in the wetland should continue.

Acid sulfate soils

Acid sulfate soils have been found in the vicinity of Big Swamp. The principal environmental,

social and economic impacts of acid sulfate soils have been documented as follows (WAPC,

2003):

• Adverse changes to soils and water quality.

• Deterioration of ecosystems and the ecosystem services associated with soils, groundwater, wetlands, watercourses and estuarine environments.

• Local and regional loss of biodiversity in areas affected by acid sulfate soils leachate.

• Loss of groundwater and surface water resources used for irrigation and other purposes.

• Reduction in opportunities for agriculture and aquaculture.

• Human health concerns particularly from arsenic contamination of groundwater in areas affected by acid sulfate soils.

• Corrosion of engineering works and infrastructure such as bridges, culverts, floodgates, weirs, drainage pipes and sewerage lines.

• Conflict between activities that depend on healthy surface and groundwater regimes (eg. commercial fishing, recreation and tourism) and activities that may have resulted in disturbance to acid sulfate soils (eg. agriculture and urban development).

• Loss of visual amenity from plant deaths, weed growth and invasion by acid tolerant water plants and algae.

• Costs to the community in terms of financial outlays and the community’s and government’s time and effort in minimising impacts and rehabilitating disturbed areas.

Areas having the potential to adversely impact on Big Swamp where the following pre-disposing

factors exist include (WAPC, 2003):

• areas known to contain peat or a build up of organic material;

• areas near bores in which peat or other organic deposits have been recorded as part of the stratigraphy;

• permanently inundated wetlands;

• seasonally or occasionally saturated or inundated floodplains and sumplands;

• shallow estuarine areas receiving alluvium;

• mangrove areas;

• tidal swamps, wetlands and shallow estuarine areas receiving alluvium;

• artificial lakes excavated in peaty material;

• sites known or believed to contain carbonaceous or pyritic material, such as:


urbanplan ASE ERM 6

− sites containing fill;

− existing or former municipal waste disposal sites;

− industrial sites;

− food industry waste disposal areas;

− animal-based waste disposal areas;

• areas where the highest known water table level is within three (3) metres of the surface; and,

• areas where the pH of the soil or water is less than 5.

Any change of zoning that will lead to any intensification of land use on at-risk land shall be

accompanied by a Preliminary Site Assessment which is to be prepared in accordance with the

Department of Environment's guidelines.

Where the presence of acid sulfate soils has been confirmed by a Preliminary Site Assessment,

the change of zoning shall also be accompanied by a Detailed Site Assessment which is to be

prepared in accordance with the Department of Environment's guidelines.

Should an acid sulfate management plan be required, samples from any development area should

be collected and analysed for oxidisable sulphur level (Spos%) and total potential acidity (TPA).

DEP action criteria above which action for acid sulfate soils must be managed are Spos=0.03%

and TPA=18.

Should acid sulfate soils be found they should be appropriately managed on site or disposed of at

a specially prepared landfill cell. Water from dewatering should pass through detention ponds

where it would be treated prior to disposal to Big Swamp or any of its inflowing tributaries and

drains.

The poor establishment of vegetation on some of the islands in Big Swamp may be partly

influenced by acid sulfate soils that were exposed during the excavation of the islands.

Anecdotal evidence of declining bird populations at the wetland could also be linked to acid

sulfate influences.

Surface soils on the islands where previous rehabilitation efforts have failed should be

investigated for the presence of very low pH conditions due to acid sulfate soils. In some cases

the simple incorporation of agricultural lime may improve plant establishment and rehabilitation

success.

City of Bunbury should be vigilant in its application of acid sulfate guidelines for areas

potentially impacting Big Swamp.

Circulation

There are several areas around the wetland where circulation through the network of islands is

restricted. There may need to be some strategic and subtle modification to some of these choked

and throttled areas to improve circulation where stagnant conditions have been observed. If


urbanplan ASE ERM 7

these modifications are to be undertaken, care should be taken not to expose deeper acid sulfate

soils or create turbid plumes.

Big Swamp is listed under the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 and the Revised Draft (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands) Policy 2004. This has implications for any alterations to the bathymetry and may necessitate EPA consideration.

Stormwater detention basins

Detention basins providing water quality treatment for inflowing drains were a recommendation

of the 1994 works around the wetland. An assessment of various distributed WSUD BMPs

should be undertaken. For example, at stormwater outlets litter removal devices using CDS

technology may be appropriate to control the current levels of gross pollutants entering the

wetland from the road network.

Effective treatment of inflowing stormwater drains from the urban catchment immediately

around Big Swamp needs to be established. The most effective treatment is at source ie. through

the catchments, not at their bottom-end.

5 Mile Brook diversion

There has been much discussion over the potential for the total diversion of the 5 Mile Brook

into and through Big Swamp. This would free up land on the current alignment of the Brook for

other considerations.

The brook has been found to contain low to moderate levels of a range of pollutants including

nutrients, suspended solids, heavy metals and pesticides (TME, 2004). These contaminants are

probably at their greatest early in the winter flow year.

Some water from 5 Mile Brook is currently diverted into Big Swamp late in winter to maximise

its water levels prior to the summer drying period.

Given that Big Swamp is already under threat from pollutant inputs (discussed above) any

attempt to divert 5 Mile Brook through Big Swamp without effective treatment of its water

quality should be discouraged.

Big Swamp is listed under the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy

1992 and the Revised Draft (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands) Policy 2004. This has implications

for diversion of 5 Mile Brook into the wetland on a permanent basis. Accordingly, this may

necessitate EPA consideration.

According to the principles of water sensitive urban design, the most effective treatment is

generally undertaken at source, that is throughout the catchment, not simply along the Brooks

length or at its bottom-end.

As recommended in the recently completed 5 Mile Brook management plan, treatment options

throughout the catchment of 5 Mile Brook, along its length and at is bottom-end should be


urbanplan ASE ERM 8

investigated. This may need to include modelling water quantity and quality throughout the

catchment. Given the current absence of documented examples of effective diffuse pollution

control in the southwest of WA, innovate solutions will certainly need to be found prior to any

serious consideration of diversion of 5 Mile Brook into and through Big Swamp.

3.2 Biodiversity, conservation and eco-tourism

The management intent for biodiversity, conservation and eco-tourism should be to protect and

where possible enhance the conservation values (flora and fauna) as well as the landscape

qualities of Big Swamp. Priority should be given to continuing restoration and maintenance of

the natural state of conservation attributes and improving habitat and water quality in the

catchment.

Values

Values of Big Swamp include:

• Big Swamp is seen as a major resource, there is a will to conserve and use it as an education icon, particularly in its proximity to a population centre;

• The wetland is currently healthy and supports a diverse population of flora and fauna;

• It is a significant site in terms of both European and Indigenous heritage; and,

• There are ongoing efforts and intent by the local community towards creating ecological

zones and animal refuges around the fringe and on various islands, including revegetation

with local endemic species.

Future management should allow public access to designated areas, the development of facilities

such as nature trails, boardwalks and observation platforms in specific areas. Rehabilitation of

vegetation and habitat protection should continue (see Appendix 1) using endemic local

provenance species where possible. Education, interpretation and scientific research uses should

also be promoted and encouraged where possible.

Ecological threats

Ecological threats include the continuing loss of biodiversity through pests, weeds and disease of

wetland flora and fauna plants, increased fire frequency in the fringing areas and pollutants and

acid sulfate soils mentioned above.

Apart from the pollution management issues mentioned above, the key to maintaining ecological health is habitat diversity and the creation of ecological zones. The wetland is currently well served by a complex mosaic of islands and fringing areas.

Ecological opportunities

Further enhancement of habitat diversity will be achieved by undertaking the following:


urbanplan ASE ERM 9

• Addition/creation of snags and woody debris in the water;

• Addition/creation of bird perching areas;

• Diverse planting of fringing vegetation at areas around the wetland and on the islands using endemic local provenance species where possible;

• Addition of hollow logs, rocks and other materials on islands to attract vertebrates such as reptiles and birds. A reptile viewing area was a recommendation of the 1994 works;

• Alterations to bathymetry to create differential low salinity water zones for vertebrates such as frogs, particularly in the south west and south east corners;

• Improving wildlife crossing points through re-design of kerbs, wildlife underpasses and traffic calming; and,

• Improving the connectedness with the terrestrial System 6 habitat to the east through road

closure and further rehabilitation works.

Ecological monitoring

A systems-based monitoring program should be established to track human usage, water quality and ecosystem health. Environmental indicators which can be practically monitored include:

• Wetland water quality

• Inflowing surface and groundwater quality

• Phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, frogs, turtles, snakes and

birds.

