Creekside Resident Survey
Kirker Creek in Pittsburg, CA
Kirker Creek Watershed Planning Group
Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
August 2002
The following survey was mailed to 300 Pittsburg residents living or owning property adjacent to Kirker Creek. Questions were in multiple-choice fashion including an “other” option with space to comment where applicable. Questions requiring ratings were on a one to five scale, one being “not important / not a concern”, and five being “very serious concern / very important.” One month of response time was allowed. Twelve percent (36) of the surveys were returned by the deadline. There were several purposes to conducting this survey. The survey allowed residents to assess the condition of their segment of the creek with regard to flooding, erosion, and wildlife. The survey also evaluated community interests and concerns in creek related issues like pollution, fire, flooding, landscaping, law enforcement, and additional trails. The survey assessed interest in additional information on composting, erosion control, weed control, and environmentally friendly gardening and delivered it to interested respondents. Finally, it served as a form of community outreach for the Kirker Creek Watershed Planning Group, informing the public about this project.
Kirker Creek has not been incorporated into many neighborhoods as a recreational asset. Seventy-five percent of residents surveyed said that they never use the creek for recreational purposes such as biking, running, walking or nature watching. Twenty-five percent of respondents said that they do not know where the creek flows through their neighborhood. However, 20% do use the creek several times a month for walking, running, biking, and/or nature walks.
When asked to rate creek-related improvements such as: clean up trash, add trails, create a park, plant trees, control camping, landscaping, cleaner water, and law enforcement, cleaning up trash was rated most important by far with an average rating of 4.16. Throughout the survey garbage in the creek was a prominent concern. Creating a park was rated least important at 2.44, followed closely by adding trails at 2.55. Several residents even expressed negative sentiments regarding these two “improvements”. This may indicate a desire for privacy or a fear of trespassing, loitering, and crime.
Question #2 asks if residents have experienced several specific flood-related problems. 20 respondents have had problems with flooding either at their homes or in their communities, like ponding in the streets. The most common problem is erosion of the creek bank. Of those who did experience flooding, the most concentrated reports were on Brookside Drive, behind Buchanan Park. The culverts at the downstream end of the park are scheduled to be cleaned out this fall. A follow up survey of Brookside Drive residents in the future would be a great measurement of flood problems and improved maintenance in Kirker Creek. Clusters of residents on Old Creek Circle, Lynbrook Drive, Queens Way, Sunset Way, and Carpino Way also reported flooding. Singular reports came from Carpino Avenue, Ventura Drive, Bush Creek Court, and East Leland Road. Forty-three percent of flooding reported occurred over 10 years ago, 36% was less than 5 years ago, and 21% was 6-10 years ago. The frequency of flooding in the community was described as several times in the last two years by 53% of respondents who experienced it.
This survey also served as an informal survey of animals seen along to Kirker Creek. Reports included: birds (23), raccoons (20), squirrels (19), mice (12), rats (11), ducks (11), frogs (9), opossums (4), skunks (2), snakes (2), fish (2), fox (2), gophers (1), lizards (1), cattle (1), and deer (1). Not one of the respondents reported having seen any beavers in the creek.
Question 8 asked for an opinion of the creek’s condition. All 36 participants answered this question. It is important to note that while 27 respondents never use the creek, even for walking, and 9 don’t know where it flows past their backyards, only four stated that they had no opinion of the condition of the creek. Two options were at a tie with 11 respondents for each. They were “needs improvement” and “has potential, but needs some help.” The next highest answer was “health hazard/public nuisance” with 5 respondents. Three people said it was in good condition and just 2 said it was a wonderful natural resource. Of course, there are many different ways to interpret this data, but one thing is evident. Sixty-one percent of residents surveyed feel that some type of improvement to Kirker Creek is needed.
The final question asked if residents would be interested in the survey results and information about, composting, erosion control, weed control, and/or environmentally friendly gardening. Forty-four percent of the participants requested some type of information. The most popular topic was weed control, with 14 participants requesting information. 12 participants requested information on erosion control. This is interesting, as only 7 respondents reported any problems with erosion at their homes. Six respondents expressed interest in composting information and only 5 of people requested environmentally friendly gardening information. This could be important information to be used in laying the groundwork for further public outreach.
This survey was completed for the Kirker Creek Watershed Planning Group. It is up to the group to decide how the data will be used.
1. Do you know where the creek flows through your neighborhood?
Yes: 25
No: 9
2. Which of the following problems with flooding have occurred at
your home?
Water running through the yard: 3
Water running into the house or garage: 3
Tree(s) falling over: 2
Earth washing away/ erosion of creek bank: 7
Damage to the foundation or walls of the house: 4
Rats: 1
Landslide: 1
None of the above: 20
3. When have you had these problems at your home? (check all that
apply)
Within the last 5 years: 5
6-10 years ago: 3
Over 10 years ago: 6
No problems: 19
4. How often, in the last two winters, have you encountered
flooding problems in your community (e.g., water ponding in streets)?
Daily: 1
Weekly: 1
Several times: 8
Once: 5
Never encountered flooding: 18
5. How often in a typical month do members of your household use the Kirker Creek or other local creeks for each of the following:
Biking: 0
Running or walking: 3x, 2x, 2x, 3x, 18x times/month: 5
Nature walks, looking for animals and plants: 3x, 2x times/month: 2
Other activities (specify): 0
Never: 27
Visit for management reasons: 4-8 x/yr.
6. Which animals you
have noticed in the creek this year (check all that apply):
Birds: 23
Raccoons: 20
Squirrels: 19
Mice: 12
Ducks 11
Rats: 11
Frogs 9
Opossums: 4
Fish 2
Skunks: 2
Snakes: 2
Fox: 2
Gophers: 1
Deer: 1
Cattle: 1
Lizards: 1
Beavers 0
None: 2
Don’t know: 5
7. Rate the following creek-related concerns on a scale 1 – 5 (1= not a concern, 5= very serious concern). Average of ratings shown below.
Flooding: 2.47 (n = 30)
Erosion: 2.93 (n = 31)
Safety: 3.24 (n = 29)
Fire hazard: 3.57 (n = 33)
Trash: 3.66 (n = 30)
Pollution: 3.25 (n = 31)
Plants/animals: 2.65 (n = 26)
Other concerns
Homeless living in creek near park and school (1)
Fires being set in creek (1)
Cost of Flood Insurance (1, rated 5)
8. What is your opinion
of the creek’s condition (check one)?
Wonderful natural resource: 2
Good condition: 3
Has potential but needs some help: 11
Needs improvement: 11
Health hazard/public nuisance: 5
Don’t have an opinion about the condition of the creek: 4
9. Rate the
following creek-related improvements
(1= not important, 5= very important). Average of ratings shown below.
Clean up trash: 4.16 (n = 30)
Add trails: 2.51 (n = 27)
Create a park: 2.44 (n = 27)
Plant trees: 3.14 (n = 27)
Control camping: 2.69 (n = 26)
Landscaping: 3.16 (n = 30)
Cleaner water: 3.86 (n = 29)
Law enforcement: 3.88 (n = 27)
Other improvements suggested:
Trim trees to prevent fires (1)
Check dams in higher elevations to create pools, recharge groundwater, control flooding in lower elevations: (1)
10. Please send me
information about the results of the survey and any of the following:
Environmentally friendly gardening: 5
Composting: 6
Erosion control: 12
Weed control: 14