Elsevier

Environmental Science & Policy

Volume 66, December 2016, Pages 270-281
Environmental Science & Policy

Review
A review of Australian approaches for monitoring, assessing and reporting estuarine condition: II. State and Territory programs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.013Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Comprehensive review of programs across Australian States and Territories.

  • A systematic analysis of programs is provided in Appendices.

  • Outputs provide a strong basis for evaluating recent Australian progress.

  • Identifies major strengths, limitations, inconsistencies and gaps in each State.

  • Disparate policies, approaches and techniques are employed among States.

Abstract

In contrast to Europe, the USA and South Africa, Australia has no specific, overarching federal legislation to underpin a nationally-coordinated framework for monitoring, assessing and reporting estuarine condition. This has resulted in a complex mosaic of diverse approaches and governance structures, hindering the ability to make inter-State comparisons. In this second part of a comprehensive three-part review, we present a systematic appraisal of current and impending approaches for measuring and reporting estuarine condition in each of Australia’s States and Territories. A concise summary is provided in each case, supported by extensive appendices containing detailed accounts of relevant monitoring and reporting programs. We synthesise and evaluate this output at the State/Territory level, highlighting areas of improvement and major gaps.

Introduction

Consideration and management of water resources across the USA and Europe have changed fundamentally in recent decades following the respective implementation of the Clean Water Act and the Water Framework Directive (WFD). These pieces of legislation have necessitated innovation, refinement and consolidation of the practices and tools that are used to assess and report the condition of aquatic ecosystems, including estuaries (Gibson et al., 2000, Hering et al., 2010, Birk et al., 2012). Most importantly, and despite their many criticisms (Moss, 2008, Hering et al., 2010, Adler, 2013), both the Clean Water Act and the WFD aim to manage water resources in a more holistic, ecologically relevant and environmentally sustainable manner (Hering et al., 2010, Adler, 2013), requiring greater coordination of activities and approaches across large spatial scales.

Recently, several initiatives have been proposed to better integrate estuarine monitoring, assessment and reporting programs across Australia under a common and more holistic framework. These are outlined in Part I of this three-part review (Hallett et al., 2016a). However, and in contrast to the situation in Europe and the USA, Australia has no specific federal legislation to mandate and thus underpin such a framework. Responsibility for environmental management in Australia lies primarily with the States, creating disparities across the nation in the policies, legislation, governance and approaches for monitoring and reporting the ecosystem health of estuaries (Smith et al., 2001, Borja et al., 2008, Borja et al., 2012; Hallett et al., 2016a).

Previous reviews of Australian approaches for monitoring, assessing and reporting estuarine condition have largely been limited to specific ecosystem components, particular regions or States, or have considered only a small number of high-profile programs (e.g. Barton, 2003, Hirst, 2008, Borja et al., 2012). We aim to address this gap through a timely and comprehensive review, focussing in this second part on a systematic description of current and impending approaches in each of Australia’s States and Territories. We then synthesise and evaluate this output against characteristics of international best practice (Hallett et al., 2016a), highlighting major strengths and weaknesses within each State. Appendices A–G (Supplementary material) provide detailed descriptions of the elements, procedures, thresholds and reporting employed under each of the programs considered in the following text, with extensive referencing of source material.

Section snippets

Queensland

South-East Queensland (SEQ; Fig. 1), from the NSW border north to Noosa, has the most intensive water quality monitoring program in Queensland. This monitoring has been synthesised and publicly reported through an annual report card, monthly updates, annual technical reports and various web pages for the past 15 years under the Healthy Waterways Partnership (www.healthywaterways.org). Prior to 1999 and the establishment of the Healthy Waterways Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) in SEQ,

New South Wales (NSW)

Estuary monitoring in NSW is specifically focussed on long term trends in estuary health. It aims to collect a focussed set of data from as many systems as possible, allowing tracking of trends through time and in response to management (NSW DECCW, 2010). Estuary management in NSW is primarily the responsibility of local government, with technical and policy support from State government. Until recently, management has focussed on estuary foreshores and entrances, but in the last decade that

