RIVER HEALTH ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK,

INCLUDING MONITORING, ASSESSMENT AND

APPLICATIONS

Prepared by the International WaterCentre

Australia-China Environment Development Partnership

River Health and Environmental Flow in China

Project Code: P0018

April 2010

i

Document History and Status

Version Date Issued Prepared by Reviewed by

A1 20/Jan/2010 Chris Gippel Robert Speed, Stuart Bunn, Eva Abal, Nick

Bond, Fiona Chandler

B 16/Feb/2010 Chris Gippel Robert Speed, Stuart Bunn, Eva Abal, Nick

Bond, Fiona Chandler, Brad Pusey, Angela

Arthington, Tom Vanderbyl, Stuart Bunn

C 23/Feb/2010 Chris Gippel

Final 21/Apr/2010 Chris Gippel and Robert Speed Steering Committee

Distribution

Version Date Issued Method Issued to

A 20/Jan/2010 Email .pdf and .docx Robert Speed, Nick Bond

B 16/Feb/2010 Email .pdf and .docx Robert Speed

C 23/Feb/2010 Email .pdf and .docx Robert Speed

Final 21/Apr/2010 Email docx Chris Gippel

Document Management

Printed Not printed

Last saved 21-April-2010

File name River Health Framework_Final

Authors Chris Gippel and Robert Speed

Organisation International Water Centre Pty Ltd

Document name River Health Assessment Framework…

Document version Final

Suggested citation:

Gippel, C.J. and Speed, R. 2010. River health assessment framework: including monitoring,

assessment and applications. ACEDP Australia-China Environment Development Partnership,

River Health and Environmental Flow in China. International WaterCentre, Brisbane, April.

For further information on any of the information contained within this document contact:

International Water Centre Pty Ltd

PO Box 10907, Adelaide St

Brisbane, Qld, 4000

Tel: +61 7 31237766

Email: info@watercentre.org

www.watercentre.org

This publication may be of assistance to you, but the International Water Centre and its employees and

contractors do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind, or is wholly appropriate for

your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence

which may arise from you relying on information in this publication.

ii

About this document

This document is one of a series three framework papers prepared to support work on the River Health

and Environmental Flow in China Project (‘the Project’). The three framework papers are:

River Health Assessment Framework, Including Monitoring, Assessment and Applications;

Environmental Flow Assessment Framework and Methods, Including Environmental Asset Identification and Water Re-allocation; and

A Holistic, Asset-based Framework for Evaluating River Health, Environmental Flows and Water Re-Allocation

The project objectives are to document and trial, in China, international approaches to river health and

environmental flows assessment. The trial involved three pilot river basins – the Yellow, Pearl and Liao

River Basins, with a sub-catchment selected from each. Further details on the pilot projects can be

found in the River Health and Environmental Flow in China Inception Report, 16 December 2010.

These three papers were prepared as a starting point for the pilot work. The methodologies and

framework outlined in these papers was refined during the course of the project, based on the results

of the pilot studies, as well as further research and discussion.

iii

Contents ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................... II

ABSTRACT (IN ENGLISH) ..................................................................................................VI

RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................... X

Objectives ............................................................................................................................. x

Benchmark for expressing relative river condition .............................................................. x

What and how to measure ................................................................................................. xi

Assessment and reporting................................................................................................... xi

Application ......................................................................................................................... xii

Ecological assets ................................................................................................................ xii

Stakeholder engagement. .................................................................................................. xii

Capacity building requirements ......................................................................................... xii

Framework ......................................................................................................................... xii

RECOMMENDATIONS (IN CHINESE) 建议 .......................................................................XIV

目标 .................................................................................................................................. xiv

表达相关河流状况的基准点 ........................................................................................... xiv

什么以及如何测量............................................................................................................ xv

评定 ................................................................................................................................... xv

应用 ................................................................................................................................... xv

生态资产 ........................................................................................................................... xv

框架 ................................................................................................................................... xv

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

RIVER HEALTH MONITORING ............................................................................................ 2

CONCEPT OF RIVER HEALTH AND RIVER CONDITION ........................................................................... 2

OBJECTIVES OF RIVER HEALTH MONITORING .................................................................................... 3

Types of monitoring ............................................................................................................ 3

Objectives of monitoring ..................................................................................................... 5

Recommendations: objectives ............................................................................................ 7

EXPRESSING RIVER CONDITION RELATIVE TO A REFERENCE OR BENCHMARK ........................................... 7

Reference condition ............................................................................................................ 7

Benchmark corresponding to a previous sampling round .................................................. 8

Benchmark corresponding to established standards or criteria ......................................... 8

Benchmark corresponding to standards for designated use ............................................ 10

Benchmark corresponding to management target .......................................................... 11

Recommendations: benchmark for expressing relative river condition ............................ 11

DECIDING WHAT AND HOW TO MEASURE ...................................................................................... 12

Components ...................................................................................................................... 12

Variables, data, metrics, indicators and indexes .............................................................. 14

Selecting variables that relate to manageable aspects of rivers ...................................... 17

iv

Monitoring environmental flows ...................................................................................... 17

Recommendations: what and how to measure ................................................................ 20

RIVER HEALTH ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING ................................................................ 20

OBTAINING CONTEXTUAL OR EXPLANATORY INFORMATION TO HELP INTERPRET RIVER CONDITION DATA .. 20

REPORTING AND COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................. 20

RECOMMENDATIONS: ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING ...................................................................... 21

RIVER HEALTH APPLICATION .......................................................................................... 21

RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION .............................................................................................. 24

ECOLOGICAL ASSETS AND RIVER HEALTH MONITORING .................................................. 24

DEFINITION OF ECOLOGICAL ASSETS ............................................................................................. 24

RELEVANCE OF ECOLOGICAL ASSETS TO RIVER HEALTH MONITORING .................................................. 26

RECOMMENDATIONS: ECOLOGICAL ASSETS.................................................................................... 26

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................ 26

ROLE OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 26

ELEMENTS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................... 27

RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................. 27

CAPACITY REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................. 27

RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................. 27

RIVER HEALTH MONITORING IN AUSTRALIA ................................................................... 28

NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF RIVER AND WETLAND HEALTH (FARWH) ............... 28

ASPECTS OF METHODS USED BY JURISDICTIONS IN AUSTRALIA .......................................................... 28

Benthic macroinvertebrates .............................................................................................. 28

Fish assemblages .............................................................................................................. 29

Ecosystem processes ......................................................................................................... 29

Riverine vegetation ........................................................................................................... 29

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 30

Physical form ..................................................................................................................... 30

Water quality .................................................................................................................... 30

Driver indicators including catchment disturbance .......................................................... 31

The Filters approach .......................................................................................................... 31

Monitoring environmental flows ...................................................................................... 32

Products of river health monitoring .................................................................................. 32

COMPARISON OF THREE AUSTRALIAN PROGRAMS ......................................................... 32

SOUTH-EAST QUEENSLAND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH MONITORING PROGRAM (SEQ EHMP) .................... 32

VICTORIAN INDEX OF STREAM CONDITION (ISC) ............................................................................ 35

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN SUSTAINABLE RIVERS AUDIT (SRA) ......................................................... 39

v

COMPARISON........................................................................................................................... 42

Aims .................................................................................................................................. 42

Indicators .......................................................................................................................... 42

Sampling ........................................................................................................................... 43

Reporting frequency .......................................................................................................... 44

Common factors ................................................................................................................ 44

LESSONS FOR CHINA .................................................................................................................. 45

RIVER HEALTH MONITORING IN P. R. OF CHINA .............................................................. 45

STATE OF ENVIRONMENT REPORTING ........................................................................................... 45

LIAO RIVER .............................................................................................................................. 46

YELLOW RIVER ......................................................................................................................... 46

PEARL RIVER ............................................................................................................................ 47

MAIN ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN DESIGN OF A RIVER HEALTH MONITORING PROGRAM

...................................................................................................................................... 47

RIVER HEALTH MONITORING FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 47

RECOMMENDATION: FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 47

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 48

vi

Abstract (in English)

Currently in China, the environmental condition of rivers is measured, and river management objectives

are set, primarily on the basis of routine water quality monitoring. Chinese agencies and technical

institutions recognise the need for a more rigorous approach which covers a comprehensive range of

indicators that reflect all aspects of the ecological health of rivers, including environmental water

requirements. This technical paper provides the foundation for the river health component of the

development of a holistic, asset-based framework for evaluating river health, environmental flows and

water re-allocation. The framework takes a comprehensive approach, and can be applied to any river

and any river health issue. The framework addresses hydrology, water quality, aquatic life, physical form

and habitat, and the streamside (riparian vegetation) zone.

For the purpose of this report, river health monitoring activities fall into four main types:

Routine monitoring

Monitoring the effectiveness of a management action

Compliance checking

Special investigations

Routine monitoring is concerned with a comprehensive program of regular and consistent observations

over a wide area. Monitoring the effectiveness of a management action is concerned with determining

whether or not a particular action intended to improve river condition achieves this aim. The basis of this

type of monitoring is hypothesis testing, and the selection of response variables and the appropriate

spatial and temporal scales at which to monitor will be governed by the hypothesis being tested.

Compliance checking is concerned with determining whether an agreed action intended to improve river

condition is actually implemented. For the example of environmental flows, the effectiveness of this

management action would be judged by improvements in river condition that can be statistically

associated with that action (as measured by indicators, including biotic attributes), while compliance

could be determined by analysis of hydrology. In the case of environmental flows monitoring, these two

types of monitoring would be required.

Special investigations cover the situations of environmental impact of a proposed development,

emergency monitoring of a pollution event, and scientific studies required to fill information gaps,

explore the links between cause and effect, test theory and develop predictive models.

In China there is a recognised need for a systematic, national approach to river health monitoring. The

approach would:

underpin the routine monitoring of river condition,

evaluate the impact of management actions, and

assist identification of priority rivers and river reaches for management attention

In practice, the objectives of river health monitoring in China are likely to vary from place to place, and

often a program will have multiple objectives. Most of the work to date appears to have focused on

highlighting known water quality issues. Improvement of water quality has been a major management

objective, and it is likely that efforts to remove industrial outfalls, and increase the urban sewage

treatment rate will result in dramatic improvements in water quality. At some point another degraded

aspect of the river environment will become limiting for the biota (e.g. hydrology, riparian vegetation, or

physical habitat). Without a comprehensive river health monitoring program in place that includes

bioassessment and measurement of driver and stressor variables, a failure of water quality

improvements to significantly increase the level of river health could go unrecognised, and there would

be a lack of information to guide the next phase of river rehabilitation.

vii

River health assessment focuses on the effects of human activity on the biological state of a river, with a

view to identifying the main degrading activities so they can be ameliorated. The logical reference point

then is the biological status in the absence of human disturbance, which explains why most river health

assessments are based on the concept of comparing current condition to natural conditions (structure,

composition, function, diversity) in the absence of human disturbance or alteration.

Most rivers in China, except some headwater reaches in mountainous regions, are disturbed in some

way. Many of the alterations have been in place for centuries or even thousands of years, particularly in

the lowland areas. Given the lack of reference sites in China, it may be preferable to set as the

benchmark the best attainable condition. Best attainable condition is equivalent to the expected

ecological condition of least-disturbed sites if the best possible management practices were in use for

some period of time. Sites in BAC would be places where the impact on biota of inevitable land use is

minimized.

The hierarchy of measurement in a river health monitoring program begins at the scale of the simplified

ecosystem components and the drivers of ecosystem processes. These components could also be

referred to as themes, or elements of the program. The main components are:

Catchment processes

Instream physical processes (hydrology and geomorphology), which also give rise to hydraulic

conditions

Water quality and sediment chemistry, which also includes contaminant loads

Aquatic and riparian life, which include flora, fauna and ecosystem processes

The components can be arranged in a rough hierarchy of drivers to responses, but some responses are

also drivers of other processes - the components are linked through physical, chemical and ecological

processes. A program can concentrate on one component, combine a number of components or, for

particular reaches, river basins, or regions, select from a group of program-approved components to suit

local ecosystem conditions, management issues, and available resources. Clearly, the more

comprehensive is the program the more information it generates about the status of river health, the

cause of identified river health problems and how to best manage the river to improve river health.

However, apart from the issue of cost, it may be that some components are not worth including because

they lack sensitivity to likely variability in river health over space and time. When considering what

components to include in a river health monitoring program there are three choices:

1. At the outset, design the program as a comprehensive one that includes driver/stressor and

response components, test the utility of a large number of variables in pilot studies, and then

trim the list to the most effective variables.

2. Begin with a bioassessment program that is limited to the most promising response variables

(selected on the basis of what is known of the rivers proposed for monitoring, and those proven

in the literature), then periodically review the program and add driver/stressor components as

necessary, or

3. Commit to a bioassessment-only program, and gather information on the drivers/stressors of

river health under a separate program.

Choosing a suite of variables to measure is a challenging aspect of river health monitoring program

design. The main characteristics of effective river health indicators are:

1. quantify and simplify complex ecological phenomena;

2. provide easily interpretable outputs

3. respond predictably to damage caused by humans while being insensitive to natural spatial or

temporal variation;

4. relate to an appropriate scale;

viii

5. relate to management goals; and

6. be scientifically defensible

There are many different standard ways to measure the selected ecosystem components. The most

expedient approach would be to adopt protocols that have proven successful elsewhere, but it is likely

that adaptation will be required to suit local conditions.

Two types of monitoring are appropriate for environmental flows:

Compliance monitoring to determine if the environmental flow provisions were followed (i.e.

were the environmental flows delivered to the river as specified)

Routine monitoring to test the hypothesis that environmental flows will lead to improved river

health (i.e. did river health improve as expected in response to the implementation of

environmental flows?)

In monitoring environmental flows, hypothesis testing refers to a number of ‘predictions’ or ‘questions’

that are to be tested. For any particular river, the foundations of the hypotheses to be tested can be

found in the environmental flow assessment documentation. Of course, this assumes that the

environmental flows method being used is one based on a conceptual understanding of the flow-

ecosystem relationships, as opposed to one based on simple hydrological rules of thumb.

While river health monitoring is concerned with data generation, river health assessment is concerned

with analysis and interpretation of those data. The assessment provides information that aids

management decisions. The products of the assessment are reports that interpret the results of

monitoring in the context of the objectives of the program, show spatial distributions, analyse for trends

in the data, and attempt to explain the results in terms of the causative factors. It is likely that the

assessment process will draw on data and information from sources external to the river health

monitoring program.

It may be appropriate for report cards to report on river condition based on a number of different

benchmarks. Report cards will need to be designed in a way that ensures they provide an accurate

picture of river health, recognize differences in river health across a wide-range of basins where overall

river health is likely to be poor, and provide appropriate incentives for management action. Targets

should not be set either too high (where they cannot realistically be achieved) or too low, where they

may be too easily met.

Application of the results of river health monitoring occurs when actions are taken in response to the

assessment. This will only occur if an appropriate policy mechanism is established.

River health monitoring is not value-free. Subjective decisions have to be made with respect to what

variables will be measured, where they will be measured, and how the data will be reported. The

ecological asset-based approach to management focuses on protecting key assets, usually particular

independently defined sites of high conservation value. A process-based approach to management

focuses on maintaining or restoring the physical, chemical and biological processes that sustain

ecological assets.

The concept of ecological assets and key ecological assets are most relevant at the stages of river

health program design, and utilization of program results to river management. If the main objective of a

river health monitoring program is to inform management of independently defined ecological assets

(sites or processes), then the monitoring only needs to be undertaken at the relevant sites or where the

processes of interest occur. Alternatively, the monitoring might be used to help identify the ecological

assets, the risks to those assets, and thus where investment in resource management would be most

effectively directed.

There is a range of stakeholders that may be able to contribute to the development and implementation

of a river health monitoring program. Consideration should be given to:

Which stakeholders should be engaged in the process

ix

The objectives of any stakeholder engagement

The stages during development and implementation of a program when different stakeholders

should be engaged

The best mechanism(s) for engaging stakeholders

A comparison of 3 major Australian river health monitoring programs (the South East Queensland

Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program, the Victorian Index of Stream Condition and the Murray-Darling

Basin Sustainable Rivers Audit) found that the programs differed significantly in a number of respects.

However, all three are widely regarded as having successfully met their objectives. The factors that they

do have in common, and which may be the main determinants of success, are:

Embedded within, and considered a critical component of, a wider river health strategy,

Well formulated and clearly articulated objectives,

A well funded phase of scientific program development and pilot testing in order to establish

indicators and protocols that would meet the agreed program objectives,

Technical manuals, operator training, and attention to quality control and assurance,

River condition reported relative to an established reference condition (although this can be

defined in different ways),

Strong levels of commitment by government and community,

Established formal links to river management,

Including indicators that directly measure the drivers and stressors of river health, or having

that informational available to the program to assist in explanation of water quality and

biological data,

Transparent, effective, and publicly accessible reporting, and

Ongoing critical review of the programs methods, and refinement and development as

necessary.

The implications of the comparison of 3 Australian programs for development of river health monitoring

programs in China are that:

Close attention needs to be paid to the factors that the Australian programs had in common,

and which may be key determinants of success,

The set of indicators should be chosen to suit the local conditions and the local objectives

rather than simply being copied from another program from another part of the world,

The program can focus on water quality and bioassessment, provided contextual information

on drivers and stressors is available, and provided the chosen indicators are diagnostic of

management issues – alternatively, the monitoring program can include driver/stressor

indicators that relate directly to intended management actions,

Full characterisation of spatial pattern and reliable trend detection in physico-chemical water

quality parameters requires an extensive network of frequently monitored sites, operational for

a long period of time, so the existing network in China should be utilised,

For field measured variables, careful attention should be paid to design of the sampling

strategy (sampling site location, number of sites, sampling frequency, and timing of sampling),

especially if one of the objectives is change detection, and

The reporting frequency needs to be appropriate to the expected rates of change in the chosen

indicators, and the benefits of frequent reporting need to be balanced against the cost of doing

so.

x

The main issues to be considered in design of a river health monitoring program for China are:

1. Objectives of the program (to be established by responsible agencies)

2. Sampling strategy (site location, number of sites, site selection strategy, frequency of sampling,

with an emphasis on scientifically sound methods)

3. Indicators selected for monitoring (relate to issues, assets, program objectives and likely

management activities, plus consider US EPA EMAP criteria). Either test a large number of

possible indicators in pilot studies, or chose a small number of indicators that are proven in the

literature.

4. Selection of suitable benchmark – must be consistent nationally

5. Quality Control/Quality Assurance methods

6. Production of manuals

7. Data management

8. Analytical methods (statistics, and development of composite index)

9. Sourcing contextual information to explain river health observations.

10. Reporting and communication methods (a policy is required for data and report access)

11. Timing and mechanism for engaging stakeholders in the program

Recommendations

Objectives

1. A program of river health monitoring in China should sit within a wider river health strategy that

explicitly links the results of monitoring to management responses.

2. A wide-scale program is required for routine monitoring, while testing the effectiveness of

environmental flows will require special hypothesis-based monitoring programs.

3. As the objectives of monitoring programs are likely to vary from place to place, it will be

necessary to allow flexibility in the selection of sampling strategies and the selection of

indicators to monitor.

Benchmark for expressing relative river condition

4. Most rivers in China, except some headwater reaches in mountainous regions, are disturbed in

some way. Many of the alterations have been in place for centuries or even thousands of

years, particularly in the lowland areas. It will not be possible to define MDC (minimally

disturbed condition) or HC (historical condition) for most regions. LDC (least disturbed

condition) would likely represent a relatively disturbed condition in most places. It is likely that

an alternative to the traditional concept of reference will be required for China.

5. Given the lack of reference sites in China, it may be preferable to set as the benchmark the

best attainable condition (BAC) for the designated river use within existing functional zones. In

the vast majority of cases this will leave room for improvement over current condition. It is

envisaged that the BAC would be independently defined through a scientific process. It would

be a matrix that covered particular river attributes, for any given class of use, scale of river,

geomorphological setting, and eco-hydrological river class.

6. The BAC would not necessarily correspond with the working management targets set to

achieve short-term goals at any particular time, but it would represent an ideal long-term target,

and a consistent set of benchmarks from which to compare like rivers at the national level.

Once a river prioritised for management action achieved the target level of river health, the aim

xi

of management would be to maintain BAC in that river, with rehabilitation resources then

directed to improving the condition of another high priority river. Of course, management

authorities would also have the prerogative of changing river use class, in order to pursue

achievement of even higher levels of stream health.

