research history

History of Winnererremy Bay

Until recent times most of the foreshore land extending from Mona Street through to Rowland Reserve was owned by the State Government and zoned 5(a) Special Uses.

The land had been poorly maintained and was in a degraded state being a dumping ground and harbouring noxious and environmental weeds.

A significant part of the Winnererremy Bay foreshore and beachfront was also being used by waterway operators to store piles, mooring blocks and building materials in an unregulated and haphazard manner.

The State Government sought to develop their land at Winnererremy baywith a proposal for a mixed density residential development.Much of the foreshore land surrounding Winnererremy Bay resulted from major dredging works that took place in the late 1960's.

Council and the community objected to this proposed use and argued that the land was the last area of Pittwater foreshore land that offered the opportunity it should be turned into a greenhouse park. The State Government would only agree if Council purchased the land and resolved the other land use issues taking place on their land.

A rescue package was developed by Council to fund the acquisition and resolve the land use issues. This involved planning for and accommodating the following:
The subdivision and sale of both Council's Mona Street Depot and Quays Depot to pay the State Government for the acquisition of the land and achieve a range of strategic outcomes. The provision of a regulated facility to accommodate the waterway contractors in a designated and screened area adjoining Rowland Reserve. (Note the zoning has a specific schedule to permit this use). The retention of the majority of the available open space as public recreation space and environmental protection areas. A Special Committee of Council, the Winnererremy Bay Committee, was established to progress the foreshore land acquisition and provide a community consultation forum. Initial sketch plan put to State Government in negotiation for transfer of land to public ownership. Initial proposal to subdivide depot to finance purchase of open space.
An initial masterplan was prepared for the Winnererremy Bay area outlining the communities visions for the area.

The Winnerremy Bay Committee was formed to guide the masterplan process and keep the local community informed ofdevelopments.

The masterplan formed the basis for the purchase of the land from the State Government and briefing of consultants for the Plan of Management.

Following development of the masterplan for the entire Winnererremy Bay area a masterplan was prepared for the parkland area indicating the following design elements:

Regional playground incorporating playground equipment, dry creek bed and proposed kiosk
Car park to service playground and adjacent school site
Perimeter cycleway
Interpretative/cultural elements
Perimeter tree planting
Mounding, seating and BBQ's

The playground was designed to incorporate equipment not usually seen in playgrounds and used to offer a whole new concept of play experience.

A dry creek bed was constructed to provide a further level of play adventure utilising sculptural theming and super advanced plant material.

Breakfall areas generally including sand or rubber were installed. The rubber breakfall has incorporated murals to blend with the feel of the overall area.

To further enhance the recreational value of the park, electric BBQ's and shade structures along with associated furniture were installed. A café has also been constructed which services both park and playground users and passers by.

The park is a very popular destination for picnickers and party goers as well as keen dog walkers or mums and dads who wish to bring their children to a safe but innovative play area. The park has been recognised as an award winning recreational area by the Parks & Leisure Industry

tests from the 18th and summary of water and soil

today i restested my samples that i had collected on the weekend
these were very quick tests as i already had a slight idea of what the results were going to be

for phosphates of the water, i got the same result:
0 - 10 ppm

for pH of soil and water i obtained the following averages:
Grassy area
1) 6.998
2) 7.109


Plant car park area:
1) 6.745
2) 7.019


for salt content of the soil and water i got the same results:
1 drop added for cloudiness
this meant that the samples were very salty





i have been constantly analyzing the pollution levels of the water. these varied according to when i collected my samples. when i collected the water when the park wasnt very busy the water was very clear. the turbidity was the lowest value and there were no evident signs of pollution.

this was quite the opposite to the samples collected when the park was very busy. there were sediments floating around in the water and the water didnt look very clean. the turbidity therefore, was affected.


i have also been analyzing the soils. the soild fomr this area have constantly been dry. they are not clayey and bind together when water is added. it is light in colour in some areas, due to the high sand content. but it onther areas like the area of the carpark the soils are darker. they are just as dry and made up of fine granuels. the soils of this area are constantly dry and sandy. they are not malueable and are quite dark in colour in general.

