Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project - Carmelacanzonieri.com

Urban Ecosystems, 1998, 2, 205–218
c○ 1998 Kluwer Academic Publishers
Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project: opportunities
and constraints in an urban wetland rehabilitation project
W. J. STREEVER∗
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
This paper describes the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
The area’s wetlands have been degraded over the past two hundred years by resource extraction, alterations to hydrology,
clearing for agriculture, cattle grazing, and industrial development. KWRP objectives include (1) habitat rehabilitation
at three sites totaling 1560 ha, (2) involving the community with rehabilitation, and (3) developing wetland management
models through a research program. Rehabilitation in an urban setting is accompanied by various constraints and
opportunities. Constraints experienced by KWRP include requirements to (1) avoid disturbance of urban infrastructure,
(2) demonstrate that rehabilitation will not increase flood risks to populated areas, and (3) develop methods of increasing
wetland habitat without aggravating an existing mosquito problem. Opportunities include (1) availability of financial
sponsors and skilled personnel, and (2) close proximity to a university, which allowed establishment of a research
partnership. By conducting wetland rehabilitation in a densely populated area, KWRP exposes a large number of
people to the challenges associated with ecosystem rehabilitation and the importance of preserving wetland resources.
Keywords: Australia; estuary; salt marsh; urban; wetland rehabilitation
Introduction
In Australia, government initiatives to protect wetlands are developing rapidly. In March 1996 the state
of New South Wales released The NSW Wetlands Management Policy (New South Wales Department of
Land and Water Conservation, 1996), and in January 1997 the federal government released the Wetlands
Policy of the Commonwealth Government of Australia (Biodiversity Group of Environment Australia,
1997). Both policies encourage rehabilitation of wetlands, but neither carry the weight of law (Finlay-
Jones, 1997). Instead, they are intended to guide government decision making without setting legally
enforceable requirements. Limited legally binding regulations exist that can require wetland rehabilitation.
For example, the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14—Coastal Wetlands (SEPP 14) of New South
Wales, which applies to the state’s coastal wetlands, subjects developments to a permitting process that
may require mitigation through wetland creation or restoration (New South Wales Department of Urban
Affairs and Planning, 1985). However, regulations such as SEPP 14 have limited applicability. Where
wetland rehabilitation occurs in Australia, it is typically driven by community interest and community
action rather than legal requirements.
A recent review of wetland rehabilitation in Australia identified 69 projects, ranging in size from 0.4
to 110,000 ha (Streever, 1997a). Many of these projects are in urban settings. One or more rehabilitation
projects can be found in five of Australia’s seven capital cities—Adelaide, Brisbane, Hobart, Perth, and Sydney.
Newcastle, an industrial center 150 km north of Sydney that is known for coal mining and metal manufacturing,
hosts one of the largest urban wetland rehabilitation project in Australia, the Kooragang Wetland
Rehabilitation Project (KWRP). This paper describes KWRP and approaches used by KWRP to overcome
constraints and develop opportunities inherent to wetland rehabilitation undertaken in an urban setting.
∗ Current address: CEWES-ER-W, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, USA.
E-mail: streevw@wes.army.mil

206 Streever
Historical setting
About 20,000 years ago, sea level rise drowned the coastal area offshore from present day Newcastle, and
deposition of sediment carried by the Hunter River began to create a floodplain bisected by an entrenched
channel. By 1798, when Captain John Shortland claimed the first official British discovery of the Hunter
River, the floodplain covered most of the low-lying portions of present day Newcastle and the surrounding
area (Patterson Britton and Partners, 1996). Early accounts suggest that the estuary’s natural resources
were the main attraction to British colonials. Lieutenant Colonel William Paterson noted the value of both
timber and shells, which were needed for building purposes, writing, “There are gum trees, swamp oak and
mangrove in abundance ...[and] the quantity of oyster shells on the beaches inland is beyond conception:
they are in some places for miles ...without either sand or earth” (Paterson, 1801). Similarly, Lieutenant
James Grant wrote, “we found many large timber trees intermixed with the ash, one of which I took on board
as a specimen, which has much the likeness of hickory, and may be applicable to many of the purposes that
wood is used for ...the shore [was] covered to a great depth with oyster-shells, from which lime might be
made on the spot, should it at any time be required for the purposes of building” (Grant, 1803).
