Framework

Monitor and review performance

A well-designed monitoring program is part of a conjunctive water management approach. The current understanding of catchment processes, evolved from the processes of data collation, assessment, conceptualisation and predictive modelling, can be used to design a cost-effective and robust monitoring program.

Catchment monitoring requires establishing a set of indicators that are able to show changes in management and in resource condition. Such indicators need to relate to the key management issues and the management targets established for the catchment at appropriate spatial and temporal resolutions. Such indicators are generally considered to have the properties of being simple, measurable, accessible, relevant and timely. Examples include:

  1. surface water gauging of flow, level and quality (eg salinity, nutrients);
  2. groundwater levels and quality;
  3. water usage from extraction points;
  4. land use and land use practices; and
  5. in-stream ecosystem health such as indicator species.

Monitoring is the reality check for managers. This requires reviews on a regular basis to:

  1. identify any emerging management issues in the catchment that may need addressing;
  2. identify information gaps that, when corrected, would improve assessment of catchment processes;
  3. validate and potentially update the understanding and conceptualisation of key water processes;
  4. help verify or improve the calibration of any predictive models;
  5. evaluate progress towards the management targets identified for the catchment;
  6. check that conjunctive water management options were implemented appropriately;
  7. test the appropriateness and effectiveness of these management options; and
  8. ensure that there is compliance with established rules and regulations.

National NRM Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Many catchments already have a monitoring and evaluation framework established related to the key land and water management issues. Over recent years, efforts have been made to better coordinate monitoring and to provide consistency in approaches and standards. To this end, the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC), has endorsed the National Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework is aimed at assessing progress related to the:

  1. health of the nation's land, water, vegetation and biological resources; and
  2. performance of programs, strategies and policies that provide national approaches to the conservation, sustainable use and management of these resources.

The M&E Framework ensures processes are useable, cost-effective, accurate, comprehensive and transparent. The arrangements for monitoring and evaluation, outlined in the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) Bilateral Agreements between the Commonwealth and each State/Territory, require each jurisdiction to develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation Plan. Effective monitoring and evaluation arrangements also need to be in place at the regional level, as this is a requirement for the accreditation of regional NRM plans.

The M&E Framework requires that data infrastructure to support the framework:

  1. avoids duplication of effort, and maximises the benefits of earlier investment in data collection, by building on existing State, Territory and Commonwealth initiatives for developing and sharing of data such as the NLWRA and State of the Environment (SoE) reporting;
  2. uses data for multiple purposes, wherever possible. In particular, data are collected so that they can be used for both monitoring resource condition and assessing program outcomes. This requires data to be collected in such a way as to permit their use at a range of scales and levels (national, state, regional and local);
  3. ensures that users can obtain the data. Data are easily accessible to all sectors of the community in format, location, cost and under conditions that do not inhibit their use;
  4. ensures that users can easily find out whether suitable data already exist. All data are documented in the Australian Spatial Data Directory with sufficient information for users to determine whether the data are suitable for their intended purpose;
  5. supports meaningful interpretation of data over time by establishing standard national indicators, protocols for their sampling, measurement and interpretation, and data quality and management requirements. Protocols specify the quality of the data to be produced and ensure the data can be used for their intended purposes. To maximise their use and comparability, where required, data are developed and maintained to meet agreed international or national guidelines or standards for the management of spatial information as endorsed by ANZLIC or national coordination arrangements. Quality assurance and control requirements will ensure the consistency of the monitoring process over time and across jurisdictions and may necessitate the accreditation of complying monitoring programs; and
  6. specifies the assumptions on which monitoring and evaluation activities are undertaken in a consistent manner, which is open to all stakeholders.

Monitoring of Connected Water Resources

In connected groundwater-surface water systems, the need to rigorously account for flows across the two resources adds additional complexity to monitoring requirements. Surface water reporting and monitoring is usually supported by some degree of centralised coordination, validation and management. With some notable exceptions, groundwater reporting and monitoring tends to be a lower priority dataset, resulting in patchy, isolated, lower confidence data. There is a need for greater integration of surface water and groundwater monitoring in a catchment to understand and manage the influence of groundwater-surface water interactions.

As well as long-term time-series hydrographic monitoring, water sampling programs involving analysis of a comprehensive range of parameters is also recommended. These are designed to highlight any emerging management issues that may not have been recognised or anticipated in previous assessments. This acknowledges that management needs to be adaptive and able to respond to changing situations.

Figure 2 gives an example of an integrated approach to the monitoring of surface water and groundwater systems at a site. Stream water levels are logged using a pressure transducer or other technology (1) and calibrated by manual measurements from the installed gauge plate (2). By establishing a flow rating curve, the stream level data can be converted to a stream flow hydrograph. Such flow data is critical for water resource management and is used for hydrographic analysis of the baseflow component of streamflow. The same water level data can be also compared with the time-series record of groundwater levels measured from piezometers set at different depths within the shallow aquifer (3). This provides information on the changes in near-stream vertical head gradient (hence the potential direction of seepage flux) through time. Temperature loggers can be readily and cheaply installed in both the stream and the shallow piezometers in heat tracer studies to simulate variations in seepage flux. Pump (or slug) tests undertaken on the shallow piezometers can be used to validate the interpretation of aquifer transmissivity. The piezometers can also provide the infrastructure to undertake artificial tracer tests to confirm the responsiveness and direction of seepage. Water quality monitoring (such as EC and pH) can also incorporated into the site to help monitor catchment condition and provide the opportunity to use environmental tracers to evaluate connectivity. The monitoring data (flow, temperature, water quality) can also be used in ecological studies at the site.

Figure 1 places these in-stream monitoring sites in a catchment context. Sites similar in concept to Figure 2 can be established at key points along the stream. The resulting stream flow data can be incorporated into a water balance analysis for the intervening reach. By accounting for other water budget components (such as tributary flow or water diversions), an estimate of seepage flux can be made on a reach-by-reach basis. A transect of piezometers provides an overview of groundwater conditions away from the monitoring site. These can monitor groundwater levels and changes in the hydraulic gradient through time. These transects may not necessarily be constructed perpendicular to the stream, depending on the geometry of the groundwater flow lines (Woessner, 2000). The actual location of the transects and in-stream sites will depend on a range of factors such as access, logistics, proximity to surface water and groundwater development, and existing monitoring infrastructure. Survey methods such as geophysics or hydrochemistry can also be used to target suitable sites. At least one of the piezometers should be located in a relatively undeveloped part of the catchment to monitor baseline conditions.

Schematic diagram of a suggested approach to monitoring of a connected water resource including integrated in-stream sites (1) and piezometers (2)
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of a suggested approach to monitoring of a connected water resource including integrated in-stream sites (1) and piezometers (2)

photo and diagram of combined monitoring of stream and shallow groundwater systems
Figure 2: Example of combined monitoring of stream and shallow groundwater systems (a) Design of water level, temperature and water quality monitoring (b) Example in the Lower Richmond catchment (Brodie et al, 2005)

Relevant Links

NWQMS Australian guidelines for water quality monitoring and reporting
DEH Water quality targets
Waterwatch Australian natinal technical manual - biological parameters
Waterwatch Australian national technical manual - physical and chemical parameters
Waterwatch Australian national technical manual - groundwater monitoring
US Geological Survey Groundwater monitoring network design

References

Brodie RS, Baskaran S, Hostetler S, 2005. Tools for assessing groundwater-surface water interactions: a case study in the Lower Richmond catchment, NSW. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Woessner WW, 2000. Stream and fluvial groundwater interactions: rescaling hydrogeological thought. Ground Water 38(3): 423-429.