evaluation report for Stage 1 of the project (PDF file, 1004kb)

Kincumber Creek Rehabilitation Project, Stage 1 

Evaluation and Monitoring Project 

Report to Gosford City Council 

Plate 1: Saltwort (Sarcocornia quinqueflora) flowering on a jetty, 

Native Flora of Kincumber Creek, Zone E, Kincumber Creek 2004 

Diane Warman 

Centre for Sustainability 

Central Coast Community Environment Network 

(CCCEN) Inc 

PO Box 149 

Ourimbah NSW 2258 

cccen@cccen.org.au

Kincumber Creek Evaluation and Monitoring Project, Stage 1, 2004 

Dedication 

Kincumber locals really do care for Kincumber, even though it’s been a dumping 

ground to many, for many decades. 

I’ve dedicated this report to James McKenzie, He spent the last three years of his 

life committing his time to keeping Kincumber clean of rubbish. He was a daily sight, 

until mid April, walking along the Broadwater foreshore, the roads and reserves, 

preventing rubbish dumped by uncaring passers from entering Kincumber Creek and 

the Broadwater. 

Kincumber is a nicer place to live thanks to James McKenzie. Hopefully, with his 

passing Kincumber’s rubbish won’t pile up into a big heap. 

CCCEN Page 2


Acknowledgements 

Thanks to all the locals in Kincumber who care for Kincumber Creek: to Dennis 

O’Toole for his bird records, to those who responded to the survey and the many that 

contributed their time and effort to tree planting and other community activities during 

Stage 1. 

Thanks also to Dr Salim Momtaz, of University of Newcastle, and to Dr Anita 

Chalmers, also of University of Newcastle, for their valuable feedback. 

CCCEN Page 3


Executive Summary 

Kincumber Creek remains a stream in stress. However, Stage 1 results have 

demonstrated that the community values the creek, especially for its 

ecological value, and support expenditure of resources for rehabilitation. 

Despite water quality issues, currently being addressed by Council-convened 

committee, ecological values have been enhanced by a mixture of on-ground 

techniques involving though not relying on community volunteer labour. 

The assets that the creek displays include a diversity of structurally complete 

vegetation communities, a wildlife corridor and habitat for in excess of 140 

bird species and other fauna. Challenges to the success of the project lie in 

the very nature of the stream’s demise, that is human intervention. Typically, 

those zones most impacted by human development were the least resilient 

and displayed the greatest challenges. 

The stream will continue to erode with the current stormwater input and 

speedboat use. It is only with positive human intervention that the creek will 

improve. Much information has been gained and partnerships developed 

which will provide momentum and success to ongoing stages of the project. 

CCCEN Page 4


Table of Contents 

1 Summary Information ..........................................................................................6 

1.1 Outcomes and Recommendations .............................................................6 

1.1.1 Physical programme .......................................................................6 

1.1.2 Social programme...........................................................................8 

1.2 Recommended Key Activities...................................................................11 

2 Introduction........................................................................................................12 

2.1 Aims..........................................................................................................12 

3 Field Survey ......................................................................................................13 

3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................13 

3.1.1 Aim................................................................................................13 

3.1.2 Objectives.....................................................................................14 

3.2 Methodology.............................................................................................14 

3.2.1 Site Audit ......................................................................................15 

3.2.2 Vegetation Condition ....................................................................15 

3.3 Results......................................................................................................16 

3.3.2 Site Audit ......................................................................................17 

3.3.3 Vegetation Condition ....................................................................23 

3.4 Summary of Field Survey .........................................................................28 

3.4.1 Zone A ..........................................................................................28 

3.4.2 Zone B ..........................................................................................29 

3.4.3 Zone C..........................................................................................30 

3.4.4 Zone DN (north)............................................................................30 

3.4.5 Zone DS (south) ...........................................................................31 

3.4.6 Zone E ..........................................................................................32 

3.4.7 Zone F ..........................................................................................33 

3.4.8 Zone G..........................................................................................33 

3.4.9 Zone H.........................................................................................34 

4 Community Survey............................................................................................35 

4.1 Introduction...............................................................................................35 

4.1.1 Aim................................................................................................35 

4.1.2 Objectives.....................................................................................35 

4.2 Methodology.............................................................................................35 

4.2.1 Target Audience ...........................................................................35 

4.2.2 Survey Design ..............................................................................35 

4.3 Results......................................................................................................37 

4.3.1 Respondent characteristics ..........................................................37 

4.3.2 Likert style questions (Attitudinal) .................................................37 

4.3.3. Ranked Responses ......................................................................38 

4.3.4 Closed Questions .........................................................................40 

4.3.5 Open Questions............................................................................43 

4.4 Summary of Community Survey...............................................................47 

5 Summary of Community Water Quality Monitoring Effort, Stage 1. ..................48 

6 Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................49 

Council/Community partnerships ......................................................................49 

Evaluation and Monitoring process ...................................................................49 

7 References........................................................................................................51 

8 Observed fauna of Kincumber Creek, 2004 ......................................................52 

9 Appendices........................................................................................................56 

9.1 Community Survey............................................................................................56 

9.2 List of Random Numbers used to monitor vegetation along Kincumber 

Creek, 2004..............................................................................................57 

CCCEN Page 5


1 Summary Information 

1.1 Outcomes and Recommendations 

1.1.1 Physical programme 

Table 1: Summary of strategies for the rehabilitation of Kincumber Creek against outcomes of Stage 1. 

KCRMP 

Strategy 

No. 

Zone 

Objective Outcome Recommendations 

1. H A 50m wide transect along the riparian zone is measured in one 

year and it is found that the species richness has not declined 

since project commencement. 

Outcome reached. Species richness has not declined. 

Continue annual monitoring and research. 

8. E In 1 year, 95% of a 2-5m wide x 200m long stretch of riparian 

zone is revegetated and there is only 5% bare ground. 

12. DS In 3 months, the sedimentation along a 100m stretch of riparian 

zone is repaired and within 1 year, the riparian zone is 

revegetated so that only 5% is bare soil. 

14. DN In 1 year, a 5m buffer zone is revegetated to include structural 

complexity of the reference system. 

15. DN Over a 50m stretch of riparian zone, annual monitoring reveals 

that saltmarsh is rehabilitating so that in 5 years it has returned 

to 100% of species composition of reference site. 

Success of revegetation efforts reduced by vandalism. There 

is approximately 12% bare ground (particularly around end 

Gunya Rd). 

It was found that it was not necessary to repair the 

sedimentation fence. There remains 51% bare soil (on 20% of 

zone). However, the groundcover appears to be regenerating 

well. 

Outcome to some degree reached. Successful revegetation 

attempts reduced by vandalism. The buffer zone has been 

identified as a no-mow zone to increase the potential of the 

buffer. However, there is approximately 40% success with 

those plantings hidden amongst a dense layer of Kikuyu. 

Successful revegetation attempts reduced by vandalism. Kids 

continue to create bike tracks in this small section of DN. A 

small section also appears to be not regenerating due 

possibly, to acidic soil. On average across the 200m surveyed, 

saltmarsh 90% of species composition of reference site. 

Recommend low fencing of remnant 

vegetation 

Define as official Council foreshore “nomow” 

zone to only 2-5m where applicable. 

Impose warnings and fines for trimming/ 

clearing for views. 

Continue annual monitoring. 


Bush Regeneration contractors weed 

around successful plantings. 


Council investigate alternative area for BMX 

bike riders to discourage use of section of 

DN. 


17. DN During an annual site audit, it is found that only 1 shopping bag Visual Pollution (litter washed up on tide) was not considered Recommend research into alternative 

of litter is collected along a 200m stretch. 

a threat in this Zone during this survey period. However, note strategies at point of source. Eg fit gross 

that it was in other zones. 

pollutant traps on stormwater outlets. Would 

be a good tool for research and ongoing 

CCCEN Page 6


KCRMP 

Strategy 

No. 

Zone Objective Outcome Recommendations 

be a good tool for research and ongoing 

monitoring. Perhaps investigate funding 

from EPA? 

19. C A 2m wide riparian zone rehabilitated to 100% of structural 

complexity of reference zone. 

Reference zone should be E47 grading to E40. Grey 

Mangrove and River Mangrove line the creek. However, the 

weed Lantana camara covers 38% of the combined average 

across of 6 transects at 1-3m. 

Contractors maintain previous bush 

regeneration 


24. B In 1 year, a 100m stretch of riparian zone is revegetated with a 

complexity of locally indigenous species and erosion has ceased. 

25. B In 3 months, Council has removed excess debris from culvert at 

Empire Bay Drive. 

33. A In 1 year, a 200m stretch of riparian zone has been rehabilitated 

such that the structural complexity is 50% of reference site. 

35. All In 1 year, a wildlife corridor along the Creek is identified and 

steps taken to protect old growth trees with hollow potential and 

new trees planted and nest boxes installed. 

Outcome met. Erosion identified in the KCRMP has been 

repaired by Council. 

A 100m stretch of riparian zone was revegetated with 

approximately a 70% success rate. 

Outcome reached. Debris was removed. 

Reference site is E37 (Bell 2004). In the remnant, structural 

complexity is 50% of zone. 

However beyond remnant - currently cleared. Revegetation is 

approximately 60% successful. 

Not within scope of this report. 

Bush regeneration contractors follow up 

maintenance. 

Ongoing monitoring of buildup. Again, point 

of source strategy required as in 17. above. 

Bush regeneration contractors - follow up 

maintenance around plantings. 

Collect Seed and grow for annual Tree 

Planting Days. 

Seek support from CCCEN Wildlife 

Corridors project 

CCCEN Page 7


1.1.2 Social programme 

Table 2: 2003 Outcomes against 2002 Measurable Objectives, Kincumber Creek Rehabilitation Project, 2004. 

KCRMP 

Strategy 

No. 

Zone 

Objective Outcome Recommendations 

2. H In 3 months, a Fact Sheet on Kincumber Creek saltmarsh is prepared 

and posted in shopping centre display and to schools 

Completed. 27% of survey respondents had 

sighted Fact Sheet. 

Council liaise with local schools to utilise as project. 

Reprint for Council library (particularly Kincumber) 

3. H In one year, research project is underway. Outcome reached. Research on saltmarsh in 

Gosford LGA close to completion. 

4. G Water quality data is obtained on 10 occasions to identify pollutants. Water quality data was obtained on 1 occasion 

from this site. 

Report findings to public 

Liaise with Kincumber High School/community to 

establish Waterwatch group at this site. 

5. G A survey of adjoining residents in 1 year indicates that residents are 

aware of domestic animals impact on local flora and fauna and are 

willing to take steps to conserve wildlife. 

6. G In 1 year, a Bushcare group is working to an Action Plan within the 

reserve in an attempt to control environmental weeds. 

7. F In 1 year, 80% of landholders along a 400m stretch of Kincumber Creek 

value adjacent creek and express commitment to conservation. 

9. E In 1 year, residents agree that there is less speedboats exceeding 

speed limit along creek. 

10. E In 1 year, a database is made of boat ramps along the creek and 

community survey indicates that adjacent residents are committed to 

conservation of creek through rehabilitation. 

Mixed. Survey results indicate that 42% strongly 

agree/ agree and 33% strongly 

disagree/disagree with this statement. (Table 5) 

Yes. Local groups and Council’s Bushcare 

programme have commenced discussions 

toward establishing a group. 

83% of survey respondents strongly agree/ 

agreed that the creek is a valuable ecological 

asset. However, only 1 of 3 in Zone F. 

25% of survey respondents agree and 17% 

disagree that there has been a reduction in 

speed by boats. Waterways involved in 

discussions as to how to manage this issue. 

92% of respondents rejected the idea that this 

project is a waste of money. 

Investigations have commenced into illegal 

structures. 

May be useful to produce an educational leaflet 

with facts and pictures. Also include info regarding 

alternatives and support for wildlife groups (eg 

Wires and Wildlife Arc). 

Liaise more closely to see how the two projects 

could work together. 

Council write to landholders in Zone F highlighting 

benefits of being members of Land for Wildlife 

project. Importance of saltmarsh and forward 

Saltmarsh Fact Sheet. 

Monitor situation. 

Continue current investigations. 

11. 

D1 

(sth) 

Community is made aware of status of Marine precinct through 

community newsletter 

Issue apparently closed. A confidential 

document has not been released by the 

Premier’s Dept. 