Soon after initial exploration, sawyers were landed and impacts by British settlers began. Mangrove
trees were cut for use as wagon wheels and to fuel kilns that converted oyster shells to lime, which could
be used to make mortar. By 1815, impacts to the estuary were severe enough to prompt a letter from a
Newcastle supervisor to his superiors in Sydney explaining that lime production was limited because of the
growing scarcity of fuel wood and shells (Thompson, 1815). The islands of the Hunter River estuary were
used for farming by 1827, and by 1842 cattle were grazing on the islands (Turner, 1997). Local extinctions
and species introductions were noted on the estuary’s islands by the botanist William Woolls in the 1860s,
who wrote that “some of the species which formerly flourished on the island have been destroyed and
others ...have been introduced” (Woolls, 1867). An 1872 newspaper article reported additional cutting of
mangrove trees, this time for use in a salt production facility. As early as 1885, 35,000 tons of coal were
burned each year on the banks of the Hunter River for copper manufacturing. The river was altered further
by dredging of Newcastle Harbor and its approach channels. Following the passage of the 1912–1913
Newcastle Iron and Steel Works Act, industrialization increased its pace. Steel production, fated to become
a keystone industry for the region, commenced on the shores of the estuary (Turner, 1997).
In 1953, the Newcastle Harbour Improvements Act led to conversion of a number of small islands
in the Hunter River estuary to a single large island, eventually named Kooragang Island (Moss, 1983).
Construction of the railway and levee system that currently encloses about one third of Kooragang Island
was started in 1966, and by 1971 the New South Wales Public Works Department estimated that 704 ha
of the island had been partly or wholly developed for industrial use, leaving about 1900 ha for additional
development. But by this time, the effects of air and water pollution could no longer be ignored. In 1972,
the State Pollution Control Commission recommended that “a fairly large part of the presently undisturbed
[sic] area of the island should be preserved in its natural [sic] state” (Coffey, 1973). In 1992, in part as a
result of the impetus of Craig Copeland from New South Wales Fisheries, the Kooragang Island Wetland
Compensation Project Feasibility Study (Shortland Wetlands Centre and TUNRA, 1992) was released,
signaling a shift in attitudes that allowed serious consideration of a proposal to rehabilitate wetlands and
other habitat degraded over the past two hundred years.
Current setting
Estuarine wetlands in the Newcastle region consist of a mixture of mangrove, salt marsh, and freshwater
wetlands. Mangrove forest dominated by gray mangrove (Avicennia marina) with a shrub layer of
river mangrove (Aegiceras corniculatum) commonly grows at elevations lower than the lower salt marsh

KWRP: Urban Wetland Rehabilitation 207
boundary but above the elevation at which tidal action prevents establishment of mangrove seedlings
(Clarke and Hannon, 1969). Salt marsh vegetation typically consists of a mixture of samphire (Sarcocornia
quinqueflora), salt couch (Sporobolus virginicus), seablite (Suaeda australis), and streaked arrow grass
(Triglochin striata). Near the upper boundaries of the salt marsh, the native sea rush (Juncus kraussii) and
the exotic spiny rush (Juncus acutus) can be abundant. Where land forms isolate low lying areas from tidal
flows or where significant freshwater input dilutes tidal water, freshwater wetlands occur. These wetlands
can be dominated by a number of species, including common reed (Phragmites australis), ribbon grass
(Triglochin procerum), water couch (Paspalum distichum), and river clubrush (Schoenoplectus validus).
Estuarine wetlands in the Newcastle area typically abut uplands with urban development or upland pasture
dominated by mixed exotic species, including buffalo grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), couch (Cynodon
dactylon), and kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum).
KWRP currently manages three separate sites for rehabilitation: the Tomago site, the Ash Island site,
and the Stockton Sandspit site (Fig. 1). The Tomago site, comprised of a buffer zone surrounding Tomago
Aluminium Company’s smelter and land belonging to New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife
Service, supports estuarine wetland habitat as well as upland pasture. In general, wetland habitat is
separated from upland pasture at the Tomago site by a levee system and floodgates allowing one-way flow
that prevent tidal influx beyond levees. To date, KWRP efforts at the site have been limited to collection
Figure 1. Location map, showing three sites managed by the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project: the Ash
Island site, the Tomago site, and the Stockton Sandspit site. Kooragang Island divides the Hunter River into North
and South Channels that rejoin before the river discharges into the Pacific Ocean at Nobby’s Head.

208 Streever
of data and initiation of an environmental impact statement, which should eventually allow management
of floodgates in a manner conducive to wetland rehabilitation.
The Ash Island site, named after an island that has been subsumed by Kooragang Island, is situated
on the northwestern third of Kooragang Island. The Ash Island site property is owned by New South
Wales Public Works and Services, but about one third of the land is leased to cattle graziers. Like the
Tomago site, the Ash Island site also supports estuarine wetland and upland pasture, but while flood-control
levees and floodgates separate the two habitats at the Tomago site, an elevation gradient and roads that
function as levees typically separate the two habitats at the Ash Island site. Culverts historically restricted
tidal flow where roads crossed over the site’s five major creeks, apparently leading to decreases in salt
marsh and mangrove and concurrent increases in upland pasture and freshwater marsh. Storm damage at
one creek and excavation by KWRP at two creeks removed culverts and allowed renewed tidal flushing
in some areas that has led to the spread of salt marsh and mangrove (Streever et al., 1996; Streever
and Genders, 1997). Leasing of the Ash Island site for cattle grazing can be traced to earlier plans to
industrialize the whole of Kooragang Island. When the plans stalled in response to the Coffey Report’s
call for preservation of remaining habitat (Coffey, 1973) and other concerns, earlier land-use patterns
continued under a lease system that requires graziers to renew leases every six months; this system allows
government land managers to entertain a number of options for future development.
