Achieving Wetland Restoration through Community Participation and Effective
Planning at Council Reserves
Jessica Mowat
Moreton Bay Regional Council, PO Box 159 Caboolture QLD 4510
ABSTRACT
The aim of this project was to deliver an ecological restoration pilot project at the Pine Rivers
Wetland Reserve (PRWR) in the rapidly developing suburb of Griffin, South East
Queensland, and apply the lessons learnt from an Integrated Water Management
perspective to develop a Best Management Practice (BMP) Plan for PRWR.
The pilot project was developed as a partnership between Moreton Bay Regional Council
(MBRC), Osprey House Community Group and Unitywater. Funding was received from
Local and State Government to plant 1,500 native seedlings at PRWR. The site was divided
into three areas for preparation and monitoring purposes: 1) un-mulched; 2) mulched; and 3)
in-fill planting into gaps at the adjoining restoration site.
Plant survival was highest in Area 2 (mulched) and lowest in Area 1 (un-mulched). Area 1
was subsequently recolonised through natural regeneration. The pilot project provided
valuable insights into the effectiveness of different restoration methodologies, under various
conditions. It also demonstrated the multiple social and ecological benefits that restoration
can provide, including community participation and empowerment, stormwater filtration,
enhanced habitat for wildlife and ecological connectivity.
Lessons from the pilot project were applied to the BMP Plan to ensure an integrated
approach was taken to managing PRWR. The Plan includes environmental and social
values, threats to biodiversity, total water cycle management, an ecological restoration plan
and 18 practical recommendations for implementation.
The project comprised a combination of on-ground action and longer-term strategic planning.
Ultimately, an integrated approach to management of Council Reserves will contribute to the
broad objective of delivering sustainable development in the catchment, and help protect the
important Ramsar listed Pine River Estuary and Moreton Bay Marine Park.
INTRODUCTION
PRWR is located on the lower Pine River in the fast developing suburb of Griffin, SEQ,
approximately 25 kilometres north of Brisbane’s central business district. The 24.5ha reserve
was purchased with funds from the former Pine Rivers Shire Council’s Environmental Levy
(MBRC 2009). The Griffin area is experiencing rapid urbanisation and PRWR was
strategically purchased to mitigate some of the impacts of this development on the Ramsar
listed Pine River Estuary (MBRC 2009). The estuary plays a significant environmental role in
the provision of Fish Habitat Area’s (FHA), shorebird habitat and maintaining water quality
flowing into Hays Inlet and Moreton Bay (Queensland Department of Infrastructure and
Planning 2009).
PRWR contains significant environmental values and is subject to environmental hazards
that are recognised by Commonwealth, State and Local legislation (Cardno 2013a). A review
of historic aerial photographs shows that approximately 50% of PRWR was cleared and
used for cropping since 1958. Today, the cleared area is mostly disturbed grassland. A
significant area of remnant vegetation remains in the wetland areas. A recent ecological
Reef, Range and Red Dust 2015, Caloundra
assessment identified that the site supports five different vegetation communities and areas
of koala habitat (Cardno 2013b).
The objectives of the project were to 1) develop and deliver an Ecological Restoration pilot
project at PRWR; and 2) use lessons from the pilot project to develop a BMP Plan for PRWR
so that it is managed using an integrated approach that balances the environmental, social
and economic values associated with the site.
METHODS
Funding was secured for the pilot project through a partnership with the Osprey House
Community Group, a community-based organisation located at the Osprey House
Environmental Centre in Griffin. The organisation’s goal is to create a hub of communitybased activity, passive recreation and environmental education, and to support other likeminded community organisations (Osprey House Environmental Centre 2014). PRWR is
located within 50 metres of Osprey House Environmental Centre, placing it in an ideal
position to implement the pilot project, ensure continued maintenance and provide
community education.
Unitywater is the local water entity in the Moreton Bay Region and was opportunistically
engaged in the pilot project. Their ‘Creekside Greening’ program involves Unitywater staff
partnering with local government and community to plant native trees in riparian areas
(Unitywater 2013). Their aim is to improve waterway health and minimise their ecological
footprint on the environment. The pilot project at PRWR provided an opportunity to establish,
a potential long-term partnership at the site.
Ecological Restoration Site
An area of 1500 square meters adjoining an established restoration site was selected. The
size was appropriate for:
1) a pilot project,
2) the community group to plant and maintain,
3) the funding available.
The location of the planting at PRWR was selected based on the degraded muddy
conditions at the site, and a long-term plan to link up the existing restoration zones at PRWR
to create a wildlife corridor.
