Aurora Water Sensitive Urban Design by Rick Hammond

AURORA Water Sensitive Urban Design An assessment of the existing Water Sensitive Urban Design Installations at Aurora Estate, VIC

A project report for the Merri Creek Management Committee October 2013

Lillian Stevens SinĂŠad Nicholson Tiago Carvalhaes Rick Hammond Emma Eltringham Amedeo Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Aprano

Abstract Implementation of Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is likely to become an integral part of urban planning and design as it has positive benefits for reducing the impacts of hydrological changes and reduced water quality associated with the increase in impervious surfaces in urbanised catchments. The emerging adoption of WSUD in Australia is well grounded in theory, however, there has been little done in the way of auditing maintenance and long term management of these WSUD assets. Any shortcomings in the implementation of WSUD practices can potentially result in ineffective expenditure, and reduced efficiencies and outcomes. The implementation of WSUD at Aurora Estate presents a unique opportunity for MCMC to examine the effects on the Merri Creek Catchment and advocate for best WSUD practices. This reports aims to assess and analyse the practical implementation of WSUD at the Aurora development in the context of a scoping study & provide information for the MCMC on managing water quality in the Merri Catchment. It provides recommendations to MCMC on future implementation and maintenance of WSUD in other areas of the Merri Creek catchment. The study had three modes of data collection; water quality testing, a rain-garden audit and information gathering from key stakeholders in the design, implementation and maintenance of WSUD assets. It was shown through water quality testing that the water quality in Edgars Creek appeared to be healthy and unaffected by the development, with the exception of pH which was unnaturally alkaline. The results of the audit revealed that rain-gardens were not being adequately maintained or protected during their development; rain-gardens were rated to be of moderate health. Information gathering suggested that there was a complete lack of information, commitment to sustainability goals and transparency around WSUD at the estate as well as a lack of perceived cost-benefits. Overall, it was shown that on a short-term, small-scale basis, WSUD installations are effective in retaining and treating stormwater. However, at larger temporal and spatial scales the effectiveness of these installations reduces due to a lack of active management and commitment to WSUD goals during development.

i Â

Authors Tiago Esteves Carvalhaes 4th year Biological Sciences Undergraduate Student at The University of Sao Paulo (USP), Sao Paulo - SP, Brazil. Experience with Ecological Restoration and Environmental Impact Assessment. Rick Hammond B. Landscape Architecture, Pennsylvania State University. Lillian Stevens 3rd Year Environmental Geographies, Politics and Cultures, Bachelor of Environments, The University of Melbourne. Sinéad Nicholson 3rd Year Urban Design and Planning, Bachelor of Environments, The University of Melbourne. Amedeo D’Aprano 3rd Year Geomatics, Bachelor of Environments, The University of Melbourne. Emma Eltringham 3rd Year Geomatics, Bachelor of Environments, The University of Melbourne.

Acknowledgements The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge Damon Kaye, Victoria Petrevska, and Graham Brodie for their continued support and knowledge pertaining to the study.

Disclosure Statement This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

iii

Table of Contents Table of Contents......................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................2 2.0 Objectives, Aims & Hypothesis ..........................................................................9 2.1 Aim.............................................................................................................................9 2.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................9 2.3 Hypothesis .................................................................................................................9

3.0 Materials and Methods .....................................................................................10 3.1 Method.....................................................................................................................10 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

WSUD Audit and Survey................................................................................................. 11 Water Quality Testing...................................................................................................... 15 Information Gathering...................................................................................................... 18

4.0 Results ...............................................................................................................19 4.1 WSUD Audit and Survey..........................................................................................19 4.2 Water Quality ...........................................................................................................24 4.3 Information Gathering ..............................................................................................26

5.0 Discussion .........................................................................................................28 6.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................32 7.0 Conclusion .........................................................................................................33 8.0 Appendices ........................................................................................................34 9.0 References.........................................................................................................41

1.0 Introduction As part of the collaboration between the University of Melbourne and the Merri Creek Management Committee (MCMC), the Integrated Spatial Professionals conducted a scoping study of the Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) installations at Aurora Estate, VIC, focusing on the practical implications of installing and maintaining WSUD. Properly implemented and maintained, WSUD can be effective at mitigating the negative effects of urbanisation on urban water catchments. While the emerging adoption of WSUD in Australia is well grounded in theory, there has been little done in the way of auditing maintenance and long term management of these WSUD assets. Any shortcomings in the implementation of WSUD practices can potentially result in ineffective expenditure, and reduced efficiencies and outcomes. Specifically, the ‘Merri Creek and Environs Strategy 2009 – 2014’ recommends the use of WSUD features to maintain catchment health. This can be seen at Section 3.1, Target 5: “Design of greenfield urban development’s incorporates water-sensitive urban design features at allotment (e.g. rainwater tanks & raingardens), streetscape (local bioretention swale systems in road reserve) and neighbourhood (local wetlands and/or swales, raingardens) scales to achieve optimum infiltration and minimise hydrologic changes” (MCMC 2009: pp. 119). This report will provide MCMC with an insight into the implementation and maintenance of WSUD installations at Aurora estate, as well as providing recommendations and the means to advocate for best WSUD practices. Furthermore, implementation of WSUD at Aurora Estate presents a unique opportunity for MCMC to examine the effects of WSUD on the Merri Creek Catchment. As a scoping study, this report provides the basic outline for a recommended future study to do so. As can be seen in Figure 1, Melbourne Water has assigned a very poor river condition to the Merri Creek. A study by Walsh et al. (2004) concluded that increasing urbanisation and associated effective imperviousness within the Merri Creek catchment is the primary degrading process to stream health. In particular, urban developments are typically designed with drainage systems which transport stormwater directly from impervious surfaces into waterways causing hydrological changes such as increased peak flow and peak velocity (Line and White 2007). Furthermore, direct flow into the waterways means that stormwater does not undergo the physical, chemical and biological processes required to maintain high water quality (CSIRO 2006). As a reduction of effective imperviousness is unlikely, eliminating direct drainage connections into waterways through retention, detention, 2

and infiltration is a more realistic goal and one of the primary factors contributing to the introduction of WSUD in Australia.

Figure 1: Index of River Condition data for the Merri Creek. Source: Melbourne Water, 2005.

Aurora Estate is located within the City of Whittlesea, approximately 20 km north of the Melbourne CBD and on the upper reaches of Edgars Creek, a major tributary of the Merri (Figure 2). Aurora commenced construction in 2004 and covers a total area of 634 hectares with an anticipated final population of 25,000. It is one of the few estates in Victoria which utilises WSUD. Project management is primarily conducted by VicUrban (now Places Victoria), the Victorian Government's urban development agency. However, maintenance is carried out by the City of Whittlesea. Incentives for designing and building Aurora in this form largely include a statutory requirement for VicUrban to build sustainable developments (Lim 2003). In Auroraâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Development Plan, Edgarâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Creek has been identified as badly degraded but is ecologically valuable for its provision of habitat to the critically endangered Growling Grass Frog (VicUrban 2007).

Figure 2: Location of Aurora.