3.3 Landscape and cultural considerations

There are a range of cultural and landscape issues influencing Big Swamp. Themes could include, ecology, habitat, water quality, scientific. Considerations include:

• Existing vegetation currently obscures views into the wetland adding to the impact of the two open views at either side. There is an opportunity to repeat this juxtaposition between other places of openness around the wetland;

• The existing bird hide is visually intrusive and could be replaced with a purpose designed ‘sculptural‘ or ‘softer‘ structure with enhanced existing interpretive information;

• There is an opportunity to enhance Hayward Street and improve the approach into Big Swamp;

• There is an opportunity to strengthen distant view corridors through trees to specific landmarks ie. Anglican Church tower, elevated landforms;

• Create an activity node with open 360° views across Big Swamp with an opportunity to:

o create a focal point for the wetland;

o elevate the site and promote visual linkages with surrounding sites;

o create focus for eco-centre (long term);

• The existing road currently separates wildlife centre and playground area from Big Swamp. There is an opportunity to relocate this section of road and restore connections;


urbanplan ASE ERM 10

• There is a short term opportunity to enhance and better utilise the existing wildlife park for interpretive purposes. A longer term opportunity exists to increase park presence and use the area as a regional environmental resource centre;

• There is an opportunity to create wetland habitat precinct focusing on frogs and encompassing existing children’s playground area;

• Existing signage and interpretive material should be enhanced and updated with an opportunity to create more strategically located and site responsive structures;

• There is an opportunity to link activity nodes and bring the interpretive experience onto the wetland;

• The existing road currently divides System 6 Wetland. There is an opportunity to remove this section of road and restore a connection between aquatic and terrestrial habitats;

• There is an opportunity to diversify wildlife habitat with separate human nodes of interest on each island. Investigations into establishing different wetland vegetation types to improve habitat diversity should continue;

• Exotic and introduced species should continue to be removed as revegetation establishes over the longer term;

• There is an opportunity to enhance wetland habitat precincts focusing on frogs;

• There are attractive open views along the foreshore. There is an opportunity to revegetate and create framed views at selected points;

• There is an opportunity to create an activity node or tourist precinct within the wetland area;

• There is an opportunity for the sale of land owned by the City of Bunbury within the Big Swamp precinct to in part fund the implementation of the Big Swamp Master Management Plan. Clearly, the suitability of potential land must be determined through an appropriate level of community consultation.

3.3 Considerations for eco tourism

There are a range of considerations for eco tourism. Themes could include, education and

heritage.

The management emphasis should be to provide for appropriate uses of the natural environment

for eco tourism purposes. Areas should be managed for public use, conservation and

enhancement of flora and fauna, and improvement of landscape qualities. Public use should also

be of an educational, tourism and scientific nature and must be compatible with other

considerations. Management should encourage uses and development that facilitates education,

heritage interpretation and conservation.

Uses and facilities

Public access should be primarily by walking trails. Further development of facilities is

encouraged. These may include education nodes and facilities associated with visitor use. The

provision of facilities will depend on the values of the precinct. Rehabilitation and habitat

protection will be necessary.

Sculptures



Arrows set in the pavement of pedestrian paths could point to sculptures emerging from the

wetlands. Sculptures have been and should continue to be commissioned from local artists.

Playground

The existing playground could be extended. Enhancements to the playground could include

interpretive and educational elements relating to the wetlands such as viewing structures,

structures that interact with the water and equipment shaped like bird species.

Bird hide

A bird hide allows a closer appreciation of the wetland environment without adversely impacting

on its integrity. The existing bird hide could be upgraded to form a sculptural element in the

landscape and the existing interpretive information enhanced by including educational tools such

as signs graphically portraying species characteristic and audio assisted guided tours.

Interpretive centre

The bird sanctuary currently offers excellent interpretive material for the wetland. This could be

upgraded, enhanced and extended to offer greater experience for visitors. A viewing centre for

education and information. Ventures could include a indigenous cultural centre, a high-quality

restaurant or café on the waterfront, a book or gift shop and community group offices. The

building architecture should be in keeping with the wetland environment and could wrap around

the shoreline.

Education

There is considerable opportunity to use the Big Swamp wetland and its catchment and adjoining

human and natural landscapes in an educational sense. Curriculum material could be developed

with the wetland as a focus for a range of field observational and participatory experiences.

Several web-cams could be established around the wetland for students and visitors to access on-

line. Material could include interpretive images, maps and additional interactive elements aimed

at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary students. Research projects at upper secondary

and tertiary levels could include the full range interactions between past, current and possible

future human and ecological components.

Boardwalks

Boardwalks enable visitors to interact with the flora and fauna of the wetlands and create

recreational opportunities and pedestrian links to viewing platforms. The existing boardwalks

could be extended to other areas.

Wildlife park (Bird Sanctuary)

The existing Wildlife Park could be expanded to include botanical gardens, endangered species

and other fauna. This would serve to create a total integrated environment for recreation,

tourism, research and education and provide an environmental resource centre for the region.

Vegetation



Vegetation used in the Big Swamp precinct for landscape works (including street trees) and areas

of revegetation should be local endemic species (local provenance where possible) and

sympathetic to the existing character of the area and species indigenous to the coastal wetlands

of south Western Australia (Appendix 1).

In some instances, non-indigenous species may be beneficial to help recreate habitat value in the

short to medium term. These non-indigenous species can be removed later and replaced with

local provenance species once they have performed their short term tasks. Phyto-remediation of

contaminated sites, bank stabilisation or weed suppression are examples where non-indigenous

species may have a shorter term role.

Clearly in the selection of vegetation for the site, a balance needs to be established between short

and longer term goals and aims. Variations in vegetation such as the retention of dead trees,

stumps and logs will also improve wildlife habitats.

Tourism

There is potential for an area of tourist activity and self-contained cabin style accommodation

adjacent to the wetlands. Bus or cycle tours from nearby accommodation could also be

established.

There is a potential for the revenue associated with any long-term lease of land for tourist

accommodation to be directed into the further implementation of the Big Swamp Master

Management Plan and overall management of the precinct.

Open views

Existing views could be enhanced by placing seating areas and timber viewing platforms at open

areas around the swamp. New views can be opened up by strategic clearing of corridors through

some areas of vegetation.

Recreation

Large, low maintenance areas of open lawn and indigenous canopy trees are suitable for

recreational activities such as kicking the footy, picnics and large group gatherings. BBQ

facilities could to be provided and shaded seating areas could to be positioned at gaps in the

vegetation to maximise views and the experience of the wetlands.

3.4 Considerations for recreation

There are numerous considerations for recreation. Themes could include integration and access.

The prime emphasis of management for recreation should be to provide a variety of recreation

opportunities. The type and scale of facilities provided will depend on the values of the precinct,

community demand for recreation and the appropriate management of Big Swamp. Management

should minimise the impact of visitor activities through the sensitive placement of access and

facilities as well as through the provision of information and interpretive material.



Uses and facilities

Given the increasing attractiveness of the wetland and its surrounds, public use may be high in

some areas. Predominantly passive recreation pursuits should be encouraged, allowing for low

scale active and family and picnic facility development. Commercial concessions are considered

appropriate within this management zone. Rehabilitation of landscaped area could also be

undertaken.

Traffic circulation

The removal of part of Tuart Street will affect the flow of traffic travelling north-south through

the site. However, Ocean Drive and Minninup Road are the main north-south roads in this area,

therefore the removal of part of this road will not unduly affect traffic flow in this part of

Bunbury. The proposed redirection of Prince Philip Drive should not affect the east-west traffic

flow.

Links

Signage (including mapping and history) at major viewpoints visually links Big Swamp to other

sites of cultural or ecological significance in the viewshed. Major linking sites could include

Leschenault Estuary, Leschenault Inlet, Koombana Bay and Geographe Bay. It is proposed that a

future urban development strategy will physically link these sites by implementation of themed

linear landscapes or ‘green wedges’ between each site.

There is an Aboriginal spiritual connection between the southern estuary in the locations of the

Sanctuary, the Inlet, Big Swamp and Binningup. There are obvious ecological connections for

the same areas. The educational strategy will explore cultural and ecological linkages between

these related ecosystems.

Signage

Signage should be used to orientate visitors as well as to educate and inform about the history,

culture and wildlife of the area. Signs could include interpretive images, maps and additional

interactive elements aimed at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary students (Appendix

2). The current wetland bird and tortoise emblems will be built upon and a strong theme created

through the use of standard materials such as oxidized metal and stainless steel throughout the

signage. Where possible the signs will be incorporated into landscape design.