The site was divided into three areas for preparation and monitoring purposes: 1) unmulched; 2) mulched; and 3) in-fill planting into gaps in adjoining restoration site.
BMP Plan
The BMP Plan was developed based on 1) consultations with a range of MBRC
Departments and community groups 2) an ecological assessment including site visits,
camera trapping and desktop research and 3) a literature review.
RESULTS
A successful community planting event was delivered on 8 October 2013. Approximately 60
staff and volunteers from MBRC, Unitywater, Osprey House, River Warriors Bushcare and
the general community registered for the event (Figure 1). Participation of Unitywater staff
greatly increased the numbers on the day and highlighted the benefits of partnership
projects. Approximately 1,500 seedlings across a range of native species were planted over
Reef, Range and Red Dust 2015, Caloundra
two hours. Participants enjoyed a post planting BBQ at Osprey House Environmental
Centre and the opportunity to form friendships and networks.
Figure 1. Volunteers working hard at the planting event on 8 October 2013.
Plant Survival
Plant survival was highest in Area 2 (61% survival after 5 months) and lowest in Area 1 (2 %
after 5 months) (Figures 2-4). Area 1 was low-lying, prone to saltwater intrusion, and was left
un-mulched due to the presence of Marine Couch. Although most of the planted species did
not survive the salty conditions, Area 1 has subsequently been recolonised through natural
regeneration. Area 3 (infill planting) had a 27% survival rate after 5 months. The rating
curves levelled out after four months suggesting that the surviving plants were established
and further losses would be minimal. Given this information, monitoring was concluded after
5 months.
Figure 2. Plant survival rate compared across the three areas of the restoration site over 5 months.
Reef, Range and Red Dust 2015, Caloundra
Figure 3. Area 2 sprayed out during site
preparation in September 2013
Figure 4. Area 2 on 21 March 2014
BMP Plan
A practical and concise BMP Plan was produced for MBRC for the management of PRWR. It
provides a vision for how PRWR is to be managed, and an assessment of the environmental
and social values, threats to biodiversity and total water cycle management issues. The BMP
Plan includes an Ecological Restoration Plan (Figure 5) and makes 17 recommendations for
managing PRWR.
Figure 5. Ecological Restoration - Plan Pine Rivers Wetland Reserve.
Reef, Range and Red Dust 2015, Caloundra
DISCUSSION
Important lessons were learnt from the pilot project in terms of the different methods of
restoration, monitoring, maintenance, technical aspects, communication, community
engagement and project management. This discussion focuses one lesson: the importance
of choosing the appropriate method of ecological restoration. The dramatically different plant
survival rates in the three areas demonstrate that a single method of restoration is not
always appropriate even within a small site. It is clear from the results that reconstruction
was not the best method of restoration in Area 1. On the other hand, natural regeneration
was extremely successful in this area with the low-lying bare land quickly colonised by
Marine Couch, Brown Beetle Grass and Swamp Club Rush. At a large scale, selecting an
inappropriate restoration method is costly and time-consuming (Catterall 2013; DellaSala et
al. 2003). This is why it is essential to adequately assess a site prior to deciding which
restoration approach to use (AABR 2013). The challenge, however, is finding the expertise
to make the assessment. In this regard, there are significant benefits in training more staff on
the principles of ecological restoration (Shaw, 2014).
Choosing the appropriate method of restoration also involves reconciling all of the
ecological, socio-political and economic factors involved (Catterall 2013). For example, the
capacity building and community ownership achieved through the physical act of planting
trees is an important social outcome (Higgs 1997, Leigh 2005). Additionally, a reconstruction
site will generally look more ‘aesthetic’, given trees are planted and maintained, compared to
a natural regeneration site. Politicians are also more likely to support a tangible
reconstruction project that provides a good publicity event (Clewell et al. 2005; Light & Higgs
1996).
Time is another consideration of the restoration method. Reconstruction will often be used to
accelerate the restoration process (Clewell 1999; van der Valk 1998). However, Hilderbrand
et al. (2005) warns not to rely on ‘fast-forwarding’ to achieve the desired end goal more
quickly. Certain ecological processes, like development of tree hollows, mycorrhyzal
associations and hydraulic regimes, may take decades to realise (Hilderbrand et al. 2005).
In the context of PRWR, a combination of reconstruction and natural regeneration has been
proposed in the Ecological Restoration Plan based on the pilot project results and
consultation with MBRC and community groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Lessons from this pilot project have informed the BMP Plan and will be applied to future
ecological restoration projects across the catchment. The BMP Plan was produced for
MBRC to ensure an integrated approach is adopted to manage PRWR. It provides an
assessment of environmental and social values, threats to biodiversity and TWCM issues,
an Ecological Restoration Plan and 18 practical recommendations for implementation.