WSUD, as embraced by Aurora Estate, is a holistic term encompassing an array of water management practices which integrate urban form and the urban water cycle (Wong 2006). It aims to provide a visually aesthetic and amenable area that will reduce the effect of detrimental hydrological changes as well as improve water quality. This is achieved through the use of WSUD features such as vegetated swales and bioretention systems which provide greater infiltration of stormwater (Wong 2006). Studies such as those by Walsh (2005) in the Melbourne region have suggested that in catchments with up to 50% imperviousness, WSUD would effectively protect nearby waterways. Studies such as Roberts (2003) anticipate that through WSUD techniques such as rain-gardens and vegetated swales, Aurora Estate will achieve its stormwater quality objectives. This includes reducing 80% of suspended solids and 45% of each total nitrogen and total phosphorous at the point of discharge into Edgars creek. Currently, there is no documentation of any large scale auditing of the estate to establish whether Aurora has carried out the specifications as outlined in the development plan or met stormwater quality objectives. A significant barrier to meeting desired outcomes of WSUD at Aurora may simply be through ineffectiveness of bio-retention systems (rain-gardens). Planning for Aurora included both lot and street-scale treatment of stormwater using bio-retention systems prior to discharge into natural waterways. Originally, rain-gardens were to be a compulsory inclusion within the landscaping of residential lots and would have covered a minimum of 1.5% of the total lot area (VicUrban, 2007); however due to a lack of interest from potential buyers, these installations later revised to be optional. Perceived costs and benefits can also act as a significant barrier to successful implementation due to a lack perceived benefits from potential residents. As McManus (2009) noted, particularly within new greenfield developments, WSUD is often pitched in the context of affordable housing, residents are not willing to pay for the lot scale installations of WSUD. This report focuses specifically on the street-scale bio-retention systems which can be observed throughout several development stages in the estate (see figure 4).

Figure 4: Distribution of raingardens: new NW region of Aurora.

The specific design of bio-retention systems at Aurora estate can be seen in Figure 5 below, the basic principles of the design involves a shallow basin containing filter media and permeable pipe running underneath.

Figure 5: Typical rain garden section, minimum requirements for Aurora Estate. (Vic Urban, 2007b)

As filtration is the primary form of treatment in this system, clogging of the filter media often occurs (Hatt et al., 2007). Clogging occurs on both the surface layer of the filter media, and also within the deeper layers as pore spaces which are filled with incoming debris (Langergraber et al., 2003; Winter & Goetz, 2003). Provision of suitable vegetation prevents both surface clogging and enhances the pollutant removal process (Le Coustumer et al., 2007). Suitability of vegetation includes high leaf density, uniform distribution to prevent stormwater meandering. In addition, vegetation on the filter media with a uniform root zone continuously breaks of the surface through root growth and therefore prevents clogging. However, the presence of dead plant roots can reduce the effectiveness of the pollutant removal process as it results in piping action within the filter media (Parker, 2009). The life cycle of bio filters vary; with no vegetation a filtration system is expected to last 10 years, however this requires regular maintenance and removal of the top clogged layer (Urbonas, 1999). There is evidence to suggest that the addition of vegetation increases the life cycle of bio-retention systems, however, detailed studies on the performance of bio-retention systems with vegetation and corresponding maintenance regimes are not available. Other barriers to effectiveness of bio-retention systems may be as simple as roadside and swale inlet blockages. This may be a build-up of leaf litter, debris or any other object preventing the flow of water into the rain-garden. Newly installed rain-gardens require extra attention to ensure the healthy development of 7

vegetation and prevention of invasive species. Furthermore, rain-gardens are particularly vulnerable during construction, protocols needs to be established so that construction waste and debris do not enter the rain-garden and cause blockages/clogging. Another significant barrier to meeting desired outcomes of WSUD at Aurora is at the management level. A common criticism of WSUD is the concentration on component strategies, such as constructed bio-retention systems as opposed to the incorporation of these strategies into a coherent integrated urban planning framework (Barton et al., 2002; Lloyd, 2001). Achieving the objectives of WSUD is more than simply constructing the system. Specifically, this refers to knowledge on operational and maintenance practices. Gardiner (2005) showed that failure of WSUD is most commonly observed where swales and bio-retention systems repeatedly lacked maintenance protocols. Simply implementing WSUD into planning documents, setting standards and guidelines is not enough to ensure its success. A study by Wong (2001) showed inadequate levels of technical skills and knowledge within the industry to design, assess and maintain the WSUD scheme. Furthermore, where technical skills are available, there is often a lack of transparency and knowledge transfer. For example, Alam (2008) stated that drawing and management plans for WSUD on the Gold Coast are available mainly to the engineering department, but not to staff of other departments, particularly those division which are responsible for maintenance. Goonetilleke et al. (2011) summarises the fundamental barriers to successful WSUD implementation as: •

Lack of knowledge transfer – lack of appropriate dissemination of research outcomes and the common absence of protocols for knowledge transfer within the same organisation.

•

Cultural barriers – These related to social and institutional factors, including institutional inertia and the lack of clear understanding of the benefits.

•

Fragmented responsibilities – resulting from poor administrative integration within local councils in relation to WSUDs.

•

Technical barriers – lack of knowledge on operational and maintenance practices which is compounded by model limitations and the lack of longterm quantitative performance evaluation data.

•

Lack of engineering standards – Despite the availability of numerous guidelines which are non-enforceable and can sometimes be confusing, there is a need for stringent engineering standards.

2.0 Objectives, Aims & Hypothesis 2.1 Aim To assess and analyse the practical implementation of WSUD at the Aurora development in the context of a scoping study in order to provide information for the MCMC on managing water quality in the Merri Catchment. It further aims to provide recommendations to MCMC on future implementation and maintenance of WSUD in other areas of the Merri Creek catchment.

2.2 Objectives 1. To analyse the condition of streetscape rain-garden installations in the built and developing areas of Aurora. 2. To assess the management and communication structures present at Aurora and between the involved parties. 3. To test the quality of stormwater entering Edgarâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s creek from the Aurora development, as well as the water quality before and afterwards to provide a comparison. This will provide an indication of the effectiveness of the WSUD instalments.

2.3 Hypothesis On a short-term, small-scale basis, WSUD installations such as swales and raingardens are effective in retaining and treating stormwater. At larger temporal and spatial scales the effectiveness of these installations reduces due to a lack of active management and commitment to WSUD goals during development. Indicators of the reduced capacity of WSUD installations are a lack of improvement or even decrease in water quality, poor health of the vegetation used, and unmaintained or incomplete installations. However with greater adherence to WSUD goals and improved management, implementing new ideas such as the crowdsourcing of information, large-scale WSUD projects are viable options to improve the health of urban waterways.

3.0 Materials and Methods The project was divided into three key research areas: 1. Evaluating specific WSUD installations such as swales and bioretention systems by applying our pre-formed index. As shown in the literature (see Langergraber et al. 2003; Winter & Goetz 2003; Hatt et al., 2007; Le Coustumer et al., 2007; Parker, 2009), these installations may present barriers to effectiveness in regards to appropriate design, drainage and maintenance. 2. Testing the water quality of Edgar’s creek both within and surrounding the development as an indication of the quality of stormwater discharged from the estate. The data obtained will enable a more informed discussion on WSUD in Aurora as well as recommendations for improvements. Water quality can be assessed against set parameters. 3. Systematic data collection from the parties involved in the design, implementation and management of WSUD at Aurora.

3.1 Method Weather conditions throughout the month of October, when tests were conducted, were recorded in order to understand trends that may impact on sample outcomes. The closest Bureau of Meteorology weather station was identified as ‘Bundoora.’ The data is represented in figures 6 and 7.

10/19/17

10/18/17

10/17/17

10/16/17

10/15/17

10/14/17

10/13/17

10/12/17

10/11/17

10/10/17

10/9/17

10/8/17

10/7/17

10/6/17

10/5/17

10/4/17

10/3/17

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 10/2/17

Daily Rainfall in Bundoora region

October Figure 6: Daily rainfall data from the 1st to 18th of October. Bureau of Meteorology 2013.

Daily Temperatures in Bundoora Region 30 25 20 15 10

Min °C

Max °C

October Figure 7: Daily temperatures from the 1st to 18th of October. Bureau of Meteorology 2013.