3.5 Future management

Some local residents are concerned that there may need to be an increase in the current level of

budget and activities needed to manage and maintain Big Swamp particularly as it becomes more

prominent, more widely appreciated and used and ultimately fulfils its mission of becoming the

region's significant conservation wetland.

It is considered by some that the small amount of maintenance time allocated to the area is

inadequate. With new development, there will be a requirement for more maintenance. Issues

concern mowing, weed control, domestic animal removal and infrastructure maintenance.

Mowing



The council currently mow the swamp area on an opportunistic basis. Whipper snipping is done

by volunteers on an ad hoc basis. There is often very long grass underneath the seating which is

dangerous with snake season approaching. With time restraints, sometimes the area is left only

half mowed.

Weed Control and Animal Removal Programme

The control of weeds, including the Typha in the water needs to be managed and better

coordinated. It has had great success to date but much more work is required. The wins of our

early successes will be lost if the harder followup work and spot weeding is not undertaken

diligently.

Monitoring and removal of feral birds/animals (introduced domestic animals) must be

undertaken effectively. Leaving these intruders unmanaged for a time, signals to people that it is

acceptable for these pests to be dumped. Quick removal sends a message to the community that

it is not tolerated.

It is recommended that an exotic and introduced species management plan be prepared as an

adjunct to this Master plan.

Infrastructure Maintenance

The path around the swamp has been deteriorating in parts and should be repaired with the

appropriate materials. In the past some areas have been patched with different material reducing

the visual ameneity of the area.



4 CONCLUSIONS

The vision for the Big Swamp management plan is:

Conservation - Diversity - Links

These three words embody the rich cultural and ecological opportunities for this special wetland.

Conservation of environment, conservation of cultural and indigenous history and

conservation of experiential opportunities.

Diversity of experience, diversity of habitat form and habitat function, diversity of wildlife

and diversity of visitors.

Links within the wetland: aquatic to terrestrial, links to surrounding urban and wider

natural environments, links between human experience and ecology, links between

visitors, students and volunteers.

The mission for the Big Swamp management plan is:

• To draw from our European and Indigenous heritage and culture in the promotion of Big Swamp as the region's significant conservation wetland;

• To provide a diversity of wildlife habitats and experiences for visitors; and,

• To link the precinct to surrounding open space, the City centre and other significant conservation areas around Bunbury.

There are opportunities to celebrate the significance of this special site from both wildlife and

human cultural perspectives, to reference and reveal its rich cultural history and to enhance

experiential opportunities of this significant site for all walks of life.

There have been discussions over the name for the wetland. Some people like Big Swamp as a

name. Others consider that it down plays the ecological and cultural value of the wetland.

To provide a point of difference, a unique name could be chosen for this special place.

Indigenous names of: koomber gup (big water) or bulla pinjaar (literally big swamp) could be

considered. A hyphenated name such as Koomber gup - Big Swamp could also be considered.

Clearly a discussion over a name for the wetland needs to take place.

As discussed, a number of potential revenue sources have been identified through the

development of this Master Management Plan, such as the sale of land owned by the City of

Bunbury within the Big Swamp precinct and revenue associated with the long-term lease of land

for tourist accommodation. It is recommended that these and other potential revenue options be

reviewed by the City of Bunbury and that this revenue be used to facilitate the implementation of

the Big Swamp Master Management Plan and overall management of the precinct.



5 REFERENCES

Kendrick, G.W. (1994) Report of investigations into collected shell fossil material from Big

Swamp, Bunbury. Dept of Earth and Planetry Science, Museum of Western Australia.

Masters, B.K. (undated) Effective planning and community consultation: The Big Swamp Urban

Wetland Rehabilitation Project, City of Bunbury, Western Australia.

Masters, B.K. (1995) Big Swamp Development Plan. Prepared for the City of Bunbury,

Bunbury, Western Australia.

TME (2004) 5 Mile Brook restoration plan. A report to the City of Bunbury. Thompson

McRobert Edgloe. September 2004.

WAPC (2003) Acid Sulfate Soils. Planning Bulletin Number 64 Western Australian Planning

Commission, November 2003

Water Authority (1995) Five Mile Brook Flood Study: Hydrology, Surface Water Branch, Water

Resources Division, Report No WS 161, August 1995

Waters & Rivers Commission (1998), Living Streams, Water Facts 4,January 1998.

Whelans (1993) Water Sensitive Urban (Residential) Design Guidelines, Department of Planning

and Urban Development, W.A.

Whelans (1990) Big Swamp Conservation Park Report for the South West Development

Authority. August 1990.

Glossary

WSUD Water sensitive urban design

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/stormwater/design.html

BMPs Best management practices

CDS Continuously deflective separation

http://www.cdstech.com.au/au/stormwater.asp





Figure 2 Relationship between the hierarchy of plans for Big Swamp.


urbanplan ASE ERM

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix 1

Opportunities and constraints for master management plan

Conservation master management plan

Eco-tourism and recreation master management plan

_____________________________________________________________________


urbanplan ASE ERM

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix 2

Big Swamp sinage concept

Big Swamp sinage location

_____________________________________________________________________


urbanplan ASE ERM

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix 3

Implementation strategy notes

Implementation strategy table of costs, staging

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix 3 Part 1 Notes for the implementation strategy for the Big Swamp Master Plan. Potential funding sources _____________________________________________________________________________ The implementation strategy has been divided into 4 areas. i) Big Swamp System This covers the development of any sub-plans for the system as a whole

or for projects that apply to the area in its system context. ii) The wetland This covers the water, the wet fringing area and the internal islands. iii) The surrounds This covers the immediate area surrounding Big Swamp and the

contributing surface water catchment (except for 5 Mile Brook). iv) 5 Mile Brook This catchment was treated separately for a number of reasons

described below. _____________________________________________________________________________ i) BIG SWAMP SYSTEM Total funds required for process-based projects = $117k This does not include the $250-$500k cost for a new eco-tourism/education centre. 1 Develop an information and extension management plan This project (see Figure 2 of the main report) is for a small $5k planning study to develop the priorities for the promotion of education, interpretation and scientific research uses for Big Swamp. Part of this project should be establishing a point-of-difference for Big Swamp. This may include a new name. Suggestions for a name for Big Swamp have included: Big Swamp (its current name) Koomber Gup Bulla Pinjaarr Or Big Swamp hyphenated with another name. This project will also develop material as part of the linked, hierarchical signage strategy (see appendix 2). Linked means overt signage linkages to the sanctuary, the estuary, the inlet, the Mininup area and marine areas. There are Nyoongar spiritual links through these areas and more obvious ecological links. Birds migrate around many of these wet areas. There is also a degree of niche difference and niche parallelism which can be explored in the signage and interpretative material. This means for example, that there are areas of marshland experiencing fresh water conditions at Big Swamp that are similar in form and function to areas around the inlet and the estuary that experience marine salinities on occasions. While function and form in these areas appear similar, species assemblages are quite different. With appropriate comparative educational material, students would be able to compare and contrast these areas and enjoy a rich experience of the repeating themes in nature. The term hierarchical means building layers of complexity. For example there is considerable potential to develop simple themes for primary level students and them build in levels of

complexity for secondary and tertiary level students. The water balance for the wetland is one such example. This project could be funded through a South West Development Authority grant through the BESAC committee. Development of the plan could be undertaken by a competent and experienced consultant or by volunteers from the GreenTeach organisation. The signage strategy should incorporate fauna warning and signs along the adjacent roads to minimise road kill. They should also inform as to why there should be no feeding of birds and animals. The information extension and experiential process could include the use of installed web cams, audible interpretive material (frog or bird sounds). Primary to tertiary level educational material should be included. 2 Develop access management plan This project is for a small $5k planning study to develop the location and implementation of paths, lighting, nature trails, boardwalks and observation platforms around the swamp. The plan could be funded through a South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, or by a local industry sponsor such as Bunnings. The plan could be developed by a competent consultant of volunteers from Friends of Big Swamp or similar. 3 Develop rehabilitation management plan This project is for a small $4k planning and documentation process for rehabilitation and habitat protection for the Swamp. It should capture and build on the very successful methods of the Friends of Big Swamp. It should document where native and local provenance stock may be sourced, planting and establishment tips. It should explore the role of exotic species which may have a transitional or transitory role as part of a staged rehabilitation i.e. for erosion control and soil conditioning for later plantings of local provenance species. Clearly issues like undesirable seed set or suckering etc should be explored if exotic species are to have a temporary role in ecosystem repair. Funds may be available from CALM's Wetland conservation program for this project. The documentation could be prepared by the Friends of Big Swamp or a consultant. 4 Develop exotic and introduced species management plan This project ($1,5k) is to document the continuing weed management and Typha management program. There has been significant early success in weed removal however, these hard fought gains will be lost if the more difficult follow up and spot treatments are not undertaken effectively. It has been identified that there should be prompt (feral) domestic animal removal so that the wrong impression of the acceptability of dumping domestic ducks and water birds is not given. These issues need to be documented and appropriately incorporated into the plan. Funding for this project could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC or other industry sponsor. The documentation could be undertaken by the Friends of Big Swamp with assistance from the City of Bunbury (CoB) or by a competent consultant. 5 Develop system monitoring plan This project is a small ($1.5k) planning process to define the most cost-effective method of monitoring the ongoing ecological health of the Big Swamp ecosystem. Strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment and biota (plankton, invertebrates, fish, frogs, reptiles, birds) should be undertaken. Because of the integrating effects of biota it is important that appropriate bio-monitoring protocols be explored.