The project was a combination of on-ground action and long-term strategic planning. It is
recommended that the BMP Plan be used as a standard for other Reserves of ecological
significance across the Moreton Bay Region. Ultimately, an integrated BMP approach to
management of Council Reserves, including strategic restoration planning, will contribute to
the broad objective of delivering sustainable development in the catchment and will help to
protect the important Ramsar listed Pine River Estuary and declared FHA.
Reef, Range and Red Dust 2015, Caloundra
TAKE HOME MESSAGES
1. Selection of the appropriate method of restoration requires reconciling the ecological,
socio-political and economic factors involved.
2. That small restoration projects can provide valuable lessons which can be applied on a
broader scale.
3. There are significant benefits to training corporate staff on the principles of ecological
restoration.
4. It is a myth that projects can be ‘fast forwarded’ through reconstruction activities as
ecological processes and functions take time to restore.
5. There are significant socio-political benefits of community participation in restoration,
including social empowerment and education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Moreton Bay Regional Council - Moreton Bay Community Grant
Queensland Government - Everyone’s Environment Grant
Kim Pantano - Osprey House Management Committee
Dr Wade Hadwin -Griffith University
International Water Centre
Bernadette May - Moreton Bay Regional Council
Osprey House volunteers & South Pine River Warriors
Unitywater and the Creekside Greening Program
REFERENCES
AABR (Australian Association of Bush Regenerators) (2013) ‘Guiding Principles for
Ecological Restoration and Rehabilitation’,
http://www.aabr.org.au/_upload/learn/WhatIsBR/ER_Statement_AABR_2013.pdf
BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) (2014) Climate Data Online, Viewed 3 April 2013,
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
Moreton Bay Regional Council (MBRC) (2009) Annual Report 2008-2009 Our New Era,
Moreton Bay Regional Council, Caboolture.
Cardno (2013a) Elizabeth Road Reserve – Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment,
Prepared for Moreton Bay Regional Council.
Cardno (2013b) Elizabeth Road Reserve – Structure Plan - Ecological Assessment Report,
Prepared for Moreton Bay Regional Council.
Catterall CP (2013) ‘Ecological Restoration’, Restoration Ecology, vol.21, pp.659–660.
Clewell AF (1999) ‘Restoration of riverine forest at Hall Branch on phosphate-mined land,
Florida’, Restoration Ecology, vol.7, pp.1–14.
Clewell A, Regier J and Munro J (2005) ‘Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological
Restoration Projects’, 2nd Edition, Society for Ecological Restoration International, viewed
20 April 2014, http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/guidelines-for-developingand-managing-ecological-restoration-projects
Reef, Range and Red Dust 2015, Caloundra
DellaSala DA, Martin A, Spivak R, Schulke T, Bird B, Criley M, van Daalen C, Kreilick J
Brown R and Aplet G (2003) ‘A Citizen’s Call for Ecological Forest Restoration: Forest
Restoration Principles and Criteria’, Ecological Restoration, vol. 21, no. 1, pp.14-23.
Higgs ES (1997) ‘What is Good Ecological Restoration?’, Conservation Biology, vol. 11, no.
2, pp. 338–348.
Hilderbrand RH, Watts AC and Randle AM (2005) ‘The myths of restoration ecology’,
Ecology and Society, vol. 10, no.1 pp.19.
Leigh P (2005) ‘The ecological crisis, the human condition, and community-based restoration
as an instrument for its cure’, Ethics In Science And Environmental Politics, pp.3-15.
Light A and Higgs ES (1996) ‘The Politics of Ecological Restoration’, Environmental Ethics,
vol. 18, Issue 3, pp. 227-247.
Osprey House Environmental Centre (2014) Welcome to Osprey House Environmental
Centre, viewed 10 January 2013, http://www.ospreyhouse.asn.au
Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning (2009) The South East Queensland
Regional Plan 2009–2031, Queensland Government, Brisbane.
Shaw S (2014) Bush Regeneration Workshop notes, 28 February, Brush Turkey Enterprises,
Maleny.
Unitywater (2013) Creekside Greening, viewed 16 February 2014,
http://www.unitywater.com/Creekside-Greening
van der Valk, AG (1998) ‘Succession theory and restoration of wetland vegetation. in AJ
McComb & JA Davis (eds.), Wetlands for the future, Gleneagles Publishing, Adelaide,
Australia, pp. 657–667.
Reef, Range and Red Dust 2015, Caloundra