The Stockton Sandspit site was created from dredged material removed from the Hunter River’s shipping
channel. According to local bird observers, Stockton Sandspit provided an important high tide roost
for migratory wading birds until it was overgrown by the exotic shrubs bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides
monilifera) and spiny rush (Juncus kraussii). In 1995, KWRP recontoured Stockton Sandspit and currently
manages it as a high tide bird roost. Colonization by exotic shrubs and mangroves that can limit visibility
and render the site unsuitable as a bird roost is discouraged by a manual removal program. Vegetation
monitoring in July 1997 showed that samphire covers a significant portion of the site (Genders, 1997).
Although the 1992 feasibility study considered only the Ash Island site (Shortland Wetlands Centre
and TUNRA, 1992), the launching of KWRP in 1993 was soon followed by the expansion of the project
to include the Tomago and Stockton Sandspit sites (Svoboda and Copeland, 1997). From the beginning,
KWRP intended to work toward three goals: habitat rehabilitation, community involvement, and development
of estuarine research models. The initial focus on wetlands rapidly broadened to include upland
forest rehabilitation and creation of a city farm designed to demonstrate agricultural practices that could
be used on land surrounding estuaries.
Constraints and opportunities
All wetland rehabilitation projects face constraints that limit their ability to set or achieve what might be
construed as the idealistic objective of rehabilitating a site to a pristine condition. Examples of common
constraints in Australia include financial limitations, time limitations, and a need to adapt to irreversible or
ongoing environmental impacts. Financial limitations are illustrated by the median funding level reported
by thirty-three Australian rehabilitation projects, which was A$30,000 per year, considerably less than
would be required to support a full-time salary for one skilled employee (Streever, 1997a). Time limitations
are illustrated by the median project duration reported by thirty-two Australian rehabilitation projects,
which was only four years (Streever, 1997a), even though it is widely accepted that a decade or longer
may be required for habitat rehabilitation (Quinn and Beumer, 1984; Galatowitsch and van der Valk,
1994; Mitsch and Wilson, 1996). The need to adapt to irreversible or ongoing environmental impacts
is illustrated by the large number of projects forced to proceed with rehabilitation in the presence of
agricultural, industrial, mining, and urban impacts despite recognition that rehabilitation should include
removal of impacts (Storrs and Lonsdale, 1995; Finlayson et al., 1997; Streever, 1997a).
Like other projects, KWRP is faced with a number of constraints that influence management. At least
three of these constraints are related to the project’s proximity to the city of Newcastle and surrounding

KWRP: Urban Wetland Rehabilitation 209
areas that support dense human populations. The first is related to urban infrastructure, the second to flood
management, and the third to mosquito control.
Urban infrastructure constraints
Rehabilitation sites in close proximity to urban areas are likely to support infrastructure such as roads,
pipelines, and power cables, as demonstrated by KWRP’s Ash Island (Fig. 2). Although KWRP has met
with considerable success in working with various stakeholders who control urban infrastructure on Ash
Island, part of this success stems from the flexibility of KWRP managers and realization during planning
stages that certain activities, such as relocation of Newcastle’s water and gas mains or moving piers that
support high-voltage power lines, were not possible. The locations of infrastructures and rights-of-way
may not be obvious, and the mapping of infrastructures that can constrain project activities is an important
step in rehabilitation. For KWRP’s Ash Island site, current zoning that maintains the possibility of future
industrialization also presents a constraint. Efforts to rezone the Ash Island site as a conservation area
have met with resistance from some local authorities.
Flood management constraints
The earliest documented flood in the lower Hunter River occurred in 1820, and since then periods of flooding
have been recorded between 1863 and 1880, during the 1890s, and between 1949 and 1955 (Patterson
Britton and Partners, 1996). The 1955 flood, which is believed to have been more severe than the predicted
1-in-100-year flood, claimed fourteen lives and destroyed a levee system that had developed over the
preceding century (Patterson Britton and Partners, 1996). Following the 1955 flood, the Hunter Valley
Flood Mitigation Act of 1956 led to the construction of 160 km of levees, 30 km of riverbank protection
works, 140 kms of drains, 40 km of control and diversion banks, and 200 floodgate structures. These
floodworks offered protection to about sixty thousand residents living northwest of Newcastle (Patterson
Britton and Partners, 1996).