Funding for this planning project could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC or an industry sponsor. A consultant experienced in developing cost-effective strategic ecosystem health monitoring programs would be required to define the best monitoring programme. Funds ($30k) to undertake the monitoring are identified below. 6 Improve terrestrial habitat connected-ness and links This $30k project is to improve the connection and quality of the surrounding areas (e.g. the eastern System 6 habitat, and local greenways), to undertake rehabilitation works, establish wildlife crossing points and traffic calming signs or measures. There is an opportunity for linkages of endemic species continuing internally across the site and externally into surrounding areas i.e. street plantings. A NHT Envirofund grant could be accessed for the rehabilitation of the eastern System 6 area. Aspects of the works could be undertaken by a rehabilitation contractor, the CoB Engineering Services section or Friends of Big Swamp. In Perth, the Cities of Cockburn, Melville and South Perth (to name a few) have found the volunteer burnout has occurred ad they now routinely employ dedicated rehabilitation contractors to undertake planting and rehab works. It would be indeed a shame if the Friends of Big Swamp were burdened to the point of burnout in their attempts of improve what is in reality a community asset. 7 Commission community art This project is for a nominal amount to continue the development of the excellent community art associated with Big Swamp. The funds (~$20k) could be used to commission additional sculptures, installations and performance art pieces. Specific theme projects may be funded through an Australia Council for the Arts Grant. Works would be undertaken by emerging and established artists. CoB may wish in partnership with the community to explore and document preferred art themes for Big Swamp. 8 Relocate road between wildlife centre A recommendation of the Master Plan is to relocate the existing road which currently separates wildlife centre and playground area from Big Swamp. The CoB Engineering Services section may need to cost, evaluate, schedule, fund and implement this project as appropriate. A suitable contractor may be used to complete the works. Vegetative screening along southern boundary of Wildlife Park and traffic calming measures will probably be required 9 Close Tuart Street A recommendation of the Master Plan is to close Tuart Street and create additional car parks along the existing road which currently separates the terrestrial System 6 area from Big Swamp. The CoB Engineering Services section may need to cost, evaluate, schedule, fund and implement this project as appropriate. A suitable contractor may be used to complete the works. Vegetative screening along southern boundary of Wildlife Park and traffic calming measures will probably be required 10 Establish regional environmental resource centre This $50k project is to upgrade the interpretive material for the wildlife park as a first step in establishing a more centrally located and dedicated regional environmental resource centre. The interpretive centre could then become available for a range of community groups.

11 Eco-tourism centre with open views across the wetland This substantial amount $250k-$500k is estimated to be required to establish a centrally located regional eco-tourism centre. This would serve to create a prominent activity node for the wetland. Funding for the centre could come from a specific grant, or from industry sponsorship. Concept development for the centre may need to be outsourced to appropriate consultants. Works could be undertaken by a suitable building contractor. _____________________________________________________________________________ Wetland Total for wetland $111.5K _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Control mosquitoes in the paperbark area This $5k project is to undertake runnelling to control mosquitoes in the northern paperbark area. The works could be funded by the CoB Health Services or Conservation volunteers Australia, or a CDEP program. The project would require the hand digging of runnels and has some degree of urgency. 2 Undertake soil investigations on islands The poor establishment of vegetation on some of the islands in Big Swamp following the adopt-an-island scheme may be partly influenced by acid sulphate soils that were exposed during the excavation of the islands.

Surface soils on the islands where previous rehabilitation efforts have failed should be investigated for the presence of very low pH conditions due to acid sulphate soils. In some cases the simple incorporation of agricultural lime and soil conditioner may improve plant establishment and rehabilitation success.

This $10k project is to undertake the surface soil investigations on the islands and to undertake remedial management. The project could be funded by CSBP, Agmin or other fertilizer/aglime suppliers and undertaken by a suitable consultant or volunteer Agricultural or Horticultural Scientist. Some liming and conditioning of island soils may be required prior to any future revegetation works 3 Monitor wetland ecosystem health This $30k project is to undertake strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment, biota-phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, frogs, turtles, snakes and birds arising from the development of the systems monitoring plan (described above). The monitoring could be funded by the DOE, CALM or CoB Environmental services and undertaken by Friends of Big Swamp, Birds Aust, RAOU, Ribbons of Blue or a consultant. The intent of the monitoring should be to support and encourage community monitoring programs i.e. ribbons of blue, birds Australia, Friends of Big Swamp and their participation.

4 Improve habitat diversity This small ($5k) project is to improve he structural diversity of the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. This can be achieved through addition of snags, logs and other woody debris in the water for turtles, fish, frogs and invertebrate habitat. Similarly the structural diversity of the terrestrial habitat can be improved by the addition of bird roosting and perching materials, rocks, stones and logs on islands for reptiles and other animals. These works could be funded by a Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Green Reserve program or a CDEP program. The works would be undertaken by the program participants. 5 Investigate wetland circulation Blind pockets in the circulation of the wetland need to be assessed and managed. Areas of poor circulation may become stagnant accumulation areas for organic detritus and have the potential to generate noxious odours, phytoplankton blooms and avian (botulism) and human diseases. This project is for a small ($1.5k) grant for a tertiary engineering student to undertake a desktop hydrodynamic and circulation study for the Swamp. Funds could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, or from an industry sponsor. An engineering student from the UWA Centre for Water Research or similar could undertake the work. Any works to modify the bathymetry of the Swamp may require EPA assessment because of its conservation status. 6 Create and enhance frog habitat This small $5k project is to augment the existing frog pond at the southeast corner of Tuart Street and to and create a frog habitat precinct encompassing existing children’s playground area. Funds for this investigation and works could come form the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC. Works could be undertaken by the Conservation volunteers Australia, or through a CDEP program. 7 Create view ways This small $5k project is for the strategic removal of selected vegetation to augment views across the wetland. This potentially contentious project would need to be undertaken with due regard to the competing needs of aesthetics and conservation. Funding could come from the South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, or form an industry sponsor. The work could be undertaken by the CoB Parks and Gardens section of a contractor. 8 Upgrade bird hide There is a view that as the Swamp becomes more prominent as the region's environmental experience that some upgrading of the existing bird hide may be required. This $50k project is to fund the upgrade with purpose designed structure and enhanced interpretive information. Green engineering could be used to better position the facility within the surrounding environment. Funding could come from an industry sponsor, or form an Australian Government Envirofund. The works could be undertaken by a Bunbury-based builder.

_____________________________________________________________________________ Surrounds Total for surrounds $205k _____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Repair surrounding path The path around the swamp is deteriorating in parts and should be repaired with the appropriate material when needed. Some areas are incomplete, and others have been repaired with materials different to the original path reducing the amenity value of the location. This $10k project is to fund the repair and upgrade works on the paths. The works could be funded by the COB Parks and Gardens or a Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Green Reserve program grant. The works could be undertaken by COB Parks and Gardens or by program participants. Cob may need to determine its potential public liability under its duty of care obligations. 2 Continue landscape maintenance This $10k amount is to augment the CoB Parks and Gardens budget for Big Swamp to allow them to better undertake mowing and edge management of paths and grassed areas. Funds may need to be directed to COB Parks and Gardens. Work should be undertaken by COB Parks. 3 Prepare a tip closure management plan CoB needs to develop a Tip Closure Management Plan for the abandoned tip sites around Big Swamp. The plan was previously requested by the DOE. The plan would need to quantify issues, potential for greenhouse gas emissions and leachate movement offsite, to undertake a risk assessment and to develop measures to manage the risks. This project $30k is to commence these investigations. The Community of Bunbury enjoyed the benefits of reduced tip fees because of the convenience of this location and now as with many abandoned tip sites, it is time to pay the piper. CoB may need to fund this project which would need to be undertaken by a suitably qualified consultant. Completion of this plan may be a statutory requirement prior to any future developments at the site. 4 Assess Big Swamp acid sulfate risk This $15k project is to assess the potential acid sulfate risk of areas surrounding development areas. Anecdotal evidence of declining bird populations and episodic events at the wetland may be linked to acid sulphate influences. The CoB may need to be vigilant in its application of acid sulphate guidelines for areas potentially impacting Big Swamp.