Continue to seek information on status. 

13. 

D2 In 1 year, water quality data has been obtained on 10 occasions to Outcome achieved. Waterwatch data collected Expand into other zones. 

(nth) identify pollutants 

on 10 occasions 

CCCEN Page 8


KCRMP 

Strategy 

No. 


(nth) identify pollutants. on 10 occasions. 

16. 

D2 

(north) 

In 1 year, a Bushcare group is working to an Action Plan within the 


Outcome achieved. Bushcare commencing June 

2004. 

Monitor success of Bushcare activities. 

18. C Communication with Dave Warren Yachts has resulted in boat trailers 

removed from public reserve by end Nov 2002. 

Boat trailer remains on site. Casuarina trees now 

growing through the trailer. 

Council investigate. 

20. C In 1 year, a Bushcare group is working to an Action Plan within the 



2004. 


21. C In 1 year, 80% of landholders along a 200m stretch of creek value the 

creek and have revegetated the riparian zone. 

17% of respondents were from Zone C. Of 33% 

of respondents who answered the question, 50% 

had taken up the offer of free plants. 

Promote planting days in this Zone. 

22. C In 1 year, a Bushcare group is working to an Action Plan within the 

reserve in an attempt to maintain revegetation and control 

environmental weeds. 


2004. 


23. B In 1 year, 80% of landholders along a 200m stretch of creek value the 

creek and have revegetated the riparian zone. 

25% of respondents were from Zone B. Of 33% 

of respondents who answered the question, 50% 

had taken up the offer of free plants. 

Promote planting days in this Zone. 

26. B In 2 years, a Community Awareness campaign reveals a Kincumber 

Creek Cat Curfew programme is launched. 

Not completed. 

Given results of Question 16(b) this may not be a 

popular programme. Community education. 

27. B In 1 year, university students from Ourimbah Central Coast Campus 

have compiled a species list of native and exotic fish in Kincumber 

Creek. 

Not completed. 

Build into Council Research programme. 

28. B In 1 year, litter booms are installed on all stormwater outlets entering the 

creek. 

Deemed not feasible 

Investigate funding from EPA for this option. 

Community education. 

29. B In 1 year, a Bushcare group is working to an Action Plan within the 




2004. 


30. B In 2 years, a Site Audit reveals that Council has provided resources to 

install a Bed Control Structure. 

Completed successfully, 2003. 

No further recommendation. 

31. A Along a 200m stretch of creek, a community survey reveals that 100% 

of landholders express a commitment to valuing the creek as an asset 

and domestic waste is cleared from rear of fences 

17% of survey respondents reside in Zone A. 1 

resident indicated that they cleared from rear of 

their fence 

Involve residents in Clean Up Australia Day and 

Bushcare activities. 

CCCEN Page 9


KCRMP 

Strategy 

No. 


and domestic waste is cleared from rear of fences. 

their fence. 

32. A In 1 year, a Bushcare group is working to an Action Plan within the 




2004. 


34. A In 1 year, a Bushcare group is working to an Action Plan within the 




2004. 


CCCEN Page 10


1.2 Recommended Key Activities 

Table 3: Recommendation for Key Activities, Stage 2 Kincumber Creek Rehabilitation Project. 

Zone 

A 

Bush Regeneration (P=Primary, 

S=Secondary, T=Tertiary) 

Maintenance of Plantings 

(S) high priority to maintain areas in fair – 

good condition previously worked by 

contractors 

Kincumber Creek Roving Bushcare 

Group Training and Supervision 

Planting required 

Maintenance of plantings 

Seed Collection/ Propagation 

Guide 

‘Wish List’ 

Eucalyptus robusta 

Melaleuca biconvexa 

Gahnia clarkei 

Lomandra longifolia 

Microlaena stipoides 

Planting Guide 

‘Wish List’ 

Eucalyptus robusta (5) 

Melaleuca biconvexa(10), 

Gahnia clarkei(25) 

Lomandra longifolia (15) 

Microlaena stipoides (50) 

Fence Construction 

Not required 

B 

C 

DN 

(nth) 

Maintenance of Plantings 

(P) Maximum hours required in extremely 

poor condition areas, however, needs long 

term commitment to maintain, first. 

(P) reduce competition of vine weeds on 

remnant trees (eg Melaleuca biconvexa, 

Eucalyptus robusta and Casuarina glauca 

(S) high priority in areas in fair – good 

condition previously worked by contractors. 

(P) Extend area worked to target 

seeding/fruiting woody weeds in core of site 

(S) high priority to maintain areas previously 

worked by contractors 

minimal hours required 

Most of zone beyond scope of 

volunteers at this stage 

Suggest community involvement in 

large scale planting and maintenance 

once commitment to long term 

maintenance is made in TEC’s Zone 

ZB02. 

Maybe opportunity to maintain 

previous planting activities here 

suggest as training ground (high 

profile site) 

Maintain plantings 

within scope of volunteers to be 

trained in primary and secondary 

maintenance of weeds here 

Angophora floribunda 


Ficus coronata 

Casuarina glauca 

Dodonea triquetra 

Gahnia clarkei 

Omalanthus populifolius 

Eucalyptus longifolia (approx only 

5 trees remain along creek) 

Angophora floribunda (5), 

Callistemon salignus (5) 

Casuarina glauca(25), 

Dodonea triquetra (10) 

Entolasia marginata/stricta (50) 

Eucalyptus robusta (10) 

Ficus coronata (10), 

Gahnia clarkei (25) 

Lomandra longifolia (20), 

Omalanthus populifolius (20) 

Melaleuca biconvexa (25) 

Not required 

Eucalyptus longifolia (10) 

approx 50m to protect plantings 

and extend previous works 

approx 50m to prevent car 

parking in say a 10m riparian 

buffer in vicinity of Indoor Sports 

Centre 

approx 250m – extent of zone 

from Killuna to Davies 

DS 

(sth) 

minimal hours required poor access – unsafe Not required Not required approx 50m to prevent car 

parking in a 10m riparian buffer 

E Na Maintain plantings (may get greatest 

support from residents from here) 

Not required 

Baumea juncea(50) 

Juncus kraussi supsp australiensis 

approx 250m in hot spots of 

mowing and erosion 

Planting Days - good educational site 

community activities 

(100) 

F Na Na Baumea juncea 

Juncus kraussi supsp 

Not required 

Not required 

G ? Good site to introduce volunteers to 

bush regeneration near waterfront 

(end Carrack St) 

australiensis 

Baumea juncea 


Gahnia spp. 

Juncus kraussi supsp 

australiensis 

Not required 

Not required 

H Na Na Not required Not required Not required 

CCCEN Page 11


2 Introduction 

Council and the community have been concerned with the ecological condition of Kincumber 

Creek, a tributary of Brisbane Water in the city of Gosford, NSW, since state of the 

environment reporting revealed that the creek was “the worst” in the city (GCC, 1997). 

Funding was directed through Council’s environmental levy in a joint partnership between 

Gosford City Council and the Central Coast Community Environment Network to rehabilitate 

the riparian corridor of Kincumber Creek, in 2002. Through the partnership, both the 

community and Council would identify the environmental assets and problems along the 

creek and develop a Rehabilitation Project Plan. The Kincumber Creek Riparian 

Management Plan (KCRMP) was prepared and outlined the current state of the creek, 

measurable objectives and an action plan for the year 2003 to implement options to address 

priority areas of the creek. During 2003 there were community activities, bush regeneration 

contracts, fencing along the riparian zone, native planting and educational initiatives and this 

Evaluation and Monitoring component. 

The Kincumber Creek Evaluation and Monitoring Plan (KCEMP) includes the results of a 

Community Survey, a summary of voluntary Waterwatch activities and a Riparian Field 

Survey. Tests were aimed at determining whether providing resources to not only the 

physical but also social elements of riparian rehabilitation improved both the ecological 

condition and the behaviour and attitudes of adjacent landholders towards successful 

conservation and rehabilitation of Kincumber Creek. 

A reliance on the contribution of volunteers has become an important feature in attempts to 

address land and water degradation in Australia (Byron and Curtis, 2002). Rewards for 

researchers in community-based programmes include a cost-and time-efficient source of 

obtaining both data and historical information and the local community is often more willing 

to implement strategies if they understand and are motivated to implement a programme 

they have been involved in developing (Lunney and Mathews 2002). 

In turn, the benefits to community volunteers of involvement in activities associated with 

conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources is great. “Inner satisfaction and peace” 

and “It’s the joy that drives us” are just two emotive statements made by 12-year volunteer 

bush regenerators when asked why they volunteer (Pallin, N 2000). In addition, Landcaretype 

activities are said to have enhanced social cohesion, increased the capacity of 

communities to attract government resources, increased landholder awareness, skills and 

often improved conditions within catchment areas (Byron and Curtis 2002). 

However, burnout of volunteers is often an issue where too much reliance has been placed 

on the community to achieve on-ground outcomes (Curtis and Stacey 1996). A programme 

which incorporates both physical works by the land manager and support to community 

volunteers may be the key to sustaining effective riparian rehabilitation over the long term. 

Funding has been awarded to Council (Environmental Trust) to implement Stage 2 of the 

project. Stage 2 will include further bush regeneration by professional contractors, setting up 

and supporting a volunteer Bushcare group, more seed collection and propagation, fencing 

and community awareness raising activities. 

2.1 Aims 

The aim of this Evaluation and Monitoring Report is to gauge the success of the first Stage 

of the project and make recommendations for ongoing stages to integrate physical works 

with community programmes. 

CCCEN Page 12


3 Field Survey 

3.1 Introduction 

In order to measure the ability of the KCRMP to meet its objectives, a Field Survey was 

conducted. 

In the KCRMP, the creek commenced at Erambie Street. The upper reaches of the creek 

were not surveyed because they are either in private ownership or piped and built upon. 

The survey area of the creek was initially divided into zones A, B, C, D2 (north), D1 (south), 

E, F, G, H as per Figure 1. 

Carrack Rd 

Samantha Cres 

Davies St 

Frost 

Reserve 

Killuna Ave 

Empire Bay Dr 

School St 

Water St 

Erambie St 

Bilinga Rd 

Figure 1: Map of Kincumber Creek, showing survey zones ie. A-Erambie St to cnr Water/Wallen 

St, B- cnr Water/Wallen St to Empire Bay Drive, C- Empire Bay Dr to Killuna Ave, D- Killuna Ave to 

Davies St (north and south) E-Davies St to Samantha Cres, F– land opposite Davies St to Samantha 

Cres (Bilinga Road), G– end Samantha Cres to Carrack Rd, H-land opposite end Samantha Cres to 

Carrack Rd. 

These divisions were based on ease for management and included similarity of vegetation 

type and morphology. 

The KCRMP suggested a number of reference sites be surveyed to act as benchmarks for 

creek condition to monitor success of physical works. However, it was not within the scope 

of the project’s resources to research and physically survey local sites to act as reference 

sites. 

Reference conditions have been based on map unit profiles identified within recent 

vegetation mapping. However, reference conditions have been updated to reflect the most 

recent (Bell, 2004) draft mapping (Table 5). 

3.1.1 Aim 

The aim of the field survey was to evaluate the success of physical works to Kincumber 

Creek during Stage 1 of the project and make recommendations for ongoing stages. 

CCCEN Page 13


3.1.2 Objectives 

• To ensure that species richness and structural complexity within identified zones has 

not declined since project commencement. 

• To gauge the success of revegetation works 

• To ensure that sedimentation fencing is repaired 

• To ensure that assets are identified and protected 

• To ensure that problems have not increased 

• To ensure erosion has ceased 

• To ensure management issues identified in the KCRMP have been dealt with 

• To increase the body of knowledge available 

• To ensure community and all levels of Council are involved passively and actively in 

the conservation and rehabilitation of the creek. 

3.2 Methodology 

Previous reporting on Kincumber Creek has been opportunistic with results being much 

generalised. This information has been valuable and earlier methods of reporting were 

repeated to gauge the project’s success. However, the creek zones (A,B,C,DN,DS,E,F,G,H) 

are variable in length. In order to increase the validity of data the creek was divided into 50m 

sub-zones. 

The results could then be averaged across each zone to better reflect patterns distribution of 

weeds etc. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the zone area surveyed. 

