AUSRIVAS Aus tralian Ri ver A ssessment S ystem Richard Norris

1. AUSRIVASAustralian River Assessment System Richard Norris University of Canberra

2. The project origins • Pressure to maintain ecological values beginning in 1981 • Dec 1992 P.M. Keating asked for ideas to assess rivers - $10M allocated • 1993 CEPA co-sponsored conference on biological assessment • Critical advice • Focus on what we can do – not what we can’t • Recommended methods • Organization to run • Someone to take full carriage

3. Why the project? The 1200 km Darling River Blue-Green algal bloom in 1991 brought the health of the nation’s rivers to prominence.

4. The problem • Need to represent the ecosystem condition • Which biota? – fish, invertebrates, diatoms, plants? • Bioassessment seen as expensive • Standard assessment based on physical & chemical measures • Need for nationally comparable assessments • Shift in staff (biologists) & thinking nationwide

5. Importance Much work done overseas UK/US/Europe but little in Australia Need for a standardized national approach to build credibility & confidence. Assessment of sites & comparisons that cater for inevitable differences in site characteristics Bad Good Ugly

6. Standardized methods for sampling and data analysis METHODS Happy alliance between feds, states & researchers Internet based and managed with access to models password controlled SOFTWARE Central management and control over access >50 covering all of Australia - small derived data sets - final steps in analysis with client data MODELS AUSRIVAS: What is it?

7. Field & Laboratory Methods

8. AUSRIVAS: a delivery platform on the Web User Data AUSRIVAS: Choose & run model AUSRIVAS Output http://ausrivas.canberra.edu.au/ AUSRIVAS AUSRIVAS SAS Raw Model Manager User Output Anonymous HTTP access Upload Models list & Bug/Chem codes AusRivAS Manager: ARM Model data file Upload selected model data AUSRIVAS Manager: LEG HTTP SITE List of available Models Password HTTP access Bug/Chem Codes List of valid Bug/ Chem codes AUSRIVAS Manager: TOE .

9. ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: why ? Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology

10. AUSRIVAS: Outputs - taxa

11. AUSRIVAS: Outputs - predictions

12. Advantages No prior assumptions needed on causes of damage are required All reference sites are used for assessment Site specific prediction of which biota should occur (expected) & compare them to what was found (observed) Observed/Expected ratio (O/E): difference gives an indication of condition should be close to one Once developed new sites are easily assessed

13. NT Qld WA SA 1 Australian Government 6 State Governments 2 Territory Governments Many scientists – unis etc. NSW ACT Vic Tas Collaborators

14. More collaborators • International • UK – National Rivers Authority • US – EPA, Utah State, UC Berkeley, California Fish & Game, 60% of US state agencies, national assessment • Environment Canada, University of Western Ontario • Spain, Portugal, Indonesia, New Zealand

15. Achievements Nationally compatible standardized methods QA/QC procedures Standardized taxonomy & taxonomic resources Biologists in all state agencies Training – legacy AUSRIVAS on-line & F2F National accreditation system

16. Achievements (cont.) State of the Environment reporting National Land & Water Resources Audit Sustainable Rivers Audit – MDB Framework for the Assessment of River & Wetland Health Used by all states & Territories Many publications in scientific journals & conference pesentations

17. Achievements (cont) Audit by ACIL calculated the Internal Rate of Return for projects funded in 1995-96 to 2010 – 74% return for AUSRIVAS. The next highest of 8 projects assessed was 30%. Http://ausrivas.canberra.edu.au

18. Adoption of AUSRIVAS • AUSRIVAS formally adopted as a national indicator for State of the Environment Reporting and the National Land & Water Resources Auditat Federal and State levels in 1997-8 • AUSRIVAS incorporated into new National Water Quality Guidelinesin 1998/9 • AUSRIVAS adopted into state licensing and catchment management legislation

19. Implications 2001 SoE report – only two favourable findings for inland waters Some appropriate Government responses to management of water resources have been adopted, but implementation is patchy, and the controls may not be sufficient. The use of biological assessment of river health has developed to the stage where national assessments of river health can be achieved.

20. National assessment

21. Implications Philosophy behind site specificity & comparability applies generally Comparisons empirically determined Site specific predictions of composition Can avoid complicated study designs Easy to use and rapid Regional/state/national assessments – data used for many purposes Long-term data now used for climate change assessment

22. Contribution of LWA approach • ‘Thin’ administration – most funds to research • Research management – call for projects, contracts, auditing, coordination & integration • Program management – Peter Davies • State/territory/researcher facilitation • Oversight of NRHP development

23. AUSRIVAS now & future • Remains the main Aust bioassessment method • Responsibility shifted to DEWHA – okay while there was a strong internal supporter – may be rejuvenated with new national program • No new development in Australia but significant refinement overseas – esp in UK, Europe & US. Aust was a leader now left behind • Need for new developments to be incorporated • Need for new programming platform