Funds could come from the CoB with a consultant experienced in these matters undertaking the preliminary risk assessments. 5 Asses stormwater detention structures This $10k project is to undertake a desktop assessment of WSUD treatment options for stormwater inputs around the wetland and throughout the catchment. Bottom-end treatment

alone is against the philosophy of WSUD which seeks to establish smaller and more cost-effective solutions higher up and throughout the catchment. Funds could come from the CoB with a suitably experienced consultant undertaking the works. 6 Revegetation of surrounds This $20k project is to continue revegetation works for the islands and the wetland surrounds. Funds may be available form Alcoa, Local nursery sponsorship or from an Australian Government Envirofund. Works could be undertaken by contractors and or Friends of Big Swamp. 7 Quantify catchment pollutant inputs This $10 project is to undertake a strategic assessment of inflowing surface and groundwater pollutant inputs. Rather than use a scatter gun approach, there may be some benefit in prioritising which particular pollutants are investigated. This does not cover 5 mile Brook which is dealt with as a special case below. Funds could come from the CoB with aspects of the investigation being undertaken by Ribbons of Blue or a suitable consultant. 8 Continue improvement of play ground This $25k project is to further augment the play ground and to add a kids pier at the wetland edge adjacent to the playground and to provide additional eco-oriented play equipment. Funds could come from Industry sponsorship or from COB a Parks and Gardens grant. 9 Install recreational amenities This $25k project is to commence the installation of additional barbecues, shaded tables, seating and paths. Paths, seating and tables should be paved to minimise the snake hazard. Initial funds could come form the Grants Program Community Facilities or from Industry sponsorship or COB Parks and Gardens grant. Works could be undertaken by COB Parks and Gardens of a dedicated contractor. 10 Improve entrance statements This $50k project is to enhance Hayward Street landscaping and improve the approach into Big Swamp. Entry statements will help define the point-of-difference for the swamp and promote the areas vision and mission. Funds could come from a Grants Program Community Facilities or from Industry sponsorship or from a COB Parks and Gardens Grant. Works could be undertaken by COB Parks and Gardens of a dedicated contractor.

_____________________________________________________________________________ Five Mile Brook catchment TOTAL for 5 mile brook catchment $282.5 Water from 5 Mile Brook is diverted into the wetland only at the end of the wet season to help top up and maintain water levels over summer. This means it is currently partly a contributing catchment.

Secondly, there is a strong political push to divert all 5 Mile Brook runoff into Big Swamp to free up land for development along the current alignment of the lower section of the brook.

Because of the current degraded nature of the waters in 5 Mile Brook (TME, 2004), special efforts must be made to cleanup the entire catchment prior to any additional water being diverted into Big Swamp.

Bottom-end treatment alone is against the philosophy of WSUD which seeks to establish more cost-effective solutions higher up and throughout the catchment as part of an integrated treatment train.

Water quality rehabilitation of the 5 Mile Brook catchment is a high priority. Works undertaken throughout this catchment can serve as a model for other catchment repair programs around Big Swamp specifically and for Bunbury generally.

A dedicated grant should be sought from the National Heritage Trust or the State Government to fund the catchment rehabilitation works. Support for a major funding initiative for 5 Mile Brook rehabilitation would be assured because of the importance of Big Swamp, the potential financial gains accruing from the sale of land freed by the successful rehabilitation and ultimate diversion into Big Swamp.

_____________________________________________________________________________ 1 Historical land use survey Background

It has been found that historical land uses and in particular, nutrient-intensive land uses have the capacity to accumulate significant stores of available nutrients in surface soils. Soils on the coastal plain have a limited ability to immobilise these nutrients over time because of the naturally low levels of nutrient binding materials. Historical accumulations of nutrients have been found to continue leaching of N and P at excessive levels for many years, even after the land use that caused the accumulations had ceased to be in operation.

An example of one such site is the Mary Carroll Park wetlands in Gosnells, where an abandoned night soil tip (human wastes) had continued to leach large concentrations of P and to a lesser extent N for several decades after the night soil tip closed. This continued to cause adverse impacts in the receiving wetlands for many years (Rodda and Deeley, 1990).

Stormwater management systems constructed for new urban developments primarily deal with water quantity and water quality for surface drainage. Measures for removing, trapping or immobilising nutrients in stormwater need to match the nutrient concentrations and loads generated by the urban stormwater runoff.

In some instances, stormwater management systems have also collected enriched superficial groundwater and their predicted ability to trap nutrients has been overwhelmed particularly on old rural sites like those over much of the Southern River Structure Plan area. This has been found in the South Lakes drainage area where nutrient enriched superficial groundwater has compromised the nutrient-stripping capacity of the stormwater management system.

A survey of current and historical land uses and in particular nutrient-intensive land uses is required to assist in the planning of appropriate nutrient management measures for the stormwater quality management system for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area specifically and the COB generally.

Requirement

A $40k survey of historical land uses is required for the 5 Mile Brook Catchment area from ~1950 to the present. Land use classes for the entire catchment should be consistent with those currently shown on the relevant town planning schemes. For rural commercial and industrial areas, additional detail for historical nutrient-intensive land uses is also required. These include (but are not limited to) piggeries, dairies, market gardens, night soil disposal areas, rubbish tips or any land use where significant amounts of fertilizers, organic wastes or nutrients have been applied within the last 50 years.

The survey of historical nutrient-intensive land uses should be undertaken using suitable aerial photographs, maps and backed up by cross referenced long term resident knowledge.

Deliverables A spatial data base in ArcView, Microstation or MapInfo format using current cadastre as a base and showing historical land uses from 1950 to the present for the 5 Mile Brook Catchment area. The location and duration of nutrient intensive land uses should be included.

A report with maps showing land use at ten year intervals from 1950 to 2004 (i.e. 1950, 60, 70, 80, 90, 2000, 2004). The report should describe where possible, the location, extent and duration of current and historical land uses and historical nutrient-intensive land uses. The report should clearly identify the source and reliability of all information and include information on interviews with longer term residents used to corroborate data.

2 Asses catchment runoff quality Background While some data are available for the main channel of 5 Mile Brook, there is a lack of consistent data for past and current water quantity and quality throughout the catchment area for either superficial groundwaters or surface waters. Other surveys of water quality have been undertaken as part of the Ribbons of Blue program.

There needs to be a significant improvement in the amount of data available to calibrate any models, to develop a performance tracking system or to guide the development of detailed stormwater management plans.

A snap shot of nutrient mass flux can be undertaken effectively by an organised team sampling water quality and simultaneously measuring discharge rate at various nodes around the catchment.

Requirement This project of $15k is to gain an understanding of the nature of water quantity and quality for baseflow and stormflow measured in August for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. This should include surface and superficial groundwaters at no less than 16 sites throughout the drainage network and be based on at least one snap shot of nutrient mass flux (simultaneous water quality samples and measurement of discharge rate). Deliverables A report describing water quality (at least for forms of N and P) and quantity of baseflow and stormflow to be sampled in August, at various nodal points throughout the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Sites should be geo-referenced so that the data can be used to calibrate hydraulic and hydrologic models for the catchment. The selection of sites and sampling should recognise any major physiographic and land use classes throughout the catchment. 3 Map soils and groundwater Requirement This project ($25k) seeks to gain an understanding of the major soil types and depth to groundwater for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area.

Coarse-resolution mapping of major soil types needs to be undertaken using data provided by Agriculture Western Australia as part of its land capability mapping. The information contained in this mapping needs to be ground-truthed by additional field sampling (hand augering), to confirm and improve upon its spatial accuracy. Additional field surveys need to recognise local topography and geomorphology.