Within each 50m subzone information was collected from both a site audit and a 10m 

transect measurement of vegetation across the riparian zone. 

CCCEN Page 14


3.2.1 Site Audit 

3.2.1.1 Degree of Erodability 

During the site audit active erosion was identified and the problem given a ranking of high, 

medium or low. 

3.2.1.2 Threats to the Rehabilitation Process 

All potential threats were observed and recorded. These were then summarised into 

categories and given a ranking of high, medium or low according to their perceived threats to 

the rehabilitation of Kincumber Creek. 

3.2.1.3 Resilience 

Two criteria were used to estimate the level of resilience of each 50m sub-zone in the 

rehabilitation process, as per the KCRMP. The results were averaged across each zone. 

3.2.1.3.1 The Presence of Healthy/Mature Native Seed Bearing Trees 

The presence of a healthy canopy of mature (ie old enough to bear seed) trees can indicate 

the health of the system. The presence of trees and their general abundance was recorded, 

ie whether they were absent, scattered or abundant across the 50m sub-zone. 

3.2.1.3.2 The Presence of Native Seedlings/Saplings 

The presence of native seedlings/saplings can indicate whether the 50m sub-zone is in an 

active state of regeneration. The presence of native seedlings/saplings was recorded and in 

general, whether they were rare/absent, scattered or abundant. 

3.2.2 Vegetation Condition 

47 transects were surveyed between February and April 2004. Table 4 illustrates the area 

(m) surveyed within each zone. This means that the total length of riparian zone surveyed 

was 2,350m. Approximately 750m was not surveyed because it was in private ownership 

(Zone A north, Zone B south, Zone C north, Zone E north). 

Table 4 Area surveyed, where n= the number of transects, Kincumber Creek, Feb-April 2004. 

Zone surveyed A (n=4) B (n=4) C (n=6) DN (n=5) DS (n=5) E (n=7) F (n=8) G (n=4) H (n=4) Total 

Zone Length (m) 200 200 300 250 250 350 400 200 200 2,350m 

Transect 

Length (m) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Total Area (m 2 ) 2000 2000 3000 2500 2500 3500 4000 2000 2000 23,500m 2 

Each 50m sub-zone was allocated a random number (less than 50). For the purposes of 

future monitoring, the list of random numbers has been provided as an Appendix. At that 

random number a tape measure was laid. Each transect was 10m in length and ran 

perpendicular to the creek. The commencement of the tape measure was at 1m from the 

water’s edge. The transect was divided into 1m intervals. Each species within the 1m interval 

was recorded and that species intercept length (to 10cm). All vegetation either touching or 

shadowing each 10cm interval was recorded. 

This procedure enabled the quantification of plants along the transect and provided data for 

more valid reporting about the variation of vegetation within the riparian zone. 

Each transect was photographed (Appendix 8.4) for ongoing monitoring purposes. 

CCCEN Page 15


3.2.2.1 Relative Cover 

The relative cover (%) of each species (natives and weeds) within transects was quantified 

during the analysis phase. This enabled us to identify the species typically found within the 

different riparian zones and particularly for future monitoring. 

3.3 Results 

3.3.1 Reference Condition 

The following vegetation map units (Table 5) relate to Kincumber Creek zones according to 

Bell (2004) with my comments following the results of ground-truthing (Feb-Apr 2004). 

Table 5 Vegetation Mapping Units for Kincumber Creek. 

Zone 

Current Condition based on Vegetation 

communities identified by Bell 2004 

2004 Preliminary Comments DRAFT 

A 

B 

Xr (Disturbed area with canopy trees present, 

understorey gone or modified) 

Xr and E37 Swamp-Mahogany Paperbark Forest 

(Eucalyptus robusta/Melaleuca biconvexa /sedge 

Swamp Forest 

Agreed. However, a small remnant at Erambie St. (park) 

contains remnant characteristics of E37. LHCCREMS 2000 

mapping showed MU5. 

Agreed. LHCCREMS identified as MU5 and there does 

appear some remnant characteristics of MU5 (eg 

Eucalyptus saligna) 

C Xr, E37 and E40i Swamp Oak Rushland Forest Agreed, but include E47 also. 

D (north) 

D (south) 

E40i, E47a Mangrove-Estuarine Complex 

(Estuarine Saltmarsh) 

E40i, E47a Mangrove-Estuarine Complex 

(Estuarine Saltmarsh) 

E47, E47a, E40i and also a patch of remnant 37b (Alluvial 

Floodplain Woollybutt Forest). 

E47, E40i 

E E40i (as above) More like Xr with remnants of E47 and E47a. 

F 

E47 Mangrove-Estuarine Complex (Estuarine 

Mangrove Scrub), E47a 

E47 then E47a. 

G E47, E47a E47 unlikely. From ground survey it appears that it should 

be E47 then E40c (Estuarine Baumea Sedgeland). 

H E47a, E37 E37 unlikely. From ground survey it appears to be E47 then 

E40i. 

The map units and the profiles supplied are utilised as Reference Sites for the purpose of 

this Report. 

CCCEN Page 16


3.3.2 Site Audit 

3.3.2.1 Resilience 

3.3.2.1.1 Presence of healthy/mature native seed-bearing trees 

Figure 2a) illustrates the resilience of each of the zones where the presence of 

healthy/mature native seed bearing trees (hmnsbt) across all the sub-zones was used as an 

indicator and whether hmnsbt were abundant, scattered or rare across the zone surveyed. 

The most resilient zones were C, DN, G and H with 100% of area surveyed showing on 

average, an abundance of healthy/mature native seed bearing trees. Zone F, had a high 

abundance scoring (88%) across the entire zone. 

Zones A, B and E were the least resilient. On average healthy/mature native seed bearing 

trees were rare or merely scattered across the zone. 

a) Presence of Healthy/Mature Native Seedbearing 

trees 

b) Presence of Native Seedlings/Saplings 

Percentage Mean across 

zone 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

A B C DN DS E F G H 

Abundant 

Scattered 

Rare 

Percentage mean across zone 

100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 


Abundant 

Scattered 

Rare 

Zone 

Zone 

Figure 2: Resilience according to a) the abundance of healthy/ mature native seed bearing trees and b) 

the abundance of native seedlings/saplings, in each zone (n=47 sites surveyed), Kincumber Creek, 2004. 

3.3.2.1.2 Presence of native seedlings/saplings 

Figure 2b) illustrates the resilience of each of the zones where the presence of native 

seedlings/saplings (nss) was used as an indicator and whether nss were abundant, 

scattered or rare across the zone surveyed. 

The most resilient zones were G and H with a high abundance of native seedlings/saplings, 

on average, across the 50m surveyed. It was found that 100% of the area surveyed 

displayed an abundance of native seedlings/saplings. Zones C and F were found to have 

between 80% and 90% of the zone with an abundance of native seedlings/saplings. 

Zones A, B and E were the least resilient. Only 50% of the area surveyed in Zone A and B 

had a high abundance of native seedlings/saplings. It was rare in Zone E to observe native 

seedlings and saplings. 

CCCEN Page 17


3.3.2.2 Erodability 

Figure 3 highlights the threat of erosion averaged along each zone. The banks along most 

zones appear stable from the land, ie not in an active form of erosion. However, along Zone 

E there were hot spots of high erosion. Zones A, DN and F were observed to have a 

moderate level of erosion at hot spots. 

Percentage Mean Across Zone 

100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

A B C DS DN E F G H 

High 

Med 

Low 

Zone 

Figure 3: Active Erosion (whether high, medium or low) along riparian zone (n=47 sub-zones), Kincumber 

Creek, 2004. 

CCCEN Page 18


3.3.2.3 Threats 

Figure 4 shows that Zones A, B, and E share the greatest number of threats (19%, 19% and 

26% respectively) across all zones, while G and H have the lowest number of threats (3% 

each). 

3% 3% 

7% 19% 

A 

B 

26% 

19% 

C 

DN 

DS 

E 

F 

G 

7% 

9% 

7% 

H 

Figure 4: Threats to the rehabilitation process across each zone (%), Kincumber Creek, 2004. 

Summarised below is a list of the categories used to explain threats to the rehabilitation of 

Kincumber Creek across each zone. Figure 5 highlights each of the threats and their impact 

on each Zone. 

3.3.2.4.1 Altered hydrology 

Altered hydrology was found to be a major impediment (High) to the rehabilitation of 

Kincumber Creek across the entire length of Zone A and Zone B. This was found to be a 

problem (High) across 29% of Zone E. 

3.3.2.4.2 Disturbance to original structure 

Disturbance to the original structure was found to be a major impediment (High) to the 

rehabilitation of Kincumber Creek across the entire length of Zone A and Zone B (100%). 

Similar results were observed across Zone DS (20%) and Zone E (29%). 

3.3.2.4.3 Domestic Animals 

Threats from domestic animals were observed (dead, mangled birds). These were 

considered a low-medium problem across 50% of Zone B. 

3.3.2.4.4 Encroachment into Regeneration Area 

In Zone B there was observed a low-medium threat caused from encroachment into the 

regeneration area across 50% of the Zone, mainly by pipework and infrastructure. In Zone 

DN (BMX-bike bumps and holes) and DS this problem was observed across 20% of each 

Zone, mainly due to carparking. Zone E experienced a low-medium threat from 

encroachment into 28% of the Zone, while there was a high problem across 13% of Zone F. 

CCCEN Page 19


3.3.2.4.5 Lawn Clippings/Garden Waste 

Observed in Zone A was a number of piles of 

dumped garden waste. This was considered a lowmedium 

threat across 50% of the Zone. However, in 

Zone E, this was considered a High threat across 

29% and low across 14%. The dumpings were palm 

fronds and tree debris in the saltmarsh. 

3.3.2.4.6 Mowing within regeneration area Plate 0: Lawn clippings dumped on 

Observed in Zone A was mowing in the designated 

area for regeneration, particularly where adjacent 

creekbank, Zone A, Kincumber Creek Apr 

2004. 

residents tended the area as a ‘garden’. This was considered as a high problem across 50% 

of the zone and a low problems across 50%. In Zone B, this was occurring across 25% of 

the zone and considered as moderate problem. However, in Zone E, this was considered as 

a medium-high problem across 58% of the Zone. 

3.3.2.5 

3.3.2.5.1 Size of remnant 

The size of the remnant was considered a major impediment to rehabilitation of Zone A 

across 100% of the zone. This was considered a high across 25% and low problem across 

25% of Zone B. In Zone C, the size of the remnant was very narrow at 17% of the zone and 

across DN this was considered a moderate problem across 20% and DS 25% of the zone. In 

Zone E, this was considered a high problem across 86% of the zone. 

3.3.2.6 

3.3.2.6.1 Slumping of banks 

Observed in Zone DS was evidence of bank slumping across 20% of the Zone in the vicinity 

of the dumped spoil bank near the boat ramp. 

3.3.2.7 

3.3.2.7.1 Undercutting of bank 

The banks were observed to be experiencing some high volume flow and as a result a 

moderate level of undercutting was observed in Zone A across 100% of the zone. This was 

observed to be a medium to high problem across 75% of Zone B. 

3.3.2.7.2 Vandalism 

Acts of vandalism (graffiti of sign, destruction of fencewire) were observed across 25% of 

Zone A and considered a high problem. Other acts were observed at Zone B, across 25% of 

the zone but considered a low problem. In Zone DN, broken tree saplings, and the removal 

of new plantings was observed and therefore, given a rating of medium across 60% of the 

zone. In Zone E, cut mangroves and removal of new plantings were considered acts of 

vandalism and gave Zone E a ranking of medium to high across 43% of the zone. 

CCCEN Page 20


3.3.2.7.3 Visual Pollution (litter washed up on tide) 

Litter washed up on the tide was visually distinctive across 100% of 

Zone F and H. However, the problem was considered a low threat to 

the rehabilitation process. The visual pollution was also observed at 

Zone DN (low at 20%), DS (low-medium at 60%, Zone E (medium at 

14%) and Zone G (low at 25%). 

3.3.2.7.4 Wave wash causing stress to banks and muddy 

water 

Zone E was most affected by this problem ranking a high at 71% of 

the Zone. Zone DS ranked medium across 20% of the zone. 

Also of note, on a recent kayak trip I observed severe undercutting 

from Zone D to H on both sides of the bank. 

