1. Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program
Dr Julia Playford
Director
Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Health

2. Where do we want to be?
Healthy Ecosystems Poor Ecosystem Health

3. Why do we monitor?
EHMP based on a conceptual model that integrates
scientific understanding with community derived environmental values

4. Staged Approach in Design and Implementation
Monitor Ecosystem Health • Assess effectiveness of environmental protection
measures (e.g. stormwater controls, STP upgrades,
of Waterways to: riparian vegetation)
• Meet discharge and other licensing requirements
Design of Implementation of Extension to
Estuarine/Marine Estuarine/Marine Northern &
Program Program Southern regions
Design of Freshwater Trial of Freshwater Implementation of
Establish links between
Program Program Freshwater
agencies
Program
Set objectives based on
stakeholder needs

5. The SEQ Waterways Ecosystem Health Report Card represents a comprehensive
marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystem health monitoring program (snapshot of
the health of 18 catchments, 18 estuaries and 9 zones in Moreton Bay)
254 estuarine
135 freshwater and marine
sites sites

6. Report Card Grades reflect ecosystem health of waterways (achieve environmental
values)

7. What is the Report Card?
Most publicised output of the SEQ
Healthy Waterways Partnership
Easy-to-understand snapshot of
ecosystem health
A to F
Designed to provide an insight
into the effectiveness of
investments in waterway and
catchment management
Split into two reporting zones,
freshwater and estuarine/marine
Each has its own objectives,
parameters, methods and
analysis

8. Setting
Guidelines
Southeast

9. What goes into a Report Card Grade?
Estuarine Report Card Grade
Water Quality (EHI) Biological (BHR)
(70%) (30%)
- Bay: TN, Chl-a, Secchi depth,
Sewage nitrogen (δ15N),
- Bay: Seagrass distribution,
Seagrass depth range, Coral
Lyngbya cover
- Estuary: TN, TP, Chl-a,
Turbidity, DO
- Estuary: Seagrass
distribution, Riparian
assessment, Sewage nitrogen
(δ15N), Nutrient mixing
i.e. mostly parameters that i.e. Categorised, qualitative,
can be compared to an not assessed against a
established guideline guideline

10. BHR: Coral monitoring in Moreton Bay
3 x 20m replicate transects at 5
reef sites in Moreton Bay

11. Riparian Assessment Tool
Boat based
Designed to be used underway
Allows the entire system to be assessed (no sub sampling)

12. Doing the
RAP

13. Riparian Assessment Tool
• records multiple attributes every second

14. Percentage
A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
lb
e
B rt
re
45
m
C Bri er
ab s b
46
ba a n
ge e
33
Tr
M
a r ee
oo
58
ch
y
47
C Ox
ab le
oo y
l
51
C ture
oo
54
C me
ur r
ru a
m
28
Ep bin
ra
29
pa
Lo h
95
M
Estuary oo gan
lo
46
ol
ah
N
er
55
an
g
N
5
o
Pi os
m a
pa
82
m
Ta a
75
lle Pi
b u ne
dg
62
Ti era
ng
47
al
pa
92
% Natural for 18 Estuaries in South East Queensland in 2007

15. Freshwater Streams RC 2009
Improvements in biological indicators (macroinvertebrates and fish), reflecting positive
influence of higher flows – more native species and lower proportion of alien fish.
Decline in nutrient cycling processes in most reporting areas, reflecting the negative
influence of catchment loads (with high nutrients) on the nutrient cycling processes in river
systems.

16. Overall score of streams in 2009 (0.805) very similar to previous year’s (0.803).
Spring Autumn Annual
2008
2009
Higher Higher
Higher Higher
Lower Lower Lower

17. Never lose sight of the big picture

18. Trends from long-term datasets (Case: Bremer River)
EHMP 2001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Freshwater N/A F F D- D- D- D- D D- D+
Estuarine-Marine F F F F F F F D- F F
Bremer River Estuary TN Bremer River Estuary TP
3.5 2
1.8
3
1.6
2.5 1.4
1.2
2
TN (m g/l) 1 TP (m g/l)
1.5 0.8
1 0.6
0.4
0.5 0.2
0 0
5 5
YR99/00
YR99/00
YR00/01
YR00/01
YR01/02
YR01/02
YR02/03
Sites
YR02/03
Sites
YR03/04
YR03/04
YR04/05
YR04/05
YR05/06
YR05/06
1 1
YR06/07
YR06/07
YR07/08
YR07/08
YR08/09
YR08/09
YR09/10
YR09/10
Years Years
There have been substantial improvements in some aspects of
the estuarine portion of the river system, but those
improvements are not yet sufficient to result in changes in
EHMP grades.

19. How is the Report Card Used?

20. Why has the Report Card been successful?
Because it’s really simple, A is good, F is bad and any grade change has been
made for a definable reason (environmental or human induced)
It has consistently generated lots of public interest, particularly following the
launch – has become very political
From an early stage it engaged a range of decision makers – politicians,
catchment groups etc
We tend to get a good media coverage from the launch

21. New Products: On-line Report Card
Launch of health-e-waterways : Data Integration System for SEQ
waterways – first product is on-line Report Card

22. Reality check:
Some waterways host infrastructure/ modifications required for
society to function and obtaining high levels of ecological
condition in some sections may be unrealistic.
We need to acknowledge that 150+ years of human impacts
won’t be fixed overnight.