Secondly, a map of depth to shallow groundwater will also need to be produced for the area, focussing on low lying areas using any available groundwater monitoring data. Additional ground-truthing (field augering) will be required to confirm and improve upon the spatial accuracy of maps developed for the area.

Deliverables A spatial data base in ArcView, Microstation or MapInfo format using current cadastre as a base and showing major soil types and depth to groundwater for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Location of additional sampling points for soils and groundwater will need to be clearly identified.

A report with appropriate maps describing the soil mapping and the methods used to undertake interpolation of groundwater surface. A description of the spatial accuracy of the resulting mapping is also required.

4 Determine environmental water requirements Background Land use change following urbanisation of the 5 Mile Brook catchment area has altered the water balance. This and the future introduction of water sensitive urban design and drainage best management practises need to have regard for their impact on surface flows and ground water

quantity. There may be a number of important wetlands and other groundwater dependant ecosystems (GDEs) within and influenced by the 5 Mile Brook catchment area.

It has been found that changes in the nature of surface flows (timing, volumes, flow rates) have the potential to impact adversely on riparian ecosystems. Altered patterns of levels in superficial groundwater (increased levels, decreased levels, altered hydroperiod) also have the potential to impact adversely on GDEs.

Requirements This project ($7.5k) requires the production of a map showing any groundwater or surface water dependant ecosystems having conservation status within the extended 5 Mile Brook catchment area. An understanding of the environmental water requirements (EWRs) needed to maintain the conservation values of these ecosystems is also required. Deliverables A spatial data base in ArcView, Microstation or MapInfo format using current cadastre as a base and showing the location of riparian ecosystems and GDEs at risk from altered hydrological regimes within or influenced by the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. A report estimating the environmental water requirements of riparian ecosystems and other GDEs throughout or influenced by the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. The EWRs should take account of seasonal cycles and inter-annual variability in rainfall patterns. A discussion on the reliability of information and any data gaps should be included. 5 Hydrologic modelling surface, groundwater Background Recognising the lack of existing data for calibration, modelling needs to be undertaken using available data to guide stormwater management planning for the 5 Mile Brook catchment. Significant levels of temporal (seasonal) and spatial variability exist for soil-water systems for the catchment and, given limited resources for field surveys (including additional monitoring currently underway), any modelling of the impacts of landuse change on stormwater hydrographs and quality must include a robust sensitivity analysis. A number of models exist which can predict water quantities and superficial groundwater levels based on limited calibration data and established relationships between rainfall, soils, land use and land cover. Describing water quality in the absence of robust calibration data and groundwater interactions is somewhat more problematic but possible. Requirement This project ($80k) requires the development of an agreed water balance for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area with a recurrence interval-based understanding of the nature of water quantity and quality. This should include surface and superficial groundwaters and incorporate past, current and future land use scenarios. Deliverables A report and model describing a recurrence-interval-based analysis of past, current and future water quality and quantity at various nodal points through out the 5 Mile Brook catchment area for both surface waters and superficial groundwaters. The modelling should recognise the lack

of calibration data and report with known levels of certainty (confidence intervals). The modelling should be undertaken in a manner which will allow it to form the basis of evaluating various distributed WSUD BMP implementation scenarios. 6 Establish distributed water quality performance targets

Background

Assessing compliance against bottom-end targets for water quality improvement in WA coastal plain catchments is accompanied by significant lags and uncertainties. It may take years or even decades for the impacts of land use change or improved stormwater management to manifest themselves at the bottom-end of catchments by way of reduced nutrient concentrations or loads.

It is however possible to develop a series of targets that better reflect the impacts of land use change, success of stormwater quality management and WSUD throughout a catchment. Potential indicators and targets may include (but not be limited to) the implementation rates and timing of stormwater BMPs, nutrient application rates, time of concentration for stormwater, snap-shots of nutrient concentrations of surface and superficial groundwaters through the drainage network, water quality of infiltration and recharge and performance of individual elements of the stormwater management infrastructure.

Requirement This small ($5k) project is to establish a set of indicators and targets of known statistical power to test the performance of improved stormwater quality (drainage) management for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Selection of the suite of indicators and targets should recognise the need for reporting of compliance and implementation of stormwater BMPs in the short term and a longer term need for tracking the quality of surface waters and superficial groundwaters.

Deliverables Establishment of a hierarchy of nested indicators and targets of known statistical power to test the performance of various elements of the stormwater quality management (drainage) system. Indicators may need to include aspects of water quantity, water quality, biodiversity, cultural and aesthetic considerations. The series of targets may need to include interim and staged system performance targets and implementation rates of stormwater BMPs. A discussion of information gaps and data requirements should be included in the final report.

7 Evaluate stormwater BMPs Background The DOE's stormwater quality management manual together with the recently completed Australian Runoff Quality management manual espouse the principals of WSUD and suggest a number of BMPs that could be combined to provide appropriate distributed treatment trains. While there are a significant number of candidate BMPs that promise much in theory, their cost effectiveness for application for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area is largely unknown.

The cost effectiveness of BMPs in terms of water quantity management (flood control structures) is well established. Their performance in terms of water quality management, enhancement or otherwise for biodiversity and cultural/aesthetic considerations has not been documented. Much

information is held within agencies and by their staff on the potential cost effectiveness of various BMPs for stormwater quality management.

Requirement This project ($15k) is to undertake a desktop performance assessment of applicable water quantity and water quality best management practices (BMPs), required to meet targets, EWRs for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. Tools such as the Music model (Wong, 2004) offer a consistent method of evaluating the cost effectiveness of various BMPs for stormwater quality management.

Deliverables A report describing the cost effectiveness of available best management practices (BMPs) for water quantity and quality management for surface waters and superficial groundwaters and their impacts on biodiversity and cultural/aesthetic considerations. The investigation should document available information and its reliability, information gaps and resource requirements to test predicted versus actual performance of BMPs for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. 8 Develop precinct water quality management plans Requirement This project ($80k) requires the development of a number of precinct water and environmental management plans. The plans will need to be a synthesis of all previous studies for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area described above. Deliverables Precinct stormwater management plans which detail WSUD treatment trains and BMPs to be implemented throughout the 5 Mile Brook catchment to manage water quantity, to improve water quality, to enhance biodiversity and cultural aspects of the drainage network. Areas where historical nutrient-intensive land uses have been identified should receive special attention to manage actual or potential nutrient exports. 9 Performance audit of WQ improvements Background Water quality improvement for the 5 Mile Brook catchment is required so that its discharge can be considered for diversion into Big Swamp. This would free up valuable land along the lower alignment of 5 Mile Brook for other land uses.

The above series of projects sets out a series of logical and achievable steps to manage past and current land use impacts throughout the catchment. This will be achieved through the preliminary work and through implementation of the distributed WSUD treatment trains to be defined in the precinct water management plans.

Issues to be ultimately addressed through the above process and presented in the precinct water management plans for the 5 Mile Brook catchment include:

• Management of any historical nutrient-intensive hot spots such as dairys, piggeries, market gardens, night soil tips or rubbish tips;

• Management of current land uses for the catchment;

• Incorporation and attention to lags and uncertainties around particular land uses and the movement of their pollutants through surface and superficial groundwaters into the 5 Mile Brook;

• Capture of water quality data through cost-effective snap shots to help locate priority areas within the catchment requiring attention and to provide much-needed calibration data for hydrologic modelling;

• A set of water quantity, water quality, biodiversity and cultural indicators and performance targets to guide and evaluate progress;

• Calibrated hydraulic and hydrologic models to describe water movement and water quality throughout the 5 Mile Brook catchment;

• An evaluation of candidate BMPs for water quality improvement for the catchment and,

• Precinct water management plans to oversee and guide the implementation of distributed WSUD treatment trains for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area.

Addressing these issues in the 5 Mile Brook catchment will provide a considerable learning experience for officers of the City of Bunbury Engineering services, Parks and Gardens and Environmental and Planning sections.

The learnings gained from these investigations and activities in 5 Mile Brook will be directly applicable for many other catchments around Bunbury and elsewhere.

Requirement This project ($15k) is to undertake a systems performance audit of the process of developing and implementing precinct water management plans for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. A documentation of key learnings of the process so that successes and failings of the process can inform the development of other water management plans for the City area and elsewhere.

Deliverables A report describing the evaluation of the process used to develop and implement the precinct water management plans for the 5 Mile Brook catchment area. The report should describe key learnings from the process and make recommendations as to how the process could be improved. This performance audit of the process should include an assessment of its success in meeting the requirements of triple bottom line reporting and other pertinent statutory obligations.