Victoria

Much of Victoria’s past estuarine monitoring effort has focused on four large systems, three of which are essentially marine embayments (Port Phillip Bay, Western Port Bay and Corner Inlet/Nooramunga) and the other of which is one of Australia’s largest estuaries (Gippsland Lakes) (Fig. 1). Routine monitoring of Victoria’s other estuaries has, however, increased over the last decade, in addition to some regional and system-specific programs addressing select aspects of estuary health. While

Tasmania

Monitoring of the condition of Tasmanian estuaries has been sporadic, except for several larger and seriously degraded systems and those containing aquaculture operations. According to the latest State of the Environment (SoE) report for Tasmania (Tasmanian Planning Commission, 2009), the condition of the State’s estuaries is variable, pressures are generally increasing and information and knowledge is poor for most estuaries.

The longest continuous monitoring program of estuarine condition in

South Australia (SA)

Aside from the iconic estuary at the mouth of the Murray River (see below), much of the current estuarine monitoring in SA occurs in Gulf St Vincent and Spencer Gulf (Fig. 1) which, although actually coastal nearshore areas, are often considered to be inverse estuaries (SA DEH, 2007). Very few of the remaining estuaries in SA currently have monitoring programs in place to detect potential changes. Most water quality monitoring occurs in the freshwater parts of the river systems (e.g. upper and

Western Australia (WA)

The past decade has seen periodic changes in the governance frameworks and agencies responsible for monitoring and reporting on estuarine condition across WA. The Department of Water (DoW) is now the lead agency for estuary management across WA and coordinates a State-wide water quality program. An exception is the Swan-Canning Estuary, whose management since 1989 has been overseen by a statutory body, the Swan River Trust. In 2013 the Trust was subsumed within newly created Department of Parks

Northern Territory (NT)

The majority of NT estuaries are in near-pristine condition (NLWRA, 2002), due largely to their distance from major population centres. Management of these estuaries typically focuses on maintaining and protecting their existing condition, but as monitoring is often limited and benchmarks are not well established (see Supplementary data Appendix G), there is little quantitative basis for detecting change. Recent years have, however, seen limited investment in baseline condition assessments,

Synthesis

State and Territory programs were assessed against the criteria of international best practice established in part I of this review (Hallett et al., 2016a). Large disparities in the degree to which these programs fulfil the evaluation criteria were evident across jurisdictions (Table 1). Monitoring and reporting programs in NSW and, to a lesser extent, Queensland generally met many of the criteria, with the former State, in particular, possessing a well-developed legislative and governance

Conclusions

Part two of this review has highlighted the enormous diversity of policies and approaches for monitoring, assessing and reporting estuarine condition across the States and Northern Territory of Australia. Common limitations include (i) over-reliance on physico-chemical elements of estuarine condition, and primarily water quality, (ii) failure to quantify pressures across varied and appropriate spatial scales, and (iii) dramatic inconsistencies in the spatio-temporal coverage of monitoring. The

Acknowledgements

We are incredibly grateful to the many estuarine researchers and managers who kindly provided information and constructive feedback for this work, and to the anonymous reviewer of our manuscript whose efforts helped to improve all three parts of this review. We also wish to thank Lynda Radke and the attendees of the 2014 National Estuaries Network meeting for providing an opportunity to present and develop our work and for their invaluable input to this review.

References (69)

  • ANZECC and ARMCANZ. (2000). National Water Quality Management Strategy: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh...
  • R.W. Adler

    The decline and (possible) renewal of aspiration in the Clean Water Act

    Washington Law Rev.

    (2013)
  • H. Arundel et al.

    A Review of Knowledge of Selected Estuaries in the Port Phillip Bay and Western Port Bay Regions

    (2007)
  • H. Arundel et al.

    Victorian Index of Estuary Condition: Recommended Themes and Measures

    (2009)
  • N.S. Barrett et al.

    The conservation significance of estuaries: a classification of Tasmanian estuaries using ecological, physical and demographic attributes as a case study

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2000)
  • J. Barton et al.

    Identifying Threats to the Ecological Condition of Victorian Estuaries

    (2008)
  • J. Barton

    Estuarine Health Monitoring and Assessment Review

    (2003)
  • Beazley, L. (2010). Dolphin deaths in the Swan Canning Riverpark and comments on the Bunbury inner waters, South-west...
  • A. Borja et al.