7. Sites for characterising BAC are unlikely to be available in China. In this case, established

standards or criteria determined using any practical method, with expert opinion likely to be

required, at least in the initial establishment of the matrix.

8. One potential problem with using management targets as the benchmark for river health arises

when the targets are intentionally unambitious in order to give the impression of a high level of

achievement of expected river health. This result may create a superficial and temporary sense

of achievement, but it would provide little motivation to further improve stream condition. It is

important then to adhere to the principle that long-term management targets correspond to a

genuine BAC.

9. Another potential issue with BAC is that continued development of water resources could lead

to an unremarked decline in absolute levels of river health – unremarked because when an

undeveloped river with close to natural stream health targets is developed, its use is simply re-

designated to a lesser class, with less stringent health targets. Thus, prior to, and after, the

development, the river may have met the appropriate health target, but absolute health would

likely have declined. Of course, such declines would to some extent be offset by improvements

to stream health achieved in other previously poorly managed rivers. This issue is not so much

to do with the choice of river condition benchmark, but more to do with development and

implementation of appropriate policies concerning water resources development.

What and how to measure

10. This report does not recommend a suite of indicators that should be included in a river health

monitoring program for China. It may be necessary to evaluate a broad range of indicators

(selected after first assessing them against US EMAP criteria) in pilot studies, and then select

those that best respond to known disturbance gradients. If expediency is required, then

bioassessment using a small number of indicators known from the literature to be sensitive to

the form of water quality impairment typical of China’s rivers would be the best starting point.

11. Assessment of environmental flows involves two components: hydrological compliance

monitoring, and hypothesis-based ecological/geomorphological response monitoring.

Practicalities will often mean that a BACI (Before After Control Impact) program design is not

possible, but other designs can also be effective. It will be necessary to judiciously select

variables and sites, with a focus on monitoring those variables or sites where the expected

response magnitude is large.

12. Whatever indicators are chosen, it is critical that the river health monitoring program follow

rigorous scientific protocols in selecting sites, determining sampling frequency, field sampling

and measurement, laboratory measurement, and statistical analysis. The expedient approach

is to adopt proven standard methods.

Assessment and reporting

13. It is important to interpret the results of the monitoring to match the objectives of the program.

The findings should be reported using a range of formats, to a range of audiences.

14. One of the key products should be report cards, ideally produced annually.

15. The basic reporting unit should correspond with the established water function zones. These

are currently used for water quality reporting. Depending on the distribution of these zones, it

may be necessary to aggregate zones to cover larger areas.

xii

16. It may be appropriate for report cards to include information related to status against a number

of benchmarks. These may include BAC, shorter-term management targets such as the

achievement of water function zone requirements, and condition relative to previous years.

Application

17. Application involves linking the monitoring program to policy. A mechanism needs to be in

place for transferring the results of monitoring to the agencies responsible for management

actions.

Ecological assets

18. A liberal definition of ecological asset is appropriate, including biodiversity, threatened species,

native species, species of high conservation value, certain habitats, certain ecological

processes, ecosystem services and certain places.

19. River health monitoring can be used to help identify ecological assets, the risks to those

assets, and thus where investment in resource management would be most effectively directed

Stakeholder engagement.

20. Development and implementation of a river health monitoring program should be supported by

a framework for engaging stakeholders at appropriate stages during the process.

Capacity building requirements

21. The skills required to implement any monitoring program, and the feasibility, time and cost

involved in training relevant staff in those skills, should be a consideration in designing an

appropriate program.

Framework

22. A generic high-level river health monitoring framework for China is presented below. This

framework is intended to guide the establishment of a structured river health monitoring

program within a river health strategy. Details of indicators, protocols and communication tools

will likely vary from area to area, depending on local conditions and priorities.

xiii

Stream health application

Set targets, priorities, methods, allocations; implement activities

Stream health assessment

Stream health monitoring

Data on drivers and stressors

Formal links:science-community-

management

High level management principles• Protect and improve river health• Optimise for social and economic benefit

Appropriate indicators and

protocols

RespondCommunicate

ExplainFundamental

research

Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) activities, Environmental flows, Water Resource Allocation

Plans (WRAP), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Observe trend and pattern at

basin-scale

Test response to specific

action

Report nationally

Gather dataObjective

Generic framework for river health monitoring in China

xiv

Recommendations (in Chinese) 建议

目前在中国，河流的环境条件是测量的，河流的管理目标是确定的，基本是根据对日常水质量的检测。

中国的专业机构和技术部门已经意识到，需要严格的手段来确保所有的措施能够涵盖整个河流环境流监控

的各项指标。这其中包括环境流的必要量。这一份技术材料提供了一个河流健康的基础，全盘开发的重要

组成部分。资产基础的河流健康评估的框架，环境流和水的重新分配。这个框架基于一个综合的角度，因

此能够适用于任何河流或者任何河流健康问题。此框架表述了水文学，水质量，水生生物，物理构成以及

栖息地和河边地带区域（河边植被）

目标

1， 在中国，

一项河流健康监测系统的建立，应当建立在广泛的河流健康战略中，以使其明确地联接到监测管

理的结果。

2， 一个大范围系统要求日常的检测，同时在测试环境流的有效性时，要求特殊的虚拟检测系统

3， 由于检测系统的目标根据地点的不同都有变化，将有必要允许一定的灵活的措施和检测地点的选

择。

表达相关河流状况的基准点

4， 中国的大部分的河流，除了一些在源头的水流向山区，大部分都分成若干干流。有许多历经世纪

或者千年的变化，特别是在下流流域。这在很多地区就不完全能够定义MDC（最低限度地分流

条件）或者HC （历史条件）。LDC

（最少分流条件）可能会代表大部分地区的相对的分流条件。很有可能需要有一个适合中国河流

自身传统概念的选择办法。

5， 鉴于在中国少有参考点，或许更适宜于使用基准点的办法，在现存的功能区域指定的河流作为（

BAC）最可达到的方式。在目前条件，相当大的情况下，这个方法将留有很大的待改进的空间。

这个设想，BAC能够通过科学的独立确定。这同时将是一个矩阵的方式，涵盖了独特的河流分流

。对于任何一个级别的拥护，河流刻度，地貌区定以及环境水文河流的级别。

6， BAC并不一定会对短期目标所确立的管理目标有必要的回应，但是一定会对其长期目标以及从对

相像河流的国家级别的一致性的基准点有所回应。一旦确立河流管理的优先程序，达到预期的河

流健康的各级标准，管理目的就在于如何维护在此河流中的BAC，

通过修复资源，然后引导到如何改进另一个高优先程序的河流的条件。当然，

管理当局应当同样有更改河流用户级别的特权， 以便进行更高一个级别的溪流健康。

7， BAC中所表述的站点在中国似乎不太好提供。

鉴于这样的原因，建立的标准或条件决定了使用任何实用的方法，当然专家的意见也一定是需要

借鉴的。至少在矩阵最初建立的时候。

8， 一个潜在的问题会出现，在使用管理目标作为基准点时，各项目标有意识地表现为并不十分明显

，为的是给出一个印象比较高的河流健康的管理成果。

这个结果可能造成一个较肤浅和短暂的成果显示，但是有可能给与比较微弱的动力以便日后的进

一步改善溪流的条件。这就意味相当重要的是坚持一个长期的管理目标以针对真实的BAC结果。

9， 另一个潜在的因素是，持续的开发水资源，可能导致一个无法重新记录的绝对水平持续降低的河

流健康信息。无法重新记录是因为当一个并没有开发的河流但是离自然溪流健康目标的开发很紧

xv

的河流。

它的方法就是简单地从新设计一个更低等级的设计，包括低迫切度的健康目标，但是绝对的健康

就将递减。当然，这种递减在某种程度上由于对原来较弱的河流健康管理的改进而抵消。

这种情形并不与选择河流基准点有太大的关联，只是更多的影响水资源开发的有效管理和正确举

措。

什么以及如何测量

10， 在中国，这份报告并不建议使用一系列的指示器运用到河流健康监测系统。当然也需必要在初步

研究的时候使用范围较广的指示器的评估，然后选择那些回应渐变干扰最佳的指示器。如果权宜

之计需要，生物评估，就是使用一个小数字的指示器，从文献中知道，这样对中国的典型河流水

质量损坏的敏感度测试时一个最好的开端。

11， 评价环境流包括两个部分：适应水文的监测，

以及虚拟基础的生态/地貌回应的监测。实用性方面，将经常意味着BACI（之前之后控制冲突）

系统的设计 是不可能的，

但是其他的设计也有可能很有效。这就是说有必要明智地选择变量和站点，主要集中于监测那些

回应比较强烈的变量和站点

12， 无论选择什么样的监测器，

关键在于河流监控系统严格地按照科学的方式选择站点，决定采样频率，野外抽样和测量，

实验室测量，以及统计分析。权宜之计是采用已经证明适用的标准方法。

评定

13， 重要的是阐述监测的结果与目标系统的吻合。检查结果要用一系列的格式，针对一系列的用户。

14， 其中的一个关键产品是报告卡，最理想的是年报。

15， 基本的报告单元应当与水作用区域的建立相结合。或许有必要集中区域以包括更大的面积。

应用

16， 应用包括了连接监测程序和政策。一个机械设备应当放置在一个能够转移监测结果以适应管理的

需要。

生态资产

17， 一个宽泛的生产资产的定义是适当的。包括生物多样化，濒危物种，

原生物，高保存价值的物种，一定的栖息地，一定的生态过程以及一定的地点。

18， 河流健康监测器可以用于鉴别生态资产，对这些资产的危险性，从而如何指导对资源管理的最有

效的投资。

框架

19， 一个针对中国普遍性的高一层河流健康监测框架如下所示：此框架目的在于指导建立在一个河流

健康策略下的河流健康监测程序的结构。具体的监测器，协议以及沟通工具将因地区和地区的不

同而有所变化，完全取决于当地的条件和优先程序。

xvi

溪流健康应用

设定目标, 优化组合, 方法, 分配; 实施行动

溪流健康评估

溪流健康监测

驱动器和压力数据

正式的链接:科学-社区-管理

高层管理原则•保护和改善河流健康•优化对社会和经济的利益

恰当的指示器和协议

反应沟通

解释基础研究

整合河流管理 (IRBM) 活动, 环境流, 水资源分配计划

(WRAP), 环境影响评估 (EIA)

以盆地刻度来观察趋势和模式

针对特别活动的测试

国家级的报告

收集数据目标

中国河流健康监测的通用框架

1

Introduction

Currently in China, the environmental condition of rivers is measured, and river management objectives

are set, primarily on the basis of routine water quality monitoring. Chinese agencies and technical

institutions recognise the need for a more rigorous approach which covers a comprehensive range of

indicators that reflect all aspects of the ecological health of rivers, including environmental water

requirements. What is required is a systematic, nationally consistent approach that would underpin the

monitoring of river condition, evaluate the impact of management actions and, assist in the prioritisation

of rivers and river reaches for particular management attention.

The new River Basin Masterplans for the 7 major river basins in China will make provision for

environmental flows, which recognise and balance environmental needs with other demands on the

water resource. Once agreed, an environmental flow provisions will be included in the water allocation

arrangements and annual water allocation plans for the river basins.

This technical paper provides the foundation for the river health component of the development of a

holistic, asset-based framework for evaluating river health, environmental flows and water re-

allocation (Gippel and Speed, 2010a). The framework takes a comprehensive approach, and can be

applied to any river and any river health issue. The framework addresses hydrology, water quality,

aquatic life, physical form and habitat, and the streamside (riparian vegetation) zone. A second technical

report (Gippel and Speed, 2010b) provides the foundation for the environmental flow and water re-

allocation components of the framework.

There is a great range of river health monitoring programs in place around the world; this report does

not attempt to review them all. The review is based largely on existing Australian practice, with an

emphasis on broad approaches and important generic principles. Other methodological aspects of the

project, such as detailed protocols for field measurement, quality control and quality assurance, data

management, statistical methods, and report presentation formats, will be developed throughout the

course of the project to specifically suit the adopted methodology.

In this report, river health monitoring, which is primarily concerned collection and reporting of data, is

distinguished from river health assessment, which involves the analysis and reporting of the

implications of those data for resource management (following EMT, 1997, p. 17). Application of river

health data and assessment refers to utilisation of the information to improve resource management.

These three elements are normally integrated within a wider river health strategy (Figure 1), which is the

planning framework that aims to balance environmental, economic, recreational and cultural needs to

achieve healthy rivers. Environmental flow assessment, environmental asset identification, river health

target setting, and water re-allocation are also important components of such a strategy (Figure 1).

River health monitoring can be undertaken independently of a wider river health strategy, but the value

of such an exercise is weakened by the absence of a formal link to management action. The framework

for evaluating river health, environmental flows and water re-allocation, which this technical paper

complements, is not a fully specified river health strategy for China, but it does address some core

elements of such a strategy.

2

Figure 1. Connections between environmental asset identification, setting river health targets, environmental flow assessment, flow re-allocation, and river health monitoring, assessment and application within a river health strategy. Fundamental scientific research may be conducted outside the river health policy realm (i.e. independently funded) but interactions occur through utilization of data generated by the river health program or by informing river health monitoring, assessment and application through research results. The management process model is from Rogers and Biggs (1999). The river health responses and questions indicated are examples only – in practice there are many more.

River Health Monitoring

Concept of river health and river condition The term ‘river health’ is often equated with ‘biological integrity’ (Boulton, 1999), defined by Frey

(1977) as:

“the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of

organisms having a composition and diversity comparable to that of the natural habitats of the

region”

This definition [also rephrased as ecosystem integrity by Karr and Dudley (1981), Schofield and Davies

(1996) and Davies et al. (2008)] implies that river health is an absolute concept that cannot have

degrees, i.e. biological or ecosystem integrity is intact, being comparable to an undisturbed stream

(stream is healthy) or it is not (stream is not healthy). In practice, river health is measured using indices

that are intentionally selected to vary along a gradient of environmental disturbance, so there is a scale

Realm of a River Health Strategy

Environmental flow

assessment

Components to be managed or regulated, such as: environmental flows, pest species, sewerage treatment, industrial effluent, revegetation, channel stability, sand and gravel extraction, hydropower, stock access, fisheries, fish passage, etc.

Recommend flow needs

Trade-off and re-allocate

flows

Needs of industrial,

agricultural, recreational and urban

users

Desired state –operationalisedhealth targets

River health assessment

Is the river healthy?

Diagnose cause

Measure and report data

Should e-flows be reviewed?

Prioritise riversPrioritise actions

River health application

Identify environmental

assets

Check compliance

River health monitoring

Policy mandate

Operational goals

Problem definition

Potential solutions

Evaluate and select

Implement

Management process model

Fundamental scientific investigation – tests of theory

3

of deviation from the healthy state. To avoid confusion, it may be preferable to use the term ‘river

condition’ when describing the degree of deviation from a healthy state, rather than using ‘condition’

and ‘health’ synonymously. For example, in the Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA) of the Murray-Darling

Basin (http://www.mdba.gov.au/programs/sustainableriversaudit) (Davies et al., 2008), the capacity of

an ecosystem component to support key processes (e.g. carbon exchange, energy transfer, nutrient

cycling) is referred to as its ‘condition’, described by structural and functional measurements. A river

ecosystem is deemed ‘healthy’ when its essential character is maintained over time (Davies et al.,

2008).

River condition reflects the overall state or character of a river and can be described using various

indices that apply to certain attributes of rivers. River condition is measured relative to an arbitrary

benchmark or reference condition. The benchmark condition can be the pristine state [i.e. ecosystem

integrity intact, using the definition of Karr and Dudley (1981)] or an ecological state that represents a

known departure from this ideal.

Various authors, including Metcalfe-Smith (1996), Barbour et al. (1999) and ANZECC and ARMCANZ

(2000a; 2000b; 2000c), reviewed the traditional and more recently developed approaches to monitoring

river condition. Historically, environmental assessment of streams was based on physico-chemical

measures of water quality. Physico-chemical profiling may identify situations where biotic

communities are at risk, but provides no information on the actual damage, if any, to the biota. Even

where the tolerances of organisms to individual pollutant concentrations are known, this information may

have limited application to the common situation of streams being affected by multiple pollutants, as well

as habitat disturbance, and hydrological alteration.

Rather than measuring the physical and chemical factors that give rise to stream health,

bioassessment methods directly measure the condition of the aquatic biota. Compared with full

physico-chemical characterisation, targeted bioassessment requires less equipment and a large area

can be surveyed intensively in a short time. Bioassessment originally focused on benthic

macroinvertebrate assessment, but these approaches now also include periphyton, vegetation, fish and

other components of the aquatic system. The weakness of undertaking bioassessment alone is that it

provides only indirect information on the potential causes of any observed biological effects.

Holistic methods of measuring river health include a range of indicators. River condition can be

expressed as a string of sub-index values, or as a single integrated index, without concern for mixing

cause (abiotic drivers or pressures) and effect (biotic response) attributes. Common driver/pressure

variables include physical habitat availability, hydrology, riparian vegetation, physical form and process,

and water quality (e.g. Ladson et al., 1999; Parsons et al., 2002). Including driver/pressure variables

enhances the capacity to diagnose the cause of river health problems, and to identify the issues that

require management action.

Objectives of river health monitoring

Types of monitoring

In a report to the U.S. E.P.A., the Study Group on Environmental Monitoring (1977) described three

categories of environmental monitoring relevant to pollutants, with each designed to answer different

questions: source monitoring, which addresses the questions of what pollutants, where they come

from and in what amounts; ambient monitoring, which measures the concentrations of pollutants in the

physical and biological environment; and, effects monitoring, which measures the consequences of

the pollutants for living things. These categories are not readily transferable to holistic river health

monitoring.

Compliance monitoring is the routine collection of data to check that activities that potentially degrade

river health are operating within legally enforceable guidelines or criteria. Most often this concept applies

to monitoring of concentrations and loads of pollutants in effluents discharged to rivers, but it could

4

equally apply to monitoring discharge to determine whether environmental flow targets are being met by

the responsible river management authority.

The EU Water Framework Directive (Kallis and Butler, 2001) distinguishes between three types of

monitoring: surveillance monitoring provides a coherent and comprehensive overview of current

health status, and an assessment of long-term changes, at the scale of large river basin districts;

operational monitoring for those water bodies (down to 10 km²) that are identified to be at risk of

failing to meet environmental objectives, and for monitoring changes in the status after rehabilitation

measures, and; investigative monitoring for those water bodies that have failed, or are likely to fail, to

meet the environmental objectives for unknown reasons or to ascertain the magnitude and impacts of

accidental pollution. In other places, surveillance monitoring, as described above, is referred to as trend

monitoring or routine monitoring. Operational monitoring can also be referred to as restoration

assessment or campaign monitoring (MDBC, 2003), and investigative monitoring can be referred to

as impact assessment.

Snapshot assessment (e.g. Norris et al., 2001; National Water Commission 2007) is a once-off effort

designed to rapidly obtain a picture of the current state of river health over a given area. The emphasis

is on the spatial patterns in the data. If the snapshot involves field sampling, then the result is only

relevant to the prevailing hydrological and seasonal conditions. The snapshot could also be based on

existing data.

For the purpose of this report, river health monitoring activities fall into four main types:

Routine monitoring

Monitoring the effectiveness of a management action

Compliance checking

Special investigations

Routine monitoring is concerned with a comprehensive program of regular and consistent observations

over a wide area. Monitoring the effectiveness of a management action is concerned with determining

whether or not a particular action intended to improve river condition achieves this aim. The basis of this

type of monitoring is hypothesis testing, and the selection of response variables and the appropriate

spatial and temporal scales at which to monitor will be governed by the hypothesis being tested.

Compliance checking is concerned with determining whether an agreed action intended to improve river

condition is actually implemented.1 For the example of environmental flows, the effectiveness of this

management action would be judged by improvements in river condition that can be statistically

associated with that action (as measured by indicators, including biotic attributes), while compliance

could be determined by analysis of hydrology. In the case of environmental flows monitoring, these two

types of monitoring would be required.

Special investigations cover the situations of environmental impact of a proposed development,

emergency monitoring of a pollution event, and scientific studies required to fill information gaps,

explore the links between cause and effect, test theory and develop predictive models. For example,

special scientific investigations may be required in the case of the supposed causes of poor river health

being addressed through management, but this not being reflected in improvements in measures of

biological health. Essentially, such a study is a test of the theory that predicts river condition as a

function of management actions. The results would lead to improvements in either the way stream

condition is measured, or the way the issues are managed (or both). In developing a river health

program it will be necessary to undertake pilot studies that are rigorous scientific tests of proposed

methods. These fall into the class of special investigations. Special investigations would be

1 Compliance also includes routine checking of water quality (usually of effluents) against agreed standards – this is

not a topic of this report.