Potential funding sources Australian Government Envirofund Agency: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Keywords: Environment, government funding, community, landcare, rivercare, bushcare, coastcare Description: The Australian Government Envirofund is the community component of the $3 billion Natural

Heritage Trust. Through the Envirofund community groups and individuals can apply for grants of a few hundred dollars up to $50,000 to tackle local environmental and natural resource management problems. Typical Envirofund projects include tree planting, fencing, weeding and seed collecting. They also include training and education activities to help community groups improve their knowledge about the environment and sustainable agriculture. The Australian Government invests $20 million each year.

Website: http://www.nht.gov.au/envirofund Department of Environment and Heritage - Grants Home Page Agency: Department of the Environment and Heritage Keywords: Environment, grants, heritage, Australian Biological Resources Study, voluntary environment

organisations, voluntary heritage organisations, natural heritage trust, soil, tree, waterways, beaches, air pollution, agriculture, grants

Description: List of Environment Australia Grants Programs including the Natural Heritage Trust, Australian and World Heritage Grants, Australian Biological Resources Study, and Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations

Website: http://www.deh.gov.au/programs Green Reserve Agency: Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Keywords: Local heritage information, energy conservation, community recycling, costal reserves, urban

vegetation, work experience, green reserve, conservation, environment Description: Green Reserve involves Australian's between the ages of 40 and 65 who receive the full rate of

Newstart allowance in local conservation projects. Working in small teams Green Reserve volunteers contribute 2 days a week for 26 weeks to the project.

Website: http://www.greenreserve.com.au/ Program of Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Agency: Department of the Environment and Heritage Keywords: Voluntary, environment, heritage, organisations, grants, training, culture, cultural, community, Description: The program of Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations is intended to help

eligible community based environment and heritage organisations to value, conserve and protect the natural environment and cultural heritage by assisting these organisations with their administrative costs

Website: http://www.deh.gov.au/programs/gveho/index.html Arts WA Agency: Australia Council for the Arts Keywords: Arts, Western Australia, culture, cultural, art, artists, community art, community arts, theatre,

museum, community Description: Arts WA’s role is to address the overall development of arts and culture in Western Australia through:

·increasing the community’s awareness of the arts and culture; ·developing partnerships with the private sector to gain new resources for the arts community; ·developing strategies to promote and market the State’s arts and cultural resources; ·promoting new commercial opportunities; and ·supporting the arts through funding.

Website: http://www.dca.wa.gov.au Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Agency: Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Keywords: Employment, Indigenous, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, communities, community, grants,

cultural, culture, remote, economic development, social development

Description: The Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Programme provides grants to communities or organisations for them to undertake community-managed activities. CDEP organisations managing projects also receive amounts to cover the costs of administration and capital items.

Website: http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/Sch... Environmental Education Grants Agency: Department of the Environment and Heritage Keywords: Environmental education, ecological sustainability Description: The Environmental Education Grants Programme aims to help the community protect the

environment. In keeping with the National Action Plan for Environmental Education and to promote a coherent approach, an important consideration in assessing proposals is the impact funding will have in acting as a catalyst for national change. Funded activities should perform at least one, but preferably more than one, of the key components of environmental education in support of ecological sustainability. Raising awareness acquiring new perspectives developing knowledge, values and skills and changing behaviour.

Website: http://www.deh.gov.au/education/programs


urbanplan ASE ERM

Appendix 3 Implementation strategy table of costs, staging

Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10

4=10-20

Priority v=vital u=urgent

i=important

d=desirable

No Action/Project Description Indicative Cost

($ 2005)

Funding Opportunities Who Notes

Big Swamp System

1 u 1 Develop information and extension management plan

Promotion of education, interpretation and scientific research uses. Develop linked, hierarchical signage strategy. Decide name.

5,000 South West Development Authority grant through BESAC

Consultant, GreenTeach

Signage strategy should incorporate fauna warning signs along the adjacent roadsto minimise road kill, and inform as to why no feeding of birds and animals. Use of web cams, audible interpretive material , primary to tertiary level material should

be incl

1 i 2 Develop access management plan Location and implementation of paths, lighting, nature trails, boardwalks and observation platforms

5,000 South West Development Authority grant through

BESAC, Bunnings

Consultant

1 i 3 Develop rehabilitation management plan

Rehabilitation and habitat protection using local provenance species 4,000 CALM Wetland conservation program

Friends of Big Swamp

Exotic species may have a role as part of a staged rehabilitation ie for erosion control and soil

conditioning

1 i 4 Develop exotic and introduced species management plan

Continue weed management, typha management, prompt domestic animal removal


BESAC, Bunnings

Friends of Big Swamp

1 i 5 Develop system monitoring plan Strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment, biota 1,500 South West Development Authority grant through

BESAC, Bunnings

Consultant Consultant needs experienced in developing strategic ecosystem health monitoring programs

2 i 6 Improve terrestrial habitat connectedness and links

Improve connection and quality of surrounding areas (eg.eastern System 6 habitat, greenways), undertake rehabilitation works, wildlife

crossing points, traffic calming

30,000 NHT Envirofund grant for rehab of eastern System 6 area

Contractor, CoB Engineering

Opportunity for linkages of endemic species continuing into surrounding areas i.e. street

plantings.

2 d 7 Commission community art Commission additional sculptures, installations, performance art

pieces

20,000 Projects, Australia Council for

the Arts Grant

Artists Develop art themes

3 d 8 Relocate road between wildlife centre

Relocate the existing road which currently separates wildlife centre and playground area from Big Swamp

? CoB CoB Engineering, Contractor

The City's Engineering services may need to cost and evaluate this option. Vegetative screening along southern boundary of Wildlife Park and

traffic calming measures will be required

3 d 9 Close Tuart Street Close Tuart Street, create additional car parks ? CoB CoB Engineering, Contractor

The City's Engineering services may need to cost and evaluate this option

3 d 10 Establish regional environmental resource centre

Upgrade wildlife park interpretive material toward a regional environmental resource centre

50,000 The interpretive centre will be available for a range of community groups

4 d 11 Create prominent activity node Eco-tourism centre with open views across the wetland 250000-500000

Specific grant, or industry sponsorship

Consultant, building contractor

Concept development may need to be outsourced

Total for process 117,000


urbanplan ASE ERM

Appendix 3 ctd…. Implementation strategy table of costs, staging

Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10

4=10-20


i=important

d=desirable


($ 2005)


Wetland

1 v 1 Control mosquitos paperbark area Undertake runnelling to control mosquitos in the northern paperbark area

5,000 CoB Health Services Conservation volunteers

Australia, CDEP

Hand digging of runnels

1 i 2 Undertake soil investigations on

islands

Investigate, manage soils where adopt-an-island revegetation failed 10,000 CSBP, Agmin or other

fertilizer/aglime supplier

Consultant, volunteer Ag Scientist

Some liming of island soils may be required prior to

any future revegetation works

1 i 4 Monitor wetland ecosystem health Strategic monitoring for water quality, sediment, biota-phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, frogs, turtles, snakes

and birds

30,000 DOE, CALM, CoB Environmemtal services

Friends of Big Swamp, Birds Aust, RAOU,

Ribbons of Blue

Support and encourage community monitoring programs ie. ribbons of blue, birds Australia, Friends

of Big Swamp

1 i 3 Improve habitat diversity Improve aquatic snags, logs, terrestrial perchings, logs, rocks etc 5,000 Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Green

Reserve program

Program participants

Increase structural diversity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats

2 i 5 Investigate wetland circulation Blind pockets need to be assessed and managed 1,500 South West Development Authority grant through

BESAC, Bunnings

Student Centre for Water Research UWA student

2 d 6 Create and enhance frog habitat Augment existing frog pond and create frog habitat precinct

encompassing existing children’s playground area

5,000 South West Development Authority grant through BESAC, Bunnings

Conservation volunteers

Australia, CDEP

2 d 7 Create view ways Strategic removal of selected vegetation to augment views across the wetland


BESAC, Bunnings

CoB Parks and Gardens

3 d 8 Upgrade bird hide Upgrade with purpose designed structure and enhanced interpretive information

50,000 Industry sponsor, Australian Government Envirofund

Bunbury-based builder

Total for wetland 111,500


urbanplan ASE ERM


Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10

4=10-20


i=important

d=desirable


($ 2005)


Surrounds

1 v 1 Repair surrounding path The path around the swamp is deteriorating in parts and should be mended with the appropriate material when needed

10,000 COB Parks, Department of Employment, and Workplace Relations Green Reserve

program

COB Parks, Program

participants

Note to works department. Maybe public liability issue. Areas incomplete, others have been patched

with different materials.