3.2.1 WSUD Audit and Survey The audit was conducted on 11 October, 2013. Leading up to the audit, weather conditions averaged 15.5ºC with little rainfall. The night before testing, 6.4 mm of precipitation fell on the catchment and the overnight low was 7.6ºC. During the day, during which the audit was conducted, the maximum temperature was 20ºC (Bureau of Meteorology 2013) A preliminary observational survey of the whole estate was conducted in order to establish a general overview of the health and maintenance of street-scale WSUD instalments at Aurora. This involved observations in the form of note taking and photographs. At the conclusion of this assessment it was decided that two areas of Aurora would be surveyed, a developed stage and a stage under construction since the age of the rain-gardens would have a significant impact on their index score. To streamline fieldwork and maximise efficiency for future management an index of rain-garden health has been devised. The attributes listed are drawn from the literature surrounding the implementation and maintenance of WSUD, giving weight to factors recognised as being of higher concern to the system. Table 1 below shows the structure of the Index and the associated health rating.

Attribute

Score

Range [0-x]

Weighting

Vegetation Coverage

2.80

Vegetation Health

2.25

Litter Presence

1.50

Vegetation Diversity

0.25

Mulch Cover/distribution

0.50

Infiltration Rate

good=1

0.50

Boundary Conditions

good=1

0.80

1.00

good=1

1.00

CUMUL.

23.53

INDEX

0.52

Invasive Species Soil pH

Table 1.1: Structure of index used to assess the health of rain-gardens.

Healthy

>0.7

Moderate

>0.5

Unhealthy

>0.3

Very Unhealthy

<0.3

Table 1.2: Relative health scores assigned to index.

Analysis of each rain-garden was completed systematically following the attributes identified in the Index. All attributes were scored and placed within certain ranges, which were chosen to enable a quick evaluation in the field. Vegetation was assessed in terms of coverage, health, and diversity: 1. Coverage was scored by percentage of vegetation cover of the total area of the rain-garden and then assigned a value within a range of 0 - 4, where 100% was represented by 4. 2. Health and condition of vegetation was analysed visually with the colour and shape of each plant taken into consideration as well as the average health of the entire rain-garden’s vegetation. A range between 0-4 was again assigned with rain-gardens containing very healthy plants scoring 4. 12

3. Vegetation diversity was measured by the number of species present in the rain-garden, the score received was between 0-2 where 1 species scored .25, 2 species scored .5 etc. 4. Litter presence was measured by observing the number of individual litter items within each rain-garden for installations, the score received was between 0-4, where quantity of litter resulted in a higher score. 5. Mulch coverage was scored by percentage of mulch cover of the total area of the rain-garden and then assigned a value within a range of 0 - 2, where 100% was represented by 2. 6. Infiltration rate was measured by clearing a 10cm by 20cm rectangle of soil, 2cm deep and recording the time taken for 45ml of water to infiltrate. The result was then converted into a factor of 1. 7. The boundary of each rain-garden was scored between 0 -1. Rain-gardens with an unclear or overgrown boundary or with no formal boundary constructed scored much lower than rain-gardenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s with a clear and well defined boundary. 8. According to the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, the ideal pH of soil for this area is between 6 - 7.5 (2013). A sample of soil was collected from each rain garden site from an area close to the surge pit. The pH was then tested in the lab using standard soil pH testing kits provided by the University of Melbourne. A score of 1 was given if the pH was within the normal range, if not a score of 0 was given. Listed below are the locations at which the audit took place. Locations were defined by street names for ease of communication. The map in figure 8 demonstrates the geographical position and distribution of audit sites: 1.

Crimson Cresent X Redding Rise

Pike Street X Redding Rise

Gammage Boulevard X Redding Rise

Cullen Street X Herridge Place

Lochinver Street X Eynesbury View

Unnamed Road

Wendouvee View X Eynesbury View

(Refer to Figure 8 for mapped locations)

Figure 8: Rain-garden audit locations.

3.2.2 Water Quality Testing Water samples were collected on the 18th of October, 2013 from Edgars Creek at Aurora Estate. The rainfall had averaged 1.7mm per day since the beginning of the month with 1.7mm the night before testing and the heaviest rainfall of the month (7mm) two days beforehand (Bureau of Meteorology 2013). To establish test sites for water sampling, spatial data was obtained from the City of Whittlesea, outlining stormwater drainage systems within the estate. This allowed for strategic selection of sample locations within Edgars Creek, predominantly in relation to stormwater outlets (see figure 9 below). Water samples were taken in four locations: one upstream of stormwater outlets, two within the Aurora development drainage network, and one downstream of stormwater outlets. Test sites provided the means to contrast water quality before and after it had become affected by stormwater from the development.

Figure 9: Proximity to drain outlet, water sample location rationale.

The following water parameters were measured: 1. Temperature (on site) 2. pH/mV 3. Dissolved oxygen 4. Salinity/Electrical Conductivity 5. Suspended solids 6. Total solids 7. Temperature (in lab) Samples were taken from the subsurface layer of all water bodies analysed. After the samples were obtained, they were kept in low temperature to reduce the potential impact of biological processes on the quality of the sample, as lab testing would not be performed until the next day. The data for dissolved oxygen, pH, and electric conductivity were obtained using a WTW Multiline F/Set 3 and associated sensors provided by The University of Melbourne. When measuring dissolved oxygen, altitude and temperature values were required to calculate total percentage of saturation. To obtain such data, a 1 metre contour map was queried to find the elevation of each sample location, and temperature was recorded both on-site and within the lab. Suspended solids were determined by gravimetric testing. The technique involved filtering a 10ml aliquot of water to retain particles larger than 0.45μm (Paranhos, 1996; Pinto Silva, 2002). The filters were dried and weighed both before and after filtration. The weight difference allowed for the measurement of the total dry mass of the material in suspension, in proportion to the filtered volume (Paranhos, 1996). Eight filtrations were conducted (two for each site) to detect error in the method. The filters were kept in the stove under 105˚C for three days and then had their weight measured. The values for total solids were obtained using the same principle described for the suspended solids, but without filtering the 10ml aliquots. This resulted in the dissolved solids being incorporated into the total mass of solids when the samples were dried. The aliquots were kept in pots which had their weight measured before the water was added. This way, the subtraction could be done accurately after the water had been completely evaporated. The data obtained was compared to the parameters and objectives outlined in ‘Water Quality Objectives for River and Streams - Ecosystem Protection’ (EPA, 2003) so inferences about possible divergences within the expected values could be discussed. 17

3.2.3 Information Gathering A systematic process was followed to gather information, first identifying key contacts, who had the potential to provide basic information or further contacts. The first point of contact was the sales consultant at the Aurora sales office who was able to provide basic information available to the public. A tour of Aurora, alongside planners from Hume City council was also organised (see appendix 3 for list of questions prepared). VicUrban, as the developers, and the City of Whittlesea, as the local council, were contacted through email and by phone, for information regarding the design, implementation, and management plans or contracts for the rain-gardens. EPA Victoria and Melbourne Water were also contacted via phone for information on the Victoriaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sustainability measures and environmental standards in general. A google search and in-depth literature search were also conducted.

4.0 Results 4.1 WSUD Audit and Survey Between the developed stage and stage under construction, eight rain-gardens were tested thoroughly using the index resulting in a cumulative score of 0.5 (moderate). The 4 rain-gardens of the developed sample area scored on average of 0.54 (moderate) on the index while the 4 of the developing sample area scored an average 0.46 (unhealthy). Figure 10 below shows individual scores for each of the 8 rain-gardens tested, locations 1-4 were within the developed section of the estate whilst locations 5-8 were developing. Appendix 1 provides a full descriptive analysis and imagery of the 8 individual rain-gardens while appendix 2 provides the raw data collected to calculate health ratings. See figure 12 for the locations and respective index bracket indicated on a map.