saturday - 16th mroe soil and water samples

today i collected some more soil and water samples from the areas marked out on the maps

i need to test them all on Monday and Tuesday and i went when the park wasnt busy, so i can already tell the water is less polluted and more similar to the 1st water samples.

planning strategies + risk assessment sheet

the first image is of the risk assessment sheet that we had to fill in regarding any dangers we may encounter during the various tests

the second image is that of my plan of what to when i went to the park for the first time. i did all of the things i set out to do except take photos. the camera wasn't charged so i have to do that next weekend.

the last image is of a time table i had constructed to help me sort out what i was doing when. i didn't exactly follow this time table and i have to backtrack in order to blog another accurate one.

research - public view on bayview

www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au

This park is sure to prove irresistible for four-legged family members.Not only is the entire reserve off-leash at all times, dogs are allowed to play without a lead along the beach fronting the reserve.

There is also a dog exercise area and doggy poo bins to keep the area clean. For pet owners who are boating enthusiasts, the reserve has a launching ramp.

This scenic reserve is set on Pittwater and offers majestic views over to Newport and up to Scotland Island.

It's an ideal spot for a family picnic, with ample parking, toilet facilities and peaceful places to sit.

The gentle waters are a safe playground. Children will enjoy splashing beside the water's edge just as much as the family's canine members.

Rowland Reserve is only a short walk around the foreshore from Winnererremy Bay Reserve, where there is a big new playground and the Flying Fox Cafe.

Once visitors leave Rowland Reserve, dogs must be put back on a leash


in regards to the children splashing in the water, before i conducted my tests, i thought this might be a bit dangerous for their health. but i was wrong. the tests show that the water doesn't have high pH levels or levels of phosphates so it is not too much of a worry.
maybe dont let them go in with all the dogs because they pollute it a bit.


http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22651626-5010580,00.html

variables in need of control

the variables that i needed to control to make this a fair investigation were:

• where i collected the samples from. if i hadn't set out places on the grassy area and in the plant rich car park area, the test would not have been fair.
• i needed to also control where i got the water samples from. this is why i constantly had photos of maps, so i knew where i tested firstly so i could test around that area once again
  
• the thing i tried to change was when i got the samples and although this didn't make a huge difference in all aspects of the tests, it did affect the pollution level observations
  

hypothesis

this may seem a bit late, but now because i have completed so many tests, i am starting to hypothesize and draw conclusions about the Rowland reserve

for pH, i thought the soil would be neutral solely because the bay is not exposed to factors that could really alter the pH of the soil. It is not exposed to massive amounts of pollution or acids or detergents/fertilizers. it is sort of left alone for the dogs to play in so i wasn't really expecting the pH to be anything radical. this is much the same for the water pH.

for moisture content i did guess that the result was not going to be too drastic. i did observe that the soil had gotten dryer after being in the oven but i knew the soil was dry ever since i collected it. i wasn't expecting it to be a great loss to the already dry, drained soil.

for turbidity i never really thought that the water would be very murky. this was supported by my first lot of samples but i found out that it did have the potential, when busy to be quite polluted. the turbidity only reached between 20 - 30 so it wasnt what i had expected.

for the presence of salts test, i had hypothesized that the results would be what they were. Rowland reserve is a each or a bay with salt water, so it was self explanatory that the soil and water would both be very salty.

for the presence of phosphates i didn't really know if bayview would have many or not so i based my hypothesis on the results obtained from the excursion. i didn't think there would be many just as the bay is quite undisturbed. there is not abundant amounts of pollution and there is no storm water drain or anything like that so i wasnt expecting there to be a lot of phosphates present.

tests as of the 13th of may

On Monday at lunch time, i tested my soil and water samples further.
I used more equipment that i added to the equipment list blog entry
i tested for turbidity, pH, presence of phosphates and moisture content

turbidity:

• i noticed that my first lot of water samples was a lot clearer and showed evidence of less pollution
• i think that this was because i got my second lot of samples from the park when it was busy and dogs were running around and disturbing the sediments in the water
  
• what i did to test for turbidity, was slowly pour my water samples into the tube, stopping at each level that was marked on the tube, looking through to make sure i could still see the 3 lines

• so, for the first lot of water which was clear and clean, it was obvious that the turbidity would be less than 5 as i could fill the whole tube and still see the lines on the bottom
  
• however, for the second lot of water, i noticed that i could only fill the tube up to between 20 and 30 NTU's level.
  