Plate 0: Litter washed up on 

tide, Zone F, Kincumber Creek 

Apr 2004. 

3.3.2.7.5 Weeds (exotic plants) 

Weeds were observed to be the most visual problem. The threat of weeds was ranked in 

Zone A as high across 25% and low across 25%, in Zone B as high 25% and medium 75%. 

In Zone C, medium across 83% and in DN low across 80%. In Zone E, weeds were highly 

threatening and low threatening at both 14% of the zone. While in G, hot spots of weeds 

were observed to be a high across 25%, medium across 25% and low across 25% of the 

zone. This has been more adequately dealt with in the transect data. 

CCCEN Page 21


100% 

90% 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L H M L 


Altered hydrology 

Domestic Animals 

Infrastructure for services (eg sewage pipes) 

Mowing within regeneration area 

Slumping of banks 

Vandalism 

Wave wash causing stress to banks and muddy water 

Disturbance to original structure 

Encroachment into Regeneration Area (gardens, bike tracks, car or boat parking) 

Lawn Clippings/Garden Waste 

Size of remnant 

Undercutting of bank 

Visual Pollution (litter washed up on tide) 

Weeds 

Figure 4: Percentage Threats to the Rehabilitation Process by Zone, ranked as High (H), Medium (M), or Low (L), Kincumber Creek, Feb-Apr 2004. 

CCCEN Page 22


3.3.3 Vegetation Condition 

3.3.3.1 Zone A 

As shown in Figure 6, transect data revealed that the canopy layer was dominated by 

native plants in Zone A (100%). However, in the mid-layer, only 52% was native and 

the groundlayer was only 23% native. 

Of the native plants, Eucalyptus robusta dominated the canopy while Melaleuca 

biconvexa dominated the midlayer (Table 6). 

3.3.3.2 Zone B 

In Zone B, the canopy layer was only 28% represented by native plants. The midlayer 

contained 70% native and the groundlayer was 24% native plants (Figure 6). 

Table 6 highlights the relative abundance of Eucalyptus saligna in the canopy but 

also a large representation of weeds, where Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum 

camphora) represented 60% of all canopy species (Table 7). Melaleuca biconvexa 

remained important in the midlayer (17%). 

3.3.3.3 Zone C 

Figure 6 highlights the dominance (100%) of native plants across Zone C within the 

10m riparian zone surveyed. However, the midlayer and groundlayer were dominated 

by both native plants and weeds. 

Table 6 reveals the breakdown of native plants to weeds where Casuarina glauca is 

dominant in the canopy with a midlayer dominated by Avicennia marina, Lantana 

(Table 7) and in the groundlayer the native grass Entolasia spp (Table 6) and lawn 

Couch (Table 7) (Cynodon dactylon) (note comment at Table 7). 

3.3.3.4 Zone DN 

Figure 6 reveals the dominance of native plants across all layers of the 10m riparian 

zone surveyed within D(north). Weeds were measured at 23% of the groundlayer., 

Table 6 shows Casuarina glauca remaining dominant in the canopy with Avicennia 

marina (Grey Mangrove) and Aegiceras corniculatum (River Mangrove) dominating 

the midlayer. Juncus, Sporobolus virginicus and Sarcocornia quinquenervia dominate 

the groundlayer with the exception of the exotic grass Kikuyu (Pennisetum 

clandestinum) (Table 7) at 12%. 

3.3.3.5 Zone DS (south) 

In Zone D (south) the canopy and midlayer was dominated by native plants (Table 6). 

However, in the groundlayer there was a similar percentage of native plants to weeds 

including a large patch of exposed soil. 

Table 6 highlights the dominance of Casuarina glauca in the canopy of transects 

surveyed across the riparian zone. However, there was observed a low presence of 

the exotic Camphor laurel (2%) (Table 7). 

The pasture grass Couch (Cynodon dactylon) represented 46% of all species in the 

groundlayer (Table 7). However, there was a strong presence of the native salttolerant 

plants (Juncus kraussi and Sporobolus virginicus) (Table 6). 

3.3.3.6 Zone E 

Native plants dominated in the canopy and midlayer of Zone E. However, in the 

groundlayer dominance of weeds is clearly shown by Figure 6. Of note also was in 

excess of 10% bare soil where cars had been using the site as a turning circle 

(Gunya Rd). 

CCCEN Page 23


Table 6 provides a breakdown of the relative cover of species across the riparian 

zone surveyed. Again, Casuarina glauca and the mangroves clearly remain 

dominant. However, in the groundlayer exotic grasses eg couch and Buffalo grass 

(Stenotaphrum secondatum) have a strong presence (60%) (Table 7). Native salttolerant 

herbs again feature with the rush (Juncus kraussi ) at 13% and Sporobolus 

virginicus (9%). 

3.3.3.7 Zone F 

As shown in Zone F, native plants dominate all structural layers. However, there was 

a small percentage (2%) of weeds and bare soil (15%) (Figure 6). 

Table 6 provides a breakdown of species where Casuarina glauca dominates the 

canopy (100%), the mangroves dominates the shrublayer while Buffalo 

(Stenotaphrum secondatum) was 2% of species (Table 7). 

3.3.3.8 Zone G 

As clearly shown by Figure 6, native plants dominate across Zone G, with only 3% 

weeds. 

The relative cover of species across the transect is shown in Table 6. Casuarina 

glauca again dominates the canopy (100%) while the mangroves dominate the 

shrublayer (100%). Baumea juncea dominates the groundlayer (26%) with 

Sporobolus virginicus (16%) (Table 6) and a small percentage of Buffalo grass 

(Stenotaphrum secondatum) at 3% (Table 7). 

3.3.3.9 Zone H 

As clearly indicated by Figure 6, native plants dominate across the riparian zone of H 

(100%). 

The breakdown of species shown in Table 6 reveal that the River Mangrove 

dominates the shrublayer (64%) while Juncus kraussi dominates the groundlayer 

(65%). 

CCCEN Page 24


a) Zone A 

b) Zone B 

c) Zone C 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Percentage cover 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

native plants w eeds bare soil 

canopy 

Midlayer 

groundlayer 


80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 


canopy 

Midlayer 

groundlayer 


80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

native plants 

w eeds 

canopy 

midlayer 

groundlayer 

d) Zone DN 

e) Zone DS 

f) Zone E 

100% 

100% 

100% 


80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 


canopy 

midlayer 

groundlayer 


80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 


canopy 

midlayer 

groundlayer 


80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 


canopy 

midlayer 

groundlayer 

g) Zone F 

h) Zone G 

i) Zone H 


100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

native 

plants 

w eeds bare soil open 

water 

canopy 

midlayer 

groundlayer 


100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

native plants w eeds estuarine 

mud 

canopy 

midlayer 

groundlayer 


100% 

80% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

0% 

native 

plants 

w eeds 

estuarine 

mud 

open 

water 

canopy 

midlayer 

groundlayer 

Figure 4: Percentage cover of plants, both native and weed across each Zone in the canopy, midlayer or groundlayer. Where appropriate, bare soil, open water or 

estuarine mud has been included, Kincumber Creek, Feb-Apr 2004. 

CCCEN Page 25


Table 6: Relative Cover of Species across Zone, Native Plants, Kincumber Creek Feb-Apr 2004. 

Layer Native Plant Species A B C DN DS E F G H 

Canopy Angophora costata 7% 

Casuarina glauca 84% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 

Eucalyptus robusta 79% 10% 

Eucalyptus saligna 14% 28% 6% 

Midlayer Acacia schinoides 12% 5% 

Aegiceras corniculatum 6% 33% 53% 22% 41% 42% 64% 

Angophora floribunda 1% 

Avicennia marina 23% 67% 31% 69% 59% 58% 32% 

Cyathea australis 11% 4% 

Dodonea triquetra 2% 

Elaeocarpus reticulatus 3% 

Exocarpus cupressiformis 7% 

Ficus coronata 11% 

Gahnia clarkei 1% 

Geitonoplesium cymosum 2% 

Glochidion ferdinandi 10% 

Melaleuca biconvexa 27% 17% 

Melaleuca linariifolia 8% 

Melaleuca styphelioides 4% 2% 

Pandorea pandorana 4% 

Parsonsia straminea 6% 8% 

Pittosporum undulatum 1% 

Ground Apium prostratum 2% 

Baumea juncea 9% 2% 26% 2% 

Calochlaena dubia 8% 1% 

Cassytha glabella 2% 

Centella asiatica 2% 1% 

Commelina cyanea 1% 2% 

Crinum pedunculatum 2% 

Desmodium spp. 1% 

Dichondra repens 5% 2% 

Einadia hastata 1% 1% 

Einadia trigonos subsp 8% 

Entolasia spp. 1% 23% 5% 

Hydrocotyle peduncularis 1% 

Isolepis nodosa 

Juncus kraussi subsp. australiensis 9% 25% 27% 13% 34% 45% 65% 

Lomandra longifolia 1% 

Melaleuca linariifolia (sapling) 1% 

Melaleuca styphelioides (seedling) 1% 

Microlaena stipoides 11% 3% 6% 

Oplismenus aemulus 4% 3% 

Persicaria decipiens 1% 

Phragmites australis 1% 3% 3% 5% 

Pultenea blakelyi(?) (sapling) 2% 

Samolus repens 3% 11% 5% 7% 

Sarcocornia quinquenervia 14% 1% 23% 7% 

Setaria spp. 1% 

Sporobolus virginicus 29% 13% 9% 25% 16% 14% 

Suaeda australis 4% 

CCCEN Page 26


Table 7: Relative Cover of plant species across Zones, Weeds*, Kincumber Creek Feb-Apr 2004. 

Layer Exotic Species A B C DN DS E F G H 

Canopy Cinnamomum camphora* 60% 2% 

Salix babylonica* 12% 

Midlayer Acetosa sagittata* 6% 1% 

Araucaria heterophylla 2% 

Bidens pilosa* 1% 

Buxus spp.* 3% 

Callistemon spp. (Garden cultivar)* 6% 

Delairea odorata* 1% 

Garden Exotic #1(golden rod type?) 2% 

Garden Exotic #2 6% 

Garden Exotic #3 (camellia?) 20% 

Garden Exotic #4 2% 

Grevillea hookerana* cultivar (gdn) 10% 

Grevillea robusta* (seedling) 1% 

Hakea salicifolia* (garden planting) 18% 

Lantana camara* 11% 41% 6% 

Senna pendula* 11% 

Sida rhombifolia* 1% 

Ground Agapanthus praecox ssp orientalis 6% 2% 

Balsam walleriana* 2% 

Bidens pilosa* 7% 3% 2% 

Cynodon dactylon* (note) 3% 10% 17% 5% 46% 34% 

Cyperus eragrostis* 

Delairea odorata* 

Ehrharta erecta* 5% 2% 

Eragrostis curvula 4% 3% 

Hydrocotyle bonariensis* 1% 

Hypochaeris radicata* 1% 

Ipomoea indica* 5% 

Isolepis prolifer* 

Lonicera japonica* 2% 4% 

Myrsiphyllum asparagoides* 4% 

Nephrolepis cordifolia* 13% 

Paspalum spp.* 4% 3% 2% 

Pennisetum clandestinum* 14% 4% 12% 3% 

Plantago lanceolata* 2% 

Poaceae spp. 2% 5% 

Protasparagus aethiopicus* 1% 3% 

Rubus fruticosus* 2% 

Sida rhombifolia* 1% 7% 

Sporobolus parramattensis 7% 

Stenotaphrum secundatum* 3% 18% 26% 2% 3% 

Taraxacum officinale* 1% 

Tradescantia fluminensis* 10% 26% 

Trifolium repens* 3% 2% 

Verbena bonariensis* 1% 2% 

Note: Cynodon dactylon is common and widely cultivated as a lawn grass and for pasture 

(Wheeler et al 2002). As it was not considered naturally occurring in this habitat it has been 

placed in the category of weed. 

CCCEN Page 27


3.4 Summary of Field Survey 

3.4.1 Zone A 

The KCRMP strategy recommended improvements including fencing of riparian 

zone, planting and educational signage. These works were carried out. In addition, 

adjacent landholders were invited to attend community activities and kept up to date 

with project progress through mailouts from Council. 