In 1996, a floodplain management study was produced for the Lower Hunter Floodplain Management
Committee (Patterson Britton and Partners, 1996). Among other objectives, the study was to assess the
effect of “industrial and conservation development proposals for sections of Kooragang Island” on upstream
flooding. A MIKE 11 hydrological model was used to estimate the effect of a number of development
options, including revegetation of Kooragang Island as part of KWRP objectives. Although consultants
hired to perform the floodplain management study recognized that habitat rehabilitation was compatible
with classification of the area as a floodway, they raised concerns regarding the ability of dense vegetation
to alter the roughness coefficient used in the model, which would lead to increased upstream flood levels.
Mike 11 modeling showed that upstream flooding could increase by about 0.3 m during the 1-in-100-year
flood, with smaller increases for the 1-in-20-year and 1-in-5-year floods (Fig. 3). Although the report
concluded that these increases were not significant, local government officials expressed concern and
requested further information about the effect of revegetation on flooding. A review of the procedure
used by consultants revealed three important features that biased the model’s outcomes. First, the model
could not account for complex flows. Second, the roughness coefficient used in the model assumed that
dense forest would eventually cover the entire Ash Island site, even though KWRP plans did not call for
establishment of dense forest on the entire site. Third, the predicted 0.3 m increase was relative to existing
conditions but did not account for changes that would occur in the absence of rehabilitation.
A revised estimate of the effect of KWRP plans on flooding was made. The revised estimate used a twodimensional
model that could accommodate multiple roughness coefficients based on proposed revegetation
schemes and account for complex flows. Also, the revised model was set up to compare conditions that
might occur under the KWRP plan to those that might occur through unmanaged revegetation of the site.
This model indicated that planned KWRP revegetation would lead to slightly reduced flood levels relative

210 Streever
Figure 2. Ash Island site showing locations of existing infrastructure that might influence rehabilitation.

KWRP: Urban Wetland Rehabilitation 211
Figure 3. Mike 11 hydrologic modeling suggested that peak flood levels for the 1-in-100-year, 1-in-20-year, and
1-in-5-year floods would increase upstream from the Ash Island site if rehabilitation included establishment of dense
vegetation. The model allowed prediction of flood levels at key locations along the river, including the Hexam Bridge,
the Tomago Aluminium Company’s smelter, and the Stockton Bridge. Figure adapted from Patterson Britton and
Partners (1996).
to levels predicted for the unmanaged revegetation scenario (Fig. 4) (McConnell, 1995). Although it is
unlikely that models can predict actual flood levels with the precision implied by the model output, results
do show that KWRP plans are acceptable within the context of flood management.
Mosquito control constraints
In Australia, over 5,000 cases of the mosquito-borne arbovirus Ross River fever were reported between
September 1991 and August 1992 (Hargreaves and Hall, 1992). Mosquitoes may also have a negative
effect on the economy, from lost labor caused by mosquito borne disease and from lost tourist dollars
(Axtell, 1979; Kay, 1986; Hulsman and Dale, 1991). At least one local government authority in Australia,
the Tweed Shire Council, considers proximity to mosquito larval habitat in town planning (Dale, 1993).
In the Newcastle area, the common salt marsh mosquito Aedes vigilax is the most common mosquito. The
common salt marsh mosquito is a known vector for Ross River virus, and over fifty cases of the disease
have been reported since 1992 in the Newcastle area (personal communication, Rick Harris, Port Stephens
Council). Application of pesticides in salt marsh pools where mosquito larvae mature is a common practice
in the Newcastle region. Runnelling, a form of ditching that reduces mosquito numbers by providing a tidal

212 Streever
Figure 4. Results of revised hydrologic model predicting the effect of Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project
plans relative to the effect of revegetation that would occur if the site is not managed for habitat rehabilitation at two
locations. Time zero is at the flood peak. Predicted differences in water levels attributed to effects of the project are
for the 1-in-100-year flood. Figure adapted from McConnell (1995).
flush to larval habitat and allowing access by predators without destroying the marsh (Dale and Hulsman,
1990; Hulsman and Dale, 1991), has been used on a small scale in the Newcastle region and is currently
being considered for more extensive application.
For KWRP, concerns about mosquitoes act as a constraint because planners and residents are reluctant
to support projects that may lead to increased mosquito numbers. KWRP responds to these concerns in
three ways: by considering mosquito issues in the design of rehabilitation works, by conducting research
that can lead to improved mosquito management, and by attempting to educate the public about KWRP
efforts to control mosquitoes.
One of KWRP’s primary objectives is habitat rehabilitation, including salt marsh habitat. In this context,
rehabilitation includes both restoration of salt marshes by removing barriers to tidal flow, such as
floodgates and culverts, and creation of salt marsh by excavation of degraded upland pastures. In the
KWRP management plan (Svoboda, 1996), the objective of habitat rehabilitation includes a provision for
mosquito management. In practice, KWRP managers advocate open marsh water management (OMWM)
as a means of controlling mosquito numbers without extensive use of chemicals and with minimal negative
impacts to the marsh ecosystem (Dale and Hulsman, 1990). As a first step toward OMWM, significant
larval habitats were identified. In 1995, culverts that restricted tidal flow to salt marsh creeks were removed
(Streever et al., 1996), primarily to rehabilitate salt marsh habitat, but with the possible added benefit of
reducing mosquito numbers through improved tidal flushing. Plans to remove additional culverts in order
to improve tidal flushing to one of the Ash Island site’s most significant larval habitats are being developed
for 1998.