• this meant that the water was evidently murkier and more polluted and the turbidity final level was between 20 - 30 NTU's.
  

pH levels:

• this was the second time i had tested for pH levels of the soil and water
  
• the results i got were:
• FOR SOIL (from the grassy area)
  
• a):
• 7.50
  
• 7.35
• 7.27
• average = 7.373
• b)
• 7.10
• 7.23
• 7.07
• average = 7.13
• c)
• 7.60
• 7.42
• 7.39
• average = 6.723
• d)
• 7.64
• 7.22
• 7.08
• average = 7.313

• FOR SOIL (from the plant area near the car park)
• a)
• 6.90
• 6.25
• 7.02
• average = 6.723
  
• b)
• 7.25
• 7.45
• 6.98
• average = 7.226
  
• c)
• 6.99
• 6.75
• 7.03
• average = 6.923
• d)
• 7.02
  
• 6.95
• 6.88
  
• average = 6.95

• FOR WATER (GREEN SIDE ON MAP)
• 629
• 6.30
• 6.45
• average = 6.346
  
  

• FOR WATER (PURPLE SIDE ON MAP)
• 6.47
• 6.52
• 6.38
• average = 6.456
• FOR WATER (BLUE SIDE OF MAP)
• 6.35
• 6.40
• 6.57
• average = 6.44
  

presence of phosphates:

• this test was one of the most simple to conduct
  
• all i had to do was order the phosphate strips, dip them in the water for 1 - 2 seconds and leave them for 3 - 5 minutes, or until i saw a colour change. once i saw a colour change, i compared it to the chart on the side of the tin
  
• i tested all six of my samples, by pouring each into a beaker and dipping a strip into each and waiting for a change
  
• for each and every sample i got the same result:

• 0 - 10 parts per million (ppm)

Moisture content:

• the moisture content was quite a time consuming test
  
• what i had to do was order a scale and 8 evaporating basins
  
• i had to weight he basins then re weigh once i had added 4 spoon fulls of soil
  
• i recorded my results, put the samples into individual zip lock bags and put them in my back to take home
  
• once i got home, i put each of the soil samples back in the basin and into the oven on 100 degrees for 1 hour
• once they had cooled after i took them out, i placed them back in the siplock bags and brought them back to school to re weigh
  

the results i obtained were as follows:

grassy area samples:

1st sample:
all in grams****

• weight of basin alone = 36.2
  
• weight of basin + soil = 45.3
  
• weight after being in the oven = 43.4
  
• % of moisture content = 4.19%

2nd sample:

• weight of basin alone = 39.5
  
• weight of basin + soil = 49.9
  
• weight after being in the oven =46.9
  
• % of moisture content = 6.01%

3rd sample:

• weight of basin alone = 54.3
  
• weight of basin + soil = 66.7
  
• weight after being in the oven = 64.2
  
• % of moisture content = 3.75%

4th sample:

• wight of basin alone = 42.9
  
• weight of basin + soil = 49.7
  
• weight after being in oven = 47.6
  
• % of moisture content = 4.23%

plant area samples from the car park:

1st sample:

• weight of basin alone = 40.2
  
• weight of basin + soil = 48.6
  
• weight after being in oven = 46.5
  
• % of moisture content = 4.3%

2nd sample:

• weight of basin alone = 48.4
• weight of basin + soil = 54.4
• weight after being in the oven = 52.4
• % of moisture content = 3.8%

3rd sample:

• weight of basin alone = 40.6
  
• weight of basin + soil = 46.7
  
• weight after being in the oven = 44.2
  
• % of moisture content = 5.35%

4th sample:

