Australia’s approach to developing a national river health monitoring framework

Robert Speed

Beijing, 22 February 2012

Background

• Federal system – state governments with primary responsibility for water management

• Existing state- and basin-level river health monitoring

Victoria – Index of Stream Condition

Border Rivers

Fish Macroinvertebrates

Murray Darling Basin – Sustainable Rivers Audit

• Expanding role of federal government in water• Major investments (>AUD$10 billion) to improve river

health• 2005 Report from National Water Commission identified

need for national-level reporting.

Presentation Heading

FARWH - National Framework for Assessment of River and Wetland Health

• Designed to provide the information necessary to:– establish ‘environmental and other public benefit outcomes’ – ‘address currently over allocated and/or overused systems’ – support ‘integrated management of environmental water’

(water policy priorities under the 2004 National Water Initiative)

• Series of trials between 2005 – 2011• Final report in September 2011

General approach to pilot studies

• Use existing data/monitoring programs to greatest possible extent

• Assessment at river reach/wetland scale , with at least 5% of river reaches or wetlands to be represented

• Develop methods for weighting of sites – e.g. based on reach length represented by the site – to allow for reporting at a regional level

Indicators

• Total of 6 themes: hydrology, physical form, catchment disturbance, fringing zone, aquatic biota, water quality

• A minimum of 3 of the 6 to be assessed before a regional score is given

• Flexibility in which (sub)indicators

Reference condition

Set through a combination of:– Minimally disturbed sites– Historical data– Modelled data– Professional opinion

Guiding principle that reference should be as close as possible to natural (pre-European)

Standardising scores

Score = 1.0 -| (worst case value – reference value) |

| (site value – reference value) |

Scores standardized such that it doesn’t matter which themes or which sub-indicators are used.

E.g. 0.8 for salinity = 0.8 for nutrients

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 1

1. Background

1.1 What is the FARWH?

The Framework for the Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH) has been developed to allow all Australian states and territories to provide assessments of river and wetland health that are comparable across jurisdictions. The FARWH allows for existing river and wetland condition data from across Australia to be normalised and integrated to allow consistent reporting. It is not intended that the framework replace existing jurisdictional assessment systems.

The FARWH is based on a hierarchical model of river function and was initially designed to use six indices that include Catchment Disturbance, Hydrological Disturbance, Fringing Zone, Water Quality and Soils, Physical Form and Aquatic Biota. The FARWH enables the data collected under pre-existing jurisdictional programs to be used to consistently report on river and wetland condition with the six indices. The FARWH’s general structure as initially developed is shown in Figure 1.

The FARWH has been developed by the National Water Commission (NWC) since 2004 and builds on lessons from two decades of jurisdictional and regional assessments of water-dependent ecosystems across Australia.

Figure 1: The initial FARWH assessment approach

P r e - e x i s t i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

p r o g r a m s

C a t c h m e n t D i s t u r b a n c e

H y d r o l o g i c a l D i s t u r b a n c e

F r i n g i n g Z o n e

W a t e r Q u a l i t y a n d S o i l s

P h y s i c a l F o r m

A q u a t i c B i o t a

A s s e s s m e n t s a n d d a t a

c o l l e c t i o n

D a t a a n a l y s i s( f o r e a c h s u b - i n d e x a n d i n d e x )

F A R W H c o n d i t i o n( f o r e a c h i n d e x )

C a t c h m e n t D i s t u r b a n c e s c o r e

0 – 1

H y d r o l o g i c a l D i s t u r b a n c e s c o r e

0 – 1

F r i n g i n g Z o n e s c o r e0 – 1

W a t e r Q u a l i t y a n d S o i l s s c o r e

0 – 1

P h y s i c a l F o r m s c o r e0 – 1

A q u a t i c B i o t a s c o r e0 - 1

S u b - i n d e x A

S u b - i n d e x B

S u b - i n d e x C

S u b - i n d e x A

S u b - i n d e x B

S u b - i n d e x C

S u b - i n d e x A

S u b - i n d e x B

S u b - i n d e x C

S u b - i n d e x A

S u b - i n d e x B

S u b - i n d e x C

S u b - i n d e x A

S u b - i n d e x B

S u b - i n d e x C

S u b - i n d e x A

S u b - i n d e x B

S u b - i n d e x C

C o m p l e t e d f o r a s m a n y i n d i c e s a s p o s s i b l eC u s t o m i s e a n d a d o p t l o c a l l y r e l e v a n t s u b - i n d i c e s