Mosquito management research funded by KWRP since 1995 has focused on the identification of ways
to reduce mosquito oviposition habitat and to monitor the effect of improved tidal flushing on oviposition

KWRP: Urban Wetland Rehabilitation 213
Table 1. Multiple regression model showing relationship between various environmental
factors and the number of mosquito (Aedes vigilax) eggs and eggshells in salt marsh soil.
Environmental factors that were significant to the model are indicated by asterisks, with
∗ meaning P < 0.05, ∗∗ , nearing P < 0.01, and ∗∗∗ , nearing P < 0.001; NS indicates
P > 0.05 a
Coefficient
Environmental factor (1 standard error) Significance
Intercept 0.747 (0.405) NS
Distance from culvert (m) b 0.002 (0.001)
∗∗
Distance from creek (m) 0.006 (0.001) NS
Samphire (Sarcocornia quinqueflora) cover (%) 0.009 (0.004)
∗
Salt couch (Sporobolus virginicus) cover (%) 0.007 (0.003)
∗
Elevation (m relative to Australian height datum) −1.306 (0.607)
∗
Depression c 1.080 (0.158)
∗∗∗
Pond 0.439 (0.205)
∗
Creek 1 0.473 (0.199)
∗
Creek 3 −0.257 (0.180) NS
Overall model: F 9,110 = 16.05, adjusted r 2 = 0.53, n = 120, P = ∗∗∗ .
a Source: Adapted from Turner and Streever (1997).
b Source of tidal flushing is through culverts at creek mouths.
c Depressions were defined as low-lying areas that held water but had no direct connection to tidal creeks,
while ponds were defined as low-lying areas that held water and had a direct connection to tidal creeks.
(Streever, 1997b). KWRP’s focus on oviposition complements the more common research focus on larval
habitat and means of controlling mosquitoes at the larval stage. Available results from a multiple regression
analysis associate mosquito oviposition sites with vegetated depressions most distant from sources of tidal
flooding (Table 1) (Turner and Streever, 1997). In general, these results suggest that the same OMWM
methods developed to reduce mosquito larvae may also reduce the availability of preferred oviposition
sites. These results also offer guidance about habitat types that should be avoided when salt marsh is created
by excavating upland pastures. Over the next three years, KWRP plans to expand the mosquito research
program to look at the impact of runnelling on salt marsh habitat in conjunction with regional plans to
increase the use of runnelling for mosquito control. This research will complement work in Queensland
that suggests that runnelling can dramatically decrease larval numbers without the catastrophic effect on
marshes experienced with traditional mosquito-control ditching (Dale et al., 1993).
Education regarding mosquitoes has relied on displays at the KWRP visitor center on the Ash Island site,
discussions with local residents and policy makers intended to dispel misconceptions about mosquitoes, and
inclusion of material about mosquito management in a University of Newcastle wetlands ecology course.
An education officer who joined the KWRP staff in 1997 will increase the dissemination of information
about mosquito management efforts through site tours, media, and classroom teaching.
Opportunities related to the community presence
Athough wetland rehabilitation projects in urban areas face constraints that would be less prevalent in
rural areas, urban projects also enjoy certain opportunities that would not exist in typical rural settings.
For KWRP, two important opportunities have arisen from the presence of a large community and from the
close proximity of the University of Newcastle to KWRP sites.
Continued success of KWRP depends on the availability of funding, which comes from seventeen
organizations, of which all but five are locally based. Without the population base centered around Newcastle,
a project with the objectives and scope of KWRP would not be possible. Eight of the seventeen

214 Streever
organizations that fund KWRP are corporations with physical links to the Hunter River estuary. The importance
of corporate sponsorship to the continued success of KWRP cannot be overemphasized, in part
because corporations provided about 25% of KWRP funding during the 1993/94 and 1994/95 financial
years. Perhaps more importantly, corporate sponsorship demonstrates that industry representatives consider
wetland rehabilitation to be valuable to the community, which can be a factor in attracting funds from
the public sector. In 1997 the New South Wales government granted KWRP the status of a “major work,”
which ensures a government contribution of A$4.8 million in matching funds over ten years; although the
New South Wales government considered a number of factors before granting major work status, corporate
support for KWRP played a critical role. Also, obtaining the A$4.8 million in matching funds relies on
ongoing attraction of support from local corporate sponsors.