5

commissioned on a needs basis, so they are not included as a central component of a river health

monitoring program.

Objectives of monitoring

River health monitoring is undertaken as part of a strategy to protect and enhance the health of riverine

ecological assets (where impairment is caused by human actions) (Figure 1). The overarching objective

is to provide information on river ecosystem state and functioning that guides rational river management

actions and on-ground actions. The goal of management may be to achieve a target state of river

health, to maintain the current status, or to improve on the current status.

Individual river health monitoring programs can have one or more objectives, and these have

implications for the design of the program (Table 1). As well as site selection, and variable selection, the

program objectives will help to determine the required monitoring site density, and the frequency and

duration of observations. For example, the monitoring program for the Murray-Darling Basin Living

Murray initiative (http://www.mdba.gov.au/programs/tlm/programs_to_deliver/environmental_monitoring)

is limited spatially to six pre-defined icon sites (i.e. chosen for their high ecological, cultural, recreational,

heritage and economic value, not selected on the basis of monitoring data) to inform a program of

targeted environmental flows and a targeted program of stream works and measures. This contrasts

with the Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA) routine monitoring program which aims to provide a consistent

and comprehensive picture of the health of the rivers throughout the entire Murray-Darling Basin, and to

monitor changes in health through time. Thus, the SRA adheres to strict protocols regarding random site

selection, site density to achieve a certain statistical power, and repeat surveys through time.

In China there is a recognised need for a systematic, national approach to river health monitoring. The

approach would:

underpin the routine monitoring of river condition,

evaluate the impact of management actions, and

assist identification of priority rivers and river reaches for management attention

In practice, the objectives of river health monitoring in China are likely to vary from place to place, and

often a program will have multiple objectives. Most of the work to date appears to have focused on

highlighting known water quality issues. Improvement of water quality has been a major management

objective, and it is likely that efforts to remove industrial outfalls, and increase the urban sewage

treatment rate will result in dramatic improvements in water quality. At some point another degraded

aspect of the river environment will become limiting for the biota (e.g. hydrology, riparian vegetation, or

physical habitat). Without a comprehensive river health monitoring program in place that includes

bioassessment and measurement of driver and stressor variables, a failure of water quality

improvements to significantly increase the level of river health could go unrecognised, and there would

be a lack of information to guide the next phase of river rehabilitation.

Hypothesis-based monitoring will likely be necessary for assessing the effectiveness of implementation

of environmental flows. The improvements in river health from environmental flows alone may be too

subtle to be detected by routine monitoring. In most cases, there is uncertainty about the outcome of

environmental flows (due to uncertainty in the theory and empirical data used to formulate the

recommended flows), so implementation should be accompanied with monitoring to aid adaptive

management. This monitoring will require careful planning to avoid confounding factors and to make

sure that hypotheses can be meaningfully tested.

6

Table 1. River health monitoring program objectives, and implications for site and variable selection, and monitoring frequency.

Program Objective Issues Responses Specific objective Site selection implications

Variable selection implications

Test and improve effectiveness of

management actions Known Implemented

Test effectiveness of, and adaptively manage, specific management actions

Stratified according to where actions are and are not applied

Response variables that relate to project objectives

Test effectiveness of, and adaptively manage, site specific application of management actions

According to location of actions

Response variables that relate to project objectives

Compliance checking against stated limits

Points of compliance Variables listed for compliance (usually water quality)

Collect data to inform policy development

Known Not formulated Observe spatial pattern and trend in variables related to specific issue of concern

Known sites where issue has been identified

Variables that relate to the issue (e.g. fish passage, bank erosion)

Unknown Not formulated

Provide data to develop policy priorities for specific types of actions

Random over extent of region where actions likely to be applied

A range of driver and response variables, plus monitor management actions

Provide data to develop policy priorities for actions at specific areas (e.g. icon sites, geomorphic zones within basins)

Random within the specific areas

A range of driver and response variables, plus monitor management actions

Communication

Awareness of general issues, but issues

secondary to health message

Awareness of general responses, but

responses secondary to health message

Raise public awareness of river health as an issue, to support policy implementation

Random over region of interest, or target rivers of main public interest

Simple set of response variables

Provide comparative data to motivate regional river managers and stakeholders to implement actions to improve river health

Random sites over region of interest, with coverage of most major streams

Simple set of response variables (to motivate, but need driver data to take action)

Inform the public of the state of river health as part of accountability obligations

Random over region of interest, or target rivers of main public interest

Simple set of response variables

7

Recommendations: objectives

1. A program of river health monitoring in China should sit within a wider river health strategy that

explicitly links the results of monitoring to management responses.

2. A wide-scale program is required for routine monitoring, while testing the effectiveness of

environmental flows will require special hypothesis-based monitoring programs.

3. As the objectives of monitoring programs are likely to vary from place to place, it will be

necessary to allow flexibility in the selection of sampling strategies and the selection of

indicators to monitor.

Expressing river condition relative to a reference or benchmark

Reference condition

River health assessment focuses on the effects of human activity on the biological state of a river, with a

view to identifying the main degrading activities so they can be ameliorated. The logical reference point

then is the biological status in the absence of human disturbance, which explains why most river health

assessments are based on the concept of comparing current condition to natural conditions (structure,

composition, function, diversity) in the absence of human disturbance or alteration (Stoddard et al.,

2006).

The reference condition of a river attribute is a distribution rather than a single value. The range of

values results from sampling error and natural variability, both in space and time. Once the distribution

is defined, parameters in the distribution (such as certain arbitrary percentile values) can be used as

benchmarks from which to judge the condition of test sites.

The term ‘reference condition’ has been used to refer to biological states different to undisturbed. To

avoid confusion and misunderstanding, Stoddard et al. (2006) defined five different versions of

reference condition, although they recommended that the term ‘reference condition’ be reserved for its

original conception.

Reference condition for biological integrity, RC(BI)

The condition at the present time in the absence of human disturbance (as adopted in principle for the

Clean Water Act in the United States, the EU Water Framework Directive, and many river health

programs in Australia). The main practical problem is the impossibility of locating such undisturbed sites.

One response is to model the reference state, or attempt to reconstruct it using expert opinion or

historical records. The alternative response is to accept a less stringent definition of reference condition

that is more readily defined (see below).

Minimally disturbed condition, MDC

Accepting that finding truly undisturbed sites is impossible, the best approximation of biological integrity

is minimally disturbed sites. The disturbance at such sites is below the threshold for producing

measurable effects. Once established, the distribution created by a group of sites in MDC will vary little

over time. There is a practical difficulty in finding some, or a sufficient number of, sites in MDC. In some

places that have been settled for a long time, or which have been the subject of intensive development,

there may be no such sites. This is particularly the case for lowland rivers. The SRA (Murray-Darling

Basin) defines reference as the condition that would be likely to prevail now had there been no

significant human intervention in that region (Davies et al., 2008), which equates to MDC. Different

methods are applied in the SRA to estimate reference condition for the various ecosystem components

used to define river health. The AusRivAS system for describing health of aquatic macroinvertebrate

communities in Australia (Simpson and Norris, 2000) is based on the ratio of observed over expected,

where the expected community characteristics are derived from minimally disturbed reference streams.

8

Historical condition, HC

The condition of streams at some point in their history may be an accurate estimator of true RC(BI) if the

historical point chosen is before the start of any human disturbance. However, many other historical

reference points are possible, such as pre-intensive agriculture (EU Water Framework Directive) or pre-

European settlement (as often applied in Australia and the U.S.).

Least-disturbed condition, LDC

Least disturbed condition is associated with the best available physical, chemical, and biological habitat

conditions that can be found under present day conditions. It is ideally described by evaluating data

collected at sites selected according to a set of explicit criteria defining what is ‘‘best’’ (or least disturbed

by human activities), such as a certain maximum percentage of the catchment area under agricultural

land use. The Flow Stress Ranking procedure used to measure the degree of alteration of flows in rivers

in the state of Victoria, Australia (SKM, 2005) finds LDC by ranking every sampled site from least to

most altered.

Best attainable condition, BAC

Best attainable condition is equivalent to the expected ecological condition of least-disturbed sites if the

best possible management practices were in use for some period of time. Sites in BAC would be places

where the impact on biota of inevitable land use is minimized. This is a somewhat theoretical condition

predicted by the convergence of management goals, best available technology, prevailing use of the

landscape, and public commitment to achieving environmental goals (Stoddard et al., 2006). BAC will

never be ‘‘better’’ than MDC, nor ‘‘worse’’ than LDC, but may be equivalent to either, depending on the

prevailing level of human disturbance in a region (Stoddard et al., 2006).

Benchmark corresponding to a previous sampling round

The main interest in a river health program is not necessarily the grade of river health relative to

reference, but more to do with the trajectory of river health – is river health improving or getting worse

over time? This is particularly the case in programs where the rivers are known to be degraded, and

river health monitoring is closely linked to a program of management response. In this situation, the

emphasis in reporting river health would be the change in condition since the previous, or the first,

sampling round. This was recognised by Davies et al. (2008, p. 7) for the SRA of the Murray-Darling

Basin, who noted that “In time, the importance of Reference Condition in SRA assessments is likely to

diminish as the emphasis shifts toward detecting change between successive assessments”.

Benchmark corresponding to established standards or criteria

Assessment of water quality data has long relied on established standards or criteria to judge suitability

for biota, and other river uses. These standards or criteria are typically presented in tabular form,

showing minimum acceptable concentration values for various contaminants or water properties

according to known tolerance limits. The criteria are usually specific to the designated use of the water

body. Similar limits can also be specified for contaminant loads, with an example being the requirement

in the U.S. to calculate Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for certain impaired waters as part of

Section 303d of the Clean Waters Act. The TMDL is a calculation of the maximum load of a pollutant

that a water body can receive and still safely meet water quality standards.

The National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) for Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC

and ARMCANZ, 2000) takes a risk-based approach to assessing the suitability of water quality. Trigger

values are assigned to selected indicators. If data from a test site exceed the trigger value, decision

trees are used to determine if the test values are inappropriately (unnecessarily) ‘triggering’ potential

risk and hence management response. Exceedances of the trigger values are an ‘early warning’

mechanism to alert managers of a potential problem. They are not intended to be an instrument to

assess ‘compliance’. The hierarchy for deriving trigger values for a particular location (from most to least

preferred) are: local biological effects data (e.g. ecotoxicity tests); local reference data (mainly for

9

physical and chemical stressors); and, tables of default values provided in the Guidelines. Trigger

values are provided specific to upland river, lowland river, freshwater lake and reservoir, wetland,

estuary, and marine ecosystem types, and the Guidelines provide trigger values specific to four climatic

regions of Australia and for New Zealand. The triggers based on reference condition are derived

through observations made at reference sites (these could be MDC, HC or LDC – see above).

Under the NWQMS system three categories of ecosystem condition are specified:

High conservation/ecological value systems

Slightly to moderately disturbed systems

Highly disturbed systems

Trigger values are specified for four different protection levels, 99%, 95%, 90% and 80%, with the

protection level signifying the percentage of species expected to be protected by the trigger values. In

most cases, the 95% protection level trigger values should apply to ecosystems that could be classified

as slightly–moderately disturbed, although a higher protection level could be applied to slightly disturbed

ecosystems where the management goal is no change in biodiversity. The highest protection level

(99%) has been chosen as the default value for ecosystems with high conservation value, pending

collection of local chemical and biological monitoring data. The 99% protection levels can also be used

as default values for slightly–moderately disturbed systems where local data are lacking. For

ecosystems that can be classified as highly disturbed, NWQMS recommends use of the 95% protection

trigger values, but in certain cases it may be appropriate to apply lower protection values, as low as the

80% protection values.

While the NWQMS was not specifically designed as a method for reporting river condition (and is not

used as such), the standards established as trigger values could serve as benchmarks from which to

assess relative river condition. The trigger values are similar to the reference conditions described

above, because even if the values were not derived from local reference sites, the default values are

assumed to represent conditions expected at reference sites. The main difference between the

reference condition approach and the trigger value approach of the NWQMS is that the latter accepts

less stringent reference standards for systems that are independently deemed to be disturbed relative to

near natural condition. So, a stream classed as ‘slightly to moderately disturbed’ that meets all the

trigger values for 95% protection level could be said to have the same acceptable level of health as a

stream classed as ‘high conservation/ecological value’ and meeting the trigger values for 99%

protection level.

Aspects of stream health other than water quality can also be benchmarked against established criteria

that are not necessarily sourced from a local reference distribution. One example to illustrate this point

is fish habitat. Koehn and O’Connor (1990) produced a comprehensive book that details the life cycles,

and physical and chemical habitat tolerances and preferences of the native fish species present in the

rivers of Victoria, Australia. The information is based on published data, some of which was derived

from controlled experiments and some from field observations. The observations were not necessarily

made in reference rivers. The information in this book (supplemented by more recent published findings)

has been used in, or has at least influenced, every environmental flows study undertaken in Victoria,

such that the assessment of habitat availability under current conditions, and under any future

conditions with environmental flows implemented, is relative to these published criteria. For example

adult river blackfish are presumed to require water depths greater than 0.2 m and velocities less than

0.2 m/s. These are interpreted as tolerance limits. Using hydraulic models, the amount of available

habitat can be assessed across a range of flow conditions. Environmental flows are then recommended

that will provide an ‘adequate’ amount of suitable fish hydraulic habitat at certain frequencies and

durations (to suit presumed life cycle and behavioural requirements), such that the fish population is

likely to be maintained. The future flow regime may correspond to the recommended regime, but trade-

offs and compromises often mean that it does not. If a time series of undisturbed (reference) flows is

available, and if it can be assumed that the stream morphology has not altered from reference, then the

10

amount of habitat provided by the future flow regime can be compared with reference. However, this is

not always possible, and in most cases the amount of habitat provided by the future flow regime is

compared with the amount provided by the environmental flow regime recommended to maintain the

fish populations at low risk (the derivation of which relied heavily on the criteria sourced from published

literature).

Benchmark corresponding to standards for designated use

Established criteria often exist for water quality whereby each water quality parameter has an

associated range that is appropriate for particular designated use classes. In Australia, the NWQMS

recognises six ‘environmental values’ which correspond to classes of river use:

1. aquatic ecosystems;

2. primary industries (irrigation and general water uses, stock drinking water, aquaculture and

human consumers of aquatic foods);

3. recreation and aesthetics;

4. drinking water;

5. industrial water; and

6. cultural and spiritual values.

Each of the classes of river use has associated criteria (known as triggers in the NWQMS). Under the

NWQMS system, the designated uses are not assigned to particular river reaches but are simply

classes of use that have corresponding water quality guidelines – a particular river reach may have

multiple uses.

The health of waterways in the United States is protected by the Clean Water Act. The purpose of

legislation under the Act is to maintain clean waters (‘drinkable’), to make sure that game fish are safe

for human consumption (‘fishable’), and that waterways are safe for recreation (‘swimmable’). Some

States list agriculture, industry, and navigation among their designated uses.

In China, State of the Environment reporting for river health is based on National Surface Water Quality

Standard (GB3838-2002), which classifies chemical water quality into five water use classes (or grades)

for a range of indices (e.g. MEP, 2006). A number of water quality indicators are used to define these

standards, with each parameter having a numerical limit for each grade (Ma and Ortolano, 2000). The

five grades and corresponding uses are:

Grade I is for water flowing through national nature reserves;

Grade II is for the source of municipal drinking water supply (first grade conservation area),

conservation areas for rare aquatic species, and areas for fish spawning;

Grade III is for the source of municipal drinking water supply with treatment required (second

grade conservation area), conservation areas for common aquatic species, and areas for

swimming;

Grade IV is for sources of industrial use and recreational use other than swimming (e.g.

boating and fishing);

Grade V is for sources of industrial cooling water, irrigation water, and ordinary landscape.

China has two separate water management unit systems: water function zone for Ministry of Water

Resources (MWR) and water environment function zone for Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP).

The most stringent water quality guidelines apply to aquatic ecosystem protection. In China, the function

zones are spatial units that have designated uses, and corresponding minimum water quality grades

that, if met, would allow the full utilization of the river resource according to its designated use.

11

Benchmark corresponding to management target

In most situations, reference condition is not the management target, either because it is accepted that

this is unattainable regardless of the best intentions of the stakeholder community, or simply because

the process of setting management targets through integration of ecological values with social, cultural

and economic ones gives rise to compromises.

The term “healthy working river” was coined as part of The Living Murray initiative, a process of

assessing the environmental flow needs of the River Murray, Australia (Jones et al., 2002). A similar

concept known as the “living working river” was applied to the Fraser River estuary in Canada (FREMP,

1994). A healthy working river is one that is managed to provide a compromise, agreed to by the

community, between the ecological health of the river and the level of human use. A defensible target

for managing the ecological condition of working rivers is best attainable condition (BAC), which is the

ecological condition that would be achieved under a regime of best management practice for the agreed

type and intensity of catchment land use and river utilisation. BAC could be defined for each designated

use class.

Recommendations: benchmark for expressing relative river condition

4. Most rivers in China, except some headwater reaches in mountainous regions, are disturbed in

some way. Many of the alterations have been in place for centuries or even thousands of

years, particularly in the lowland areas. It will not be possible to define MDC or HC for most

regions. LDC would likely represent a relatively disturbed condition in most places. It is likely

that an alternative to the traditional concept of reference will be required for China.

5. Given the lack of reference sites in China, it may be preferable to set as the benchmark the

best attainable condition (BAC) for the designated river use within existing functional zones. In

the vast majority of cases this will leave room for improvement over current condition. It is

envisaged that the BAC would be independently defined through a scientific process. It would

be a matrix that covered particular river attributes, for any given class of use, scale of river,

geomorphological setting, and eco-hydrological river class.

6. The BAC would not necessarily correspond with the working management targets set to

achieve short-term goals at any particular time, but it would represent an ideal long-term target,

and a consistent set of benchmarks from which to compare like rivers at the national level.

Once a river prioritised for management action achieved the target level of river health, the aim

of management would be to maintain BAC in that river, with rehabilitation resources then

directed to improving the condition of another high priority river. Of course, management

authorities would also have the prerogative of changing river use class, in order to pursue

achievement of even higher levels of stream health.

7. Sites for characterising BAC are unlikely to be available in China. In this case, established

standards or criteria determined using any practical method, with expert opinion likely to be

required, at least in the initial establishment of the matrix.

8. One potential problem with using management targets as the benchmark for river health arises

when the targets are intentionally unambitious in order to give the impression of a high level of

achievement of expected river health. This result may create a superficial and temporary sense

of achievement, but it would provide little motivation to further improve stream condition. It is

important then to adhere to the principle that long-term management targets correspond to a

genuine BAC.

9. Another potential issue with BAC is that continued development of water resources could lead

to an unremarked decline in absolute levels of river health – unremarked because when an

undeveloped river with close to natural stream health targets is developed, its use is simply re-

designated to a lesser class, with less stringent health targets. Thus, prior to, and after, the

development, the river may have met the appropriate health target, but absolute health would

12

likely have declined. Of course, such declines would to some extent be offset by improvements

to stream health achieved in other previously poorly managed rivers. This issue is not so much

to do with the choice of river condition benchmark, but more to do with development and

implementation of appropriate policies concerning water resources development.

Deciding what and how to measure

Components

The hierarchy of measurement in a river health monitoring program begins at the scale of the simplified

ecosystem components and the drivers of ecosystem processes (Figure 2). These components could

also be referred to as themes, or elements of the program. The main components are:

Catchment processes

Instream physical processes (hydrology and geomorpholology), which also give rise to

hydraulic conditions

Water quality and sediment chemistry, which also includes contaminant loads

Aquatic and riparian life, which include flora, fauna and ecosystem processes

The components can be arranged in a rough hierarchy of drivers to responses, but some responses are

also drivers of other processes - the components are linked through physical, chemical and ecological

processes (Figure 2). Habitat is not identified here as a category of ecosystem component, because

habitat requirements and preferences vary a lot between species, and habitat is generated through the

interaction of the other identified ecosystem components. Habitat is included as a component of many

river health programs, particularly in the U.S. (Bain and Hughes, 1996) and Europe (Peterson, 1992;

Environment Agency, 1997; Raven et al., 1997), but the variables being measured are actually aspects

of hydrology, geomorphology, hydraulics, vegetation and water quality.