Rain-‐Garden Health Ra:ngs 0.9

Heal thy

0.8

Mode rate

0.6

Unhe althy

0.4

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.68

0.59 0.47

0.2

Very Unhea 0.1 lthy

0.51

0.42

0.38

0.46

0.52

0 1

Loca:on Figure 10: Index scores of individual rain-gardens and their corresponding health rating.

Figure 11: Map indicating both water sample locations and rain-garden audit locations and their respective index bracket.

Figure 12 below shows the results of soil pH from the 8 individual rain-gardens tested; notably, locations 2 and 7 were below a healthy pH range (too acidic) while location 6 was above a healthy pH range (too alkaline).

Rain-‐Garden Soil pH Ra:ngs

9 8 7

Healthy pH Range

Soil pH

6 5 4 3

5.5

Loca:on 4 5

7.5 5.5

1 0 1

Figure 12: Soil pH ratings for individual rain-gardens.

In addition to the index, the observational survey showed a discrepancy between the health of individual rain-gardens. Litter was an issue throughout the estate and the conditions of some drains showed maintenance was irregular at best with weeds present and gardens outgrowing their borders. Swales appeared to be well maintained. Several areas of the estate appeared to have a shallow basin and surge pit where rain-gardens would normally be installed, however, there was no filter media or vegetation. See images below for illustration of these results.

Figure 13: Area with surge pit and basin but no vegetation or filter media

Figure 14: Patchy vegetation found in some rain-gardens

Figure 15: Dead plant matter forming a matted surface, obstructing water drainage

Figure 16: Blocked roadside inlet from litter and uncleared vegetation

Figure 17: Recently planted rain-garden at location 6 displaying concrete contamination

4.2 Water Quality Sample Site 1

Sample Site 2

Sample Site 3

Sample Site 4

pH/mV

8.46

8.34

8.64

8.11

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

8.67

8.11

7.8

7.11

Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%)

87.86%

81.62%

87.23%

82.94%

3.77

3.68

2.3

2.07

Temperature On-Site (°C)

Suspended Solids (mg)

10 13

15 10

17 4

2 14

Sample 1 Sample 2

Total Solids (mg)

21 31

43 25

16 25

29 30

Sample 1 Sample 2

Salinity (μS/cm)

Table 2: Water testing results for pH, dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, temperature, suspended solids, and total solids.

pH: Water quality objectives for this are as outlined by EPA Victoria (2003) suggest that an ideal pH range is between 6.4 – 7.7. As shown in the results, all four locations presented results outside of these parameters with a trend towards a high level of alkalinity. Electrical Conductivity/Salinity: Water quality objectives for this are as outlined by EPA Victoria (2003) suggest that salinity should remain below 500 (μS/cm). All the sites displayed values below this parameter and they are also below the 25th percentiles (590 μS/cm) values posted by Melbourne Water on their (2012) quality assessment. Dissolved Oxygen: Water quality objectives for this area as outlined by EPA Victoria (2003) suggest that the ideal range of dissolved oxygen is between 85 110% saturation. The four sites sampled showed oxygen levels within the optimum values outlined by EPA Victoria (2003). Suspended solids: Melbourne Water’s quality assessment from 2012 showed that the average for total suspended solids for Edgars Creek was 14mg/L, the minimum was 1mg/L and the maximum was 67mg/L. The results acquired for the four sites 24

show that the suspended solids were within normal and expected values, however there were large margins of error (see figure 18). Total solids: No parameters could be found for total solids however it is a relevant measurement since it is important when considering the amount of nutrients (organic and inorganic) available for the aquatic community (Esteves, 2011) (see figure 19).

Figure 18: Averages (n=2) and standard errors obtained for suspended solids (mg/L) for each location sampled. There is a decreasing tendency of the overall data, but the standard errors are too big to conclude anything precisely.

Figure 19: Averages (n=2) and standard errors obtained for total solids (mg/L) in the four sites sampled. There is no explicit tendency that can be extracted from this graphic. The value for Site 2 detaches from the others.

4.3 Information Gathering Information was difficult to obtain, as were relevant contacts. Original documents showing relevant information such as the placement and type of WSUD plans, management contracts or WSUD objectives were not available and there appeared to be a lack of knowledge about Aurora and WSUD as well as poor communication between the separate parties. The contact at EPA Victoria, for example, did not know Aurora existed, though the number used was taken from the Sustainability covenant of which EPA is a signatory (see link: Aurora Sustainability Covenant). All useful spatial data obtained was sourced online from the Victorian Government Data Directory, supplied by the City of Whittlesea, or obtained from the University of Melbourne Map Collection. It was hoped that initial contacts would provide further contacts however this only occurred in two cases. Interestingly, Aurora’s sales consultant did note that rather than being an incentive for purchase WSUD instalments, particularly the requirement for allotment rain-gardens, were affecting his sales. He also mentioned prospective buyers were concerned with the aesthetics of the streetscape rain-gardens. Online resources were limited despite the commitment by all signatories of Aurora’s 2006 sustainability covenant to provide up-to-date information on their websites. In fact the most recent official document on Aurora found VicUrban’s development plan published in December 2007. On 24th September ISP participated in a tour of the Aurora development alongside employees of Hume City Council, Subdivisions Division. The purpose of the tour was to supply information to Hume council on sustainable developments, as a case study for future developments in their own locality. The tour involved an overview and question time at the Aurora sales office, followed by an inspection of Stage 20 and further questions. The information was provided by the lead Aurora salesman. Of relevance to our project was the discussion on changes in building requirements and guidelines since conception. It was found: •

Many adjustments had been made to design requirements such as the removal of rain-garden requirements for each lot.

•

All drainage from roads that moved through WSUD and stormwater pipes was channelled straight into the creek system.

•

Grey water from homes was treated and returned through the purple pipes scheme, and water incident on roofs was utilised for hot water systems.

•

Furthermore, it was established that the City of Whittlesea contracts maintenance of landscaping and the rain-garden system to out to Absolute Maintenance however they were not contactable. In relation to the rain26

gardens, maintenance was conducted through a periodic overview of the gardens, it appeared that intervention was limited and the frequency of these surveys was not discovered. At Stage 20 a large bio-retention pit was inspected which acted as a filter to water entering from drains, swales, and rain-gardens in the area before proceeding to Edgars Creek (see appendix 4). A series of more technical questions regarding the design of the rain-garden system were asked that unfortunately the salesman was not able to answer, lacking the information and expertise.

5.0 Discussion In order to prove that Aurora Stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s discharge is altering the water quality of Edgars Creek, the values obtained for Site 1 (upstream) should have statistically differed from those obtained for Site 4 (downstream), at least. As the number of samples doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t allow statistical analysis, some tendencies were considered when trying to evaluate how the water quality is changing along the stream. The pH decreased when downstream, as well as the dissolved oxygen, the electrical conductivity, and the suspended solids. The lower value for dissolved oxygen downstream suggests that more organisms are consuming this element or less photosynthesis is occurring. As Site 4 has a higher value for total solids, it indicates that sunlight is not properly penetrating the water and providing energy to the photosynthetic community, so less oxygen is being released. However; overall, water quality results, with the exception of pH, showed that none of the parameters tested displayed values strongly diverging from the averages expected by EPA Victoria (2003) and Melbourne Water Quality Assessment (2012). Thus according to these agencies, Edgars Creek showed a good water quality across all sites analysed. All four water testing locations presented pH results outside of DPI (2013) parameters (6.4 - 7.7) with a trend towards alkaline values. Ephemeral streams with previous agricultural land use would be expected to be acidic. Furthermore, the geology of the area is mostly composed of basalt and some swamp deposits (DPI, 2013) which does not explain the alkaline value (Waterwatch Victoria 2009). The alkalinity of the water could potentially be attributed to the large scale construction works on the development, particularly bridges over Edgars creek which release large amounts of calcareous lime into the river as it is embodied in the concrete mix used. A similar situation was observed within rain-gardens in developing sections of the estate where concrete mix had entered the rain-garden causing alkalinity in the soil. These results indicate a lack of protocol during construction which are not consistent with WSUD principles and an integrated approach to maintaining water quality which is a major issue identified by organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund (2011) and the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (2007) when assessing WSUD. Furthermore, it demonstrates an emphasis on installing WSUD without appropriate maintenance, protocols and commitment to sustainability goals. To assure that the values expose the real biological and physical processes happening within Edgars Creek, tests should be conducted over larger spatial and temporal timescales, and statistical analysis utilised. Some areas almost didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have enough water to be sampled or the water remaining was restricted to shallow puddles. These different conditions in which the creek was found surely influenced 28