Availability of skilled personnel has contributed to KWRP’s success. In 1993 KWRP staff consisted of
one part-time project coordinator. Since then KWRP has grown to employ five full-time staff, including
a project manager, a city farm manager, a works supervisor, an education officer, and a project officer.
Attracting skilled staff at reasonable salary levels has been possible because of the large population base
of Newcastle. Funding for salaries is directly linked to the urban setting in at least two cases: the city
farm manager, whose salary comes from a grant specifically supporting development of a city farm, and
the works manager, whose salary comes from Newcastle City Council.
In addition to paid staff, KWRP relies heavily on volunteers and people enrolled in training programs
who are readily available because of Newcastle’s population. In the 1996/97 financial year, volunteers
provided an estimated A$6,645 worth of labor, primarily by assisting with planting schemes. During the
same period, training programs designed to teach skills to the unemployed provided over A$60,000 worth
of labor by assisting with planting schemes, erecting fences, and building boardwalks.
KWRP frequently hires contractors for specific tasks. For example, contractors have been used to
write environmental impact statements for proposed works, restoration of visitor center buildings, road
maintenance, and removal of culverts. Availability of a range of businesses in the Newcastle area allows
reliance on contractors.
Opportunities related to research
Beginning in 1995, KWRP formalized a partnership with the University of Newcastle that created a faculty
position in wetlands ecology. The position was intended to contribute to KWRP’s goal of developing models
for estuarine wetland rehabilitation, but it has also contributed to the goal of community involvement
and fostered national and international recognition of KWRP. The success of this partnership stems in part
from the close proximity of KWRP and the University of Newcastle, which allows convenient site access
for student research projects as well as frequent interaction of KWRP staff with University of Newcastle
staff and students.
The research program was designed to include proactive and reactive research streams (Streever, 1997b).
Proactive research provides information that can contribute to management decisions before rehabilitation
works are undertaken while reactive research assesses ecosystem change resulting from rehabilitation
works. Currently, four Ph.D. students, two Master’s students, and a number of undergraduates conduct
research in conjunction with KWRP. Undergraduate research involvement includes project work as part of
the laboratory component of undergraduate courses as well as Honours degree research, which requires a
full-time commitment to research for two semesters under close supervision.
Fewer than 20% of the salt marsh ecology papers reviewed by Dale and Hulsman (1990) came from
outside of the United States. The research partnership between KWRP and the University of Newcastle
provides both the means and the impetus to conduct research on Australian salt marsh ecology while also
offering training to students. In general, student projects are designed to include both proactive and reactive
components. For example, one student project used reciprocal transplant and vegetation removal methods

KWRP: Urban Wetland Rehabilitation 215
to investigate factors determining the boundary between salt marsh and pasture while also assessing the
effect of culvert removal on the expansion of salt marsh into pasture (Streever and Genders, 1997). Another
student project is using aerial imagery and GIS to assess historical vegetation change following floodgate
installation, a form of proactive research, while also applying similar technology to monitor vegetation
change following rehabilitation efforts on the Ash Island site, a form of reactive research.
Although undergraduate projects are typically smaller than graduate student projects, they can still
provide valuable information to KWRP. The two semesters of full-time research effort required by the
Honours degree can generate useful data, provided that the project can be completed over two semesters
or designed so that one student can continue another student’s work if seasonal and interannual effects are
important. Examples of valuable Honors projects include a shadehouse study that simulated the effect of
opening floodgates and subsequent occasional tidal flushing on pasture grass (Callaghan-Perry, 1997) and
a field study that assessed the ability of the exotic spiny rush Juncus acutus to displace the native sea rush
Juncus kraussii (Flannagan, 1997).
The relatively small effort involved with the laboratory component of undergraduate course work will not
result in complete data sets, but it can contribute to larger research projects or provide pilot data useful in the
design of larger projects. Projects undertaken as part of an undergraduate wetlands ecology course include
documentation of change in invertebrate communities above and below floodgates at the Tomago site,
identification of possible reasons for the death of a mangrove forest on the Ash Island site, and monitoring
of bird use of the Stockton Sandspit site. The challenge in developing projects for undergraduate course
work comes in identifying projects that can be completed within the laboratory time requirement for the
course, that result in useful data, and that provide a learning experience for students. Also, quality control
can present a real challenge when coordinating projects as part of an undergraduate course.
Although long-term viability of the partnership between KWRP and the University of Newcastle remains
to be seen, early indications are positive. The partnership provides KWRP with research results
at a low cost. The close working relationship between KWRP and University of Newcastle staff and students
facilitates good communication between the two groups, including both day-to-day interactions and
workshops that synthesize the outcome of research projects and suggest management implications of these
outcomes. Involvement with a university also offers KWRP a conduit to the international network of
wetland professionals found through scientific societies. In the longer term, KWRP will benefit as students
move into positions of responsibility with an understanding of some of the difficulties associated with
wetland rehabilitation. For the University of Newcastle, the partnership provides partial salary support for
a faculty member, research funding, and an opportunity to involve students with a wetland rehabilitation
project. Students report a sense of satisfaction from working on assignments that are of immediate interest
to the local community.