W i l l n o t a l w a y s b e t h r e e s u b - i n d i c e s f o r e a c h i n d e x

P r i o r i t i s a t i o n o f a c t i o n s

J u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e p o r t i n g

A p p l i c a t i o n s

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 10

Figure 2: Study area of the FARWH trials (study areas shown in green)

Pilot sites

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES A10

Figure 14: Selection of sub-indices (coloured solid borders) and components (coloured dashed borders) for each index under each of the four FARWH trials Note: The Hydrological Disturbance index was developed for the Qld-FARWH trial, but not included in all assessments due to inconsistencies in flow records (Cooper Creek) or an absence of an Integrated Quantity and Quality Model (IQQM) model (Tully) Abbreviations: O/E = observed/expected; LUF = land use factor; SF = settlement factor; IF = infrastructure factor; EF = extractive indices factor.

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES A10

Figure 14: Selection of sub-indices (coloured solid borders) and components (coloured dashed borders) for each index under each of the four FARWH trials Note: The Hydrological Disturbance index was developed for the Qld-FARWH trial, but not included in all assessments due to inconsistencies in flow records (Cooper Creek) or an absence of an Integrated Quantity and Quality Model (IQQM) model (Tully) Abbreviations: O/E = observed/expected; LUF = land use factor; SF = settlement factor; IF = infrastructure factor; EF = extractive indices factor.

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES A10

Figure 14: Selection of sub-indices (coloured solid borders) and components (coloured dashed borders) for each index under each of the four FARWH trials Note: The Hydrological Disturbance index was developed for the Qld-FARWH trial, but not included in all assessments due to inconsistencies in flow records (Cooper Creek) or an absence of an Integrated Quantity and Quality Model (IQQM) model (Tully) Abbreviations: O/E = observed/expected; LUF = land use factor; SF = settlement factor; IF = infrastructure factor; EF = extractive indices factor.

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES A10

Figure 14: Selection of sub-indices (coloured solid borders) and components (coloured dashed borders) for each index under each of the four FARWH trials Note: The Hydrological Disturbance index was developed for the Qld-FARWH trial, but not included in all assessments due to inconsistencies in flow records (Cooper Creek) or an absence of an Integrated Quantity and Quality Model (IQQM) model (Tully) Abbreviations: O/E = observed/expected; LUF = land use factor; SF = settlement factor; IF = infrastructure factor; EF = extractive indices factor.

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES A10

Figure 14: Selection of sub-indices (coloured solid borders) and components (coloured dashed borders) for each index under each of the four FARWH trials Note: The Hydrological Disturbance index was developed for the Qld-FARWH trial, but not included in all assessments due to inconsistencies in flow records (Cooper Creek) or an absence of an Integrated Quantity and Quality Model (IQQM) model (Tully) Abbreviations: O/E = observed/expected; LUF = land use factor; SF = settlement factor; IF = infrastructure factor; EF = extractive indices factor.

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES A10

Figure 14: Selection of sub-indices (coloured solid borders) and components (coloured dashed borders) for each index under each of the four FARWH trials Note: The Hydrological Disturbance index was developed for the Qld-FARWH trial, but not included in all assessments due to inconsistencies in flow records (Cooper Creek) or an absence of an Integrated Quantity and Quality Model (IQQM) model (Tully) Abbreviations: O/E = observed/expected; LUF = land use factor; SF = settlement factor; IF = infrastructure factor; EF = extractive indices factor.

28

Equation 10. (Recommended by NWC) used for calculating the CDI

CDI = I + LC + LU – 2

Where: CDI = Catchment Disturbance Index,

I = infrastructure measure,

LC = land cover change, and

LU = land use measure.

Figure 7. Illustration of the integration of sub-index scores to produce theme-level scores and integration of theme scores to produce the final trial score.