on every single parameter measured, since the water dynamics are completely changed when considering a large and moving stream (Samples Site 4) and a static puddle [Samples Site 2 (Esteves, 2011)]. Tests for a-chlorophyll, total nitrogen and total phosphorus should have been done to better characterize the water, since these parameters are essential to determine whether the water is good or poor condition (Esteves, 2011). Overall the results of the rain-garden audit showed that there appeared to be a lack of maintenance of rain-gardens in both the developed areas and those under construction, as evidenced by the moderate cumulate score of .5 on the index. In the developed areas, the average index score was .54 (moderate); however, there was some fluctuation with one rain-garden scoring as low as .42 and another at .68. The provision of suitable vegetation prevents both surface clogging and enhances the pollutant removal process (Le Coustumer et al., 2007). Despite this, in many rain-gardens vegetation coverage was not uniform and often patchy (Figure 14). Furthermore, in several of the rain-gardens, vegetation was dying with dead plant matter causing surface clogging (Figure 15) . The presence of dead plant roots can reduce the effectiveness of the pollutant removal process as it results in piping action within the filter media (Parker, 2009). Many of the roadside inlets had become blocked by debris (Figure 16). In others, litter and debris were causing the raingarden to become clogged on the surface area (Hatt et al., 2007), such as location 1 where infiltration time exceeded 5 minutes (Appendix 1). In the areas under construction, the average index score was .46 (unhealthy). This may be partially due to the index being designed as a means to test fully developed rain gardens, and therefore did not account for the lack of vegetation cover during the early stages vegetation growth. It is in these areas that maintenance is important to ensure the healthy development of vegetation and prevention of clogging (Le Coustumer et al., 2007;Hatt et al., 2007); this includes mulch upkeep to prevent invasive species and removal of excess litter and debris. As noted in appendix 2, a particular concern was rain-gardens in close proximity to construction site such as location 6 (see figure 17). Here it was observed that concrete mix had washed into the rain-garden causing clogging, germination of invasive species and alkalinity in the soil. No effort had been made to prevent debris entering the raingarden and indicates a lack of safeguarding WSUD assets during the construction phase. It can be assumed that the filtration media and vegetation in this rain-garden would need to be replaced for its effective functioning in the future. This further demonstrates how shortcomings in the implementation of WSUD practices can potentially result in ineffective expenditure, and reduced efficiencies and outcomes Several difficulties were experienced when gathering data for the index as our backgrounds did not provide us with the knowledge to determine many factors such as the health of the plants with certainty. Furthermore, the method was limited 29

as the audit needed to be conducted sensitively as to reduce the impact on the rain-gardens. In particular, we were unable to obtain soil profiles and carry out more advanced measurements of infiltration rates. As an average score, the index does not provide any insight into specific errors of the individual rain-gardens. For example, many factors such as soil structure, soil layering, condition of the soil surface, degree of saturation, and clogging, can affect infiltration rate. We cannot determine which of these conditions caused variation amongst individual raingardens. The process of gathering qualitative information demonstrated clearly, fragmented responsibilities and a lack of knowledge transfer with regards to WSUD, and sustainability objectives in general at Aurora. Admittedly as undergraduate students with a limited timeframe and authority, information would have been more difficult to access than for an employee of a government or other research body. However, contrary to the commitments listed in the Aurora Sustainability covenant (2006) the EPA has not provided publicly available information on the performance of Aurora (6.5.2.), does not provide up to date information on the commitments in regards to sustainability of involved parties (covenant 6.5.3.) nor have the covenant signatories made reports on the annual/biannual reviews of Aurora, assuming they occur, available on their websites (covenant 7.3.). VicUrban’s Devlopment plan for Aurora (2007) allows for flexibility surrounding WSUD stating that ‘in consultation with and the agreement of Whittlesea, WSUD solutions in streets (and beyond) may be varied by VicUrban over time’ (Section 5.8.5 pg 5). However the same document holds Aurora accountable to Victoria’s State Planning scheme which includes a clause ‘To assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment’ (Clause 15, Section 2.1.1 pg 3). Judging from the comments of Aurora’s sales consultant and the adjustments made to WSUD requirements in Aurora’s building guidelines there was a lack of understanding of the cost- benefit ratio of these installments by potential residents. As noted by McManus (2009), the unwillingness of residents to pay for WSUD installations, particularly within new greenfield developments where housing is often built for the affordable market, is a familiar issue. This suggests WSUD is perceived by the public as an optional extra rather than a necessity, presenting barriers relating to the cost of building, maintaining, and replacing WSUD-related infrastructure. The lack of direct benefit to the provider of WSUD, despite environmental and public good, may not provide enough incentive for developers to carry out appropriate design, implementation, and maintenance. While VicUrban and the City of Whittlesea allow for flexibility in WSUD at Aurora they have also committed to protecting the surrounding waterways, and WSUD is increasingly being recognised by planning authorities and developers as an 30

essential strategy for achieving this. As discussed there are many barriers to overcome for successful implementation, and greater commitment needs to be ensured. The recommendations listed below attempt to overcome these barriers.

6.0 Recommendations •

Current information regarding the design and maintenance of WSUD at Aurora Estate needs to be made available to the public, staff, stakeholders and participating governmental and non-governmental organisations.

•

Stricter management and guidelines during development stages of the Estate, particularly preventing debris such as concrete mix entering raingardens and Edgars Creek.

•

Increased maintenance of rain-gardens. This could be implemented through a more rigorous maintenance schedule or innovative means such as crowdsourcing:

Crowdsourcing: In order to enhance efficiency, coverage, and effectiveness of management, better diagnostic measures are required. While currently being serviced by a management team that periodically overlooks rain-gardens, the results indicate this is relatively limited. More productive and pragmatic approach needs to be taken. Pragmatism is often seen as more costly in the short term, resulting in its subordination to reactionary management. To solve this concern, Integrated Spatial Professionals recommend the implementation of a geotagging, crowdsourced approach to civil diagnosis. Enabled by a platform that would utilise the GPS capabilities of smartphones and the potential to upload photographs, communication between members of the public and local government would be enhanced, not only improving management of assets such as WSUD, but also increase public satisfaction and local pride. With an improved, more up-to-date, spatial understanding of management requirements, council will be better positioned to manage the public’s concerns, strengthened by the possibility of heightened levels of accountability, this approach ultimately offers improved water quality entering streams. Implemented on a broader scale, even outside the context of WSUD, such technologies have the potential to better identify public concerns and seek better managerial solutions.

Further information pertaining to the technical considerations for the crowdsourcing of data for improved management practices can be found in Appendix 5. 32

7.0 Conclusion WSUD can be effective at protecting waterways in urban areas. While inconclusive, the water testing results show no overall change in the water-quality of Edgarâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s creek indicating that the development of Aurora in a previously rural area has at least not negatively altered the water quality of Edgarâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s creek. The results of the pH testing of the creek specifically alongside the health of the rain gardens and the lack of information around WSUD at Aurora do indicate, however, that problems with management during construction, maintenance and communication between the parties involved is a significant issue in implement effecting WSUD. Thus our hypothesis is supported. This information will be helpful for MCMC when considering how other waterways within the urbanised Merri catchment may be protected. Furthermore these issues are ones that can be overcome and through improvements such as the use of crowd-sourcing to augment maintenance it is easily foreseeable that WSUD can help protect waterways within urban developments.