Most of the plantings appear to be growing satisfactorily, particularly in the area 

fenced by TAFE students (cnr Water/Wallen St). However, the fencing and the sign 

at Erambie Park had been vandalised. 

Zone A continues to feature a remnant of Swamp Forest which has not deteriorated 

in condition since 2003 reporting (Erambie St park). The remnant vegetation 

structure of Zone A was found to be most like Swamp Mahogany-Paperbark Swamp 

Forest, of recent vegetation mapping (Bell 2004) in the remnant. 

Transect data revealed that there is a healthy canopy layer dominated by native trees 

which constitutes a potential aerial wildlife corridor. However, the mid-layer is fairly 

poor and the groundlayer “a basket case”. In order to rehabilitate this zone a large 

amount of resources is required, with a minimal amount of certainty about the long 

term viability of the system to support itself. As highlighted in 3.3.4, the rehabilitation 

of Zone A is mainly limited by the size of the remnant and changes to the original 

condition. It must also be mentioned that upper catchment activity may be impacting 

on inputs to the aquatic system. 

Increased activity associated with planting and maintenance needs to be 

accompanied by a consistent education plan as adjacent landholders are generally 

separated from the creek by a visual barrier, ie a colourbond/paling fence. Some 

adjacent landholders have used the riparian zone in a number of ways. Some as a 

dumping ground for waste like lawn clippings and others as an extension of their 

garden. Numerous garden exotics have been planted and tended here. One resident 

told me about the rich fauna that interacted with family backyard, including a variety 

of birds and a colony of Eastern Water Dragons which “took over” their pool area one 

season. 

Discussions with Council also highlight the amount of infrastructure along the riparian 

zone of Zone A, eg sewerage pipes. This limits the potential for planting of trees for 

rehabilitation. 

Table 8: Recommendations, Zone A 

1. Clean graffiti off project signage (the offensive nature of 

the graffiti may reduce the aesthetic appeal of the sign and 

therefore, mar the public’s perception of the project). 

GCC 

2. Repair vandalised wire on fence (it is a safety issue) GCC 

3. Collect seed from Reference Site for planting within 

protected riparian zone 

Contractor 

4. Weed around 2003 plantings Contractor/Bushcare 

5. Involve adjacent residents and Community Support teams 

(CCCEN) in ongoing Education, Planting and Maintenance 

Days 

GCC/CCCEN 

6. Continue monitoring CCCEN 

CCCEN Page 28


3.4.2 Zone B 

During Stage 1 of the project, Zone B underwent a number of physical changes, 

including planting, fencing and educational signage. Bush regeneration contractors 

also worked on a remnant Swamp Forest on the north bank. Adjacent landholders 

were invited to attend planting days and were kept informed of project progress. 

It was apparent during the ground survey that physical works had commenced. 

Plantings appeared to be approximately 60% successful. Council had also 

undertaken works at the end of School St to repair drainage pipes. Evidence of bush 

regeneration was clear, however, regeneration of weeds threatened in some areas. 

The 2004 site audit revealed that most of Zone B would have been part of the 

Swamp-Mahogany Paperbark Swamp Forest (Bell 2004) vegetation community. Now 

that the hydrology and the original structure have been altered it would be difficult to 

reconstruct the original Forest. There needs to be an enormous amount of planting 

and ongoing maintenance to reduce the competition of weeds, particularly vines, on 

the open section downstream of School Street. However, if Council provide a long 

term commitment, this area would show the greatest results. 

Again during the field visit I had the opportunity to meet an adjacent resident. To this 

resident the creek was a feature (no fence) and he had taken up Council’s offer of 

free plants to create a native buffer zone. He expressed his concern to me at the 

removal of weeds which buffered the creek as to him they provided a valuable 

screen. Primary weeding of Lantana by bush regeneration contractors had meant 

that the site had opened up. He had experienced some negative behaviour from 

locals who used the opening as a shortcut. He had observed them attack lizards. I 

was able to allay some of his fears by discussing alternatives to opening up the weed 

buffer and leaving it there to discourage access by youths/children but working from 

within the good section of riparian zone. This highlighted the need for continual 

liaison with the community to ensure that all needs are understood. 

Undercutting of the banks is clearly a much larger problem and needs to be 

monitored as remnant forest trees may fall into the creek in the future if the 

undercutting continues. 

Table 9: Recommendations, Zone B 

1. Weed around 2003 plantings 

2. Collect seed and propagate from Reference Site for 

planting within protected riparian zone 

Contractor/Bushcare 


3. Maintenance of previous bush regeneration Contractor/Bushcare 

4. Fencing (50m) to protect plantings and extend previous 

work area end School Street 

5. Involve adjacent residents and Community Support 

teams (CCCEN) in ongoing Education, Planting and 

Maintenance Days 

GCC 

GCC/CCCEN 


CCCEN Page 29


3.4.3 Zone C 

The KCRMP strategy recommended improvements including planting, bush 

regeneration and educational signage. These works were carried out. In addition, 

adjacent landholders were invited to attend community activities and kept up to date 

with project progress through mailouts from Council. 

Zone C continues to feature a remnant of Swamp Oak Forest which has improved in 

condition since 2003 reporting. Most of the plantings appear to be growing 

satisfactorily, particularly in the area adjacent to Empire Bay Drive. However, the 

weeds in the centre of Zone C appear to have regenerated. A long term programme 

of seed collection, bush regeneration and maintenance is required, as the time 

between funding has meant that a lot of the good work has been spoiled. 

Carparking and encroachment was not dealt with. Also it appears that an arson 

attack may be responsible for an area of burnt Swamp Forest. 

Table 10: Recommendations, Zone C 

1. Collect seed from Reference Site for planting within 

riparian zone 

2. Weed around 2003 plantings 

3. Involve adjacent residents and Community Support 

teams (CCCEN) in ongoing Education, Planting and 


Contractor 

Contractor/community 

GCC/CCCEN 

4. Fencing (50m) to prevent carparking in a 10m riparian 

zone in vicinity of Indoor Sports Centre 

GCC 


3.4.4 Zone DN (north) 

KCRMP strategies included an annual site audit of litter, bush regeneration, 

revegetation, water quality monitoring, creation of a no-mow zone. Most of these 

activities were performed. 

Recent efforts by a local volunteer litter collector, may have contributed to an 

enhanced visual appearance along the Frost Reserve area. The litter problem was 

found to be much worse in other zones along the creek. 

The no-mow zone was also working. Council contractors had been vigilant in 

allowing regeneration in the designated area. Revegetation of the buffer zone, by 

school groups and volunteers had been much reduced by vandalism and competition 

by Kikuyu (40% successful). 

During the field survey BMX bikeriders were observed digging holes and piling up 

‘bumps’ in a small area (say 5 x 2m) of the Swamp Oak forest. Mangrove saplings 

and destruction of new plantings had also occurred in the vicinity. A conversation 

with the bikers revealed that they may support/ become actively involved in 

rehabilitation of the area if an alternate location for bikeriding was provided 

elsewhere on Frost Reserve. 

CCCEN Page 30


Water quality was monitored on more than 10 occasions by volunteers providing an 

understanding of water quality issues to the project and community through the 

Waterwatch programme (see page 48). 

This zone contains three different kinds of vegetation communities. Of note were 

approximately five remnant woollybutt (Eucalyptus longifolia) trees, not picked up in 

random transects. This area could have been part of what was known as Alluvial 

Floodplain Woollybutt Forest (E37b) in recent vegetation mapping (Bell 2004). The 

Swamp Oak forest remains in reasonable condition and the Estuarine 

Saltmarsh/Grassland (E47a) remains in great condition, though an improvement of 

the buffer would help to discourage access by bikers. 

Table 11: Recommendations, Zone DN (north) 

1. Weed around 2003 plantings in no-mow zone 

(urgent) 

2. Find a new recreation area for BMX bikers, involve in 

revegetation 


GCC 

3. Improve buffer zone with plantings Contractor/Bushcare 

4. Protect woollybutt and saltmarsh - collect seed for 

revegetation and improve buffer zone 

5. Continue to involve school groups and community in 

ongoing Education, Planting and Maintenance Days 

GCC/Contractor 

GCC/CCCEN 


7. Fence (approx 250m) extent of zone from Killuna to 

Davies St. 

GCC 

3.4.5 Zone DS (south) 

KCRMP strategies included following up on illegal dumping of dredge spoil, 

monitoring revegetation, and ensuring community is made aware of status of Marine 

precinct through community newsletter. 

The area of revegetation along the dumped spoil bank is slow because of the acid 

soil, results revealed some bare soil. The sedimentation fencing was not repaired. 

However, Council felt that the erosion had stabilised. This area constitutes only 20% 

of Zone DS, the rest is in great condition. However, new threats were identified in the 

2004 site audit. The undercutting of the banks is clearly caused by speedboats and is 

threatening the banks. 

Access to this zone is poor which is probably why it has remained in such good 

condition. However, there appears to be direct impact from the industrial zone, it has 

been used as a dump site (adjacent to new Aquatic Centre) and Council needs to 

consistently monitor development and work practices in the adjacent industrial zone. 

CCCEN Page 31


Table 12: Recommendations, Zone D south 

1. Fence (50m) to 10m buffer zone to prevent car parking in 

vicinity of pedestrian bridge (downstream) 

GCC 


3.4.6 Zone E 

KCRMP strategies included the preparation of a database of boat ramps, liaising with 

Waterways over boat-speeding, revegetation works, invitation for involvement to 

adjacent landholders and community. 

Waterways and Council liaised with regard to the speed problem along the creek. 

Most of the activity appears to be on the weekend and Waterways resources appear 

limited to address the problem. Anecdotal evidence, suggests that there has been no 

change in circumstances (pers. Comm. D O’Toole, April 2004). 

The status of boat ramps is currently being investigated by Council. 

Revegetation was carried out. In some areas, where there is support from adjacent 

residents, this has been a success, however, in other areas, the new plantings were 

removed. 

Due to the amount of fill used when developing this area, there is limited potential for 

reconstruction of the Swamp Oak Forest or Estuarine Saltmarsh/Grassland. There 

has been variable support for the creek revegetation. A large amount of resources 

would be required to return the foreshore to a healthy riparian zone. Ongoing 

education and maybe even stronger strategies would be required. 

Note, however, that there are remnants of the original vegetation as clumps, which 

should be protected, and ongoing involvement of adjacent landholders in their 

protection should be encouraged. 

Table 13: Recommendations, Zone E 

1. Low fencing (250m) in hot spots of erosion, planting with 

sedges and rushes. 

GCC 

2. Protection of saltmarsh with low fencing GCC 

Extend area of 2003 plantings and mulch as clumps 

3. Continue to involve adjacent residents and Community 

Support teams (CCCEN) in ongoing Education, Planting and 


GCC 

GCC/CCCEN 

4. Impose warning and fines for “viewcare” trimming/cutting of 

mangroves 

GCC 


CCCEN Page 32


3.4.7 Zone F 

KCRMP strategies included education of adjacent landholders about value of the 

Estuarine Saltmarsh/Grassland along the foreshore reserve with the potential for 

involvement in voluntary conservation of saltmarsh fields. 

It was noted during the field survey that one area of 

saltmarsh had further deteriorated where an adjacent 

landholder had dredged the creek, dumped sand and 

garden waste (Plate 4). 

Table 14: Recommendations, Zone F 

Plate 0: Infilling of saltmarsh with 

dredged spoil, Zone F, Kincumber Creek, 

2004. 

1. Monitor clean up GCC 

2. Continue to involve adjacent residents in opportunities for 

education and conservation of saltmarsh. 

GCC 


3.4.8 Zone G 

KCRMP strategies included support of a Bushcare group, bush regeneration and 

education and water quality monitoring. 

Along the riparian zone, remains a healthy strip of Estuarine Mangrove Scrub (Bell 

2004) and behind this often up to 30m, monospecific stands of Casuarina glauca 

over Baumea juncea and Juncus kraussii subsp. australiensis as in Estuarine 

Swamp Oak Forest variant E40i (Bell 2004). 

Further, there was support for this site in the 1990’s with a Rivers Reborn 

programme. Kincumber High School students were involved in bush regeneration 

and water testing. There is also another programme within Council encouraging 

support for Bushcare in this site now known as Kincumber Village Reserve due to its 

important vegetation communities. 