2.5.4 Discussion Within the FARWH framework (NWC 2007b, p19) five methods for integrating sub-index and theme scores are compared. The standard Euclidean distance method was chosen for all four Queensland FARWH trials because it provided a direct measure of how different a reach is from the reference condition. The only departure from use of the standard Euclidean distance was for the CDI where the score was calculated by summing the impacts of the sub-indices. The integration method described above remained constant for all trials so that a valid comparison between trials could be made. The recommended FARWH approach where integrating themes and indicators (which represent components at different levels of ecosystem function) has the potential to create problems of bias due to measuring the same threat and equivalent response to that threat. This could bias the score for each theme, as well as the final score, towards being impacted or unimpacted with the likelihood of having a score in between less likely.

Site-level sub-index scores were weighted by reach length or area, as described by NWC (2007b) and outlined in Table 2 below and Equation 2 above, to provide a SWMA-level sub-index and theme scores. The assumption is that sampled reaches are representative of all reaches within the SWMA. However, the selection of sites for the Queensland FARWH trials (with the exception of the Moreton trial where legacy sites were used) was based on the GRTS design and sites were assigned ‘inclusion probabilities’ based on stream order and spatial distribution (Dobbie & Burridge 2010a, p8).

To ensure accessibility, the site selection process included a ‘filter’ to identify sites within 500m of a designated road. Dobbie and Burridge (2010a) note that if the sample frame is constrained, then so are the relative inferences. For example, in the linear population context (as was the case for the Central and Wet Tropics trials), if the

Integration of sub-index and theme scores

Scores from Queensland FARWH trial

51

Pioneer SWMA Burdekin SWMA

Moreton SWMA

Tully SWMA Cooper Creek SWMA

Fringing Zone 0.61 0.56 0.41 0.86 0.90

Catchment Disturbance

0.62 0.56 0.66 0.82 0.47

Aquatic Biota 0.82 0.89 0.72 0.83 0.67

Water Quality and Soils

0.84 0.86 0.75 0.85 0.86

Hydrological Disturbance

0.33 0.48 0.58 N/A N/A

Physical Form 0.96 0.86 0.97 0.90 0.70

Overall score 0.63 0.66 0.64 0.85 0.68

Table 21. Current era (2008–09) assessment for Qld FARWH trial SWMA

65

Figure 25. Overall results for the 2008–09 assessment of the Qld FARWH trial SWMAs (colour coded according to score)

65

Figure 25. Overall results for the 2008–09 assessment of the Qld FARWH trial SWMAs (colour coded according to score)

Findings of the trial

Reporting of condition scores

2.The trials successfully applied the six key indices and supported their use in future.

3.The trials found that the 0 to 1 condition rating was achievable and (mostly) meaningful.

4.The trials identified the need to include an additional measure of wetland extent.

Findings of trial (cont)

Reference condition

The trials supported the use of reference condition as a way to identify and report on condition.

However, all trials found that further work was required to improve the understanding of reference condition.

Two-tiered approach

A two-tiered approach would be useful to identify specific areas for greater field sampling effort, based on an overall broadscale assessment – used as basis for targeting areas for more costly field-based assessments.

Phase 1 – Desktop assessment

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xii

It is anticipated that including these two recommendations in the FARWH will result in a method that could provide national reporting and be used at a finer scale for jurisdictional and regional needs. A number of more detailed recommendations are outlined in the report.

Figure 4: The proposed two-tiered FARWH assessment approach

Phase 2 – Detailed condition assessment

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xii

It is anticipated that including these two recommendations in the FARWH will result in a method that could provide national reporting and be used at a finer scale for jurisdictional and regional needs. A number of more detailed recommendations are outlined in the report.

Figure 4: The proposed two-tiered FARWH assessment approach

Phase 3 – Output and validation

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xii

It is anticipated that including these two recommendations in the FARWH will result in a method that could provide national reporting and be used at a finer scale for jurisdictional and regional needs. A number of more detailed recommendations are outlined in the report.

Figure 4: The proposed two-tiered FARWH assessment approach

What next?

Five options presented to government:

•Continue with jurisdictional reporting (current practice)•National reporting every 10 years•National reporting every 5 years (broadscale assessment)•National reporting every 5 years (broadscale + limited field assessment)•National reporting every 5 years (broadscale + detailed field assessment)

Further information

www.nwc.gov.au

www.water.gov.au

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES i

Framework for the assessment of river and

wetland health: findings from the trials and options for

uptake

Alluvium Consulting

Waterlines Report Series No 58, September 2011

1

Alignment of state and national river and wetland health assessment needs

September 2011

Thank you!