National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting
(NEMaR)
Summary of Recommendations for National Freshwater
Monitoring and Reporting
Prepared for Ministry for the Environment
April 2012
Authors/Contributors:
Jochen Schmidt
For any information regarding this report please contact:
Jochen Schmidt
Chief Scientist
Environmental Information
+64-3-348 8987
Jochen.schmidt@niwa.co.nz
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd
10 Kyle Street
Riccarton
Christchurch 8011
PO Box 8602, Riccarton
Christchurch 8440
New Zealand
Phone +64-3-348 8987
Fax +64-3-348 5548
NIWA Client Report No:
Report date:
NIWA Project:
CHC2012-029
April 2012
MFE12201
© All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the
permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the
terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any
storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system.
Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this
document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of
the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those
specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client.
Contents
1
Background ................................................................................................................. 4
2
Indicators recommended for National Freshwater Reporting .................................. 5
3
Variables recommended for National Freshwater Monitoring ................................. 6
4
Network design principles recommended for National (River) Freshwater
Monitoring.................................................................................................................... 8
5
References ................................................................................................................. 10
Reviewed by
Approved for release by
NA (summary report)
Jochen Schmidt
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)
1
Background
In 2011, NIWA, GNS, and Opus evaluated options for revising national-scale freshwater
monitoring and reporting in New Zealand for the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) (DaviesColley et al. 2011, Hudson et al. 2011). These evaluations were the first steps in the MfE
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR) project. Three broad issues in
freshwater monitoring were considered: variables or analytes, indicators, and the spatial
layout of monitoring networks. The reports and subsequent peer-reviews identified issues
that needed to be addressed in order to achieve consistent national-scale freshwater
monitoring and reporting.
To address these issues, an expert panel composed of regional council, central government,
university, consultancy, and CRI staff was formed for each project area, and workshops were
held in 2011. The general aims of the workshops were to 1) seek consensus and provide
recommendations on methods for improving national monitoring and reporting on freshwater
ecosystems; 2) identify issues for which consensus was not reached and provide options to
resolve those issues. The expert panels were instructed to report points of consensus and
points lacking consensus to a steering committee composed of regional and central
government staff. The steering committee was tasked to make final recommendations and
decisions, in particular around points of lacking consensus. Three reports (Hudson et al.
2012, Davies-Colley et al. 2012, Larned et al. 2012) document the workshops outcomes, the
expert panel recommendations, and the steering committee decisions for:

Indicators for National Freshwater Reporting

Variables for National Freshwater Monitoring

Network design principles for National (River) Freshwater Monitoring
This report provides a summary of the three reports and the information provided is fully
sourced from the three reports.
National Freshwater Reporting Objective
A key definition was provided in response to expert panel feedback. The project team
proposed that national reporting of the state of “water quality” should be based on
assessment of ecological integrity, defined as:
“The degree to which the physical, chemical and biological components (including
composition, structure and process) of an ecosystem and their relationships are
present, functioning and maintained close to a reference condition reflecting
negligible or minimal anthropogenic impacts).”
While this definition was accepted by the expert panels, it is only one of a series of definitions
required for terms, objectives and limitations associated with use of indicators for water
quality assessment and reporting. Use of the term “water quality” in this report has regard for
the definition of ecological integrity cited above, is not limited to physico-chemical state and
extends to include condition, ecological health and ultimately, cultural health.
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)
4
2
Indicators recommended for National Freshwater
Reporting
1.
Recreational, river and lake water quality or condition should be described by three
composite or single indicators (“super-indices”).
2.
Future development of assessment and reporting tool should also include cultural
indicators for possible inclusion.
3.
Comparison of the cost of meeting current regional monitoring requirements with the
costs associated collecting all the data and information required to calculate the
proposed indicators would be valuable. It will also be possible to consider costs and
benefits once this information is available.
4.
A selection of discrete sub-indices for contact recreation, river condition and lake
condition were recommended for further assessment and trial (details in Hudson et al
2012). Specific issues with regards to the recommended indicators include the
following.
5.

For recreational water quality assessment, work is required with regard to litter
assessment (rivers, lakes and saline waters), while for lakes, methods for
assessing macrophytes are likely to require development.

All secondary indicators for assessing and reporting lake condition require
further development or demonstration of fitness for purpose.