8.0 Appendices Appendix 1 - Raw Data Obtained from Rain-Garden Audit Locat ion #

Age (Appr ox)

Vegeta tion

Litter

Covera ge

Health

Prese nce

Vegeta tion

Mul ch

Diversi ty

Infiltrat ion

Bound ary

Invas ive

Rate

Conditi ons

Speci es

So il Ph

Ind ex Sco re

Fully Grown

3.4

2.5

0.7

1.9

0.59

Fully Grown

2.6

2.75

0.25

0.6

1.9

0.47

Mid

0.6

2.25

0.5

0.8

1.25

0.42

Fully Grown

3.2

2.7

0.75

0.8

1.9

0.68

Seedli ngs

1.20

2.75

2.7

0.25

0.8

1.95

0.51

Seedli ngs

0.2

2.75

1.75

0.75

0.5

0.75

1.9

0.38

Mid

1.6

2.6

0.75

0.5

0.8

1.95

0.46

Mid

2.8

2.25

1.5

0.25

0.5

0.8

0.52

Appendix 2 - Descriptive Analysis and Imagery of Rain-Gardens All rain-gardens appeared to only support one or two species of plant e.g. Dianella longifolia, Lomandra longifolia & Rush species

Location 1 – Crimson Cres X Redding Rise This rain-garden had 85% coverage of fully-grown vegetation which appeared to be in good condition. There was a 1.5m square section with no vegetation and the plants around the roadside inlet were dying. The inlet was clogged with debris and litter collected from the road, but the rest of the boundary was well defined. There were a few invasive species sprouting in the non-vegetated section and near the inlet. This rain-garden appeared to be waterlogged as the infiltration time exceeded 5 minutes.

Location 2 – Pike St X Redding Rise This rain-garden had only 65% coverage of fully-grown healthy vegetation. The remaining sections (35%) appeared have been flattened/smothered and subsequently died. The dead vegetation had surged up onto the footpath making the boundary non-clear. Some litter had been washed into the rain-garden via the adjoining swale and the inlet from the roadside. Further debris had partially blocked the roadside inlet. The vegetation appeared to be made up of two similar species of tussock/reed, very few weeds which were located on the perimeter of the raingarden. Slightly acidic pH of 5.5.

Location 3 – Gammage Boulevard X Redding Rise This rain-garden was not in very good condition, there was some healthy midgrowth vegetation; however, this only covered 15% of the area. The remaining area was only partially covered by much (small pebbles and bark) which had allowed for several invasive species to germinate. The intake was unblocked and the boundary was clearly defined. Some litter had made its way into the rain-garden, but not enough to restrict water flow. The surface of this rain-garden had large rocks embedded into it which was not observed elsewhere.

Location 4 - Cullen St X Herridge Pl This rain-garden was in quite good condition. There was 80% coverage of healthy and fully grown vegetation, with a few spotted sections not vegetated. In these areas small pebbles and bark serving as mulch was present stopping invasive 35

species. The boundary was clear and none of the inlets were blocked. There was a few pieces of litter which had washed in.

Location 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lochinver X Eynesbury This rain-garden had two species of vegetation, which as plantings only covered 30% of the area. Vegetation appeared to be relatively healthy; however, some of the plants in the middle section of the rain-garden appeared to be dying. Non vegetated areas were covered by mulch preventing the germination of weeds. The boundary was well defined however the intake had been purposefully blocked. It is assumed this had been done to prevent construction waste/debris from entering the raingarden.

Location 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Unnamed (yet to be named) Road This rain-garden was evidently quite new. It had only 5% coverage of vegetation as plantings had only just been put in. The remaining area was mulch composed of bark and small pebble. The boundary was defined, but the roadside intake had not been blocked and as a result debris for the nearby construction site had washed into the rain-garden. This created a layer of silt filling the gaps between mulch and allowing for the development of invasive species. The debris appeared to composed of soil, sand and concrete mix. Very alkaline soil with a pH of 8, this is most likely due to the lime component of concrete mix.

Location 7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Wendouvee X Eynesbury This rain garden had 40% coverage of mid-growth vegetation. The remaining sections was mulch composed of bark and small pebbles. The boundary was quite well defined, however there was litter and growth of invasive species around the roadside intake. The vegetation seemed healthy on the outer boundaries but was dying in the middle section. Slightly acidic with a pH of 5.5.

Location 8 - Wendouvee X Eynesbury This rain-garden had two species of mid-growth vegetation which covered 80% of the area, the remaining area was mulch. However, the roadside intake had allowed a large amount of debris to enter the rain-garden where mulch had been washed away and replaced by a layer of silt. In this area several invasive species and grass had grown and were starting to take over the rest of the rain garden. Most vegetation was healthy however there were some areas that appeared to be dying. This was by far the most polluted rain-garden. 36

Appendix 3 - Interview Questions for Planners/ Aurora Developers Has the implementation of WSUD changed from the original development plans. If so how? From your experience has WSUD been a deciding factor for residents choosing this estate? What are the current maintenance processes for WSUD? Who is responsible? What is the schedule of maintenance? Do you keep data on: Water quality discharge WSUD effectiveness if maintenance issues are raised? Have you experienced any planning and implementation limitations when including WSUD in Aurora? Do you think Aurora is a good example of WSUD? Do you think that the developer are getting value for the money they have invested into WSUD infrastructure? In your opinion what could future developments learn from Aurora and its WSUD installations?

Appendix 4 - 24 September (notes) Absolute Maintenance (absolutegroup.com.au) rain-garden management All WSUD components channel water to Edgars Creek. Large bioretention area secondary filtering before entering creek. Flat catchment, river not often flowing. Cut curbs important despite the destructive channeling effects on water flowing into rain-gardens and swales. They stop cars from parking on top of WSUD and compacting soils (which in turn can damage drainage properties).

Appendix 5 - Crowdsourcing (Technical Insights) With the rise of Web 2.0 and broadband internet connections, the creation and sharing of user-generated content across the global network has become possible (Goodchild 2007). Using an application programming interface, it is possible to allow users to access, input, and update information on databases through a web browser (Heipke 2010). Such information infrastructure enables practices such as the crowdsourcing of data to occur (Goodchild 2007; Hudson-Smith 2009; Heipke 2010; Rice et al. 2012). Largely driven by altruism, the sense of belonging to an online community, and interest in the potential of open-source data, volunteered geographic data is growing in volume and quality (Goodchild 2007). An array of individuals working independently and in line with the needs of communities can together create a mesh of data (Goodchild 2007). Resultantly, volunteered geographic information (VGI) is an abundant and growing data source (Goodchild 2007) made possible by user friendly and efficient data entry methods (Heipke 2010). Rice et al. (2012) suggest that with continued current development, the present interface of the GIS computational environment will become obsolete as functions will likely be executed via a browser interface utilising a networked application server. Particular members of the community, those that may be interested or care to inform council and see better management of various urban elements in their region (Goodchild 2007), will update information about their locality and draw attention to particular issues. When data is embellished with geographic coordinate attribution, it is said to be geotagged (Goodchild 2007). Spatially enabled through such a process, volunteered information can be easily interpreted on a map and be used in further analysis and management, providing economic savings and efficiency to users of the data (Williamson et al. 2010). Facilitated by technologies such as GPS equipped smartphones, crowdsourced mapping has become a viable approach to effectively gather geographically referenced data. To enable such approaches, readily accessible and user-friendly applications (Goodchild 2007) that enable the user to transmit information referenced to the earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s surface to a database which can then be utlisied by those interested in the data generated. In conjunction with smartphone technology as an approach to crowdsourcing geographic information, aerial photography can be utilised to obtain data (HudsonSmith 2009; Heipke 2010). Users can draw information into the database from their computer, mediated by a base layer of orthorectified and georeferenced imagery. The term neo-photogrammetry has been coined to describe this approach and is featured widely in applications such as Wikimapia and OpenStreetMap, as well as Google Maps (Heipke 2010; Rice et al. 2012). Such data that is most often 38