A program can concentrate on one component, combine a number of components or, for particular

reaches, river basins, or regions, select from a group of program-approved components to suit local

ecosystem conditions, management issues, and available resources. Clearly, the more comprehensive

is the program the more information it generates about the status of river health, the cause of identified

river health problems and how to best manage the river to improve river health. However, apart from the

issue of cost, it may be that some components are not worth including because they lack sensitivity to

likely variability in river health over space and time. This could be because of a high level of natural

variability that cannot be overcome without an unrealistically expensive sampling program, or because

there is currently no policy mandate to address that particular component, in which case improvements

in the condition of that component would not be expected. In development of the SE Queensland

EHMP, from 75 indicators initially tested, 22 from five indicator groups (water quality, ecosystem

metabolism, nutrient cycling, invertebrates and fish) responded strongly to the disturbance gradient and

16 were subsequently recommended for inclusion in the monitoring program. The major field trial

involved 53 sites.

The aquatic and riparian life component (bioassessment) has a strong appeal for inclusion in any river

health monitoring program. The common understanding of river health among the wider community is

related to the apparent vitality of the river (i.e. the extent to which it supports life). Most people already

have a concept of abundance and diversity of biota, so communicating river health in these terms is a

more straightforward exercise than if indirect or more obscure measures of river health are used.

13

Figure 2. Simplified components of river ecosystem condition that can be included in a river health monitoring program. Not all attributes of the ecosystem can be addressed directly by river management.

Measuring the drivers of river health also has appeal because they relate more closely to the sorts of

management actions that are undertaken to improve river health. In this way, the results of monitoring

can be used directly to inform management strategies. Stressors of river health are either driver

variables that have been modified well beyond their natural range, or foreign elements that have been

introduced to the system. Examples are: (i) hydrological stress occurs when too much water is extracted

from, or too much water is added to, a river, modifying the pattern of flows (as opposed to natural

hydrological stress, which occurs at times of naturally very high and low flows), (ii) stress from nutrients

occurs where nitrogen and phosphorus levels are enriched by inflows of sewerage or agricultural runoff

(as opposed to the natural levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in a river, which is critical to normal

functioning), (iii) contaminants introduced to a river that were never present in the natural state, such as

might be present in outfalls from certain industries, and (iv) exotic biota, such as fish and plants from

other countries or other river systems that would not naturally be present and which become a pest in

their new environment.

Catchment processes:geology, rainfall; evapotranspiration; runoff;

land use; land cover; sediment generation and transport; contaminant, carbon and

nutrient generation and transport

Hydrology:river flow pattern and

magnitude; wetland hydrology; groundwater-surface water

interactions

Physical form and process:

process of sediment mobilisation, transport and deposition that creates physical template of

habitat for biota

Driver

ResponseFlora:

instream, riparian and wetland plants

Fauna:instream, riparian and wetland invertebrates, fish, birds, amphibians,

molluscs, mammals, etc.

Aquatic and riparian lifeabundance, organisation (diversity, species composition, food webs), recruitment (age

structure), processes

Hydraulics:interaction of hydrology and

physical form creates pattern of hydraulic habitat –water

connectivity, extent, depth, velocity and shear stress, in channel and on floodplain

Ecosystem processes:

rates of community metabolism

(production/respiration), nutrient cycling

Microorganisms:bacteria, cyanobacteria, algae, fungi, protozoa,

viruses

Red font indicates aspects of rivers that are practical for active management to maintain good, or improve impaired, river health:• Health is the river condition relative to a benchmark or reference condition• Impairment is due to human pressures

Water quality:temperature, nutrients, acidity,

salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, faecalcontamination,

metals, toxins, carbon

Sediment chemistry:

nutrients, contaminants, salinisation, acid sulphate

Elements of River Condition

14

Interpreting the results of a bioassessment program in terms of management (i.e. diagnosis) relies on

having good knowledge of the way the biotic variables vary with the various driver disturbance

gradients. This is not always the case, which means that either the driver/stressor variables need to be

included in the river health monitoring program, or cause-effect is investigated as a separate exercise.

For a particular river, it may be the case that through historical data, or casual observation, the main

cause of river health decline is obvious. This would apply to pressures such as untreated sewerage

discharge, or industrial waste discharges. Simply measuring some aspects of sensitive biota, and/or the

relevant water quality indices will provide a good characterisation of the extent and severity of the river

health problem. Communication of this information may be critical in achieving the desired management

responses, even though the problem and solution was largely known prior to monitoring. However, this

pragmatic approach could fail to achieve real improvement in river health if the impairment was a multi-

layered problem. For example, achievement of water quality targets may have little consequence for the

diversity and abundance of biota if one or more other components of the system are also impaired, and

they simply take over the role of limiting factor.

The above discussion suggests that when considering what components to include in a river health

monitoring program there are three choices:

1. At the outset, design the program as a comprehensive one that includes driver/stressor and

response components, test the utility of a large number of variables in pilot studies, and then

trim the list to the most effective variables.

2. Begin with a bioassessment program that is limited to the most promising response variables

(selected on the basis of what is known of the rivers proposed for monitoring, and those proven

in the literature), then periodically review the program and add driver/stressor components as

necessary, or

3. Commit to a bioassessment-only program, and gather information on the drivers/stressors of

river health under a separate program.

Variables, data, metrics, indicators and indexes

Characterising an ecosystem component requires selection of some aspect of the component, and then

measuring it to create data. While these raw data may be understandable to scientists, river health

monitoring requires that the data are modified into a form that (i) allows condition to be expressed

relative to a benchmark, and (ii) is understandable to the intended audience (principally the general

public, river managers and policy makers). Suggested terminology for the numerical aspects of river

health monitoring is (after Davies et al., 2008):

Variable: a characteristic of the ecosystem that is measurable

Primary data: the observed value when a variable is measured

Derived data: secondary values calculated from primary data, but still constituting a measure

of the variable

Metric: the difference between the observed data value and its estimated value under

benchmark or reference conditions.

Indicator: a value derived by integrating two or more metrics

Index: an integrated value for stream health, derived by integrating two or more indicators and

aggregated for reporting

Choosing a suite of variables to measure is a challenging aspect of river health monitoring program

design. Norris and Hawkins (2000) listed six generally agreed characteristics of effective river health

indicators:

1. quantify and simplify complex ecological phenomena;

15

2. provide easily interpretable outputs

3. respond predictably to damage caused by humans while being insensitive to natural spatial or

temporal variation;

4. relate to an appropriate scale;

5. relate to management goals; and

6. be scientifically defensible

Similarly, the US Environmental Protection Agency has established a list of suitable criteria for

ecological monitoring programs (EMAP) (Jackson et al., 2000). The criteria for selecting variables and

indicators are organized within four evaluation phases:

Phase 1: Conceptual Relevance:

Is the indicator relevant to stream health?

Phase 2: Feasibility of Implementation:

Are the methods for sampling and measuring the variables technically feasible, appropriate,

and efficient for use in an on-going assessment program?

Phase 3: Response Variability:

Are human errors of measurement and natural variability over time and space sufficiently

understood and documented that they can be managed and/or taken into account?

Phase 4: Interpretation and Utility:

Will the indicator convey information on river condition that is meaningful to stakeholders and

decision-makers?

In designing a river health monitoring program for China it is recommended that all proposed variables

and indicators be evaluated using the EMAP criteria.

There are many different standard ways to measure the selected ecosystem components. The most

expedient approach would be to adopt protocols that have proven successful elsewhere, but it is likely

that adaptation will be required to suit local conditions. A review of various approaches is provided in

Gordon et al. (2004). Bioassessment is included in most stream health assessment programs because it

addresses directly the issue of ecological health. The condition of the biota is an integrative measure of

the impacts of all of the stressors on the stream. Also, bioassessment is required by legislation in many

parts of the world. On the other hand, there is little scope to directly manage the biota (although fish

stocking, and pest species containment are notable exceptions), and it is not always a simple matter to

diagnose the cause of observed poor condition of the biota – it may not be obvious which management

actions will be most effective in improving the condition of the biota. If the stream health monitoring

program is closely linked to management, then there is a strong rationale for including driver/stressor

variables.

More than one hundred different bioassessment methods exist in Europe, two thirds of which are based

on macroinvertebrates (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Verdonschot, 2000). Macroinvertebrates are

popular because they are found in most habitats, they have generally limited mobility, they are quite

easy to collect by way of well established sampling techniques, and there is a diversity of forms that

ensures a wide range of sensitivities to changes in both water quality (of virtually any nature) and

habitats (Hellawell 1986, Abel 1989).

Fish are popular bioindicators because they are known to be sensitive to water quality, they are known

to have characteristic habitat preferences, are relatively easy to sample and identify in the field, and

they tend to integrate effects of lower trophic levels; thus, fish assemblage structure is reflective of

integrated environmental health (Barbour et al., 1999). As they have a relatively large range, fish are

16

best suited to assessing macrohabitat and regional differences. They are long-lived, so fish can

integrate the effects of long-term changes in stream health.

Benthic algae are useful ecological indicators because they are abundant in most streams, because

they respond rapidly to changed conditions, are relatively easy to sample, and their tolerance to

environmental conditions is known for many species. Periphyton have been widely used as bio-

indicators in Europe, where many different approaches have been used for sampling and data analysis

(Whitton et al., 1991). Some phytoplankton and periphytic algae have been shown to have very narrow

tolerance ranges of pH, and diatoms have been used to indicate acidification in rivers (Coste et al.,

1991).

Community metabolism refers to the biological transfer of carbon, and involves measurement of the

basic ecological processes of production (via photosynthesis) and respiration (Bunn and Boon, 1993;

Bunn et al., 1999). Community metabolism is sensitive to small changes in water quality and riparian

conditions, including light inputs, and may enable early detection of an impact before it is manifest in

changes in organism assemblages. The P/R (Gross Primary Production: Respiration) ratio is considered

a key biological indicator of system health. Unimpacted streams are typically heterotrophic (i.e. P/R<1)

and therefore are a net consumer of carbon. Davies (1997) showed that impacted sites typically have a

P/R ratio >1 (autotrophic), indicating a fundamental shift in the energy base of the ecosystem. A shift

from heterotrophy to autotrophy can indicate catchment disturbance and/or nutrient enrichment.

There are a number of ways to calculate metrics, indicators and indexes. Methods can be drawn from

published literature. There is debate in the literature over the relative merits of predictive versus

multimetric approaches (Norris and Hawkins, 2000). Examples of predictive models are AusRivAS

(Simpson and Norris, 2000), used nationally in Australia and RIVPACS (Wright, 1995), used nationally

in the United Kingdom. Multimetric approaches are very common in the U.S. (e.g. Barbour et al., 1999),

particularly for water quality monitoring programs (Southerland and Stribling, 1995).

Predictive models quantify river health as the degree to which a site supports the biota that would be

expected to occur there in the absence of alteration by humans. Measurements compare the

composition of biota at reference sites and test sites. The models are derived from data collected from a

network of reference sites (MDC or LDC). A measure of degradation is then obtained by observing (O)

the taxa at a site, comparing them with the taxa that the predictive model expects (E) to find there, and

expressing the deviation as a ratio (O/E). Loss of taxa is a fundamental measure of biological

degradation because taxa represent the basic units from which higher levels of biological organisation

are abstracted (Norris and Hawkins, 2000).

The multimetric approach attempts to quantify the concept of biological integrity by giving values

(indices or metrics) to several different biological attributes and comparing them to the values expected

to occur (Norris and Hawkins, 2000). An overall measure of biological integrity is then obtained by

aggregating values of the individual indicators. Sampling of reference sites generates expected values

for each indicator. Whereas predictive models utilize a single measure (taxonomic composition),

multimetric approaches include information from several levels of biological organization. Norris and

Hawkins (2000) were of the view that simpler is better unless a compelling argument can be made for a

more complicated approach.

The multimetric approach is not the same as the holistic approach. The holistic approach develops

indices for a range of components, one of which is the biota. That indicator might be calculated using a

predictive model or a multimetric approach. For example, the Index of Stream Condition (Victoria)

(Ladson et al., 1999) combines indicators on water quality, physical form, streamside zone (vegetation),

hydrology and aquatic life. In SE Queensland the Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP)

measures 18 indicators within five groups: physical/chemical, nutrients, ecosystem processes, and

invertebrates. The aquatic life indicator of the ISC and the invertebrate indicator of the EHMP are both

based on the AusRivAS predictive model.

17

A critical aspect of the design of a monitoring program is sampling. It is necessary to minimize Type I

errors (incorrectly classifying an unimpaired site or reach as impaired) and Type II errors (incorrectly

classifying an impaired site or reach as unimpaired). This is a matter of deciding on the appropriate

variables, measurement methods, number of and location of sample sites, frequency of sampling,

quality control and quality assurance protocols.

Selecting variables that relate to manageable aspects of rivers

If river health monitoring is to be closely linked to management responses, it could be argued that the

program should be based around the types of management responses that are feasible, or mandated

under current policy (Table 2).

Not all aspects of rivers can be actively managed to achieve positive river health outcomes (Figure 1).

For example, while riparian re-vegetation is a popular choice for management response, other aspects

of biota are less open to direct management. Direct management of physical form is common practice

(through channel rehabilitation, and sediment control), which could be grounds for including geomorphic

attributes. Hydrology is already measured through stream gauging networks, so its inclusion would not

impose a high cost on the program. This is especially relevant because one of the expected actions to

improve river health is provision of environmental flows. One potential problem with hydrology is the lack

of gauged reference data, so the benchmark may have to be modelled. A water quality monitoring

network is established throughout China, and this would be a logical starting point for any river health

monitoring program, especially when poor water quality is known to be the major factor limiting stream

health in many areas, and is being aggressively managed.

Some ecological assets have particular requirements that need to be taken into account when designing

a river health monitoring program. For example, the defining feature of many Ramsar listed wetlands is

high abundance and diversity of birds, and perhaps presence of rare or endangered species. Although

birds may present some practical difficulties for monitoring, there may be an obligation to include this

aspect of the biota in the program.

Monitoring environmental flows

Two types of monitoring are appropriate for environmental flows:

Compliance monitoring to determine if the environmental flow rules were followed (i.e. were the

environmental flows delivered to the river as specified)

Routine monitoring to test the hypothesis that environmental flows will lead to improved river

health (i.e. did river health improve as expected in response to the implementation of

environmental flows?)

The hydrological compliance monitoring is relatively straightforward and simply involves measuring river

flow at gauging stations within reaches where environmental flow rules have been set. Compliance can

be expressed as a percentage value using the methodology described in Gippel et al. (2009). In this

method, the scientific panel expresses the environmental flow rules in terms of event magnitude,

duration, frequency and rate of rise and fall, and baseflow magnitude and duration. Not all events are

expected to occur every year, so another important dimension is the inter-annual frequency of events,

which means how many events should occur in sequences of years of a given length (e.g. 5 events in

every 10 year sequence). The hydrological compliance of some environmental flow components can be

checked annually, while others can only be checked over a series of years.

In monitoring environmental flows, hypothesis testing refers to a number of ‘predictions’ or ‘questions’

that are to be tested. For any particular river, the foundations of the hypotheses to be tested can be

found in the environmental flow assessment documentation. Of course, this assumes that the

environmental flows method being used is one based on a conceptual understanding of the flow-

ecosystem relationships, as opposed to one based on simple hydrological rules of thumb. Each

environmental flow component will relate to an ecological or geomorphological objective, which defines

18

the environmental values to be protected or enhanced. The monitoring program must first define

measureable ecosystem targets or outcomes that are believed to be casually related to these values.

The hypotheses should relate to expected short-term and long-term responses (Cottingham et al.,

2005a; 2005b).

The design of a program to monitor environmental flows must accommodate flow-related objectives for

biota known to have differing dependencies on flow, yet for practical reasons only a limited number of

monitoring sites can be used (Roberts and Dyer, 2007). Roberts and Dyer (2007) suggested selecting

monitoring sites and variables on the basis of the expected response magnitude.

Where environmental flows can be treated as a management experiment, and before-intervention data

and/or spatial control rivers are available, BACI (Before After Control Impact) designs will allow testing

of predictions about ecological responses to environmental flows more formally, and provide greater

confidence when inferring a causal link between responses and environmental flows (Cottingham et al.,

2005a; 2005b).

A lack of control locations and limited opportunity for collecting before-data will often preclude the

adoption of a BACI design. The best alternative option would be to evaluate whether or not predictions

associated with the relevant environmental flow objectives are realised (termed objective/prediction

assessment). For some reaches and objectives, reference (comparison) locations can provide points of

comparison (Cottingham et al., 2005a; 2005b).

A regression-based approach describes a mathematical relationship between variables based on the

data available. This is in contrast to BACI type designs that explicitly test for differences between two or

more data sets. Cottingham et al. (2005b) provided an introduction to Bayesian Hierarchical Statistics

(BHS) and its possible application to monitoring of environmental flows. Chee et al. (2006a; 2006b)

advocated the use of a regression-based approach within a Bayesian hierarchical modelling (BHM)

framework. This approach may have certain advantages with regards to the inclusion of data from

multiple, partially different, sites within a single analysis. It will also allow the inclusion of prior

knowledge of the effects of flow on the biota to be formally incorporated in models (Chee et al., 2006a;

2006b).

Additional short-term ecosystem studies should also be considered to support an environmental flow

monitoring program and provide information to assist with environmental flow recommendations in the

future (Cottingham et al., 2005a; 2005b). These studies would aim to fill gaps in fundamental knowledge

about relationships between aspects of the ecosystem and aspects of the flow regime.

Cottingham et al. (2005b) recommended that discussion of effect size and statistical power will be

necessary when finalising the monitoring study design and agreeing on the monitoring effort (sampling

intensity). Specialist statistical advice should be sought so that the implications of decisions on effect

size and interpretation of results can be considered.

19

Table 2. The links between pressure and response in river management.

Human activities (Pressure) that potentially impair river health (Condition)

Potential mitigation measures (Response)

Hydrology

Regulation of flow pattern and volume by dam

- Hydropower operation Environmental flow rules

- Water storage Environmental flow rules

- Water transfer Environmental flow rules, cap on extraction

Flow volume change

- Pumping from river Set allocations, meter extraction, water trading

- Groundwater pumping Cap on extraction, regulate

- Diversion from river Environmental flow rules

- Farm dams Cap on development

- Land use choice (forest v pasture) Manage re-forestation for hydrology

Physical form/sediment transport processes

Sand/gravel extraction Regulate and enforce

Gold mining Regulate and enforce

Channelisation Physical rehabilitation

Channel diversion Physical rehabilitation

Lateral barriers (levees, dykes, embankments) Partial removal (increase connectivity)

Longitudinal barriers (weirs, dams, culverts) Fishways (increase connectivity)

Reduced catchment sediment supply

- Trapping by dam Sediment nourishment, bed stabilisation, wait for adjustment

- Catchment sediment control Sediment nourishment, bed stabilisation, wait for adjustment

Accelerated catchment sediment supply

- Poor land management (gullying, cultivation)

Soil conservation, sediment trapping, sediment transporting flows, sand extraction, wait for adjustment

Low mobility/homogeneity of channel

- Hardlining bed and banks Physical rehabilitation

Accelerated mobility of channel (bank erosion, channel migration)

- Disturbance of riparian vegetation Re-vegetation, fencing, artificial bank stabilisation

Water quality

Sewerage outfall Sewerage treatment

Industrial effluents Legislation, compliance checking

Irrigation return flow Seek water savings

Direct channel disturbance (stock/sand and gravel extraction)

Fencing/regulation

Land use practices (non-point source pollution, salinisation)

Catchment management

Sediment chemistry

Sediment contamination Manual removal, flushing flows

Aquatic and riparian life

Spread of exotic species Appropriate containment or eradication method

Over-fishing Regulate and enforce

Low fish diversity/abundance Fish re-stocking

Poor extent and quality of riparian/wetland vegetation

Re-vegetation

20

Recommendations: what and how to measure

23. This report does not recommend a suite of indicators that should be included in a river health

monitoring program for China. It may be necessary to evaluate a broad range of indicators

(selected after first assessing them against US EMAP criteria) in pilot studies, and then select

those that best respond to known disturbance gradients. If expediency is required, then

bioassessment using a small number of indicators known from the literature to be sensitive to

the form of water quality impairment typical of China’s rivers would be the best starting point.

24. Assessment of environmental flows involves two components: hydrological compliance

monitoring, and hypothesis-based ecological/geomorphological response monitoring.

Practicalities will often mean that a BACI (Before After Control Impact) program design is not

possible, but other designs can also be effective. It will be necessary to judiciously select

variables and sites, with a focus on monitoring those variables or sites where the expected

response magnitude is large.