CCCEN’s Waterwatch programme tested the drains at the end of Carrack Road, with 

the High School during one event (see Section 5). 

Table 15: Recommendations, Zone G 

1. Liaise with Kincumber High School/Bushcare to reignite 

Waterwatch testing and bush regeneration 

2. Integrate with Council’s Natural Resources Dept over 

support of Bushcare on this site 

CCCEN/Council 

GCC 


CCCEN Page 33


3.4.9 Zone H 

KCRMP strategies included the production of an educational Fact Sheet on 

Saltmarsh by CCCEN, research project on saltmarsh and ongoing monitoring of 

condition. 

This area has low opportunities for access and is 

protected by its upper catchment. This has 

contributed to a weed-free and relatively nondisturbed 

landscape. There are a number of 

vegetation communities representing the transition 

across the landscape from the ridges to the marine 

environment. The 10m riparian zone surveyed 

displayed characteristics of Estuarine Mangrove 

Scrub (E47) followed by Estuarine Baumea 

Sedgeland (E40c) as in recent vegetation mapping 

(Bell 2004). 

Plate 1: Pristine condition, Zone H, 

Kincumber Creek, Mar 2004. 

The Fact Sheet was completed and distributed to libraries and High Schools and was 

available at Displays (shopping centre, Council educational). 

Kincumber Creek saltmarsh included in Brisbane Water study on saltmarsh with 

Honours student from the University of Western Sydney. 

Litter was identified as a problem both in 2003 and 2004 site audit, however, not 

addressed. Doing nothing is the preferred option as access to the area is limited and 

sensitive. The source of gross litter needs to be identified. 

Table 16: Recommendations, Zone H 

1. Continue to support research into saltmarsh GCC 


CCCEN Page 34


4 Community Survey 

4.1 Introduction 

In order to measure the ability of Stage 1 of the project to meet its objectives, a 

Community survey was conducted. 

4.1.1 Aim 

The main aim of the survey was to evaluate the success of Stage 1 of the Kincumber 

Creek Rehabilitation project by explaining the attitudes and behaviour of residents 

who have a physical connection to Kincumber Creek. This information will also 

provide a benchmark for evaluation of the project in years to come. 

4.1.2 Objectives 

• To gauge the success of educational material produced by Stage 1 of the 

Kincumber Creek Rehabilitation project 

• To identify the level of awareness and sense of ownership of residents 

towards Kincumber Creek 

• To identify the values, social, economic and ecological, that residents place 

on Kincumber Creek 

• To gauge the level of involvement of residents in revegetation, conservation 

and rehabilitation of Kincumber Creek 

• To gain an indication from residents whether there has been a reduction in 

boat speed since project commencement 

• To identify the level of understanding of residents towards the impact of 

domestic animals on native fauna. 

4.2 Methodology 

4.2.1 Target Audience 

The target audience was defined as all residents with a physical connection to 

Kincumber Creek. As this totalled only 60 households, a sample was not required. All 

households were given the opportunity to participate. 

4.2.2 Survey Design 

The survey design was modelled using the Total Design Method (TDM) by Dillman 

(2002). This method focuses on survey research through a system of procedures and 

techniques aimed to maximise response rate in ways consistent with obtaining 

quality responses. Given criticism over postal interviews, ie low response rate, this 

model was chosen. 

The literature suggests a possible 50-70% response rate if the procedure is 

meticulously followed. Further, that only an 8% higher response rate can be expected 

with a face-to-face interview, which has the disadvantage of being a lot more 

expensive. 

The design proposed to include four carefully spaced mailings. The survey postings 

eventuated as follows:- 

• Community Survey with interesting cover letter posted 9 Feb 2004 

• Follow Up Postcard 25 Feb 2004 

• Follow Up Reminder Letter 15 March 2004 

CCCEN Page 35


• Final Reminder Letter with copy of survey 25 March 2004 

The survey design incorporated a number of question styles, including Likert scale 

(attitudinal questions), ranked, open and closed questions in a varied and interesting 

format. Results have been structured in order of question style, as follows:- 

4.2.2.1 Likert scale responses (7) 

There were seven questions styled in the Likert scale. The percentaged results of the 

5-point Likert scale were aggregated into 4 different categories (Strongly 

Agree/Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree/Strongly Disagree, Don’t Know) 

for ease of interpretation. 

4.2.2.2 Ranked Responses (2) 

There were two questions enabling ranked responses. Incomplete answers were 

eliminated from the analysis. Measured responses to ranked questions were firstly 

totalled and then returned to a rank based on the sum of the original response. The 

new ranking indicated the level of importance of each category. 

4.2.2.3 Open Questions (9) 

Nine of the questions were styled as open questions. This was to provide the 

respondent with the opportunity to express themselves more fully. Responses were 

included in a list in their complete form for interpretation. 

4.2.2.4 Closed Questions (8) 

A series of eight closed questions were asked in order to provide easy responses 

using multiple choice answers. An easy to see tick box was provided, along with 

clear instruction. 

CCCEN Page 36


4.3 Results 

A total of twelve (12) surveys were returned of the sixty posted. This provided a 20% 

return. Respondents were from a broad range of zones, as highlighted by Table17. 

Table 17: Zone where respondents resided, Question 23, Kincumber Creek, Community Survey, 

2004. 

Zone % No. of 

respondents 

Land use zoning 

Ecosystem attributes 

A 17 2 2a Residential Freshwater 

B 25 3 2a Residential Freshwater 

C 17 2 2a Residential Brackish 

D 0 0 6b Recreation Estuarine 

E 25 3 6b Recreation (urban foreshore reserve) Estuarine 

F 8 1 7c(2) Semi-rural holdings adjacent to 6b Flora/Fauna Estuarine 

Reserve 

G 0 0 6b Council Flora/Fauna Reserve Estuarine 

H 0 0 6b Council Flora/Fauna Reserve Estuarine 

not 

given 

8% 1 not given not given 

Total n=12 

4.3.1 Respondent characteristics 

In summary, 50% of respondents were male and 50% female. All respondents were 

above 36 years of age. 92% of respondents had lived at their address for more than 

12 months. 83% were buying/owned their residence. 

4.3.2 Likert style questions (Attitudinal) 

Table 18 illustrates the overwhelming agreement (83%) that Kincumber Creek was 

perceived as a valuable asset in terms of its ecological values (Question 16 e). 

Almost as important was the agreement that Kincumber Creek provides valuable 

economic services to local industry and the community (67%) (Question 16 f). 

Question 16 g) was asked in order to gauge whether respondents thought that the 

project was a “waste of ratepayers” money. 92% disagreed with the statement. 

Question 16 b) was asked in order to understand the extent that respondents’ 

believed domestic animals were a threat to native plants and animals. 42% of 

respondents agreed with this statement, however, 33% disagreed that domestic 

animals posed a threat to our wildlife. 

Question 16 d) was asked in order to identify whether respondents considered 

Kincumber Creek as merely a drainage channel with its only purpose being to reduce 

flooding in the area. 50% agreed with this statement. 

CCCEN Page 37


Table 18 Likert style question responses relating to the degree with which respondents agreed 

with a statement regarding the creek, Question 16, Kincumber Creek Community Survey, 2004. 

Q16 

Positive perceptions 

Strongly 

Agree/ 

Agree 

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree 

Disagree/ 

Strongly 

Disagree 

Don’t 

know 

a 

c 

e 

f 

Since the project commenced there has been a 

reduction in speedboats exceeding the speed 

limit along Kincumber creek 25% 25% 17% 33% 

The Creek is valued by the community for 

recreation, its aesthetic appeal and cultural 

significance (social values) 58% 8% 25% 8% 

Kincumber Creek has important plant 

communities and is a valuable living and feeding 

place for birds, fish, reptiles, insects and other 

animals (ecological values) 83% 0% 8% 8% 

Kincumber Creek, its wetlands and saltmarsh 

fields clean our air, water and support local 

industries like fishing and oyster farms 

(economical value) 67% 17% 0% 17% 

Negative perceptions 

b 

Domestic Animals have a negative impact on 

native plants and animals along the creek 42% 8% 33% 17% 

d Kincumber Creek is merely a Drainage channel 50% 25% 25% 8% 

g This project is a waste of ratepayers' money 8% 0% 92% 0% 

4.3.3. Ranked Responses 

As indicated in Table 19, the best method of getting information out to our target 

audience was through the post. 90% ranked the postal method as No. 1 with 

newspaper media coming second. 

Table 19: Ranked question response to the best way of receiving educational information to the 

worst (n= 8), Question 6, Kincumber Creek Community Survey, 2004. 

Category 

Rank 

Post 1 

Paper media 2 

Displays 3 

School newsletters 4 

Workshops 5 

Internet 6 

CCCEN Page 38


As indicated by Table 20, Council management of the creek was considered the 

‘worst problem’ at the time of the survey and the restriction of regrowth of native 

plants caused by mowing as the ‘least problem’. 

Table 20:Ranked question response from the worst problem to least problems along Kincumber 

Creek, (n= 5), Question 14, Kincumber Creek Community Survey, 2004. 

Category 

Rank 

Council Management 1 

Rubbish dumped 2 

Litter washed in 3 

Water Quality 4 

Erosion 5 

Excess debris 6 

Siltation 7 

Exotic Plants 8 

Animal Faeces 9 

Exotic Animals 10 

Mowing restricts regeneration 11 

CCCEN Page 39


4.3.4 Closed Questions 

A series of closed questions was asked in order to identify whether educational 

techniques had been effective. 

During Stage 1, a series of nine signs were installed at strategic locations along the 

creek. As per Plate 2 the signs were bright and attractive featuring our flagship 

species, the spoonbill. A number of messages appeared on the signs including 

“Native Plants are Regenerating Here”. 

Plate 1: Example of educational signage installed at 9 locations along Kincumber 

Creek, during Stage 1 of the project, 2003. 

All respondents answered this first question. As indicated by Figure 7, 75% of 

respondents had noticed the signs. 

No 

25% 

Yes 

75% 

Figure 4: Percentage respondents who had cited educational signage installed during 2003, 

Question 1, Kincumber Creek Community Survey, 2004. 

CCCEN Page 40


The project produced a number of educational publications during Stage 1. These 

included:- 

• Brochure – How to Care for Kincumber Creek 

• Kincumber Creek Riparian Management Plan 

• Fact Sheet – Kincumber Creek Rehabilitation Project 

• Fact Sheet – Saltmarsh of Kincumber Creek 

• Native Plant List – Kincumber Creek 

58% of respondents completed this question. As indicated by Figure 8, of those 

respondents, 86% of respondents had read the Brochure – How to Care for 

Kincumber Creek, while 43% had cited the Riparian Management Plan, 57% the Fact 

Sheet on the project, 29% the Fact Sheet on Saltmarsh and 57% the Native Plant 

List for Kincumber Creek. 

100% 

90% 

Percentage of mean (%) 

80% 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

KC Riparian 

Management 

Plan 

Fact Sheet - 

Kincumber 

Creek 

Fact Sheet - 

Saltmarsh of 

Kincumber 

Creek 

Flyer - Native 

Plant List 

Brochure - 

How to Care 

for 

Kincumber 

Creek 

Publication 

Figure 4: Percentage mean of cited publications by respondents (n=7), Question 3, Kincumber 

Creek Community Survey, 2004. 

CCCEN Page 41


It was really important to us to find out whether this material was working, in terms of 

guiding more environmentally responsible behaviour. As clearly illustrated by Figure 

9, of the 83% who answered this question, 70% indicated their behaviour had not 

changed as a result of reading the publications, while 30% had. 

Yes 

30% 

No 

70% 

Figure 4: Percentage respondents who indicated that they had changed their 

behaviour as a result of reading listed educational material, (n=10) Question 4, 

Kincumber Creek Community Survey, 2004. 

It was important to the project aims to build upon the capacity of residents who live 

and integrate with the creek. A number of community activities were organised during 

Stage 1, providing a range of opportunities for the community to become involved in 

the project in a variety of ways. 

Several community activities were promoted to the public and directly (through 

letters) to adjoining residents. These included Workshops, Waterwatch, Bushcare, 

Tree Planting and free plants for private landholders. 

Figure 10 illustrates the level of participation among respondents. Only 33% of 

respondents answered this question. 50% of respondents had attended a Tree 

Planting Activity, 50% had taken up the offer of free plants for their section of creek 

bank and 25% had attended the community workshop. None of the respondents 

indicated their involvement in Bushcare, Waterwatch or the organised creekwalks. 