• weight of basin alone = 54.3
• weight of basin + soil = 60.9
  
• weight after being in the oven = 57.5
  
• % of moisture content = 5.58%

from these results, i have been able to draw the conclusion that the soil samples i took did have a decent amount of moisture. however, i think they will be less than other girls in the class. this is because i noticed the soil was dry when i collected it. it was sandy and i dint expect it to be moisture rich and i am eager to find out the results of the organic content test.

tests for salts - 6th may

today during lunch, and continuing into period five. and i NEEDED ALL THIS TIME!!

this test was the longest, however i did eventually get my results.
i didn't need much help from ms B, simply because i had already seen Eliza and Sarah doing it and had talked to Eliza about what to do
the only thing i couldn't work out was how to get the filter paper to stay in the funnel
but ms B helped, and i was on my way

What i did for soil was:

• set up 3 retort stands with boss heads and clamps
  
• placed a funnel in each of these clamps
  
• using 3 of the 4 samples taken from the grassy area first, i placed one piece of filter paper, securing it in place with some demineralized water in each funnel, and poured the mixture of each sample (2 spoons of soil and demineralilzed water) into the funnel
  
• i waited for enough of the solution to drain
• and then added, drop by drop, the silver nitrate. this was using my black cardigan as a backdrop so i could observe the colour change more accurately
  
• i repeated this experiment 3 times for each of the 8 samples and got the same results every time
• my experiment was reliable and there was no major variation in results :)

My results:

this is measured in how many drops of silver nitrate i had to add to the solution before i saw some colour change and that the solution had gone cloudy

• for the samples of soil from the park area:
• a) 1 drop (each time)
  
• b) 1 drop (each time)
• c) 1 drop (each time)
• d) 1 drop (each time)

• for the samples of soil from the more moist area near the car park, under the tree:
• a) 1 drop (each time)
• b) 1 drop (each time)
• c) 1 drop (each time)
• d) 1 drop (each time)

What i did for water was:

• set up a test tube rack, with 6 small test tubes
  
• rinsed them out, to avoid contamination
  
• filled each with some of the water sample (purple, green, blue)
• this meant that the test was already being repeat twice, which i then did it another time
• but i added, drop by drop the silver nitrate
• the results once again were all the same :)

My results:

• for the water from the sand spit:
• a) 1 drop (each time - 3)
• for the water from the popular side:
  
• a) 1 drop (each time - 3)
• for the water from the more narrow side:
• a) 1 drop (each time - 3)

some other results i noticed was that with the water, not the soil, after adding the silver nitrate, not only did the water turn cloudy buy small clumps formed and began to sink to the bottom.

some photos:


The set up of the experiment



6 of the cloudy samples after 1 drop




1 of the test tubes. As you can see, sediments are forming where the silver nitrate has been added. and every tube turned out like this.

what i had to remember to do with the solutions i had added silver nitrate to was to put the waste in the waste bucket rose had ordered. this is a requirement as the chemical can be dangerous if not handled with care.

I have developed a scale:

1 - 2 drops = very salty ***
3 - 4 drops = medium salt quantity
5 - 6 drops = little salt content
>6 drops or no reaction = almost no salt

problem managment strategies

all equiptment needed

i have decided to have this post as an ongoing post, which i can add materials to once i use them. this is to help with my final report.

so far i have used:

• data logger and pH probe (4th may)
• 5 80mL beakers
• an inordinate amount of zip lock bags
  
• 3 large bottles

to add to this from the 6th of may:

• 3 retort stands
  
• 3 glass funnels
  
• 3 boss heads and clamps
• 12 80 mL beakers
• 3 150mL beakers
  
• 2 bench mats
  
• 2 bottles of demineralized water
• gloves
• silver nitrate
• 1 metal spoon
  
• filter paper X 12
• test tube rack
  
• 9 test tubes

as of the 13th of may:

• 6 phosphate strips
  
• data logger and pH probe
  
• 16 evaporating basins
• plastic zip lock bags X 16
• my oven
  
• metal spoon from lab
• turbidity tube
  
• electronic scale
  

Yesterday's lesson (4th may - monday)

in yesterdays lesson, i forgot to bring in the soil samples i had collected on the weekend. i did however, test my previous soils that were collected after rain. I don't think these samples are of the best quality - simply because i was in the dark and could not see what i was doing, however i did manage to obtain some results. I tested both the water and then soil for pH levels.