25. Whatever indicators are chosen, it is critical that the river health monitoring program follow

rigorous scientific protocols in selecting sites, determining sampling frequency, field sampling

and measurement, laboratory measurement, and statistical analysis. The expedient approach

is to adopt proven standard methods.

River Health Assessment and Reporting

While river health monitoring is concerned with data generation, river health assessment is concerned

with analysis and interpretation of those data. The assessment provides information that aids

management decisions. The products of the assessment are reports that interpret the results of

monitoring in the context of the objectives of the program, show spatial distributions, analyse for trends

in the data, and attempt to explain the results in terms of the causative factors. It is likely that the

assessment process will draw on data and information from sources external to the river health

monitoring program. For example, if river health driver/stressor variables are not monitored within the

program, then explanation for the patterns in the biological data will have to draw on whatever

contextual information is available.

Obtaining contextual or explanatory information to help interpret

river condition data River condition data can defy confident interpretation in terms of causative factors, because of

confounding influences (too many possible causes operating at the same time and place). Despite this,

establishing broad associations between cause and effect may be adequate to suit the objectives of the

program. Information on drivers of river health, and the extent to which these have been altered, can

exist independently of the river health monitoring program. Examples are records of river management

works completed, and sewerage completion. Land and water management agencies usually hold

databases concerning relevant aspects such as land use, soils, population, dam location and operation,

rainfall, runoff, fisheries, tourism, and water utilization. The Global Water System Project (GWSP) of the

Earth System Science Partnership (Alcamo et al., 2008) has developed global datasets (gridded maps)

of various parameters (http://atlas.gwsp.org/) that may aid interpretation of river health data.

Reporting and communication Regional or provincial-level river health monitoring programs are likely to vary in many respects

throughout China. It will still be possible to report at the national scale provided the programs have

some basic aspects in common. One important consideration is that the benchmark or reference

condition should be consistent. Also, if the indexes are reported over the same measure scale (e.g. 0 –

21

1 or 0 – 100), regardless of the variables and data measured, then it is reasonable to compare the

values of river condition from place to place. This simply requires standardization of the index values.

The details of how the results of stream health monitoring are reported should be based on the

objectives of the program (Table 1). One of the key communication outputs is the report card. For

example, the EHMP in SE Queensland reports river condition in an annual report card format, giving

ratings of A to F for each reporting area, a score for overall river health, and one for each of the five

component indicator scores. Scores achieved through time are also displayed in the report card. The

relative condition of each reporting area is indicated by its ranking compared to other reporting areas in

SE Queensland. Text is also supplied to interpret the data and highlight major issues. Most river health

monitoring programs in Australia have adopted a similar style of presentation.

Given the relatively poor condition of many Chinese rivers, consideration will need to be given to how

results are reported to ensure that:

The reporting process gives an accurate picture of river health

Benchmarks are not set too high, such that all rivers are classed at the lower end, with the

potential to reduce incentives for improvement and to distinguish between different levels of

health

Reporting is sufficiently sensitive to show where improvements have been made, even though

the overall condition may remain poor

Reporting recognises national management objectives, including water quality requirements

associated with designated water function zones

To achieve this, it may be appropriate that report cards include information related to a number of

benchmarks, including:

Best attainable condition

Requirements consistent with the relevant water function zone

Changes in condition relative to the previous year

Recommendations: assessment and reporting 26. It is important to interpret the results of the monitoring to match the objectives of the program.

The findings should be reported using a range of formats, to a range of audiences.

27. One of the key products should be report cards, ideally produced annually.

28. The basic reporting unit should correspond with the established water function zones. These

are currently used for water quality reporting. Depending on the distribution of these zones, it

may be necessary to aggregate zones to cover larger areas.

29. It may be appropriate for report cards to include information related to status against a number

of benchmarks. These may include BAC, achievement of water function zone requirements,

and condition relative to previous years.

River Health Application

Application of the results of river health monitoring occurs when actions are taken in response to the

assessment. One way of formally linking river health monitoring data with actions to improve river health

is the Pressure – State – Response (PSR) model.

The PSR model was developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD 1993). The PSR model provides for the organisation of information on the state (condition, or

health) of aspects of the environment (including rivers), human pressures affecting the natural

22

environment, and the societal responses to address the pressures and environmental issues. The

information of pressure, state and response is captured through the use of indicators. This basic model

was adopted by Australia for State of the Environment (SoE) reporting in 1996 (ASEC, 2001); it is also

termed Condition – Pressure – Response (CPR) model (OCSE, 2007) (Figure 3).

An extension of the PSR model is the Driving forces – Pressure – State – Impact – Response (DPSIR)

model (EEA, 1999), which is used in the Victoria (CES, 2005). This model incorporates Driving forces,

which are the underlying causes of activities that affect the environment, and Impacts, which represents

the effect of changes in environmental quality on the functioning of ecosystems and human health

(Figure 4). The PSR, CPR and DPSIR models offer a framework through which to document cause-

effect relationships and interrelationships between the factors associated with environmental condition.

Rissik et al. (2005) developed a further extension of the PSIR framework (Driving forces were not

included) called the Vulnerability – Pressure – State – Impact – Risk – Response (VPSIRR) model and

applied it to estuaries. This approach includes indices to characterise the vulnerability of the system to

each of the pressures. A risk assessment process is included, whereby risk is a combination of pressure

and vulnerability. The level of risk is compared against the appropriate condition variable to assess

whether the condition of the estuary is the result of its high risk value or whether it is a natural

phenomenon. The framework of Rissik et al. (2005) is issues- and value-driven. Issues and values of

stakeholders and the community are defined and used to determine stressors. Stressors are defined as

the variables which lead to the issues of concern to the community. Stressors in turn can be used to

identify pressures, which are measured using indices. A similar approach was suggested by Arundel et

al. (2008) for developing report cards for the health of Victorian estuaries, with the condition data used

to identify, and score the condition of, assets in particular. The risk from threats (pressures) is focused

on the identified assets.

The Stream and Estuary Assessment Program (SEAP) aims to assess the condition of aquatic

ecosystems throughout Queensland. This will be achieved in the context of Pressure – Vector –

Response models (Marshall et al. 2006a). In this model, the biophysical conditions that are modified by

pressures are termed vectors, and they influence ecosystem responses (Note: the word ‘response’ has

a different meaning here compared to the OECD model). The pressures were grouped into six broad

categories: land use; water use; urbanisation; harvesting and translocation of biota; recreation and

tourism; and landscape management. These pressures influence riverine condition through vectors

such as suspended and deposited sediments, habitat removal and disturbance (riparian and instream),

altered flow volume, timing and variability of flow, pest species, nutrients, toxicants, organic matter,

salinity, pathogens and thermal alteration (Coysh et al., 2007). In order to understand aquatic

ecosystem function at the state (i.e. Queensland) scale it was necessary to categorise aquatic

ecosystems into more homogeneous units. This was done geographically because a geographic

categorisation, or regionalisation, also suited management needs (Department of Natural Resources,

Water, 2006). The regionalisation divided Queensland aquatic ecosystems into nine Freshwater

Biogeographic Provinces explaining how Queensland’s aquatic ecosystems respond to particular

human activities.

23

Figure 3. Condition – Pressure – Response model for State of Environment Reporting adopted for Australia in 2001. Source: ASEC (2001).

Figure 4. Driving forces – Pressure – State – Impact – Response model for State of Environment Reporting. Source: modified from EEC (1999).

Driving Forcessocio-economic driving

forces influencing environmental change

(e.g. population growth, climate change)

PressuresHuman activities causing

stress (e.g. dams, diversion,

channelisation, sewerage outfall)

ConditionState of the environment

(e.g. river health)

ImpactsEffects of environmental

degradation (e.g. biodiversity loss)

ResponsesEfforts to mitigate (e.g.

implement environmental flows)

24

Recommendation: application 30. Application involves linking the monitoring program to policy. A mechanism needs to be in

place for transferring the results of monitoring to the agencies responsible for management

actions.

Ecological Assets and River Health Monitoring

Definition of ecological assets River health monitoring is not value-free. Subjective decisions have to be made with respect to what

variables will be measured, where they will be measured, and how the data will be reported. These

decisions are conditioned by the objectives of the program. Issues-based measurement and reporting of

river health is aimed at managing identified threats or pressures, such as salinity, riparian vegetation,

pest-species, or fish passage (State of Environment reporting typically is issues-based). The ecological

asset-based approach to management focuses on protecting key assets, usually particular

independently defined sites of high conservation value. A process-based approach to management

focuses on maintaining or restoring the physical, chemical and biological processes that sustain

ecological assets. Examples are nutrient cycling, water flows, hydraulics, sediment dynamics, dispersal,

adaptation, disturbance, and functional interactions.

Although the term “ecological asset” often appears in the policy literature, few authors provide a precise

definition of this term. The following definitions suggest that the identification of an ecological asset

relies heavily on how much the community values it, and whether it serves a utilitarian purpose (such as

ecosystem services). These definitions do not limit the definition of an ecological asset to a geographical

space (a bounded site), but also allow processes, habitats and organisms to qualify as ecological

assets:

An ecological asset is “an attribute of a natural ecosystem that the community values and

wants to see protected… The term value (or ecological value)…refers to the specific reasons

an asset is considered important. An asset can have multiple values, which can be vastly

different for different stakeholders.” (van Dam et al., 2006).

“An ecological asset is a highly valued component of the environment…an ecological asset is

defined as a species, biological function or place of value... Ecological assets are used as

indicators of an ecosystem.” (DERM, 2009).

“An ecosystem may be considered as a unit within which an assemblage of living organisms

interact with each other and with the chemical and physical environment…The ecological

processes that contribute to ecosystem services…are referred to as ecosystem functions. The

habitats and organisms that give rise to the ecological processes are usually described as the

ecological assets, and these can be protected to ensure ecosystem services are maintained.”

(POST, 2007).

While no consistent and clear definition of ecological assets has yet emerged in the literature, it is

commonplace for policy documents to refer to “key” or “significant” ecological assets. The reason for

defining a high-value sub-set of ecological assets is to allow prioritization of investment in management

of rivers. The prioritization process is one of risk assessment (risk = likelihood x consequence), whereby

the level of threat to each identified key ecological asset is assessed as a “likelihood” and a measure of

river health is used to quantify “consequence” (with close proximity of river condition to reference

condition being a surrogate for high consequence if the asset is lost or impaired).

Schofield (2009) limited the definition of ecological assets to “sites”, with identification of “key ecological

assets” initially based on a site being listed through one of six mechanisms:

25

1. Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar wetlands)

2. Nationally important wetlands

3. A nationally listed threatened aquatic ecological community

4. Places on the Commonwealth heritage list

5. Wild Rivers nomination under legislation

6. Riparian environments of significant conservation value

Also, Schofield (2009) undertook a preliminary assessment of specific ecological assets through a

workshop process using draft HCVAE (High Conservation Value Aquatic Ecosystems) criteria.

HCVAEs (SKM, 2007) include rivers, wetlands, floodplains, lakes, inland saline ecosystems and

estuaries. Aquatic ecosystems with high conversation values are those recognised through the following

mechanisms (Australian Government, 2008):

1. Ramsar Convention,

2. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity,

3. World Heritage Convention,

4. Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement,

5. Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals

6. China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement.

Core environmental values that are considered in identifying a HCVAE are (Australian Government,

2008):

its international recognition

its representativeness as a particular type of aquatic ecosystem

the diversity of species

its distinctiveness

the critical habitat it provides

its ability to demonstrate the evolution of Australia's landscape of biota

the naturalness of its ecosystem

HCVAEs selected for investment in 2009-10 through the Caring for our Country program were identified

by state and territory agencies as having clearly defined threats to their ecological values and good

prospects for recovery (Australian Government, 2008). Threats to HCVAEs were listed as physical

modification or encroachment, loss of biodiversity, pollution and increased nutrient input, changes to

water regimes, utilisation of resources, and the introduction of invasive species (Australian Government,

2008). In selecting sites for investment in 2009-10, priority was given to aquatic ecosystems under

threat from pest plant or animal species (Australian Government, 2008).

The Victorian River Health Strategy (DNRE, 2002) defined three classes of river-related assets:

environmental, economic, and social. The environmental assets included:

the presence of rare species and/or communities and geomorphological features;

sites of significance;

areas with high levels of naturalness of components of the river system including whether the

river or a major river reach meets the criteria for ecologically healthy; and

representative rivers

26

Representative rivers are those in an ecologically healthy condition that can be used to represent the

major river classes that once occurred naturally across Victoria.

Relevance of ecological assets to river health monitoring The concept of ecological assets and key ecological assets are most relevant at the stages of river

health program design, and utilization of program results to river management. If the main objective of a

river health monitoring program is to inform management of independently defined ecological assets

(sites or processes), then the monitoring only needs to be undertaken at the relevant sites or where the

processes of interest occur. Alternatively, the monitoring might be used to help identify the ecological

assets, the risks to those assets, and thus where investment in resource management would be most

effectively directed. For a national level program, the latter approach would be the most appropriate, as

knowledge of the relative value and location of ecological assets is likely to be incomplete and uncertain

at the national-scale.

A liberal definition of ecological asset is appropriate, including biodiversity, threatened species, native

species, species of high conservation value, certain habitats, certain ecological processes, and certain

places. This definition does not limit the design of the river health monitoring program. Where ecological

assets have been identified locally, then it makes sense to consider including them in a river health

monitoring program. This is because these assets are likely to receive most management attention, and

because they are likely to hold high levels of community interest.

Recommendations: ecological assets 17. A liberal definition of ecological asset is appropriate, including biodiversity, threatened species,

native species, species of high conservation value, certain habitats, certain ecological

processes, ecosystem services and certain places.

18. River health monitoring can be used to help identify ecological assets, the risks to those

assets, and thus where investment in resource management would be most effectively

directed.

Stakeholder engagement

Role of stakeholder engagement According to International Association for Public Participation, public participation involves five

elements, which are Information, Consultation, Involvement, Collaboration and Empowerment (IAP2

2007). Public participation is a means of achieving:

Participatory democracy (e.g. community empowerment and providing the opportunity to

develop knowledge for making informed choices)

Transparency in decision-making process

Community empowerment and support

Reduced conflict over decisions between decision-makers and public groups, and between the

groups

Maintaining communication with stakeholders at key points throughout the development and

implementation of a river health monitoring program helps to provide meaningful dialogue between the

public and managers. Providing information in a variety of formats and on specific topics helps the

public to provide input on their special interest issues. It is important that public participation processes

be tailored to suit the specific requirements of the process or activity, and that participants are clear of

their role and influence in process. Effective participation cannot be achieved by simply adopting a

27

successful model from another context. Lastly, public participation needs to be designed and informed

by key principles and be sensitive to relevant local institutions and governance arrangements.

Elements of stakeholder engagement A separate discussion paper and framework on stakeholder engagement and public participation is

being prepared as part of this project. Key elements that the framework will need to address include:

Who are the relevant stakeholders – these may include different levels of government, different

government agencies, industry representatives, civil society, and the broader community

The objectives of stakeholder engagement. These may include using stakeholder views and

values to guide the development process, increasing transparency, reducing conflict over

government decisions, and generally increasing support for the program – and thus its likely

success during implementation,

The relevant times at which stakeholder could, and should, be engaged in the process. This

may include:

o In the identification of key ecological assets

o In determining the objectives and benchmarks for a river health monitoring program

o In determining what information should be collected, and what should be reported and

how

o In deciding and implementing management responses

The mechanisms for engaging stakeholders. Options may include:

o Broad public communication

o Opportunities for public submissions on proposed methods or recommendations

o Formal responses to any submissions

o Public meetings

o Targeted stakeholder meetings

Recommendations 19. Development and implementation of a river health monitoring program should be supported by

a framework for engaging stakeholders at appropriate stages during the process.

Capacity required for implementation

Implementation of a river health monitoring program can require the development of new skills amongst

staff in the responsible institutions. This may include:

The skills necessary to develop an appropriate monitoring river health program

The skills necessary to collect samples, in accordance with the specified protocols

The skills necessary to analyse and interpret the data collected and make recommendations

based on the results

Recommendations 20. The skills required to implement any monitoring program, and the feasibility, time and cost

involved in training relevant staff in those skills, should be a consideration in designing an

appropriate program.

28

River Health Monitoring in Australia

National Framework for the Assessment of River and Wetland

Health (FARWH) The National Framework for the Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH) is being developed

as part of the Australian Water Resources 2005 (AWR, 2005) project being undertaken by the National

Water Commission (the Commission) under the National Water Initiative (NWI) (Norris et al., 2007).

The FARWH proposes six key components for the assessment of river and wetland health:

catchment disturbance

hydrological change and spatial extent of wetland and temporal change

water quality

physical form

fringing zone

aquatic biota

The FARWH allows nationally comparable assessments of river and wetland health to be made. This

enables states and territories to include data that are already being collected. The framework does not

prescribe which indices should be selected to represent the six components. The framework

recommends that indices should be:

relative to a reference (usually pre-European conditions)

linear and range standardised to 0 – 1, in increments of 0.1

divided into condition bands

At the scale of an individual surface water management area (SWMA), at least 5 percent of the

recognised river reaches or wetlands should be represented in the monitoring sample.

FARWH is a national approach to reporting river health in a consistent way, but it is not a fully integrated

monitoring program. FARWH relies on obtaining data from existing programs being run by state

agencies. These programs were not established with the requirement for consistent national reporting in

mind, so there will be issues with comparability of data from different sources, and lack of data from

unmonitored areas, or areas where the data are not compatible with the basic requirements of FARWH.

Aspects of methods used by jurisdictions in Australia

Benthic macroinvertebrates

Benthic macroinvertebrates are the most comprehensively monitored indicator in Australia, with each

jurisdiction having one or more active programs. All jurisdictions use the original AusRivAS or a modified

version. The method of sampling design and site selection varies, as does frequency of sampling (twice

yearly to every five years). The least disturbed sites concept is used to define reference in each case.

Most programs have a QA/QC system in place.

Globally, macroinvertebrates are the most popular choice for use in bioassessment of stream health

(Gordon et al., 2004). Compared with other groups of organisms and parameters, they can be more

easily and reliably collected, handled and identified. In addition, there is often more ecological

information available for such taxonomic groups. Another factor which makes macroinvertebrates the

most broadly applicable group is that there are very few stressors to which macroinvertebrate

community structure is unlikely to respond (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000). Macroinvertebrates are

not generally as sensitive to altered river flows as fish (Harris, 1995).

29

Fish assemblages

All jurisdictions except Northern Territory monitor fish as part of a river health program, but this is not to

say that fish monitoring does not occur in Northern Territory. The SRA fish monitoring protocol is the

most widely applied in Australia, with Victoria and NSW having decided to extend the methodology to

their coastal flowing rivers. The method of sampling design and site selection varies, as does frequency

of sampling (twice yearly to every five years). Reference is defined in a variety of ways, with the SRA

adopting a pre-European definition based on expert opinion.

Globally, fish are popular indicators because they are known to be sensitive to water quality, they are

known to have characteristic habitat preferences, are relatively easy to sample and identify in the field,

and they tend to integrate effects of lower trophic levels; thus, fish assemblage structure is reflective of

integrated environmental health (Barbour et al., 1999). As they have a relatively large range, fish are

best suited to assessing macrohabitat and regional differences. They are long-lived, so fish can

integrate the effects of long-term changes in stream health (Simon and Lyons, 1995). Fish populations

and communities can respond actively to changes in water quality, but are also strongly influenced by

changes in hydrology and physical habitat structure (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000; Chessman and

Jones, 2001). Additionally, fish are highly visible and much valued by the wider community, so fish

monitoring usually has strong community approval and interest (Gordon et al., 2004).

Ecosystem processes

The SE Queensland EHMP is the only program in Australia to include an ecosystem process indicator.

The indicator combines three measures: algal growth (Chlorophyll a), change in which reflects the

change in shading by riparian vegetation and changes in ambient nutrient loads; carbon stable isotope

signature (δ13

C), change in which is associated with high rates of primary production, respiration and

methane production, and changes in stream flow; and benthic metabolism (respiration and gross

primary production), the rates of which increase with disturbance such as riparian vegetation removal

and agricultural runoff.

Riverine vegetation

The SRA is developing a method for assessment of riverine vegetation for the Murray-Darling Basin.

Western Australia has incomplete coverage, Northern Territory has a relatively small number of

sampled sites, while NSW and Victoria have good coverage and vegetation is included in the new

Tasmanian River Condition Index. The sampling is still mostly field-based, but remote sensing (with

associated ground truthing) may offer a viable alternative way of measuring aspects of vegetation in

certain situations.