produced by contributors familiar with the local geography and environment, tends to contain less errors and deliver higher quality outcomes (Heipke 2010). Continued technological advancements and a growing user base point to the potential future benefits of embracing the crowdsourcing of geospatial data. Such data acquisition approaches enable data feedback loops which provide a platform for data validation and encourage the improvement and expansion of data holdings (NGAC 2011). This is largely achieved through the use of a robust geo-spatial program and related information infrastructure. The infrastructure which pertains to such goals is already largely developed and with appropriate extension can not only cater for the crowdsourcing of data, but can further support a mobile workforce, putting geospatial technologies in the hands of government field crews (NGAC 2011). Spatial data infrastructure (SDI) is an essential framework in facilitating the integration of spatial solutions. The concept of SDI can be articulated as the amalgamation of agencies, technologies, people, and data that in combination comprise a mapping enterprise (Goodchild 2007; Williamson et al. 2010). An example of the SDI which would underpin such implementations can be accessed through the City of Whittlesea website at http://maps.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/whittlesea-map.aspx, a map which makes use of the Google Maps API; and in site references to the Victorian Land Portal, http://www.land.vic.gov.au, which works off the state managed SDI. A further example of the use of crowdsourced information is also available through the MCMC website, linking to http://platypusspot.org/, a website interested in collecting geocoded platypus sighting locations. The extenstion of similar technologies could add value to Council’s management approaches and provide a better geographical understanding of the requirements of not only rain-garden management in Aurora, but other environmental concerns. Engagement of the public in contributing to data acquisition is an important factor to consider when implementing crowdsourcing infrastructure. As is exemplified by applications such as OpenStreetMap, public interest in the projects has a tendency to decay as major aims of the project are met, following a noted application lifecycle (Rice et al. 2012). These examples are typically crowdsourcing projects with a focus on developing a database, as opposed to the maintenance and constant review of data required in Aurora and should appropriately be addressed with a different social-software model. Thus, an important element of the implementation of such powerful tools is ensuring continued engagement and participation by community. Proposed are approaches such as easy contribution and participation as a side effect (Heipke 2010), “the fostering of a community identity through the use of blogs, user discussion forums, educational training material, videos, and methods for facilitating user social connections” (Rice et al. 2012, p 106), and innovations such as geocaching (Goodchild 2007; Hiepke 2010), geohashing and their respective gamification (Munroe 2008). Furthermore, notions of empowerment and 39

better provision of services (McLaren 2013) as well as local pride (Heipke 2010) are also important contributing factors.

Crowdsourcing has the potential to provide timely and cost efficient data acquisition and management solutions for local government. While caution ought to be taken in ensuring the completeness, accuracy, correctness and consistency of data, these matters can be navigated through good software design with built in checks and the use of data templates (Heipke 2010). As ans extensible platform with multiple applications outside the scope of urban management, crowdsourcing of usergenerated content is a logical step towards more spatially enabled local government, capable of better decision making and management through the means of a mobile interface. Geocoded information, assigned to its respective local government authority can work as a simple addition to state SDI applications which is applicable across many user interest groups. The build it once, use it a bunch, rationale behind such approaches can result in making communication between citizens and council effective and fluid, constructing a better informed, better managed society.

In the context of Aurora and more broadly urban management, crowdsourcing capabilities could be designed to allow citizens to volunteer data about spatially distributed concerns. With the opportunity to upload comments, images and assign potential issue flags or codes based on geographical location, councils would be better enabled to dispatch resources, strategise and manage these elements.

9.0 References Allison, R Chiew, F McMahon, T 1997, “Stormwater Gross Pollutants”. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Alam, K Hossain, S & Dalrymple, B, 2008, ‘WSUD in the Gold Coast’, In: New South Wales & Queensland Stormwater Industry Association Conference, 8-11th July 2008, Gold Coast, Australia. Arnold Jr., C and Gibbons, C 1996, “Impervious surface coverage: Emergence of a key environmental factor”, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 43-58. Booth, DB ans C. Jackson, R 1997, “Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection and the limits of mitigation”, Journal of the American Water Resources Association vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1077-90 Brabec, E, Schulte, S, and Richards, P 2002, "Impervious surfaces and water quality: a review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning." Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 499-514. Bouwer, H, 2002, ‘Artificial recharge of groundwater: hydrogeology and engineering’, Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 10, pp. 121-42. Callaghan, J 2010, 'Singing teaching as a profession', in S Harrison (ed.), Perspectives on teaching singing: Australian vocal pedagogues sing their stories, Australian Academic Press, Bowen Hills, Queensland City of Whittlesea GIS Asset Data. Available: City of Whittlesea (2013) Davis, AP, McCuen, RH, 2005, ‘Stormwater Management for Smart Growth’, in Springer Science, Water Parameters, 3rd edn, New York, pp. 11-36 Davis, AP, Shokouhian, M, Sharma, H, Minami, C, 2006, “Water quality improvement through bioretention media: nitrogen and phosphorus removal”, Water Environmental Research, vol. 78, pp. 284-293. Department of Sustainability and Environment 2012 Melbourne 10cm Multitemporal Photography, A3 camera system. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, January 2013. Echols, S, & Kesler, G, 2012, "Stormwater Management." Class lecture, Larch 431: Landscape Architectural Design Implementation III from The Pennsylvania State University, State College, August 21, 2012. Environmental Systems Research Institute. ArcGIS.Version 10.1. Redlands, CA:Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2012. 41

EPA Victoria (2003). Information Bulletin: Water Quality Objectives for Rivers and Streams - Ecosystem Protection. Victoria, 3006, Australia. Esteves, FA, 2011, Fundamentos de Limnologia, 3rd edn. Interciência, Rio de Janeiro, p. 790. Evangelou, VP, 1998, Environmental Soil and Water Chemistry: Principles and Applications, Wiley, New York. Gardiner, A & Hardy, M 2005, ‘Beyond demonstration mode: the application of WSUD in Australia’, Australian Planner, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 16-21. Goodchild, MF 2007, ‘Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography’, GeoJournal, Vol. 69, pp. 211–221. Goonetilleke, A, Thomas, E, Ginn, S & Gilbert, D 2005, ‘Understanding the role of land use in urban stormwater quality management’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 74, pp. 31-42. Goonetilleke, A, Egodawatta, P. & Rajapakse, J. 2011, Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) application auditing, Queensland University of Technology, viewed 22 August 2013, <http://eprints.qut.edu.au/60610/1/Water_Sensitive_Urban_Design_(WSUD)_applica tion_auditing.pdf> Harmancioglu, NB, Fistikoglu, O, Ozkul, SD, Singh, VP & Alpaslan, M.N. 1999, ‘Water quality monitoring network design’, in Kluwer Academic Publishers (1st ed.), Current Status of Monitoring Network and Design Procedures, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Hatt, BE Deletic, A & Fletcher, TD 2007, ‘Stormwater reuse: designing biofiltration systems for reliable treatment’, Water Science Technology, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 201-9. Heipke, C 2010, ‘Crowdsourcing geospatial data’, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Vol. 65, pp. 550-557. Horner, RR, Booth, DB, Azous, A & May, CW 1997, “Watershed determinants of ecosystem functioning”, Journal of Planning Literature Hudson-Smith, A, Batty, M, Crooks, A & Milton, R 2009, ‘Mapping for the Masses: Accessing Web 2.0 Through Crowdsourcing’, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 27, pp. 524–538. Klein, RD 1979, “Urbanization and stream quality impairment”, Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 948-63 Langergraber, G, Haberl, R, Laber, J & Pressi, A 2003, ‘Evaluation of substrate clogging processes in vertical flow constructed wetlands’, Water Science and Technology, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 25–34. 42