CCCEN Page 42


100% 

90% 

80% 

Percentage of Mean 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Workshops Creek w alks Waterw atch Bushcare Tree Planting Planting on 

private land 

Activity 

Figure 4: Percentage respondents who had been involved in community activities (n=4), 

Question 8, Kincumber Creek Community Survey, 2004. 

4.3.5 Open Questions 

A number of questions provided respondents with the opportunity to complete their 

own answer in a given space on the survey form. 

In Question 2 respondents were asked their impression of the educational signage 

installed by Council at nine locations along the creek. 

Most respondents who had seen the sign responded favourably, with only one (1) 

negative response, as follows:- 

• "It lets passers by know what is happening” 

• "Good, informative” 

• "Impressive, attracts attention, informative, without detracting from 

surroundings" 

• "I have not seen this sign. But it is a very good thing" 

• "Reassuring, but not noticed any improvement to area" 

• "Might consider including some signage encouraging people to take pride in 

creek and assist in caring for bushland/creek" 

• "Informative, but one sign placed in front of private land” 

• "Not very effective". 

In Question 5 respondents were asked to tell us how they had changed their 

behaviour following reading of the educational material that had been made available 

through Stage 1. 

50% of respondents completed at least partially, this question. The responses were 

encouraging with most offering examples of how they already care for the creek. 

CCCEN Page 43


• "Brochure - Planted trees along creek", 

• "Already do what is suggested", 

• "Always been aware of protecting the creek", 

• "Regularly clear rubbish from our area of creek - try to encourage other 

residents to take an interest", 

• "Always wash car on grass", 

• "Yes, I did. But so many others do not". 

In Question 7 ideas were sought for other topics suitable in ongoing publications 

about Kincumber Creek? 

Few responses were received, as follows:- 

• "Encouraging all the local community to care for our bushland/creek" 

• "Boat users made more aware of 4knot zone" 

• "Stories of old times” 

• "Respect for Wildlife". 

In Question 9, a list of activities organised throughout Stage 1, was provided and 

respondents were asked their opinion of each of these activities and if applicable, to 

relate their experiences. 

As very few had attended any of the listed activities, there was little response to this 

question, however, the following responses were given. 

• "This was done quite a few years ago to help stop creek bed subsiding" 

(planting) 

• "Caring for the area of the creek along my drive" 

• "Workshop very educational - disappointed at damage to plantings by local 

hoodlums" 

• "Helping the community plant trees". 

In Question 10, respondents were asked why they had not attended the organised 

activities. An interesting range of answers include the following:- 

• "no personal invitation" 

• "not here - only since Dec 2003” 

• "Involved in RFS activities at these times or working" 

• "My age". (82) 

• "Full time employment and Wildlife Arc carer - time poor" 

• "The Council took it away from us when the land was bought" 

• "I have seen nothing done to the creek where I live except rubble being left". 

CCCEN Page 44


In Question 11, respondents were asked to provide us with ideas about what would 

inspire future involvement in the listed activities. 

The level of response from this question indicated that this question may have been 

misinterpreted by some. 

• Workshops – “would attend if possible” 

• Planting along personal section of creek – “would attend if possible” 

• All boxes ticked – “More information” 

• Planting along our section of the creek - "involved - caring for the area of the 

creek along my drive” 

• Planting along our section of creek - "Council accepting land behind our 

property belongs to them" 

• All boxes ticked - "Retirement" 

• Waterwatch - "Living on the creek being a way of pollution" 

• “Probably suggesting a way to encourage other people's involvement” 

• Waterwatch box ticked. 

In Question 12 respondents were asked how many hours per month they were willing 

to volunteer to ongoing stages of the project. Respondents were then directed to 

provide their address details. In total 23 hrs per month was offered by respondents. 

Two (2) respondents were unsure. 

In Question 15, respondents were asked to identify any other problems along 

Kincumber Creek not listed. No new problems were raised except perhaps the 

ongoing siltation of the creek. 

• "When trees planted - children pulled them up” 

• “Council destroyed trees just planted" 

• "not here" - only since Dec 2003 

• "When bush was cleared along the creek, school children and teenagers used 

my driveway for a shortcut across the creek and they kill lizards and duck 

eggs" 

• "Council's refusal to acknowledge land behind our property belongs to them" 

• "In the last 5 years, Kincumber Creek, from Empire Bay Dr to Killuna Ave has 

silted up considerably" 

• "Stormwater with silt runoff still great" 

• "Excessive speeding by high powered boats - the majority of whom DO NOT 

obey 4-knot limit - dangerous and damaging to environment" 

• "Excess rubbish in waterway. Boat's still speeding - mainly on weekends" 

• "An elderly resident removed new trees planted and cuts the mangroves to 

have a better view" 

• "Boats speeding most weekends" 

• "Children taking small ducklings from their environment". 

CCCEN Page 45


And finally, in Question 22, ample space was provided for respondents to convey any 

further information about the creek. 

• "We have always maintained the area behind our house and made sure it 

was clear. Council have assisted when needed. We include this in our own 

home maintenance - so feel we already are volunteers. Thank you" 

• "I was disappointed in damage done by children when trees were planted. 

NOTHING REMAINS" 

• "The bush has grown back and stopped access from my place across the 

creek. I have spoken to people regenerating the creek and they suggest 

clearing alongside the creek and leaving the bush near our property to 

prevent access and vandals" 

• "Kincumber Creek is a natural drainage creek and should be kept silt free. 5 

years ago, it was possible to navigate a small boat at low tide. Now it is 

almost impossible. If not kept silt free, it will end up a mangrove swamp and 

flooding will occur" 

• "Boat speed and SKIIING in the creek is both dangerous and has an 

enormous impact on the siltation of creek. There is no enforcement of this 

issue by Waterways Authority or anyone else. We will soon not have a creek 

left" 

• "I think it is necessary for the reserve and mangroves to be checked on a 

regular basis and residents questioned eg - An elderly resident removed new 

trees planted and cuts the mangroves to have a better view" 

• "Slow down the boats to dredge. Dirty water and greasy" 

• "The creek beside my residence is a disgrace, and I have seen no one in 2 

years doing anything with it". 

CCCEN Page 46


4.4 Summary of Community Survey 

The aim of the community survey was to evaluate the success of Stage 1, by the 

attitudes and behaviour of residents who live adjacent to Kincumber Creek. 

With only 12 responses from a census of 60 residents (20%) whose homes adjoin 

Kincumber Creek, some caution has been exercised in interpreting the results. As far 

as response rates go, however, 20% was considered encouraging. A recent survey 

by Council, of Erina Creek residents (Molino Stewart, 2004), obtained only a 5% 

response rate from adjacent landholders. 

From the results, we can assume that some of the educational material has been 

successful. In particular, the visually attractive signs had been noticed by most of the 

respondents and the impression of these signs was positive. Council can also 

assume that the local residents who adjoin the creek prefer to receive information 

about the project through the post. However, as only half indicated that they had 

actually read the information, it is suggested that a range of methods of education 

continue to be integrated into the project eg through schools, workshops, face-to-face 

interaction at stalls, etc. 

The level of awareness and sense of ownership of residents towards Kincumber 

Creek appears to be patchy and scattered however, there have been excellent 

examples of strong commitment and ownership by a few. This demonstrates that 

there is potential for further building on the capacity of the creek community for 

achieving project outcomes in ongoing stages. 

In terms of the values, social, economic and ecological, that residents place on 

Kincumber Creek results are encouraging. It would appear that the creek continues 

to remain a valuable asset to the community surveyed. We can assume that there is 

enhanced support for the project and, therefore, good potential for success in 

achieving outcomes in ongoing stages of the project. 

The level of involvement of residents in revegetation, conservation and rehabilitation 

of adjacent residents of Kincumber Creek is not as high as hoped. However, as this 

is the first stage of the project, the support that was attained is positive and with 

continued support the project will continue to attract support from local schools, the 

broader community and residents. 

There was an indication from residents that boat speed since project commencement 

has not reduced and continues to be perceived as a safety hazard and continues to 

cause erosion, to residents who are directly impacted. 

The level of understanding of residents towards the impact of domestic animals on 

native fauna demonstrates that the community is still divided and undecided. 

CCCEN Page 47


5 Summary of Community Water Quality 

Monitoring Effort, Stage 1. 

In order to gauge the success of water quality monitoring objectives proposed in the 

KCRMP, Table 21 provides the original Strategy number and objective and the result 

achieved. 

Table 21: Summary of measurable objectives and outcome, Waterwatch, Kincumber Creek 

Rehabilitation Project, Stage 1, 2004. 

KCRMP 

Strategy 

No. 

Zone Objective Result 

4. G Water quality data is obtained on 

10 occasions to identify 

pollutants 

13. D2 In 1 year, water quality data has 

been obtained on 10 occasions 

to identify pollutants. 

Outcome achieved to some 

degree as one measure was taken 

at the end of Carrack Rd 

Outcome achieved. 11 measures 

were taken (under the pedestrian 

bridge at Killuna Rd) 

In summary, the community monitored a total of six locations, along Kincumber 

Creek, during Stage 1 of the project. These included:- 

Zone Location of Test Samples taken 

A Nijore Rd (in the park) 1 

B School Street 2 

D 1. Frost Reserve 

2. Killuna Rd 

1 

11 

E Gunya Rd 7 

H Carrack Rd 1 

Total 24 

Waterwatch provides indicative and reasonably accurate results (available from the 

Waterwatch website www.waterwatch.org.au). These are suitable for initial testing 

and as indicators of condition and are particularly useful in environmental education 

and capacity building. However, continuing pollution problems of Kincumber Creek 

are subject to ongoing monitoring by Council, using more accurate equipment. 

The success of community water quality monitoring can be determined by the level of 

involvement of local volunteers and quality of testing. In total, volunteers took 24 

samples from along Kincumber Creek. This contributes to a volunteer effort of 220 

hours during Stage 1 and highlights the success of the programme during Stage 1. 

Table 22: Recommendations, Waterwatch 

1. Waterwatch testing by local groups continue and be 

expanded along the creek, upstream into the catchment 

and into the Broadwater. 

Waterwatch 

CCCEN Page 48


6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

This Evaluation and Monitoring report has demonstrated the successes of physical 

and social efforts associated with the project and highlighted the fact that despite 

some challenges, adjacent residents value the creek, especially for its ecological 

value, and support ongoing expenditure of resources for rehabilitation. 

A mixture of on-ground techniques involving both Council and the broader community 

has enhanced ecological values. The assets that the creek displays include a 

diversity of structurally complete vegetation communities, a wildlife corridor and 

habitat for in excess of 140 bird species and other fauna. 

Challenges to the success of the project lie in the very nature of the stream’s demise 

that is in human intervention. Typically, those zones most impacted by human 

development (A, B, E) were the least resilient and displayed the greatest challenges. 

The stream will continue to erode with the current stormwater input and speedboat 

use. It is only with positive human intervention that the creek will improve. Much 

information has been gained and partnerships developed which will provide 

momentum and success to ongoing stages of the project. 

Council/Community partnerships 

Council has committed to ongoing project management and management of 

community activities, with Stage 2 of the project imminent. 

Council needs to ensure ongoing stages focus on providing well-resourced, 

consistent support to the management of volunteers over a long-term period. As 

highlighted in Webb (2003), social capital is important in achieving natural resource 

management outcomes. However, it is an ongoing process of negotiating between 

people and the effectiveness of natural resource management is influenced by the 

ability of the manager to draw on resources, and develop relationships of trust and 

reciprocity. 

Time is unfortunately easily diverted to other priorities. A project officer allocated to 

liaise directly with the community and ensure that the links established are enhanced 

may be a sound suggestion, as Kincumber has become quite a centre for eastern 

Brisbane Water. Council may consider that it may be beneficial to the project and 

other environmental projects in Kincumber and the local area, if a staff member was 

housed at Kincumber (eg at the library) to interact with the community eg on a 

regular basis, say once a week/month. 

The results of this report show that there is enough support through the effort of 

volunteers for Tree Planting and water quality monitoring to perhaps commence a 

Friends of Kincumber Creek catchment care group. 