    Classifying ecological quality and integrity of estuaries

  • C. Crawford et al.

    Monitoring and Management of Tasmanian Estuaries —Technical Report

    (2012)
  • R.G. Creese et al.

    Mapping the Habitats of NSW Estuaries. Final Report 113, Industry & Investment NSW Fisheries Series

    (2009)
  • Creese, B., Glasby, T., Hickey, C., Campey, M., Jordan, S. and Davies, P. (2011). Assessing the condition of marine...
  • DEPI—Department of Environment and Primary Industries. (2013). Improving our Waterways: Victorian Waterway Management...
  • DEWNR—Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources South Australia. (2013). 2013 State Report Card: Is the...
  • DHAC—Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. (2005). A Review of Environmental Monitoring of the Darwin Harbour Region and...
  • DLRM—Department of Land and Resource Management. (2012). Darwin Harbour Region Report Card 2012. Department of Land...
  • DLRM—Department of Land and Resource Management. (2013). Darwin Harbour Region Report Card 2013. Department of Land...
  • Dennison, W.C. and Task DIBM Team. (1999). Final report, Task DIBM: Design and Implementation of Baseline Monitoring:...
  • K.S. Edyvane

    Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia – Part 2 – Identification of Areas of High Conservation Value in South Australia

    (1999)
  • Faulks, J.J. (1998). Top End Waterways Project, Daly River Catchment: An Assessment of the Physical and Ecological...
  • Fitzroy Partnership for River Health. (2014). The Partnership Program Design for the Development of Report Cards, Phase...
  • Fortune, J. and Drewry, J. (Eds). (2011). Darwin Harbour Region Research and Monitoring 2011. Report number 18/2011D....
  • Fortune, J. and Maly, G. (2009). Phase One Report: Towards the Development of a Water Quality Protection Plan for the...
  • S. Fox

    Co-ordinating monitoring and research programs in Darwin Harbour

  • Cited by (15)

    • Catastrophic events and estuarine connectivity influence presence of aquatic macrophytes and trophic status of intermittently-open coastal lagoons in eastern Australia

      2020, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      This assumption is based on the observations that other intermittent systems do not drain below 0–0.5 m AHD (i.e. mean tide level or slightly higher) due to inflows from the ocean when entrances are open. A large estuary health sampling program is undertaken in NSW by the NSW Government (OEH (2016); Hallett et al. (2016)) over a latitudinal range from 28 oS to 37.4 oS – (approximately 1100 km). In each austral summer since 2007–2008, physical, chemical and biological properties of water are measured 6 times each summer at each of 2–3 central basin sites in multiple estuaries in NSW.

    • Designing report cards for aquatic health with a whole-of-system approach: Gladstone Harbour in the Great Barrier Reef

      2019, Ecological Indicators
      Citation Excerpt :

      However other programs across the state are also starting to include more biological and social reporting. This trend holds Australia-wide (Hallett et al., 2016c) and further afield, so other report card programs may want to consider the way in which habitat measures such as seagrass, and indicators of social wellbeing have been included in this report card. An important aspect of the review was assessing alignment between the Gladstone Harbour Report Card with overall Great Barrier Reef monitoring objectives and targets (Australian Government, Queensland Government, 2018).

    • Peel-Harvey Estuary, Western Australia

      2019, Coasts and Estuaries: The Future
    • A review of Australian approaches for monitoring, assessing and reporting estuarine condition: III. Evaluation against international best practice and recommendations for the future

      2016, Environmental Science and Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Borja et al. (2012) suggested, however, that a large number of emerging projects and programs were likely to address this deficiency in the coming years. In part II of the current review (Hallett et al., 2016c), we systematically documented many of these more recent (and existing) programs, providing State-by-State summaries and supporting detailed Appendices, which now provide a sound basis for evaluating recent Australian progress in this area. Here, in the concluding part of the review, we provide a national-level synthesis of these Australian approaches to assessing, monitoring and reporting estuarine condition and evaluate them against the objective criteria reflecting international best practice that were established in Part I (Hallett et al., 2016b).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text