Australia is developing a national river health monitoring framework to standardize assessments across states. Trials of the Framework for Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH) took place from 2005-2011. FARWH uses six indices - hydrology, physical form, catchment disturbance, fringing zone, aquatic biota, and water quality - to assess condition on a scale of 0 to 1. The trials found this approach was achievable but more work is needed to define reference conditions. A two-tiered assessment approach was proposed using broadscale desktop assessments followed by targeted field assessments. Five options were presented for national reporting ranging from the current jurisdictional approach to national reporting every 5 years with both broadscale and detailed field assessments

1. Australia’s approach to developing a
national river health monitoring
framework
Robert Speed
Beijing, 22 February 2012

2. Background
• Federal system – state governments with primary
responsibility for water management
• Existing state- and basin-level river health monitoring

3. Victoria – Index of Stream Condition

4. Murray Darling Basin – Sustainable Rivers Audit
Border Rivers
Fish Macroinvertebrates

5. • Expanding role of federal government in water
• Major investments (>AUD$10 billion) to improve river
health
• 2005 Report from National Water Commission identified
need for national-level reporting.
Presentation Heading

6. FARWH - National Framework for
Assessment of River and Wetland Health
• Designed to provide the information necessary to:
– establish ‘environmental and other public benefit outcomes’
– ‘address currently over allocated and/or overused systems’
– support ‘integrated management of environmental water’
(water policy priorities under the 2004 National Water Initiative)
• Series of trials between 2005 – 2011
• Final report in September 2011

7. General approach to pilot studies
• Use existing data/monitoring programs to greatest
possible extent
• Assessment at river reach/wetland scale , with at least
5% of river reaches or wetlands to be represented
• Develop methods for weighting of sites – e.g. based on
reach length represented by the site – to allow for
reporting at a regional level

8. Indicators
• Total of 6 themes: hydrology, physical form, catchment
disturbance, fringing zone, aquatic biota, water quality
• A minimum of 3 of the 6 to be assessed before a
regional score is given
• Flexibility in which (sub)indicators

9. Reference condition
Set through a combination of:
– Minimally disturbed sites
– Historical data
– Modelled data
– Professional opinion
Guiding principle that reference should be as close as
possible to natural (pre-European)

10. Standardising scores
Scores standardized such that it doesn’t matter
which themes or which sub-indicators are used.
E.g. 0.8 for salinity = 0.8 for nutrients
| (site value – reference value) |
Score = 1.0 -
| (worst case value – reference value) |

11. Figure 1: The initial FARWH assessment approach
A s s e s s m e n ts
D a t a a n a ly s is F A R W H c o n d it io n
a n d d a ta A p p lic a tio n s
( fo r e a c h s u b - in d e x a n d in d e x ) ( f o r e a c h in d e x )
c o lle c tio n
S u b - in d e x A C a tc h m e n t
C a tc h m e n t
S u b - in d e x B D is tu r b a n c e s c o r e
D is tu r b a n c e
S u b - in d e x C 0 – 1
S u b - in d e x A H y d r o lo g ic a l
H y d r o lo g ic a l
S u b - in d e x B D is tu r b a n c e s c o r e
D is tu r b a n c e
S u b - in d e x C 0 – 1
S u b - in d e x A
F r in g in g F r in g in g Z o n e s c o r e P r io r it is a t io n o f
S u b - in d e x B Zone 0 – 1 a c tio n s
P r e - e x is tin g S u b - in d e x C
ju r is d ic t io n a l
p ro g ra m s S u b - in d e x A W a te r Q u a lity a n d
W a te r Q u a lity J u r is d ic t io n a l
S u b - in d e x B S o ils s c o r e
a n d S o ils r e p o r t in g
S u b - in d e x C 0 – 1
S u b - in d e x A
P h y s ic a l P h y s ic a l F o r m s c o r e
S u b - in d e x B
F o rm 0 – 1
S u b - in d e x C
S u b - in d e x A
S u b - in d e x B A q u a tic B io t a s c o r e
A q u a t ic B io t a
0 - 1
S u b - in d e x C
C o m p le t e d fo r a s m a n y in d ic e s a s p o s s ib le
C u s to m is e a n d a d o p t lo c a lly r e le v a n t s u b - in d ic e s
W ill n o t a lw a y s b e t h r e e s u b - in d ic e s f o r e a c h in d e x

12. Pilot sites

14. nts (coloured dashed borders) for each index under each of the four FAR

16. Integration of sub-index and theme scores

17. Scores from Queensland FARWH trial
Burdekin Moreton Cooper Creek
Pioneer SWMA Tully SWMA
SWMA SWMA SWMA
Fringing Zone 0.61 0.56 0.41 0.86 0.90
Catchment
0.62 0.56 0.66 0.82 0.47
Disturbance
Aquatic Biota 0.82 0.89 0.72 0.83 0.67
Water Quality
0.84 0.86 0.75 0.85 0.86
and Soils
Hydrological
0.33 0.48 0.58 N/A N/A
Disturbance
Physical Form 0.96 0.86 0.97 0.90 0.70
Overall score 0.63 0.66 0.64 0.85 0.68
Table 21. Current era (2008–09) assessment for Qld FARWH trial SWMA

18. 5. Overall results for the 2008–09 assessment of th

19. Findings of the trial
Reporting of condition scores
2.The trials successfully applied the six key indices and
supported their use in future.
3.The trials found that the 0 to 1 condition rating was
achievable and (mostly) meaningful.
4.The trials identified the need to include an additional
measure of wetland extent.

20. Findings of trial (cont)
Reference condition
The trials supported the use of reference condition as a
way to identify and report on condition.
However, all trials found that further work was required to
improve the understanding of reference condition.
Two-tiered approach
A two-tiered approach would be useful to identify specific
areas for greater field sampling effort, based on an overall
broadscale assessment – used as basis for targeting
areas for more costly field-based assessments.

21. Figure 4: The proposed two-tiered FARWH assessment approach
Phase 1 – Desktop assessment

22. Phase 2 – Detailed condition assessment

23. Phase 3 – Output and validation

24. What next?
Five options presented to government:
•Continue with jurisdictional reporting (current practice)
•National reporting every 10 years
•National reporting every 5 years (broadscale assessment)
•National reporting every 5 years (broadscale + limited field
assessment)
•National reporting every 5 years (broadscale + detailed field
assessment)

25. Further information
www.nwc.gov.au
www.water.gov.au
Alignment of state and national
river and wetland health
assessment needs
Framework for the
assessment of river and
wetland health: findings from September 2011
the trials and options for
uptake
Alluvium Consulting
Waterlines Report Series No 58, September 2011
1
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES i

26. Thank you!