Concluding remarks
KWRP does not manage all of the degraded wetland habitat in the Newcastle area. For example, KWRP
does not manage Hexam Swamp, a 2,500 ha wetland southwest of Kooragang Island that has been isolated
from the estuary by levees and floodgates, or the complex of freshwater wetlands nestled within 250,000-
year-old sand beds just north of the Tomago site, which are impacted by sand mining. Nevertheless,
KWRP’s efforts stand to make a significant contribution to the conservation of wetlands. In New South
Wales, only about 5,800 ha of salt marsh remain (West et al., 1985) so a gain of even a few hundred
hectares of salt marsh area—an objective well within the reach of KWRP—can be a significant increase
for the state. Declines of migratory waders in the estuary have been clearly documented over the past three
decades (Richard Kingsford, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, unpublished data) and KWRP
efforts may help reverse these declines. The value of commercial fisheries for Newcastle has been estimated
at A$4,600,000 for one year (Scribner and Kathuria, 1996), and although it is difficult to quantify the effect

216 Streever
of wetland rehabilitation on commercial fisheries, results of monitoring studies suggest that rehabilitation
efforts such as culvert removal have led to increased numbers of some fish species (Williams et al., 1997).
Furthermore, research undertaken as part of KWRP efforts will lead to improved management elsewhere
in Australia and abroad, and KWRP’s education and training program will help spread both interest and
expertise in wetland management methods (Svoboda and Copeland, 1997).
A number of constraints and opportunities associated with working in an urban setting have become
apparent over the past few years. In broad terms, most of the constraints are related to KWRP’s goal of habitat
rehabilitation, while most of the opportunities are related to KWRP’s goal of community involvement and
research. The nature of impacts to Hunter River estuarine wetlands and the urban infrastructure surrounding
the wetlands preclude the possibility of returning KWRP sites to the pristine condition found by Captain
John Shortland in 1798. Nevertheless, the constraints imposed by an urban setting are offset by opportunities
that would not be available in a rural setting. Also, the urban setting allows KWRP to expose a large number
of people to wetland rehabilitation. Because most Australian wetland rehabilitation projects are the result
of community interest rather than legislated mitigation for wetland loss, public education is important.
Projects such as KWRP can show people the value of wetlands, the difficulties associated with rehabilitating
wetlands, and the importance of preserving wetland resources.
Acknowledgments
The Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project supported the production of this paper. Craig Copeland and
Peggy Svoboda provided information included in this paper, and Peggy Svoboda made editorial comments
on an early draft. Alan Genders and Rob Henderson assisted with graphics. Glenn Guntenspergen graciously
invited the submission of this paper to his collection of papers on urban wetlands.
References
Axtell, R. C. (1979) Principles of integrated pest management (IPM) in relation to mosquito control. Mosquito News
39, 709.
Biodiversity Group of Environment Australia (1997) Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth Government of Australia.
Biodiversity Group of Environment Australia, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia.
Callaghan-Perry, M. (1997) Investigations of salinity and vegetation in relation to rehabilitation. Honours thesis,
University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Clarke, L. D. and Hannon, N. J. (1969) The mangrove swamp and salt marsh communities of the Sydney district. II.
The holocoenotic complex with particular reference to physiography. Journal of Ecology 57, 213–234.
Coffey, E. (1973) Report and Findings of the Commissioner: Inquiry into Pollution—Kooragang Island. New South
Wales Government Printer, Sydney, Australia.
Dale, P. (1993) Australian wetlands and mosquito control—contain the pest and sustain the environment Wetlands
(Australia) 12, 1–12.
Dale, P. E. R., Dale, P. T., Hulsman, K. and Kay, B. H. (1993) Runnelling to control saltmarsh mosquitoes: long term
efficacy and environmental impacts. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 9, 174–181.
Dale, P. E. R. and Hulsman, K. (1990) A critical review of salt marsh management methods for mosquito control.
Aquatic Sciences 3, 281–311.
Finlay-Jones, J. (1997) Aspects of wetland law and policy in Australia. Wetlands Ecology and Management. In press.
Finlayson, C. M., Storrs, M. J. and Lindner, G. (1997) Degradation and rehabiliation of wetlands in the Alligator
Rivers region of northern Australia. Wetlands Ecology and Management 5, 19–36.
Flannagan, N. (1997) Aspects of Juncus acutus and Juncus kraussii in relation to habitat rehabilitation. Honours thesis,
University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Galatowitsch, S. M. and van der Valk, A. G. (1994) Restoring Prairie Wetlands: An Ecological Approach. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa, USA.

KWRP: Urban Wetland Rehabilitation 217
Genders, A. J. (1997) Stockton Sandspit Monitoring Study, 1st Report, August 1997. Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation
Project, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia.