The SRA methodology (under development) uses a hypothetical reference based on expected

conditions today without European influence. The Victorian method uses the similar notion of what the

vegetation community would look like under long-term undisturbed conditions. In Northern Territory the

reference is the previous measurement, while in NSW in the statewide census methodology the 2004/06

survey is used as the reference.

Riparian systems have an intimate connection with in-stream systems and appear to be sensitive

indicators of environmental change (Werren and Arthington, 2003). The riparian zone is the link

between terrestrial and aquatic systems (Auble et al., 1994), and Tabacchi et al. (1998) argued that this

zone is now well integrated into conceptual models of stream ecosystem functioning. A review of

existing methods for quantifying riparian vegetation as an indicator of stream health by Werren and

Arthington (2002) found that most methods measured structure and failed to consider activity

(metabolism or primary productivity), while few considered resilience [i.e. the three system attributes

that define health, according to Karr (1999)]. They developed a generalised rapid assessment protocol

for riparian vegetation that was claimed to address these shortcomings (Gordon et al., 2004).

30

Hydrology

The Flow Stress Ranking (FSR) procedure (SKM, 2005) is widely used in Australia. For example, the

Victorian ISC and the SRA use the FSR approach to calculating a hydrological index. Not all river health

programs in Australia include a hydrology index, with one example being the SE Queensland EHMP.

Site selection in the FSR has so far been largely controlled by the location of flow gauges, but other

sites can be modelled using a range of hydrological techniques. Reference condition in hydrology is not

pre-European, but unimpaired by water resources. So, the impacts of land use change are not

accounted for in the models.

Hydrological indices are easy to calculate but depend on the availability of an adequate hydrological

record - a serious limitation in many cases. Even where a discharge record is available, complex

modelling may be required to derive the unimpaired discharge record. While some recent progress has

been made on relating hydrological indices to ecological processes, this remains a major weakness of

using hydrological alteration indices as measures of stream health. Like the physico-chemical approach,

hydrological assessment and habitat assessment may identify the condition of the factors known to

threaten or enhance biota, but it says nothing about the actual condition of the biota (Gordon et al.,

2004).

Physical form

Physical form is not widely measured in a systematic way in Australia. Victoria and Tasmania have

considered physical form as part of their indices of stream health. The have been some problems in

achieving consistent and reliable application of the physical form sub-index of the Victorian ISC, which a

recent review of geomorphic methods did not resolve. The SRA is in the process of developing methods

for the Murray-Darling Basin. Queensland has used the State of the Rivers methodology for some time,

but there is not a lot of support to extend and maintain this program; some categorisation of reaches for

assessment has occurred in later State of the Rivers assessments based on classification by

Geomorphic Assessment of Rivers (GAR) methodology.

NSW has undertaken a considerable number of River Styles projects (a method of geomorphic stream

classification). River Styles includes post-classification stages, the first being assessment of river

condition to predict likely future river form, and the second being prioritorization of catchment

management issues, and identification of suitable river structures for Rivercare. With respect to stream

health monitoring, this work makes an indirect contribution, and thus is not listed here as a stream

health indicator.

One difficulty with physical form is that it can be challenging, even for an expert, to rapidly make

interpretations about process and rates of change on the basis of limited information or brief field

inspections.

Water quality

Only Victoria and Queensland have established state-wide water quality monitoring programs in place,

although NSW has a program in development and Northern Territory have a program for the Darwin

region. A range of parameters is measured, with temperature, turbidity and EC being the popular field

measurements (also pH, mainly because of ease of measurement, rather than being of central

importance to river health). Nutrients are also considered an important aspect of water quality, worthy of

monitoring. Reference can be known thresholds associated with low risks to achievement of healthy

ecosystems, or data from least disturbed systems.

Measurement of physico-chemical characteristics is a traditional, widely applied and robust approach to

assessing stream health. This has proved a valuable and necessary approach (especially for relatively

straightforward issues such as effluent compliance monitoring, drinking water standards and contact

recreation standards), but it does not explicitly measure the effects of concentrations of pollutants on

organisms. Physico-chemical profiling may identify situations where biotic communities are at risk, but

31

provides no information on the actual damage, if any, to the biota. Even where the tolerances of

organisms to individual pollutant concentrations are known, this information may have limited application

to the common situation of streams being affected by multiple pollutants, as well as habitat disturbance,

and hydrological alteration (Gordon et al., 2004).

Driver indicators including catchment disturbance

Driver indicators are not widely measured as an input to river health programs in Australia. Only the

Northern Territory and Queensland have made an effort to include this category of indicator.

Hunsaker and Levine (1995) raised the question of whether local or catchment-wide factors have more

of an impact on biotic integrity of streams. Lammert and Allen (1999) found that local land use and

habitat predicted biotic integrity while regional land use showed no relationship. In contrast, Roth et al.

(1996) in a study of the same catchment (but covering a larger area with greater contrast between sub-

catchments) found that regional land use factors were relevant to biotic integrity. The National Land and

Water Resources Audit (2002) assessment of river condition in Australia used an Aquatic Biota Index as

well as an Environment Index. The Environment Index combined the cumulative effects of catchment-

scale features (woody vegetation loss and development of infrastructure) and local features including

habitat (bed deposition, riparian vegetation cover and connectivity), hydrology, and nutrients and

suspended sediment loads.

The Filters approach

The Filters conceptual framework begins with a global or regional pool of species. Each species is

limited in its distribution by its tolerance to a range of environmental factors at a range of spatial scales.

For example, biogeographic barriers exclude those species that have been unable to disperse across

them, and high or low local temperatures exclude those species that cannot tolerate them (Walsh et al.,

2007).

If the potential range of each species within several environmental factors can be estimated, and the

conditions for each of those factors at a particular site can be quantified, then the pool of species that

could occur at that site can be estimated. A comparison of the species present at the site and those that

could potentially be at the site can form the basis of assessing the ecological condition of the site

(Walsh et al., 2007).

Filters is not really a river health protocol per se - it is a modelling approach to predict which families are

potentially present at a site in the absence of human impact (Walsh et al., 2007). While the Murray-

Darling Basin Filters model was initially developed for macroinvertebrates (Walsh, 2007), in theory it

could use any sampling protocol and any biota.

The attraction of Filters is that it is not necessary to rely solely on one sampling method to build the

model. Walsh (2007) used historical distributional data for one family of snail to develop a better model

of its likely pre-European distribution. This work demonstrated that the method is fairly robust to post-

European landscape changes, even in taxa that are known to have contracted their distributions. In

using the model, a single standard sampling protocol is necessary to standardize the likelihood of

collecting x families, so it will be easily applicable to current sampling protocols.

The outputs of Filters are similar to AusRivAS, i.e. O/E, but the method used to derive the Expected

suite of families is very different from (and a lot more transparent than) AusRivAS. SIGNAL O/E is

another possible output. This seemed to work a lot better than AusRivAS SIGNAL O/E, which has never

been seriously used because it is even less sensitive than AusRivAS O/E. Filters can also provide a list

of present-but-unexpected families, with reasons for their being unexpected, which is potentially a

powerful diagnostic. It is important to note that the Filters work of Walsh et al. (2007) utilized data

collected using AusRivAS sampling. Filters appears to overcome a difficulty in the AusRivAS protocol in

determining reference.

32

The development of Filters is still at a relatively preliminary stage. There needs to be substantial

assessment of its sensitivity (Walsh et al., 2007).

Monitoring environmental flows

A major program of environmental flows assessment has been established in Victoria, known as

VEFMAP (Victorian Environmental Flows Monitoring and Assessment Program (Cottingham et al.,

2005b). VEFMAP has been applied to a number of rivers (e.g. Chee et al., 2006a; 2006b).

The Integrated Monitoring of Environmental Flows (IMEF) program, established in New South Wales in

1997, is a systematic scientific program assessing the ecological benefits of environmental flow rules.

The program uses around 180 targeted sites on inland and coastal rivers to gather information and data.

A number of publication can be found at http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-

Management/Monitoring/Regulated-rivers/default.aspx, including Chessman and Jones (2001) which

set out the program design, and Growns and Gherke (2005) which examined aspects of monitoring fish.

A major environmental flows monitoring program has been established for the Snowy River

(http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-management/Monitoring/Snowy-River/Snowy-River/default.aspx).

A feature of this program was the extensive benchmarking work undertaken prior to implementation of

environmental flows (Rose and Bevitt, 2003; 2005). Gilligan and Williams (2008) reported on the

response of fish to flow releases.

Environmental monitoring at The Living Murray icon sites is undertaken to assess the success of

meeting environmental flow objectives for the River Murray. Monitoring aims to use adaptive

management techniques, where new data and information are considered as they become available,

and are incorporated into the planning process as relevant. The focus of The Living Murray monitoring is

on fish, birds and vegetation. The program includes both intervention monitoring to quantify

relationships between the cause (watering and other interventions) and the effects (ecological response)

at the icon site scale, and compliance monitoring to determine if works and watering regimes have been

undertaken as agreed

(http://www.mdba.gov.au/programs/tlm/programs_to_deliver/environmental_monitoring).

Products of river health monitoring

Australian jurisdictions generate a range of river health monitoring products for a range of audiences. In

general, the products tend to be mainly “Report Card” style; report annually to every 5 years; with data

collated and stored within the jurisdiction on various database systems; they aim to reach the public,

stakeholders, Government, consultants, scientific community, waterway managers, politicians and

Ministerial Council; are generally unrestricted in access; and are available on the internet.

Comparison of Three Australian Programs

South-East Queensland Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program

(SEQ EHMP) The Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) delivers a regional assessment of the ambient

ecosystem health for each of South East Queensland's (SEQ) 19 major catchments, 18 river estuaries,

and Moreton Bay. The monitoring program sits within a wider river health strategy known as the South

East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership. The objective of monitoring is to annually observe

and report the spatial patterns of river health and to report any apparent trend in the data through time.

These data are used within an adaptive management framework to maintain or improve river health.

The SEQ EHMP covers an area of 22,420 km2, which represents only 1.2% of the area of the state of

Queensland (Figure 5), but it contains two-thirds of the state’s population. The Department of

33

Environment and Resource Management (State of Queensland) runs a state-wide river and estuary

monitoring program, which until recently was known as the ambient monitoring program. It is in the

process of being replaced by the Stream and Estuarine Assessment Program (SEAP) (Marshall et al.

2006a). For more information on this state-wide program see the sub-section of this report headed

“Monitoring Application” and also the State of the Environment Report 2007 for Queensland

(http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/state_of_the_environment/state_of_the_envir

onment_queensland_2007/index.html).

Figure 5. South-east Queensland area covered by the SEQ EHMP, showing 15 major catchments.

The EHMP is managed by the South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership on behalf of its

various partners and is implemented by a large team of experts from the Queensland Government,

universities and CSIRO. The EHMP website

(http://www.healthywaterways.org/EcosystemHealthMonitoringProgram/Home.aspx) provides an

overview of EHMP and details of methods, results and publications. While various publications from the

EHMP can be downloaded from the EHMP website, the summary provided here was sourced mainly

from a recent journal publication by Bunn et al. (2010).

The SEQ Healthy Waterways Partnership first articulated a vision for the future health of the region’s

waterways, then a broad range of values for the region’s waterways was identified through numerous

workshops with stakeholders from across the region. Measurable water quality and ecosystem health

objectives were then determined to protect these values. Research organisations in the region

collaborated to provide the rigorous science underpinnings for the monitoring programme. Finally,

management actions were identified to achieve these objectives, working directly with policy makers.

34

The SEQ Healthy Waterways Partnership adopted a staged approach in the development of the

strategy to achieve river health, beginning in the mid-1990s. The aim of the freshwater EHMP was to

“develop a cost-effective, coordinated ecosystem health monitoring programme for freshwaters of the

region that could be used to measure and report on current status and future changes in ecological

health and, where necessary, guide management actions.”

The program objectively evaluated a broad range of indicators against a known disturbance gradient to

identify those that best responded. An initial desktop study identified a suite of potential indicators of

ecosystem health, outlined initial monitoring protocols and developed a physical classification of stream

types in the study area. This initial phase concluded with a series of pilot studies for indicators that

required additional development before considering further. Next, a major field trial was undertaken to

test the short-listed indicators of ecosystem health across the known disturbance gradient. Results of

the major field trial were used to evaluate which indicators were most suitable for inclusion in the EHMP

for freshwaters.

Assessments for the Freshwater EHMP are based on 5 indicator groups: physical/chemical, nutrient

cycling, ecosystem processes, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and fish. The emphasis is on aquatic life

and water quality elements of the ecosystem (Figure 2). The program uses 18 indices that include

aspects of organisation (e.g. biodiversity, species composition, food web structure), vigour (e.g. rates of

production, nutrient cycling) and resilience (e.g. ability to recover from disturbance) (Figure 6).

Assessments are made in spring (pre-wet, October-November) and autumn (post-wet, April-May) each

year at 135 sites (mean density of sites is 1 site per 166 km2). The sampling sites are permanent, with

most locations selected randomly and also including some icon sites. The Estuarine/Marine EHMP

monitors 254 sites on a monthly basis. Technical data for all indicators are collected for each site and

summarised by catchment in a series of annual reports that are publicly available (e.g. Figure 6).

Each of the indicators is first standardised (0–1), where reference condition = 1 (for a particular stream

type) and values greater than or equal to the 90th percentile recorded or the theoretical minimum (e.g. 0

for invertebrate richness) = 0 (i.e. ‘worst case’). Indicators within each of the five indicator groups are

then averaged to produce a single value for each type, and presented as a pentagon (Figure 6).

A key element of the monitoring programme is the development and public presentation of annual

‘Report Cards’ on the health of waterways (Figure 7). The report cards are presented to politicians and

senior policy makers each year in a public (televised) ceremony. Data for each site within a catchment

for both seasons are averaged across all indicator groups to produce a single score for each reporting

region. These are converted to Report Card ‘scores’, where ‘A’ reflects a catchment in near reference

condition and ‘F’ is where the condition fails to meet the ecosystem health objectives that underpin

agreed values for the regions streams and rivers. Detailed indicator data available for each catchment

An important contributing factor to the success of the Healthy Waterways Partnership has been the

strong link between science and decision makers. Development of a relationship of mutual trust and

respect between the independent Scientific Expert Panel and decision makers has helped to achieve

targeted management actions.

Bunn et al. (2010) concluded that the key lessons from the EHMP that are probably transferable to other

situations were:

the importance of getting early agreement on a shared vision of the desired state of local

waterways into the future and adopting a cooperative and inclusive approach;

the involvement of committed individuals, including scientists, politicians, managers and

community members;

a need for defensible science and a commitment to a robust monitoring programme and

transparent reporting; and

effective communication

35

Figure 6. Example of a SEQ EHMP catchment report, showing summary results for the Bremer reporting area, including the distribution of values, both regional and sub-regional rankings, and change in relation to previous year. The top bar indicates spring 2006 and the bottom bar indicates autumn 2007.

Victorian Index of Stream Condition (ISC)

The state of Victoria monitors river health through the Index of Stream Condition (ISC). This program

is a part of the Victorian Government’s long-term plan for water, known as Our Water Our

Future (http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/programs/owof), specifically informing the Victorian

River Health Strategy (http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/environment/rivers/river-health-

strategy). The aim of the ISC is to provide a tool “for use by managers at state and regional

levels and can be used to report on stream condition, assist with priority setting, judge the

long-term effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and assist with adaptive management”

(Ladson et al., 1999).

36

Figure 7. SEQ EHMP report card for the entire SE Queensland region for 2007.

The ISC website (http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/monitoring/river-health/isc) claims that the

ISC is the first complete and comprehensive study of the environmental condition of rivers

anywhere in Australia and was also the first integrated measure of river condition in Australia.

The ISC was developed using information that could be easily understood, collected at the regional

scale and fed directly into regional planning exercises. In addition, the methodology had to be accurate,

easy to use, cost effective, based on good science and able to be undertaken by non-expert staff

trained in its use. The details of the ISC were first published by Ladson et al. (1999), and other

reports are available from the ISC website.

Five key components of river health are assessed every 5 years. These components, or sub-indices,

measure changes in hydrology, water quality, streamside zone (vegetation), physical form (bed and

bank condition and instream habitat) and aquatic life. Each of the 5 sub-indices comprises a number of

indicators, 22 in total, (Figure 8) that were developed and refined through a pilot study in four

catchments.

Figure 8. Indicators used to generate the ISC.

37

The state of Victoria covers an area of 227,416 km2. The ISC measures river health of 1,040 reaches,

representing 26,000 km of Victoria's major rivers and tributaries. The sampling represents a mean site

density of 1 site per 219 km2. Reaches are not randomly selected, but are chosen so that they are

relatively homogeneous in terms of the 5 components of stream condition (using ISC-independent data).

Streamside zone and physical form are measured in the field at 3 sites, selected by field operators to

take account of the reach-scale variability in apparent condition, and also taking accessibility into

account (note that ISC reach and site selection is not strictly random).

All ISC data and reports are available at the Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse

(http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/home.aspx). The data are reported at a number of spatial

scales, including at the state-level (Figure 9) the basin-scale and the reach-scale (Figure 10).

Figure 9. Victorian ISC state-wide results for 2004 survey, aggregated by river basin.

38

Figure 10. Victorian ISC Goulburn River Basin results for 2004 survey. Each point is a survey site, which is representative of a reach, with reaches being contiguous. In this way, the entire drainage network (at the mapped scale) is covered by the ISC. Inset shows report for Reach No. 7. Each sub-index is scored out of 10 to give a total score out of 50.

39

As well as including water quality and aquatic life indicators, the ISC includes two driver/stressor

indicators (Figure 2): hydrology and physical form. Hydrology was included on the basis that most of the

streams in Victoria have significantly altered hydrology, and it is open to management action through

implementation of environmental flows. The basis of the hydrology sub-index is comparison of the

current flow regime with the flow regime that existed under pre- water resources development

conditions. Streamflow data was required to determine current and unimpacted or natural flows for each

site. This data was derived from gauged records, streamflow models or rainfall runoff models developed

for previous studies. Where no gauged data or model data was available for a particular site, it was

transposed from another comparable site for which information was available. A minimum of 15 years of

monthly data was required. The indicators are calculated using the Flow Stress Ranking procedure

(DSE, 2005; SKM, 2005).

The physical form sub-index of the ISC has three indicators: impact of artificial barriers on fish migration,

large wood habitat availability, and bank stability. This sub-index was included because barriers, de-

snagging and bank erosion are recognised as widespread and serious stressors on stream health, and

because all three indicators can be practically addressed through management action. The ISC also

includes a streamside zone sub-index, the basis of which is a comparison of riparian vegetation

condition against expected reference condition. Riparian vegetation is both an ecological response

variable, and a driver variable, because of its impacts on temperature and bank integrity (Figure 2).

Data for the hydrology, aquatic life and water quality sub-indexes of the ISC are sourced from programs

that were already in existence at the time the ISC was developed (stream gauging network and REALM

streamflow modelling tool, the EPA’s standard Rapid Bioassessment protocol, and the Victorian Water

Quality Monitoring Network).

The ISC field surveys are either carried out by, or commissioned by, officers of the Catchment

Management Authorities, who are also responsible for undertaking river rehabilitation works, and also

administering the environmental flows assessment process. In this way, the ISC provides a very direct

link between monitoring and management actions.

Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA) The Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA) (http://www.mdba.gov.au/programs/sustainableriversaudit) is a

systematic assessment of the health of river ecosystems in the Murray-Darling Basin. It is overseen by a

panel of independent ecologists, the Independent Sustainable Rivers Audit Group (ISRAG). The data

collected by the SRA is a key input to the Basin Plan and other programs of the Murray–Darling Basin

Authority. The Basin Plan (http://www.mdba.gov.au/basin_plan) will be a strategic plan for the integrated

and sustainable management of water resources in the Murray–Darling Basin.

The ISRAG (Davies et al., 2008) provided assessments of ecosystem health for each of 23 major river

Valleys, using data gathered in 2004–07, on hydrology, fish and macroinvertebrates. This was a first

step toward analysis of trends, which will be a feature of later reports. The first in a triennial SRA series,

Davies et al. (2008) also described the framework of the SRA, from which this summary was drawn.

The Sustainable Rivers Audit aims to:

determine the ecological condition and health of river valleys in the Murray-Darling Basin ;

give us a better insight into the variability of river health indicators across the Basin and over

time;

eventually help us detect trends in river health over time; and

trigger changes to natural resource management by providing a more comprehensive picture

of river health than is currently available.