What i did was:

• i had already ordered the pH probe and the data logger on Friday
  
• i started the lesson asking Ms B for guidance and she then demonstrated the precautions to take when using the very expensive and fragile equipment to me and other members of the class.
  
• then, following her instructions of keeping the probe in the bile when i was not using it and removing it carefully, avoiding contamination, i measured the pH of my samples
• i took note of the pH when the probe was in the bile to make sure no contamination had occurred (ideally it was meant to be between 4 and 5)
• i repeated the test of each sample 3 times, to make sure it was accurate, then recorded an average
  

The results i obtained:

• for the 1st soil sample which was taken from the grassy area where the dogs play, i got:
• a) 7.95
• b) 7.93
• c) 7.50
• Average = 7.793
• for the 2nd soil sample which was also taken from the grassy area, just the other end, i got:
• a) 6.11
  
• b) 6.26
  
• c) 6.19
• Average = 6.186
  

• for the 1st water sample which was taken from out on the sand spit i got:
• a) 6.35
  
• b) 6.31
  
• c) 6.38
  
• Average = 6.346
• for the 2nd water sample taken from the popular and wider side of the beach i got:
• a) 6.97
• b) 6.52
• c) 6.46
• Average = 6.65
• for the 3rd water sample taken from the more narrow side of the beach i got:
• a) 6.69
• b) 6.92
• c) 6.74
• Average = 6.783

i felt that this test was good as i was able to establish myself with the equipment
however, i will be using my other soil samples as well for future tests, and therefore will need to repeat the pH test on both them and the other water samples i will collect on the weekend.






i have colour coded the water sample results to match the map and where each sample is from.
the sand spit is purple
the wider, more popular area is green
and the less popular, more narrow area is blue

Updated maps

in the satellite image, the areas i have marked blue are where i need to get my water samples from on saturday (9th may) and if i can, i am going to swim to the area in the water marked green. The areas i have marked pink are where i collected my soil samples last weekend and yet again, the areas marked green are where i would like to collect more soil if i need to.

soil samples from this afternoon

This afternoon i went to bay view,
it was packed with dogs and I'm hoping that will make some of the samples different. Also, i think the results will differ as it has been a longer period of time since it rained up there.

i have collected 4 samples from the grassy area where the dogs run and play. that soil was very sandy, so to try to vary my results, i collected some soil (4 SAMPLES) from the area of the reserve near the car park.

i collected it from close to the trees and i noticed it was less sandy and more moist so i hoping the results will be different.





the areas shaded green on this map are where i took my samples from
i now have 8 in total

more information

its the first of may by the way...

Pittwater Council
Foreshore Restoration Works at Rowland Reserve Bayview
$100,000

The north foreshore of Rowland Reserve, Bayview is exposed to long fetch wave corrosion. Over the past 15 years this foreshore area has eroded by approximately 20 metres resulting in increased sediment load into Pittwater estuary, lack of riparian edge on Pittwater of approximately 4,500 m2 and a reduction in deep water channels for recreational boating adjacent to the two regional boat ramps at Rowland Reserve, which are provided by Pittwater Council. Stabilisation of 150 lineal metres of badly eroded foreshore. The stabilisation will be achieved by regrading the existing batter, reclaiming eroded material where possible and armouring the batter with graded river stones and geotextile fabrics, Interspace endemic plant species into batter recreating estuarine foreshore vegetation which will include Juncus krausii. Recreate riparian zone of 750 m2 by replanting endemic plants, of all vegetation strata – low, mid and canopy species including salt marsh habitat

(last updated 22 feb 2009)


http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/grants/2006slsummary.htm#Pittwaterfore