1 i 2 Continue landscape maintenance Continue mowing and edge management of paths and grasses areas 10,000 COB Parks COB Parks Note to parks and gardesn section: Seasonal snake concerns, potential council duty of care issue.

1 v 3 Prepare tip closure management plan

Quantify issues, gas, pollutants; asses risks; manage threats 30,000 CoB Consultant Statutory requirment prior to any development

1 i 4 Asses Big Swamp acid sulfate risk Assess, manage surrounding development areas 15,000 CoB Consultant Well established protocols

1 i 5 Asses stormwater detention structures

Undertake a desktop assessment of WSUD treatment options for stormwater inputs around the wetland and throughout the catchment

10,000 CoB Consultant

1 i 6 Revegetation of surrounds Continue revegetation of wetland surrounds 20,000 Alcoa, Local nursery sponsorship, Australian Government Envirofund

Contractors, Friends of Big

Swamp,

2 i 7 Quantify catchment pollutant inputs Assess inflowing surface and groundwater pollutant inputs 10,000 CoB Ribbons of Blue, consultant

Prioritise pollutants

2 i 8 Continue improvement of play ground

Add kids pier at wetland edge, eco-oriented play equipment 25,000 Industry sponsorship, COB Parks

COB Parks

2 d 9 Install recreational amenities Install additional barbecues, shaded tables, seating, paths 25,000 Grants Program Community Facilities, Industry sponsorship,

COB Parks

COB Parks, contractors

Paths, seating and tables should be paved to minimise snake hazard

3 d 10 Improve entrance statements Enhance Hayward Street landscaping and improve the approach into Big Swamp

50,000 Grants Program Community Facilities, Industry sponsorship,

COB Parks

COB Parks, contractors

Total for surrounds 205,000


urbanplan ASE ERM


Action 1=1-2 2=2-5 3=5-10

4=10-20


i=important

d=desirable


($ 2005)


Five Mile Brook catchment

1 v 1 Historical land use survey Survey historical nutrient-intensive land uses using air photos, maps, long term resident knowledge

40,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant

2 i 2 Asses catchment runoff quality Survey nutrients in base flow and storm flows throughout the catchment


2 i 3 Map soils and groundwater Map major soil types and the depth to superficial groundwater 25,000 CoB, NHT grant Consutant

1 i 4 Determine environmental water requirements

Map groundwater dependant ecosystems, riparian areas, determine environmental water requirements


3 i 5 Hydrologic modelling surface, groundwater

Hydrologic modelling of both surface water and superficial groundwater quantity and quality producing recurrence-based

hydrographs for specific nodes


2 i 6 Establish distributed water quality performance targets

Define performance targets for stormwater quality management throughout the catchment


2 i 7 Evaluate stormwater BMPs Undertake a desktop performance assessment of applicable water quantity and water quality best management practices (BMPs),

required to meet targets, EWRs


3 i 8 Develop precinct water quality management plans

Develop Precinct management plans with staged implementation of appropriate cost-effective BMPs


3 i 9 Performance audit of WQ improvements

Performance audit of the WQ improvement process:- strategic evaluation of implemented BMPs, EWRs, document key learnings,

refine strategies


TOTAL for 5 mile brook

catchment

282,500


urbanplan ASE ERM

_____________________________________________________________________

Appendix 4

Indicative planting scheme for rehabilitation of Big Swamp

_____________________________________________________________________

Note: Native species to be used for revegetation / rehabilitation are not limited to those

detailed in the following species list as this list is not comprehensive.

Big Swamp is on the Yoongarillup Soil association having marine origin. Plains with low ridges

and swales, shallow yellow to brown sands over marine limestone.

The original dominant plant assemblages for the area would have included woodland to tall

woodland of E. gomphocephla (Tuart) with Agonis flexuosa (peppermint) in the second storey

with some occurrence of E marginata (Jarrah) and E, calophylla (Marri).


urbanplan ASE ERM

Scientific Name Common name Form Height (m) Flowers Planting

Eucalyptus gompbocephala Tuart Tree 40 Jan-Apr Direct seeding

Eucalyptus calophylla Marri Tree 35 Jan-May Direct seeding

Eucalyptus marginata Jarrah Tree 30 Sep-Feb Direct seeding

Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Tree 15 Sep-Dec Direct seeding

Allocasuarina fiaseriana Sheoak Tree 15 May-Oct Direct seeding

Casuarina obesa Swamp sheoak Tree 15 All year Direct seeding

Eucalyptus rudis Flooded gum Tree 15 Apr-Nov Direct seeding

Banksia littoralis Swamp banksia Tree 12 Mar-Jul Direct seeding

Banksia littoralis Swamp banksia Tree 10 Mar-Jul Direct seeding

Melaleuca preissiana Modong Tree 10 Nov-Jan Direct seeding

Melaleuca rhaphiophylla Swamp paperbark Tree 8 Sep-Jan Direct seeding

Melaleuca cuticularis Saltwater paperbark Tree 7 Sep-Dec Direct seeding

Acacia saligna Coojong Shrub 6 Aug-Oct Direct seeding

Viminaria juncea Swishbush Shrub 5 Oct-Dec Direct seeding

Melaleuca teretifolia Banbar Shrub 4 Oct-Jan Direct seeding

Acacia cyclops Coastal wattle Shrub 3 Sep-Jan Direct seeding

Jacksonia fucellata Grey stinkwood Shrub 3 Aug-Mar Direct seeding

Jacksonia sternbergiana Green stinkwood Shrub 3 all year Direct seeding

Kunzea ericifolia Spearwood Shrub 3 Sep-Nov Direct seeding

Melaleuca vinimea Mohan Tree 3 Aug-Oct Direct seeding

Typha domingensis Narrow-leaf cumbungi Sedge 3 Dec-Feb Direct seeding

Xanthorrhoea preissii Grass tree Shrub 3 Nov-Jan Direct seeding

Bamea vaginalis Sheath twig sedge Sedge 2.5 Oct-Nov Plant seedlings

Acacia pulchella Prickly moses Shrub 2 Jun-Oct Direct seeding

Atriplex hypoleuca Saltbush Shrub 2 Dec-Apr Direct seeding

Carex appressa Tall sedge Sedge 2 Sep-Oct Direct seeding

Juncus krausii Sea rush Sedge 2 Nov-Dec Direct seeding

Juncus pallidus Pale rush Sedge 2 Oct-Nov Direct seeding

Melaleuca thymoides A myrtle Tree 2 Sep-Jan Direct seeding

Astartea jascicularis no common name Shrub 1.5 Dec-Feb Plant seedlings

Carex inversa Knob sedge Sedge 1.5 Sep-Oct Direct seeding

Baumea juncea Bare twigrush Sedge 1.2 Jan-Apr Plant seedlings

Bolboschoenus caldwelli Marsh club rush Sedge 1.2 Aug-Nov Direct seeding

Baumea articulata jointed twig-rush Sedge 1 Nov-Dec Plant seedlings

Baumea juncea Bare twig-rush Sedge 1 Oct-Jan Plant seedlings

Aotus gracillima no common name Shrub 1 Oct-Nov Direct seeding

Ectaxia virgata no common name Shrub 1 Aug-Nov Direct Seeding

Gahnia trifida Coast saw sedge Sedge 1 Aug-Oct Plant seedlings

Hibbertia stellaris Orange stars Shrub 1 Sep-Dec Plant Seedlings

Hypocalymma angustifolium

White myrtle Shrub 1 Jul-Oct Direct seeding

Isolepis nodosa Knotted club rush Sedge 1 Nov-Mar Direct seeding

Leptosperma longitudinale Pithy sword-sedge Sedge 1 Nov-Jan Plant seedlings

Myoporum caprarioides Slender myoporum Shrub 1 all year Plant seedlings

Anigozanthos viridis Green kangaroo paw Shrub 0.5 Aug-Oct Plant seedlings

Frankenia pauciflora Southern sea heath Shrub 0.5 All year Plant seedlings

Lobelia alata no common name Shrub 0.2 Mar-Apr Plant seedlings

Triglochin striata Streaked arrowgrass Herb 0.2 Jun-Oct Plant seedlings

Centella cordifolia Centella Herb 0.1 all year Plant seedlings

Adapted from: Swan River System. Landscape description. Swan River Trust, Report No 28 1997

Documents

City of Bunbury Big Swamp Master Plan Swamp Master Plan 2005.pdfAn adopt an island scheme was undertaken in the late 1990s which involved groups undertaking rehabilitation works on