Grant, J. (1803) The Narrative of a Voyage of Discovery. Performed in His Majesty’s Vessel The Lady Nelson, of Sixty
Tons Burthern, with Sliding Keels, in the Year 1800, 1801, and 1802, to New South Wales. Reprinted by Heritage
Publications, Melbourne, Australia.
Hargreaves, J. and Hall, R. (1992) Arbovirus infections in Australia, 1991–92, CDI data. Communicable Disease
Intelligence 16, 449–460.
Hulsman, K. and Dale, P. E. R. (1991) The runnelling method of habitat modification: an environment-focussed tool
for salt marsh mosquito management. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 5, 226–234.
Kay, B. H. (1986) Aedes aegypti: Why can’t we control it Arbovirus Research in Australia. 4, 139.
McConnell, D. (1995) Unpublished letter to Peggy Svoboda, Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project, dated 16
November 1995, on file at Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia.
Mitsch, W. J. and Wilson, R. F. (1996) Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how,
time, and self-design. Ecological Applications 6, 77–83.
Moss, J. (1983) An Investigation of Natural Areas: Kooragang Island, Hunter River. Department of Environment and
Planning, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation (1996) The NSW Wetlands Management Policy.New
South Wales Government, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (1985) Circular Number B10. State Environmental
Planning Policy No. 14–Coastal Wetlands. New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney,
New South Wales, Australia.
Paterson, W. (1801) Journal at Hunter’s River. Historical Records of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia.
Patterson Britton and Partners (1996) Lower Hunter Floodplain Management Study. Document J1488/R1199 prepared
for Newcastle City Council and Port Stephens Council by Patterson Britton and Partners Pty. Ltd., Sydney, New
South Wales, Australia.
Quinn, R. H. and Beumer, J. P. (1984) Wallum Creek—A study of the regeneration of mangroves. In Focus on
Stradbroke: New Information on North Stradbroke Island and Surrounding Areas, 1974–1984 (R. J. Coleman, J.
Covacevich, and P. Davie, eds). Boolarong Publications, Stradbroke Island Management Organisation, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Scribner, E. A. and Kathuria, E. (1996) New South Wales Commercial Fisheries Statistics, 1992/93. New South Wales
Fisheries Research Institute, Cronulla, New South Wales, Australia.
Shortland Wetlands Centre and TUNRA (1992) Kooragang Island Wetland Compensation Project Feasibility Study.
Report prepared for NSW Fisheries, Hunter Catchment Management Trust, NSW Public Works, and Newcastle
City Council, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia.
Storrs, M. J. and Lonsdale, W. M. (1995) Developing a weed management strategy for a conservation area. In Wetland
Research in the Wet–Dry Tropics of Australia (C. M. Finlayson, ed.). Supervising Scientist, Barton, Australian
Capital Territory, Australia.
Streever, W. J. (1997a) Trends in Australian wetland rehabilitation. Wetlands Ecology and Management. In press.
Streever, W. J. (1997b). The role of research in wetland rehabilitation: Kooragang Island as a case study. In Saving
our Natural Heritage The Role of Science in Managing Australia’s Ecosystems (C. Copeland and D. Lewis,
eds). Halstead Press, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Streever, W. J. and Genders, A. J. (1997) Effect of improved tidal flushing and competitive interactions at the boundary
between salt marsh and pasture. Estuaries 5, 5–18.
Streever, W. J., Wiseman, L., Turner, P. and Nelson, P. (1996) Short term changes in flushing of tidal creeks following
culvert removal. Wetlands (Australia) 15, 22–30.
Svoboda, P. (principal author) (1996) Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project Draft Management Plan. Kooragang
Wetland Rehabilitation Project, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia.
Svoboda, P. and Copeland, C. (1999) Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project: evolution of an Australian rehabilitation
project in an urban setting. INTECOL’s V International Wetlands Conference Proceedings. In press.
Thompson, T. (1815) Letter to superior in Sydney, 9 December 1815. New South Wales Archives, Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia.

218 Streever
Turner, J. (1997) An Environmental History of Ash Island. Report to Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project from
Hunter History Consultants, Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia.
Turner, P. A. and Streever, W. J. (1997) The relationship between the density of Aedes vigilax (Diptera: Culicidae)
eggshells and environmental factors on Kooragang Island, New South Wales, Australia. Journal of the American
Mosquito Control Association. In press.
West, R., Thorogood, C. A. and Williams, R. J. (1985) An Estuarine Inventory for New South Wales, Australia.
Fisheries Bulletin 2. New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Williams, R. J., Sullings, D. and Hannan, J. (1998) Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project: Fish and Crustacean
Communities. Report to the Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project by the Fisheries Research Institute, NSW
Fisheries, Cronulla, New South Wales, Australia.
Woolls, W. (1867) A Contribution to the Flora of Australia. F. White, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.