Integration with other Council departments may continue to be improved. Strong links 

and consistent communication between other departments will also ensure adequate 

utilisation of resources. 

Evaluation and Monitoring process 

The project monitoring process has been valuable in terms of not only assessing the 

value of Stage 1 of the Kincumber Creek Rehabilitation project but also many other 

valuable outcomes were achieved. 

A snapshot of the creek’s assets and problems during early 2004 has enabled us to 

collect data for ongoing management and monitoring. Ongoing monitoring is vital, if 

the true worth of the project is to be evaluated against the measurable objectives 

identified in the Kincumber Creek Riparian Management Plan, 2003. This report has 

CCCEN Page 49


highlighted successes and often the challenges; however, our limited understanding 

of ecosystems does show that it takes a long time to see results of rehabilitation. 

The process was also important for the partnerships that were developed along the 

way. The field and community survey gave opportunity for informal discussions with 

the community, contributing to the transfer of knowledge and support for the project. 

Council may consider that future monitoring may include a greater element of faceto-face 

interviews as local knowledge is a valuable insight into the effectiveness of 

the project. 

Table 23: Recommendations, Project Management 

1. Establishment of a “Friends of Kincumber Creek” Catchment 

Care group to integrate community/Council efforts and provide 

greater opportunities for partnerships to continue to develop 

GCC 

2. Environmental Officer be housed temporarily at Kincumber (eg 

Council library) for community liaison and to integrate the 

efforts of schools, community groups etc. 

GCC 

3. Long term commitment to ongoing rehabilitation and monitoring 

of success of project including bush regeneration maintenance 

for at least 5 years in good quality zones to 20 years in poor 

quality zones. 

4. Reference sites can be useful to provide a more appropriate 

benchmark to monitor the rehabilitation of the creek if funding is 

to be ongoing and to provide a source of provenance seed. 

Using aerial mapping allocate reference sites. Survey reference 

sites. Ensure all vegetation communities adequately 

represented in conservation reserves in local area. 

5. Investigate feasibility of closure of public access to boats at 

Kerta Road. (Zone DS) 

6. Integrate with Council’s Land for Wildlife/wildlife corridor 

/Bushcare programme 

GCC 

GCC 

GCC 

GCC 

CCCEN Page 50


7 References 

Bell, S.A.J. 2003, The natural vegetation of the Gosford Local Government Area, 

Central Coast, New South Wales: Vegetation Community Profiles, Draft 

Report to Gosford City Council, Version 1.0. 

Byron, I and Curtis, A. 2002, “Maintaining Volunteer Commitment to Local Watershed 

Initiatives”, Environmental Management, Vol. 30, No. 1 pp 59-67. 

Central Coast Community Environment Network (CCCEN) Inc. 2003, Kincumber 

Creek Riparian Management Plan, Report Adopted by Gosford City Council. 

De Vaus, D. 2002, Social Surveys, Sage Publications, London, UK. 

Dillman, D. A. 2002, “The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys Reducing Non- 

Response Error” in Social Surveys, David De Vaus, Sage Publications, Vol II. 

Gosford City Council, 1997, State of the Environment Report, GCC, Gosford. 

Lunney, D and Mathews, A. 2002, “Community-based research: where are the 

rewards?” in A Clash of Paradigms: Community and research-based 

conservation. Daniel Lunney, Chris Dickman and Shelley Burgin, Royal 

Zoological Society of NSW, 2002. 

Molino Stewart, 2004, Erina Creek Water Quality Survey, Report for Gosford City 

Council, Jan 2004. 

Pallin, N. 2000, “Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve: Habitat restoration project, 15 years 

on”, Ecological Management and Restoration, Vol 1, No. 1, pp10-19. 

Watts, A. B. 1996, Birds of the Central Coast: Kincumber and Matcham, A. B. Watts, 

Berowra Hts, NSW. 

Webb, T. 2003, “Understanding Individual and Community Capacity”, RipRap, Edn 

24, pp 8-10, Land and Water Australia. 

Wheeler, D.J.B., Jacobs, S.W.L. and Whalley, R.D.B. 2002 Grasses of New South 

Wales, 3 rd edition, University of New England, Armidale. 

CCCEN Page 51


8 Observed fauna of Kincumber Creek, 2004 

Observations of fauna along Kincumber Creek during the survey period did not 

reflect the diversity and abundance of fauna using the site, due to such factors as the 

cryptic nature of species and seasonal variation. 

However, local knowledge has provided a good insight into the avifauna utilising 

Kincumber creek habitats. The following table (Table 24) includes records of 

observations made by Dennis O’Toole who has lived on Kincumber Creek (Zone E) 

for 18 years. They have been collated as they appear in the book Birds of the Central 

Coast: Kincumber and Matcham, where his original 1986-1996 records were 

published. 

This vast list acknowledges, not only the diversity of avian habitats in the area around 

Kincumber Creek, as highlighted by Judy Adderley in Watts (1996), but also the 

enormous value of local knowledge. 

Table 24: Recorded observations of avifauna along Kincumber Creek, 1986-2002, by Dennis 

O’Toole. 

Sightings along Kincumber 

Creek 

Order 

Family 

Grebes Grebes Australasian Grebe 

Cormorants and 

Cormorants, Pelicans and Allies Shags 

Darters 

Pelicans 

Herons and 

Herons, Ibises, Storks and Allies Bitterns 

Day-Active Birds of Prey 

Ibises and 

Spoonbills 

Kites, Hawks and 

Eagles 

Cormorant, Great (Black Shag) 

Cormorant, Little Black 

Cormorant, Little Pied (Little Black 

and White Shag) 

Cormorant, Pied (Black and White 

Shag) 

Darter (Snake-bird) 

Pelican, Australian 

Bittern, Black 

Egret, Cattle 

Egret, Great 

Egret, Little 

Heron, Striated (Mangrove) 

Heron, Rufous Night (Nankeen 

night) 

Heron, White-faced (Blue Crane) 

Heron, Pacific 

Ibis, Sacred (White) 

Ibis, Straw-necked 

Spoonbill, Royal (Black-bill) 

Goshawk, Australian (Brown) 

Harrier, Swamp 

Hawk, Crested (Pacific Baza) 

Hobby, Australian 

Kite, Black-shouldered 

Kite, Whistling 

Osprey 

CCCEN Page 52


Order 

Ducks, Geese, Pheasants and 

Allies 

Family 

Falcons 

Geese, Swans 

and Ducks 


Creek 

Sea-Eagle, White-bellied 

Eagle, Little 

Eagle, Wedge-tailed 

Sparrowhawk, Collared 

Australian Kestral (Nankeen 

Kestral) 

Falcon, Black 

Falcon, Brown 

Falcon, Grey 

Falcon, Peregrine 

Duck, Pacific (Black) 

Duck, Maned (Wood) 

Mallard 

Swan, Black 

Teal, Chestnut 

Teal, Grey 

Button-Quails, Rails, Cranes, 

Bustards and Allies Rails and Allies Crake, Spotless 

Rail, Buff-banded 

Rail, Lewin's (Water) 

Swamphen, Purple 

Plovers, Waders, Gulls and Auks Oystercatchers Oystercatcher, Pied 

Stone-Curlews Curlew, Bush Stone 

Plovers and 

Pigeons, Doves and Allies 

Parrots and Cockatoos 

Dotterels 

Sandpipers and 

Allies 

Gulls, Terns and 

Skuas 

Pigeons and 

Doves 

Parrots and 

Cockatoos 

Lapwing, Masked (Masked Plover) 

Curlew, Eastern 

Godwit, Bar-tailed 

Sandpiper, Marsh 

Snipe, Latham's (Japanese Snipe) 

Gull, Silver 

Caspian Tern 

Common Tern 

Cuckoo-Dove, Brown (Brown 

Pigeon) 

Pigeon, Crested 

Pigeon, Top-Knot 

Pigeon, White-headed 

Turtle-Dove, Spotted 

Cockatoo, Glossy black 

Cockatoo, Sulphur-crested, white 

Cockatoo, Yellow-tailed Black 

Corella, Little 

Corella, Long-billed 

Galah 

Lorikeet, Musk 

Lorikeet, Rainbow 

Parrot, Australian King 

Rosella, Crimson 

CCCEN Page 53


Order 

Cuckoos, Turacos and Hoatzins 

Owls 

Family 

Cuckoos, Koels 

and Coucals 

Hawk-Owls and 

Masked Owls 


Creek 

Rosella, Eastern (White-cheeked) 

Coucal, Pheasant 

Cuckoo, Brush 

Cuckoo, Channel-billed 

Cuckoo, Fan-tailed 

Cuckoo, Pallid 

Koel, Common (Indian) 

Southern Boobook (Boobook Owl) 

Owl, Barn 

Owl, Powerful 

Frogmouths and Nightjars Owlet-Nightjars Owlet-nightjar, Australian 

Frogmouth, Tawny 

Swifts and Hummingbirds Swifts 

Needletail, White-throated (Spinetailed 

Swift) 

Kingfishers, Rollers, Hornbills 

and Allies Kingfishers Kingfisher, Azure 

Kingfisher, Sacred 

Kookaburra, Laughing 

Rollers Dollarbirds 

Perching Birds 

Swallows and 

Martins Swallow 

Swallow, Welcome 

Pipits and 

Wagtails 

Cuckoo-shrikes, 

Trillers and 

Minivets 

Pipit, Richard's 

Cicadabird 

Cuckoo-shrike, Black-faced 

Australian 

Robins, Whistlers 

and Flycatchers Fantail, Grey 

Fantail, Rufous 

Flycatcher, Restless 

Thrush, Grey Strike (Strike-thrush) 

Wagtail, Willie 

Old World 

Warblers 

Fairy Wrens and 

Allies 

Scrub-wrens, 

Thornbills and 

Allies 

Honeyeaters 

Grassbird, Little 

Fairy-wren, Superb 

Gerygone, Brown (Brown Warbler) 

Thornbill, Brown 

Thornbill, Striated 

Thornbill, Yellow 

Thornbill, Yellow-rumped 

Friarbird, Noisy 

Honeyeater, Lewin's 

Honeyeater, New Holland 

Honeyeater, Scarlet 

Honeyeater, White-cheeked 

CCCEN Page 54


Order 

Family 

White-eyes 

Finches 

Weavers and 

Allies 

Starlings and 

Mynahs 

Orioles and 

Figbirds 

Drongos 

Bower birds 

Magpie-Larks 

Butcherbirds and 

Currawongs 

Crows, Jays and 

Allies 


Creek 

Honeyeater, Yellow-faced 

Miner, Noisy 

Spinebill, Eastern 

Wattlebird, Little 

Wattlebird, Red 

Silvereye (Eastern Silvereye) 

Finch, Red-browed (Red-browed 

firetail) 

Sparrow, House 

Mynah, Common 

Starling, Common 

Oriole, Olive-backed 

Figbird 

Drongo, Spangled 

Bower bird, Regent 

Bower bird, Satin 

Magpie-Lark, Australian (Peewee) 

Butcherbird, Grey 

Currawong, Pied 

Magpie, Australian (Black-backed 

Magpie) 

Raven, Australian 

CCCEN Page 55


9 Appendices 

9.1 Community Survey 

CCCEN Page 56


9.2 List of Random Numbers used to monitor vegetation along 

Kincumber Creek, 2004. 

Table 25: List of Random Numbers used to monitor vegetation along Kincumber Creek, 2004. 

Sub-zone 

Random number 

allocated prior to 

field survey 

Sub-zone 

Random number 


field survey 

Sub-zone 

Random number 


field survey 

A1 25 B1 30 C1 46 

A2 39 B2 33 C2 14 

A3 21 B3 50 C3 22 

A4 04 B4 33 C4 11 

DN1 11 DS1 04 C5 27 

DN2 9 DS2 05 C6 08 

DN3 6 DS3 14 

DN4 42 DS4 05 

DN5 11 DS5 31 

E1 22 F1 10 

E2 50 F2 30 

E3 47 F3 14 

E4 50 F4 23 

E5 17 F5 49 

E6 28 F6 46 

E7 41 F7 22 

F8 34 

G1 47 H1 45 

G2 03 H2 21 

G3 32 H3 29 

G4 24 H4 19 

CCCEN Page 57

evaluation report for Stage 1 of the project (PDF file, 1004kb)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?