Le Coustumer, S, Fletcher, TD, Deletic, A & Potter, M 2007, Hydraulic performance of biofilter systems for stormwater management: first lessons from both laboratory and field studies’, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 56, No. 10, pp. 93-100. Lim, J 2003, Aurora development challenges. Paper presented at the ‘Managing the Changing Colours of Water’ Joint Seminar of the Australian Water Associated and the Stormwater Industry Association of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 5 November 2003. Lloyd, SD 2001, ‘Water Sensitive Design in the Australian Context’, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology Technical Report 1/7, proceedings of a conference, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 30-31 August 2000. <http://www.catchment.crc.org.au/pdfs/technical200107.pdf> Maxted, JR & Shaver, E 1998, “The use of retention basins to mitigate stormwater impacts to aquatic life”, paper presented at the national conference on urban retrofit opportunities for water resources protection in urban areas, 1998, Chicago, Illinois, USA. May, CW, Horner, RR, Karr, JR, Mar, BW & Welch, EB 1997, ‘Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound lowland ecoregion’, Watershed Protection Techniques, vol. 2, no. 4 pp. 483-94. McLaren, R 2013, National mapping agencies: between a rock and a hard location, 6 September, accessed 20 October 2013, <http://www.geospatialworld.net/paper/application/ArticleView.aspx?aid=25326#st hash.DaMRz0rV.dpuf> McLean, J 2004, “Aurora - Delivering a sustainable urban water system for a new suburb”, paper presented at WSUD 2004: Cities as Catchments; International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design, Barton, A.C.T. : Engineers Australia, 2004. McManus, R 2009, ‘Water sensitive urban design barriers and opportunities in Darwin’, discussion paper prepared for the department of planning and infrastructure, Northern Territory Government, Darwin. Melbourne Water Corporation & EPA Victoria 2009, “Better Bays and Waterways”, Environment Protection Authority Victoria, viewed 22 August 2013 http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/our-work/programs/better-bays-and-waterways>. Melbourne Water 2012. Annual Water Quality Factsheet - Long Term Water Quality Monitoring Sites. Victoria, Australia. Miltner, R. J. “Urbanization influences on biotic integrity in the Cuyahoga River Basin”, paper presented at the 59th Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, 7 December 1997, 43

<www.carmelacanzonieri.com/library/6123/MiltnerBioticIntegrityStreamsUrbLandscp.pdf>. Munroe, R 2008, 426, accessed 22 October 2013, viewed <http://www.xkcd.com/426/> National Geospatial Advisory Committee 2011, Best Practices For Local Government Geospatial Programs, accessed 15 October 2013, <https://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/march-2011/ngac-local-gov-gis-bestpractices-paper.pdf> Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, 2005 ‘How to measure performance: a handbook of techniques and tools’, viewed 3 September 2013, <http://www.orau.gov/pbm/handbook/handbook_all.pdf> Paranhos, R. (1996). Alguns métodos para análise da água. Rio de Janeiro, Cadernos didáticos, UFRJ. Pinto-Silva, V. (2002). Manual de análise limnológica: métodos e técnicas. Cuiabá, UFMT. Rice, MT, Paez, IF, Mulhollen, AP, Shore, BM 2012, ‘Crowdsourced geospatial data: a report on the emerging phenomena of crowdsourced and user-generated geospatial data’, monitored by U.S. Army Topographic Engineering Center. Roy, A, Wenger, S, Fletcher, T, Walsh, C, Ladson, A, Shuster, W, Thurston, H, & Brown, R 2008, ‘Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale urban stormwater management: lessons from Australia and the United States”, Environmental Management, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 344-359. Strobl, RO, Robillard, PD, Shannon, RD, Day, RL, McDonnell, AJ 2006, ‘A water quality monitoring network design methodology for the selection of critical sampling point: part I’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. vol. 112, p. 137-58. Stumm, W & Morgan, JJ 1996, Aquatic chemistry, Wiley, New York. Sydney Catchment Management Authority 2012, ‘About WSUD in Sydney’, Water Sensitive Urban Design Program, NSW, viewed 4 September 2013 <http://www.wsud.org/wsud-in-sydney/about-wsud-in-sydney/> th

Taylor, A & Wong, T 2002, 'Non-structural stormwater quality best management practices - an overview of their use, value, cost and evaluation', Clayton, Vic. : Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Urbonas, BR 1999, ‘Design of a sand filter for stormwater quality enhancement’, Water Environment Research, Vol. 71, pp.102-113.

Van Roon, M 2005, ‘Emerging approaches to urban ecosystem management: the potential of low impact urban design and development principles’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 7, 1, pp. 125-148. Victorian Government Data Directory. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne (2013) Victorian Stormwater Committee 1991, Urban Stormwater Best-Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, CSIRO Publishing, viewed 5 September 2013, <http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/2190.htm>. VicUrban 2003, ‘Aurora Development Plan Part 1’, City of Whittlesea, viewed 20 August 2013 <http://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/building-planning-andtransport/planning-and-development/planning-for-the-future/epping-wollertplans/~/media/Files/Building%20Planning%20and%20Transport/Future/Aurora%20 Development%20Plan%20-%20Part%201.pdf>. VicUrban 2007a, ‘Aurora Development Plan Part 2’, City of Whittlesea, viewed 20 August 2013 <http://www.aurora.asn.au/wp-content/plugins/downloadsmanager/upload/Aurora_Development_Plan_2%20_Pt_1_pi-42.pdf>. VicUrban 2007b, ‘Aurora Rain Gardens Installation Guide’, VicUrban, Melbourne, viewed 20 August 2013 <http://www.wsud.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Aurora-RaingardenInstallation-Guide-for-Verification-manual-180607.pdf>. VicUrban 2008, ‘Aurora – the new standard of living’, VicUrban, Melbourne, viewed 20 August 2013 <http://www.aurora.asn.au/wp-content/plugins/downloadsmanager/upload/Aurora%20%20General%20Powerpoint%20Presentation%20about%20Project%20%2021%20May%202008.pdf>. VicUrban 2011 ‘Your new home at Aurora’, VicUrban, Melbourne, viewed 20 August 2013 <http://www.aurora.asn.au/wp-content/plugins/downloadsmanager/upload/Aurora_Greenguide_Dec2011R.pdf>. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Ladson AR 2005, ‘Stream restoration in urban catchments through re-designing stormwater systems: looking to the catchment to save the stream’, Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 24, pp. 690–705. Wang, L, Lyons, J, Kanehl, P, Bannerman, R & Emmons, E 2002, ‘Watershed urbanization and changes in fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams’, Journal Of The American Water Resources Association, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 11731189. Waterwatch Victoria 2009, ‘Interpreting River Health Data’, Waterwatch Vic, viewed 22 Oct 2013. 45

<http://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/54382/Interpreting-RiverHealth-Data_Waterwatch-Victoria.pdf> Winter, KJ, Goetz, D, 2003, ‘The impact of sewage composition on the soil clogging phenomena of vertical flow constructed wetlands’, Water Science and Technology, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 9–14. Williamson, I, Enemark, S, Wallace, J, Rajabifard, A 2010, Land Administration for Sustainable Development, California: ESRI press. Wong, THF 2006, ‘An Overview of Water Sensitive Urban Design Practices’ in Australia. Water Practice and Technology, vol 1 Wong, THF 2007, ‘Water sensitive urban design – the journey thus far’, Environment Design Guide, vol. 11, pp. 1–10.