The indicators used in the SRA provide ‘windows’ on particular components of the river ecosystems,

and are grouped as Themes. Three indicator Themes (fish, macroinvertebrates and hydrology) were

40

chosen after assessing their cost effectiveness during a Pilot Audit conducted in four test catchments:

the Lachlan in NSW, the Condamine in Queensland , the Ovens in Victoria and Lower Murray in South

Australia. Indicators relating to floodplains, riparian (streambank) vegetation and the river's physical

form are in an advanced stage of development for inclusion in the next report of the Audit.

Fish communities and populations are sampled during normal flow conditions, across entire river valleys

in the one season, and once every three years at all 23 valleys in the Basin. Macroinvertebrate

populations are also be sampled during normal flow conditions, across entire river valleys in the one

season, but once every two years across the Basin. Hydrology information is collected every six years

and evaluated using long term river flow sequences, developed by the States. When there are major

changes to river flows through new structures being built or environmental flow provisions, the models

will require upgrading.

Regional and state/territory based river health monitoring programs usually focus on a particular

location, area or issue for a limited amount of time, and a range of methods are employed. The SRA

collects data in a standardised way for the entire Basin.

Within each of the 23 Valleys there are 1 – 4 Zones, defined in most cases by altitude – ‘lowland’ (0-

200 m AHD), ‘slopes’ (200-400 m AHD), ‘upland’ (400-700 m AHD) and ‘montane’ (>700 m AHD). Fish

and macroinvertebrate sampling sites in Valleys and Zones are selected using a constrained

randomization technique to minimise bias and distribute the sampling effort over space and time. In

future, as SRA cycles are repeated, one quarter of sites will remain fixed and the remainder will be re-

selected randomly. This will ensure a balance between logistical resources and statistically-reliable

measurements of differences between years, and in and between Valleys. In the SRA the site selection

is truly random, with field operators given coordinates of sites, selected regardless of accessibility.

Although this is preferable from a statistical perspective, it adds time and cost compared to non-random

sampling that takes convenience into account.

Davies et al. (2008) reported that 506 sites were sampled for the fish Theme and 773 sites for the

macroinvertebrate Theme. The Basin covers 1,061,469 km2, so these site numbers represent mean

sampling densities of 1 site per 2,100 km2 for fish and 1 per 1,370 km

2 for macroinvertebrates.

Hydrology data are derived from existing stream gauging and streamflow modelling sites, which are not

randomly located. The SRA employs indicators from the Flow Stress Ranking procedure (SKM, 2005).

Field data are processed in a series of steps leading to Metrics and Indices for each Theme in each

Zone and Valley. The Indices represent the Condition of the ecosystem component described by the

respective Theme, and the information from all Themes is combined by ISRAG to indicate Ecosystem

Health at the Valley scale. Indicators and indices are derived from metrics using ‘Expert Rules’, a

computational process based on ‘fuzzy logic’ (note: this is in contrast to the common approach of

summing indicators). This approach avoids the need for sharp, artificial boundaries between categories

of assessment.

Condition assessments for each Valley are related to a benchmark called Reference Condition. This

estimates the status of a component (for example, the fish community) as it would be had there been no

significant human intervention in the landscape. Reference Condition is a benchmark representing the

river ecosystem in good health, but is not a target for management. Condition is rated on a five-point

scale from Good through Moderate, Poor, Very Poor to Extremely Poor, depending on how different the

Theme components are from their respective benchmarks. The same scale is applied to Ecosystem

Health.

The SRA aggregated data into a compact summary of ecosystem health for the Valleys of the Basin

(Figure 11), and also presented results at the Valley and Valley Zone scales (Figure 12).

41

Figure 11. SRA compact summary – ecosystem health for all Valleys. Source: Davies et al. (2008).

42

Figure 12. Example of SRA Fish and Macroinvertebrate Theme reporting for the Border Rivers Valley. Source: Davies et al. (2008). Numbers on horizontal bars are medians, and vertical bars represent 95% confidence limits associated with the median.

Comparison

Aims

While the three monitoring programs summarised here differ in some respects, they share common

aims, the essential elements of which are to: (i) characterise current ecological health, (ii) report on

trends in ecological health through time, and (iii) use the results to inform river management.

Indicators

SEQ EHMP uses ecological response and water quality response variables (Figure 2), with a focus on

sampling in the field at times of low flow. The only physical variable is temperature. Direct measures of

stream disturbance (riparian canopy cover and channel integrity) were considered in a list of potential

indicators but were not included in the final list of indicators that responded well to the defined stream

disturbance gradient. The selected variables did respond well to the disturbance gradient, so they can

be said to be diagnostic of disturbance. The SEQ EHMP also has access to some driver/stressor data

through the State Landcover and Trees Study (http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/slats/meth.html) the

Queensland Landuse Mapping Program (http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/science/lump/index.html) and the

stream gauging network.

In contrast to the SEQ EHMP, the ISC was committed at the outset to including variables from indicator

groups that were directly associated with common management actions. In Victoria, most stream

rehabilitation work is concerned with channel stabilisation, riparian re-vegetation, and implementation of

Border Rivers

Fish Macroinvertebrates

43

environmental flows. This is a response to previous work which established that (i) streams were

significantly impacted by these issues, and (ii) these were major issues detrimentally impacting stream

health. In this way, the ISC can monitor progress in implementation of management actions, as well as

ecological responses to those actions.

The SRA also includes river health driver variables, with hydrology already included and physical form

and vegetation themes in development. The SRA does not include any water quality indicators. Davies

et al. (2008) did not indicate the rationale for including themes.

Water quality is a cornerstone of many river health programs worldwide, yet the SRA chose to exclude

it. One of the issues with monitoring water quality is that most parameters are highly variable through

time due to the high level of dependence on hydrology. Proper characterisation requires frequent

sampling, with most dedicated water quality programs sampling at 2-weekly or monthly intervals. This is

one of the main reasons why water quality monitoring is a relatively expensive exercise. In Victoria the

Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Network has been in place since the mid-1970s, covering 180 sites

(located at flow gauging stations) with monthly sampling of salinity, turbidity total nitrogen, total

phosphorus and pH (other parameters measured less frequently). In Queensland the Statewide Surface

Water Ambient Network covers 186 sites (located at flow gauging stations) with ad hoc sampling

(expected 4 times per year) of salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and

pH. In New South Wales the Key Sites Surface Water Quality Program (being replaced by the Natural

Resources Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Strategy) monitored 99 sites for turbidity, temperature

and salinity at monthly intervals, but the frequency and coverage is less for other parameters. In South

Australia the EPA monitors 53 sites mostly in the more populated and developed areas (located at flow

gauging stations) at monthly or quarterly intervals, for nutrient, salinity, temperature, turbidity and pH.

When these data were audited in 2001 by the National Land and Water resources Audit

(http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/quality/), it was found that monitoring station density was too low to

characterise water quality within a number of smaller basins and more remote basins, and due to

limitations with the period of record and frequency of collection, in most cases trend analysis was not

possible on the full suite of variables monitored. Thus, the existing data are inadequate for a program

like the SRA. The SEQ EHMP measures water quality at only twice-yearly intervals, but attempts to

overcome the problem of variability with hydrology by only sampling at times of low flow. However, even

baseflow hydrology can be highly variable. In 2008-2009 the catchments of South East Queensland

received the highest rainfall in the last decade. The 2009 report card

(http://www.healthywaterways.org/EcosystemHealthMonitoringProgram/ProductsandPublications/Annua

lReportCards.aspx) found that while there were slight improvements in the biological health indicators

(aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish) associated with increased flows, these were offset by a general

decrease in the nutrient cycling indicator, and a decline in the physical/chemical indicator in many

catchments. The decrease in the nutrient cycling indicator reflected the overwhelming amount of diffuse

source pollution entering the streams. This illustrates the need for contextual information on the drivers

of river health, particularly discharge, when interpreting river health data.

Sampling

A major difference in the three Australian programs is in respect to sampling. The ISC and SEQ EHMP

use stratification and subjectivity in site selection, while the SRA uses random site selection within

Valley Zones. In the SRA, some sites require a good deal of effort and time by field crews to access, as

they are not necessarily close to roads and crossings. If a site is deemed inaccessible given a

reasonable amount of time and effort, operators choose the next site from a list of alternative, also

randomly selected, sites. In the SRA, the number of sites required was determined by power analysis to

be sufficient to detect change over a reasonable period of time, and to reliably characterise the health of

the Valley Zones.

The number of sites in the ISC was determined largely on the basis of the independent decision that a

reach would be 10 – 30 km long. The ISC originally used “representative” sampling within the reach

44

(operators trying to judge a site that appeared to represent the reach as a whole) but this was later

changed to ostensibly random site selection (access and apparent variability of the reach are also

considered).

For the SEQ EHMP, selection of the 53 sites for the major trial undertaken in 2000 was based around

an initial stratification into the four main stream types, and then aiming to cover the full range of the

disturbance gradient. For the full program, “a site was allocated to each 3rd

order stream and to the

catchments of all larger 2nd

order streams until adequate spatial coverage had been achieved” (Smith

and Storey, 2001, p. 11.16). This resulted in 120 sites “placed strategically across the study area”

(Smith and Storey, 2001, p. 11.16) (now 135 sites). Smith and Storey (2001) did not detail how the

actual site locations were determined, and the degree of autonomy of field crews in deciding the exact

spot to be sampled. In at least some instances sites were intentionally located in relation to certain

discharge points (such as sewerage treatment plants). The sampling strategy covers 60 – 70% of the

stream length in the SEQ region, under the presumption that a site represents a stream link. The

smaller streams are not represented in the sample. Reference sites were “minimally disturbed” which

effectively meant passing 9 out of 10 established criteria.

To investigate the trade-off between sampling density and uncertainty in meeting program objectives,

Ladson et al. (2006) undertook a detailed survey using the ISC method, sampling every second

kilometre of river on a 22 km long stretch of Ryans Creek and a 33 km long stretch of the Broken River,

in Victoria. In addition, experienced local Catchment Management Authority staff were asked to select

‘representative’ reaches. Sampling strategies were explored by random sub-sampling of the complete

data set. It was found that data from ‘representative’ sub-reaches could not be used to estimate the

population variance or realistic confidence intervals. The same conclusion was reached by other studies

from other parts of the world (reported in Ladson et al., 2006). For sampling densities less than 1 site

per 10 km, the precision of baseline assessments decreased rapidly as fewer sites were used. This

suggested that, for the purposes of a baseline assessment, 1 site per 10 km (with three transects per

site) would be a reasonable first estimate for the minimum sampling density for the ISC indicators.

Complete analysis to determine the best sampling scheme (number of sites per reach and transects per

site) would require consideration of the costs associated with visits to sites and transects, the total

budget for the sampling and the consequences of errors. Ladson et al. (2006) also found that the ability

to detect change accurately requires in the order of twice the sampling effort than assessing baseline

condition to achieve a similar level of precision.

Reporting frequency

There are significant differences in reporting frequency of the 3 Australian programs. The SEQ EHMP

reports annually, the ISC reports every 5 years, and the SRA reports a Basin-wide assessment every 3

years, and trends are reported every 6 years.

The more frequent the reporting the higher the awareness of the program and river health as an issue of

public concern, and the more rapidly management can respond to identified issues. However, there are

two main issues with reporting frequency that have to be balanced against the desire to report

frequently. The first issue is cost. Reporting data is a significant cost to the program, so the frequency of

reporting would be constrained by the available budget. The second issue has to do with the expected

rates of change in the indicators being monitored – there is little point in reporting data annually if the

measures are not expected to respond in a significant way to management actions or stressors over this

time frame. Also, trend is difficult to detect in a statistically significant way over short time periods.

Common factors

These 3 Australian programs have achieved recognition for successful achievement of their aims across

vastly different areas using different indicators, different sampling strategies, and different reporting

frequencies and reporting products. The factors that they do have in common, and which may be key

determinants of success, are:

45

Embedded within, and considered a critical component of, a wider river health strategy,

Well formulated and clearly articulated objectives,

A well funded phase of scientific program development and pilot testing in order to establish

indicators and protocols that would meet the agreed program objectives,

Technical manuals, operator training, and attention to quality control and assurance,

River condition reported relative to an established reference condition (although this can be

defined in different ways),

Strong levels of commitment by government and community,

Established formal links to river management,

Including indicators that directly measure the drivers and stressors of river health, or having

that informational available to the program to assist in explanation of water quality and

biological data,

Transparent, effective, and publicly accessible reporting, and

Ongoing critical review of the programs methods, and refinement and development as

necessary.

Lessons for China The implications of the comparison of 3 Australian programs for development of river health monitoring

programs in China are that:

Close attention needs to be paid to the factors that the Australian programs had in common,

and which may be key determinants of success,

The set of indicators should be chosen to suit the local conditions and the local objectives

rather than simply being copied from another program from another part of the world,

The program can focus on water quality and bioassessment, provided contextual information

on drivers and stressors is available, and provided the chosen indicators are diagnostic of

management issues – alternatively, the monitoring program can include driver/stressor

indicators that relate directly to intended management actions,

Full characterisation of spatial pattern and reliable trend detection in physico-chemical water

quality parameters requires an extensive network of frequently monitored sites, operational for

a long period of time, so the existing network in China should be utilised,

For field measured variables, careful attention should be paid to design of the sampling

strategy (sampling site location, number of sites, sampling frequency, and timing of sampling),

especially if one of the objectives is change detection, and

The reporting frequency needs to be appropriate to the expected rates of change in the chosen

indicators, and the benefits of frequent reporting need to be balanced against the cost of doing

so.

River Health Monitoring in P. R. of China

State of Environment reporting In China, SoE reporting for river health is based on National Surface Water Quality Standard (GB3838-

2002), which classifies chemical water quality into five classes for a range of indices (e.g. MEP, 2006).

Grade I is for water flowing through national nature reserves; Grade II is for the source of municipal

46

drinking water supply (first grade conservation area), conservation areas for rare aquatic species, and

areas for fish spawning; Grade III is for the source of municipal drinking water supply with treatment

required (second grade conservation area), conservation areas for common aquatic species, and areas

for swimming; Grade IV is for sources of industrial use and recreational use other than swimming (e.g.

boating and fishing); Grade V is for sources of industrial cooling water, irrigation water, and ordinary

landscape (Ma and Ortolano, 2000). A number of water quality indicators are used to define these

standards, with each parameter having a numerical limit for each class.

In 2006, among 745 water sections under national surface water quality monitoring program (593 river

sections and 152 lake or reservoir monitoring sites), 26 percent failed to meet Grade V national surface

water quality standard; 62 percent did not meet Grade III water quality standard; 90 percent of urban

river sections were subject to pollution at different degrees; 75 percent of lakes were subject to

eutrophication; 30 percent of drinking water source areas of key cities did not meet Grade III standard

(SCPRC, 2008). The main pollution indicators were permanganate index (the index of COD [chemical

oxygen demand], or measurement of all chemicals in the water that can be oxidized, which is an indirect

measure of industrial wastes), ammonia nitrogen (NH3 + NH4+ - N) (one of the three main forms of total

nitrogen, with the main source being fertiliser and untreated sewage), and petroleum (MEP, 2006).

Given this situation, it is not surprising that water quality has been the focus of river health monitoring in

China.

Over time, with the expansion of wastewater and sewerage treatment, and enforcement of strict

regulations on industrial pollution, water quality will become less of a limiting factor for ecological health

of rivers, and other limiting factors will likely become apparent. China's urban sewage treatment rate

increased from 34.2 percent in 2000 to 62.8 percent in 2007 (Research and Markets, 2008). According

to the 11th Five-Year Guideline, the average sewage treatment rate in cities in China will reach 70

percent by the end of 2010, and over 80 percent in provincial cities on average (SCPRC, 2008).The

target for total discharge of major industrial pollutants is a reduction of 10 percent (measured in terms of

COD load). All direct waste water outlets in Grade I protected areas for drinking water source will be

banned (SCPRC, 2008).

The SoE reporting of water quality data is currently the only method of national river health reporting.

The system of water quality monitoring in China is well developed with results widely reported using

simple statistics that relate directly to management activities and classes of river utilisation. The

variables do not necessarily relate closely to the health of the biota, but there is a broad recognition that

good water quality is necessary for proper ecological functioning.

Liao River Meng et al. (2009) described an integrated assessment of river health based on water quality, aquatic

life and physical habitat that they applied to the Liao River. In general, it was found that the water quality

of main stream and estuary, where industrial and agricultural activities are intense, was much worse

than that of the tributaries. Using Principal Components Analysis, water quality and physical habitat

quality indices were found to be important indicators of river health. Benthic index of biotic integrity (B-

IBI) showed the same spatial distribution as physical habitat measures (substrate, habitat complexity,

velocity-depth combination, bank stability, bank conservation, vegetation cover, vegetation diversity,

intensity of human activities, water cognition and riverside land use). The aquatic species surveyed

were attached algae and benthic invertebrates. It was concluded that control of heavy metal and nutrient

pollution would realise improvements in river health.

Yellow River Ni and Qian (2002) developed an integrated river health index for the Lower Yellow River [reported by

Foster et al. (2008) and Darton (2005)]. The index takes into account the length of river over which there

is no-flow, the amount of sediment, the severity of no-flow events which upset the river’s ecosystem,

47

and the availability of water for socio-economic development. It was found that the decline in river health

from the 1970s to 1997 was likely due to a combination of human and climatically induced trends.

Using the Yellow River as an example, Liu and Liu (2009) proposed that a healthy river has equilibrium

development between its natural and social functions; the indicators of a healthy river are favourable

riverbed, acceptable water quality, sustainable river ecosystem, and compatible flow in terms of the

river’s social and natural functions.

Liu et al. (2006) listed 8 indicators of river health for the lower Yellow River: minimum flow, maximum

flood discharging capacity, bank-full discharge, transverse slope of floodplain, water quality, area of

wetlands, aquatic ecosystem, and water supply capacity. The standards to be met were determined on

the basis of historical hydrological data and observed data from the period 1956–2004.

Pearl River Hydrology and water quality are routinely monitored in the Pearl River basin. Currently there is no

routine biological monitoring, although investigations have been undertaken at various times with algae,

fish and diatoms. A fish study was undertaken in the 1980, and again in 2006/07. A comparison of the

data showed a large decline in diversity.

Main Issues to be Considered in Design of a River

Health Monitoring Program

1. Objectives of the program (to be established by responsible agencies)

2. Sampling strategy (site location, number of sites, site selection strategy, frequency of sampling,

with an emphasis on scientifically sound methods)

3. Indicators selected for monitoring (relate to issues, assets, program objectives and likely

management activities, plus consider US EPA EMAP criteria). Either test a large number of

possible indicators in pilot studies, or chose a small number of indicators that are proven in the

literature.

4. Selection of suitable benchmark – must be consistent nationally

5. Quality Control/Quality Assurance methods

6. Production of manuals

7. Data management

8. Analytical methods (statistics, and development of composite index)

9. Sourcing contextual information to explain river health observations.

10. Reporting and communication methods (a policy is required for data and report access)

River Health Monitoring Framework

Recommendation: Framework 19. A generic river health monitoring framework for China is presented in Figure 13. This

framework is intended to guide the establishment of a structured river health monitoring

program within a river health strategy. Details of indicators, protocols and communication tools

will likely vary from area to area, depending on local conditions and priorities.

48

Figure 13. Generic High-level River Health Monitoring Framework.

References

Abel, P.D. 1989. Water Pollution Biology. Ellis Horwood Limited, Chichester.

Alcamo, J.M., Vörösmarty, C.J., Naiman, R.J., Lettenmaier, D.P. and Pahl-Wostl, C. 2008. A grand

challenge for freshwater research: understanding the global water system. Environmental Research

Letters 3, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/1/010202.

ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000a. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality. Volume 1, The Guidelines (Chapters 1 – 7). National Water Quality Management Strategy

Paper No. 4. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and

Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, October. URL:

http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for_fresh_and_marine

_water_quality (accessed 18 September 2009).

ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000b. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality. Volume 2, Aquatic Ecosystems — Rationale and Background Information (Chapter 8), National

Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No. 4. Australian and New Zealand Environment and

Stream health application

Set targets, priorities, methods, allocations; implement activities

Stream health assessment

Stream health monitoring

Data on drivers and stressors

Formal links:science-community-

management

High level management principles• Protect and improve river health• Optimise for social and economic benefit

Appropriate indicators and

protocols

RespondCommunicate

ExplainFundamental

research

Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) activities, Environmental flows, Water Resource Allocation

Plans (WRAP), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Observe trend and pattern at

basin-scale

Test response to specific

action

Report nationally

Gather dataObjective

Generic framework for river health monitoring in China

49

Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand,

Canberra. URL:

http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for_fresh_and_marine

_water_quality/volume_2 (accessed 18 September 2009).

ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000c. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality: Volume 3 - Primary Industries - Rationale and Background Information. Australian and New

Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of

Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, October. URL:

http://www.mincos.gov.au/publications/australian_and_new_zealand_guidelines_for_fresh_and_marine

_water_quality/volume_3 (accessed 18 September 2009).

Arundel, H., Barton, J., Becker, A. and Quinn, G. 2008. Reporting on the environmental condition of

Victorian estuaries – a discussion paper, Deakin University, prepared for the National Land & Water

Resources Audit, Canberra. URL: http://nlwra.gov.au/files/products/national-land-and-water-resources-

audit/pn21348/pn21348.pdf (accessed 18 September 2009).

ASEC (Australian State of the Environment Committee) 2001. Australia State of the Environment 2001,

Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage, CSIRO

Publishing, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. URL:

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/report/index.html (accessed 18 September 2009).

Australian Government 2008. Caring for our Country business plan 2009-10. Natural Resources

Management, Australian Government. URL: http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/books/pubs/business-

plan.pdf (accessed 18 September 2009).

Bain, M.B. and Hughes, T. 1996. Aquatic habitat inventory and analysis methods used in fishery and

environmental management. Report by the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Cornell

University to the American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland New York. August.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for

Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second

Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Boulton, A.J. 1999. An overview of river health assessment methods: philosophies, practice, problems

and prognosis. Freshwater Biology 41(2): 469–479.

Bunn, S.E. and Boon, P.I. 1993. What sources of organic carbon drive food webs in billabongs? A study

based on stable isotope analysis. Oecologia 96: 85–94.

Bunn, S.E., Davies, P.M. and Mosisch, T. 1999. Ecosystem measures of river health and their response

to riparian and catchment degradation. Freshwater Biology 41: 333–345.

Bunn, S.E., Abal, E.G., Smith, M.J., Choy, S.C., Fellows, C.S., Harch, B.D., Kennard, M.J. and Sheldon,

F. 2010. Integration of science and monitoring of river ecosystem health to guide investments in

catchment protection and rehabilitation. Freshwater Biology 55 (Suppl. 1): 223–240.

CES (Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability) 2005. Framework for State of the Environment

Reporting. Victorian Government, East Melbourne. URL:

http://www.ces.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/F85848DB8E218BE2CA257204000BFA7C/$File/Fra

mework+for+State+of+Environment+Reporting.pdf (accessed 18 September 2009).

Chee, Y., Webb, A., Stewardson, M. and Cottingham, P. 2006a. Victorian environmental flows

monitoring and assessment program. Monitoring and evaluation of environmental flow releases in the

Glenelg River. Report prepared for the Glenelg-Hopkins Catchment Management Authority and the

Department of Sustainability and Environment by e-Water Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne,

September.

Chee, Y., Webb, A., Stewardson, M. and Cottingham, P. 2006b. Victorian environmental flows

monitoring and assessment program. Monitoring and evaluation of environmental flow releases in the

50

Broken River. Report prepared for the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority and the

Department of Sustainability and Environment by eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra,

September. URL: http://www.ewatercrc.com.au/reports/ewater-crc-report_VEFMAP_Broken-River.pdf

(accessed 18 January 2010).

Chessman, B. and Jones, H. 2001. Integrated monitoring of environmental flows: design report. New

South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation, Parramatta, April. URL:

http://www.dwe.nsw.gov.au/water/pdf/imef_new_design_report.pdf (accessed 18 January 2010).

Coste, M., Bosca, C. and Dauta, A. 1991. Use of algae for monitoring rivers in France. In Witton, B.A.,

Rott, E. and Friedrich, G. (eds) Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Proceedings of an International

Symposium, Düsseldorf, 26-28 May. Institute of Botany, Innsbruck University, Austria, pp. 75-88.

Cottingham, P., Quinn, G., Norris, R., King, A., Chessman, B. and Marshall, C. 2005a. Environmental

Flows Monitoring and Assessment Framework. Technical report. CRC for Freshwater Ecology,

Canberra. URL: http://www.ewatercrc.com.au/newbushfire/downloads/1000020.pdf (accessed 18

January 2010).

Cottingham, P., Stewardson, M. and Webb, A. 2005b. Victorian Environmental Flows Monitoring and

Assessment Program. Stage 1: Statewide Framework. Report to the Dept. of Sustainability and

Environment. CRC for Freshwater Ecology and CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne.

Coysh, J., McKenzie, N., Roberts, D., Moller, G. and Sarac, Z. 2007. Inland waters and wetlands:

Condition of rivers. State of the Environment Report Queensland 2007. Environment and Resource

Management, The State of Queensland. URL:

http://epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/state_of_the_environment/state_of_the_environment

_queensland_2007/state_of_the_environment_queensland_2007_contents/inland_waters_and_wetland

s_condition_of_rivers.html (accessed 18 September 2009).

Darton, R. 2005. Measuring our Future – the Role of Sustainability Metrics. The 11th Hartley Lecture

delivered at the Royal Society on 10th November 2005. University of Oxford.

Davies, P.M. 1997. Assessment of river health by the measurement of community metabolism. Final

Report to Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, No. UWA 14, Canberra,

Australian Capital Territory.

Davies, P., Harris, J., Hillman, T. and Walker, K. 2008. Sustainable Rivers Audit, SRA Report 1. A report

on the ecological health of rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin, 2004–2007. Prepared by the Independent

Sustainable Rivers Audit Group for the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council, June. URL:

http://www2.mdbc.gov.au/SRA/river_health_check_-_sra_report_one.html (accessed 18 September

2009).

DERM (Department of Environment and Resources Management) 2009. Environmental Flows

Assessment Program. Fact and information sheets. The State of Queensland, URL:

http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/factsheets/pdf/water/w130.pdf (accessed 18 September 2009).

DNRE 2002. Healthy Rivers, Healthy Communities & Regional Growth - Victorian River Health Strategy.

Department of Natural Resources and Environment. URL:

http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/environment/rivers/river-health-strategy/strategies (accessed 10

November 2009).

DSE 2005. Development and Application of a Flow Stress Ranking Procedure. The State of Victoria,

Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. URL:

http://www.land.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/DF4E698498BF63B5CA25711800119F28/$File/2021

70+Development+and+Application+of+Flow+Stress+Ranking+Procedure.pdf (accessed 10 November

2009).

Dunn, H. 2000. Identifying and protecting rivers of high ecological value; LWRDDC Occasional Paper

01/00. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

51

EEA (European Environment Agency) 1999. Environmental Indicators. Typology and Overview,

Technical Report, 25. EEA, Copenhagen.

EMT (The Environmental Monitoring Team Committee on Environment and Natural Resources National

Science and Technology Council) 1997. Integrating the nation’s environmental monitoring and research

networks and programs: a proposed framework. National Science and Technology Council,

Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.epa.gov/cludygxb/Pubs/framewrk.pdf (accessed 30 November

2009).

Environment Agency 1997. River Habitat Survey: 1997 Field Survey Guidance Manual, Incorporating

SERCON, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, National Environment Research Council, UK.

Foster, J.M., Borthwick, A.G.L., Taylor, P., Ni, J.R. and Gao, X.W. 2008. Large-scale hydrological

metrics: A composite river sustainability index. 11th

International RiverSymposium, Brisbane, Australia, 3

September 2008.

Frey, D. G. 1977. Biological integrity of water – an historical approach. In Ballantine, R.K. and Guarraia,

L.J. (eds), The Integrity of Water. Proceedings of a Symposium, March 10–12, 1975, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Gippel, C.J. and Speed, R. 2010a. A Holistic, Asset-based Framework for Evaluating River Health,

Environmental Flows and Water Re-allocation. Technical Report 3. ACEDP – River Health and

Environmental Flow in China. ACEDP Activity No: P0018. International Water Centre Pty Ltd, Brisbane,

April.

Gippel, C.J. and Speed, R. 2010b. Environmental Flow Assessment Framework and Methods, Including

Environmental Asset Identification and Water Re-allocation. ACEDP Australia-China Environment

Development Partnership, River Health and Environmental Flow in China. International Water Centre

Pty Ltd, Brisbane, April.

Gilligan D. and Williams S. 2008. Changes in fish assemblages after the first flow releases to the Snowy

River downstream of Jindabyne Dam. Snowy River Recovery: Snowy River Flow Response Monitoring.

Department of Water and Energy, Sydney. URL:

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/34/water_environment_snowy_report_snowy_flow_resp

onse_fish_assemblages.pdf.aspx (accessed 18 January 2010).

Gippel, C.J., Cosier, M., Markar, S. and Liu, C. 2009. Balancing environmental flow needs and water

supply reliability. Water Resources Development 25(2): 335-357.

Growns, I. and Gehrke, P. 2005. Integrated Monitoring of Environmental Flows: Assessment of

predictive modelling for river flows and fish. Fisheries Final report Series No. 74, 33pp. URL:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/areas/systems-research/aquatic-ecosystems/outputs/2005/output-

296 (accessed 18 January 2010).

Hellawell, J.M. 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management.

Pollution Monitoring Series, Mellanby, K. (ed.). Elsevier Applied Sciences Publishers, London, 546 pp.

Huang, K., Guo, H., Liu, Y., Zhou, F., Yu, Y. and Wang, Z. 2008. Water environmental planning and

management at the watershed scale: A case study of Lake Qilu, China. Frontiers of Environmental

Science and Engineering in China 2(2): 157-162.

International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). 2007. ‘Spectrum of PublicParticipation’.

Available online: [http://www.iap2.org].

Jackson, L.E., Kurtz, J.C. and Fisher, W.S. (eds) 2000. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators.

EPA/620/R-99/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,

Research Triangle Park, NC. 107 p. URL:

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/resdocs/ecol_ind.pdf (accessed 14 January 2008).

52

Kallis, G. and Butler, D. 2001. The EU water framework directive: measures and implications. Water

Policy 3: 125-142.

Karr, J.R. and Dudley, D.R. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental

Management 5:55-68.

Koehn, J.D. and O’Connor, W.G. 1990. Biological information for management of native freshwater fish

in Victoria. Department of Conservation and Environment, Freshwater Fish Management Branch, Arthur

Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg.

Ladson, A.R., White, L.J., Doolan, J.A., Finlayson, B.L., Hart, B.T., Lake, P.S. and Tilleard, J.W. 1999.

Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia.

Freshwater Biology 41: 453-468.

Ladson, A.R., Grayson, R.B., Jawecki, B. and White, L. 2006. Effect of sampling density on the

measurement of stream condition indicators in two lowland Australian streams. River Research and

Applications 22(8): 853-869.

Liu, C. and Liu, X. 2009. Healthy River and its indication, criteria and standards. Journal of Geographical

Sciences 19: 3-11.

Liu, X, Zhang, Y and Zhang, J. 2006. Healthy Yellow River’s essence and indicators. Journal of

Geographical Sciences 16: 259-270.

Ma, X. and Ortolano, L. 2000. Environmental regulation in China: institutions, enforcement, and

compliance. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.

Marshall, J., Mcgregor, G., Marshall, S., Radcliffe, T. and Lobegeiger, J. 2006. Development of

Conceptual Pressure-Vector-Response Models for Queensland's Riverine Ecosystems. Aquatic

Ecosystems Technical Report no. 57, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, Brisbane.

MDBC (Murray-Darling Basin Commission) 2003. Proposal for Investment, An Implementation Program

of Structural and Operational Works and Measures (2003/04 to 2005/06). The Living Murray Initiative,

July. URL: http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1482/proposal_investment.pdf (accessed 18

September 2009).

Meng, W., Zhang, N., Zhang, Y. and Zheng, B. 2009. Integrated assessment of river health based on

water quality, aquatic life and physical habitat. Journal of Environmental Sciences 21: 1017 – 1027.

MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection) 2006. Report on the State of the Environment in China

2006. Ministry of Environmental Protection, People’s Republic of China. URL:

http://english.mep.gov.cn/standards_reports/soe/SOE2006/200711/t20071105_112567.htm (accessed

18 September 2009).

Metcalfe-Smith, J.L. 1996. Biological water quality assessment of rivers: use of macroinvertebrate

communities. In Petts, G. and Calow, P. (eds) River Restoration, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 17-43.

National Water Commission 2007. Australian Water Resources 2005. A baseline assessment of water

resources for the National Water Initiative, Level 2 Assessment, River and Wetland Health Theme,

Assessment of River and Wetland Health: An Australian Snapshot. Australian Government, Canberra,

May. URL: http://www.water.gov.au/publications/RWH_FARWH_Snapshot_090507.pdf (accessed 18

September 2009).

Ni, J.R. and Qian, Z. 2002. Functional no-flow events and their identification in the Lower Yellow River.

45(5): 449-457.

Norris, R.H. and Hawkins, C.P. 2000. Monitoring river health. Hydrobiologia 435: 5-17.

Norris, R.H., Dyer, F., Hairsine, P., Kennard, M., Linke, S., Merrin, L., Read, A., Robinson, W., Ryan, C.,

Wilkinson, S. and Williams, D. 2007. Australian Water Resources 2005. A baseline assessment of water

resources for the National Water Initiative. Level 2 Assessment. River and Wetland Health Theme.

53

Assessment of River and Wetland Health: A Framework for Comparative Assessment of the Ecological

Condition of Australian Rivers and Wetlands. National Water Commission, Canberra, May.

Norris, R.H., Liston, P. Davies, N., Dyer, F., Linke, S., Prosser, I. and Young, W. 2001. Snapshot of the

Murray-Darling Basin River Condition. Report by Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology,

University of Canberra and CSIRO Land and Water to Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra,

September.

OCSE (Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment) 2007. ACT State of the

Environment Report 2007/08. Australian Capital Territory. URL:

http://www.environmentcommissioner.act.gov.au/soe/2007actreport (accessed 18 September 2009).

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 1993. Core Set of Indicators for

Environmental Performance Reviews. Environment Monographs No.83. OECD, Paris.

Parsons, M., Thoms, M. and Norris, R., 2002. Australian River Assessment System: Review of Physical

River Assessment Methods — A Biological Perspective. Monitoring River Heath Initiative Technical

Report Number 21. Commonwealth of Australia and University of Canberra. Environment Australia,

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

Petersen, R.C. Jr 1992. The RCE: a Riparian, Channel and Environmental Inventory for small streams

in the agricultural landscape. Freshwater Biology 27: 295-306.

POST (The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) 2007. Ecosystem Services, Postnote 281.

London, March. 4 pp. URL: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn281.pdf (accessed 18

September 2009).

Raven, P.J., Fox, P., Everard, M., Holmes, N.T.H. and Dawson, F.H. 1997. River habitat survey: a new

system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In: Boon, P.J. and Howell, D.L. (eds.)

Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? The Stationery Office, Edinburgh. pp. 215-234.

Roberts, J. and Dyer, F. 2007. Magnitude of response: selecting sites for monitoring vegetation

response to environmental flows. In Wilson, A.L., Dehaan, R.L., Watts, R.J., Page, K.J., Bowmer, K.H.,

and Curtis, A. (2007). Proceedings of the 5th Australian Stream Management Conference. Australian

rivers: making a difference. Charles Sturt University, Thurgoona, New South Wales. URL:

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ilws/news/events/5asm/docs/proceedings/Roberts_Jane_330.pdf

(accessed 18 January 2010).

Rogers, K and Biggs, H. 1999. Integrating indicators, endpoints and value systems in strategic

management of the rivers of Kruger National Park. Freshwater Biology 41: 439-451.

Rose, T.A. and Bevitt, R. 2003. Snowy River Benchmarking and Environmental Flow Response

Monitoring Project: Summary Progress Report on available data from 1999-2001, for Environment

Australia. DIPNR, Cooma NSW. URL:

http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/rivers/nrhp/pubs/snowy.pdf (accessed

18 January 2010).

Rose, T.A. and Bevitt, R. 2005. Overall project design. Snowy River Flow Response Monitoring Project:

Snowy River recovery, Report Number 2. Department of Natural Resources, Cooma. URL:

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-management/Monitoring/Snowy-River/Snowy-River/default.aspx

(accessed 18 January 2010).

Rosenberg, D.M. and Resh, V.H. (eds) 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates.

Chapman and Hall, London.

Research and Markets 2008. Research on Water Supply and Water Treatment Market in China, 2008.

China Market Report. Research and Markets, Dublin, October, 45 p. URL:

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/661459/research_on_water_supply_and_water_treatment

(accessed 18 September 2009).

54

Rissik, D., Cox, M., Moss, A., Rose, D., Scheltinga, D., Newham, L.T.H., Andrews, A. and Baker-Finch,

S.C. 2005. VPSIRR (Vulnerability - Pressure - State - Impact - Risk and Response): an approach to

determine the condition of estuaries and to assess where management responses are required. In:

Zerger, A. and Argent, R.M. (eds) MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation,

Melbourne, December, pp. 170-176. URL: http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim05/papers/rissik.pdf

(accessed 18 September 2009).

Schofield, N. 2009. Ecological Assets of Northern Australia Study. Final Report. Sinclair Knight Merz,

Braddon. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Australian Government. April.

URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/action/pubs/nawfa-ecological-report.pdf

(accessed 18 September 2009).

Schofield, N.J. and Davies, P.E. 1996. Measuring the Health of our Rivers. Water, The Australian Water

Association, May/June 1996: 55–68.

SCPRC (State Council of the People's Republic of China) 2008. The National Eleventh Five-year Plan

for Environmental Protection (2006-2010). Approved by the State Council of the People's Republic of

China on 22 November 2007. Ministry of Environmental Protection, The People’s Republic of China,

Beijing. URL:

http://english.mep.gov.cn/Plans_Reports/11th_five_year_plan/200803/t20080305_119001.htm

(accessed 18 September 2009).

Simpson, J.C. and Norris, R.H. 2000. Biological assessment of river quality: development of AusRivAS

models and outputs. In Wright, J.F., Sutcliffe, D.W. and Furse, M.T. (eds) Assessing the Biological

Quality of Freshwaters. RIVPACS and Other Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association,

Ambelside, pp. 125-142.

SKM (Sinclair Knight Merz) 2005. Development of a Flow Stressed Ranking Procedure. Final Report to

Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. Sinclair Knight Merz, Armadale, Victoria.

SKM (Sinclair Knight Merz) 2007. High Conservation Value Aquatic Ecosystems Project – identifying,

categorising and managing HCVAE. Final Report. Sinclair Knight Merz, Armadale. Department of the

Environment and Water resources. Australian Government, March. URL:

http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/ecosystems/pubs/hcvae.pdf (accessed

18 September 2009).

SKM 2005. Development and Application of a Flow Stressed Ranking Procedure, Final A. Sinclair

Knight Merz. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria, April.

Smith, M.J. and Storey, A.W. 2001. Design and Implementation of baseline Monitoring (DIBM3).

Developing an Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program for Rivers and Streams in Southeast Queensland.

Report to the South East Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy, Brisbane. URL:

http://www.healthywaterways.org/EcosystemHealthMonitoringProgram/ProductsandPublications/EHMP

Reports.aspx (accessed 18 September 2009).

Southerland, M.T. and Stribling, J.B. 1995. Status of biological criteria development and implementation.

In Davis, W.W. and Simon, T.P. (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource

Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 81–96.

Stoddard J.L., Larsen D.P., Hawkins C.P., Johnson R.K., Norris R.H. 2006. Setting expectations for the

ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 16: 1267 –

1276.

Study Group on Environmental Monitoring 1977. Environmental Monitoring. Analytical Studies for the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Volume IV. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

van Dam, R., Bartolo, R. and Bayliss, P. 2006. Ecological risk assessments of key threats to Australia’s

tropical rivers: Overview, proposed framework and methodologies for the Tropical Rivers Inventory and

Assessment Project, Internal Report 517. Department of Environment and Heritage, Supervising

55

Scientist Division, Darwin, June. URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/ssd/tropical-rivers/pubs/tropical-

river-threats.pdf (accessed 18 September 2009).

Verdonschot, P.F.M. 2000. Integrated ecological assessment methods as a basis for sustainable

catchment management. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 389-412.

Whitton, B.A., Rott, E. and Friedrich, G. 1991. Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. E. Rott, Publisher,

Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Wright, J. F. 1995. Development and use of a system for predicting macroinvertebrates in flowing

waters. Aust. J. Ecol. 20: 181–197.