For river water quality or condition, inclusion of water temperature and dissolved
oxygen concentration requires further development and the demonstration that
the data may be obtained in a cost-effective manner.
Three following specific water quality indices should be assessed in detail. This should
be done with a view to identifying elements that will need to be considered before
specific sub-indicators may be integrated into a super-index used for national reporting
in New Zealand.

the CCME water quality index1

the Victorian ISC2 and

the Queensland EHMP index3.
Further assessment should include demonstrating their suitability for New Zealand
national freshwater monitoring and reporting purposes, clearly identifying the
computational and calculation sequences, as well as the reason for incorporation, and
any modifications required to enable them to meet New Zealand requirements. This
assessment process should begin by updating available information with current
information from the developers of these indices.
1
http://www.ccme.ca/ourwork/water.html?category_id=102
http://www.water.vic.gov.au/monitoring/river-health/isc
3
http://www.healthywaterways.org/home1.aspx
2
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)
5
3
Variables recommended for National Freshwater
Monitoring
1.
A set of variables were defined and a recommendation was given on monitoring
frequency (‘timing’), and variables were rated as to ‘usefulness’, ‘cost’ and ‘feasibility’
(details in Davies-Colley et al. 2012). The intention was that ‘rationalisation’ of variables
could be achieved in future using the ‘cost’ to ‘usefulness’ (cost-benefit) ratio together
with consideration of redundancy between variables. There was a fairly high degree of
consensus around the water quality variables that need to be monitored in rivers and
lakes, and the timing of monitoring visits. However there is some redundancy in
variables considered and there was controversy around certain variables.
2.
River Water Quality Monitoring.
3.
6

Sampling visits should be monthly – to consistent protocols that are yet to be
recommended.

General physico-chemical variables to support national reporting that should be
monitored routinely and indefinitely are temperature and dissolved oxygen.
Electrical conductivity and pH are useful supporting variables. Continuous
monitoring of the (diurnally fluctuating) variables temperature and DO (and pH)
is desirable (but continuous DO measurement is challenging).

The main optical variable needed for national reporting that should be
monitored routinely and indefinitely is visual clarity. TSS should also be
monitored (regardless of the fact that it may not comprise part of the composite
indicator Hudson et al. 2012), and turbidity is optional (Continuous turbidity is
more valuable than discrete turbidity on regular monthly sampling, but much
more difficult to obtain).

Five forms of nutrients to be monitored routinely and indefinitely are: total
nitrogen and total phosphorus, and dissolved inorganic forms of both major
nutrient elements (dissolved reactive phosphorus, oxidised nitrogen and
ammoniacal nitrogen).

E. coli, the currently favoured microbiological indicator for freshwaters, should
be measured routinely and indefinitely

River flow needs to be estimated from a nearby rated flow site (ideally, but not
necessarily a continuous recorder).

Gross organic indicators such as organic carbon and BOD5 were not
considered necessary for routine, indefinite monitoring of rivers.

Several variables are valuable for characterisation of local issues, but are not
needed for national reporting. These variables include CDOM, major ions, and
certain toxic metals (Zn, Cu, Cd). They might be added in temporary local
campaigns or measured for one-year-in-five rather than routinely.
River bio-monitoring
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)
There was considerable discussion (and some diversity of opinion) around issues in river
biological monitoring, such as the lack of well-established protocols (e.g., for fish monitoring
and sampling benthos in non-wadeable rivers). There is a need for further decisions around
the extent to which biomonitoring and water quality monitoring of rivers can be integrated at
common sites – which has major implications for network design.
4.

Macroinvertebrate monitoring (suitable for QMCI calculation) is strongly
recommended for routine annual, indefinite river biomonitoring.

Fish are considered an essential component of monitoring, probably annual, but
protocols need development.

Periphyton monitoring is strongly recommended for annual routine, indefinite
monitoring.

Physical habitat monitoring (annually) is recommended.

Hydrological underpinning of biomonitoring is recommended, probably based on
continuous flow recording at nearby sites. However advice is needed on
suitable hydrological indices.
Lake Monitoring

Monthly Trophic Level Index monitoring (TLI) is strongly endorsed for lake
monitoring.

Depth profiling of temperature and dissolved oxygen is recommended at the
times of sampling for TLI.

LakeSPI, based on SCUBA survey of submerged macrophytes in lakes, is
recommended as an indicator of lake condition that complements TLI
measurement

Water level should also be recorded when sampling lakes.

Network design principles recommended for National (River) Freshwater
Monitoring
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)
7
4
Network design principles recommended for National
(River) Freshwater Monitoring
Note: Due to time constraints scope of this project focused on river monitoring
networks.
1.
The primary purposes of the National Freshwater Monitoring Programme are to obtain
unbiased estimates of environmental states and trends, and comparisons of state and
trend among selected environmental classes, including reference classes. The first
purpose has higher priority than the second.
2.
Water quality and ecological monitoring sites should be integrated. Identification of
potential new sites should take their suitability for combined water quality and
ecological sampling into account. Ideally, all sites would be used for combined water
quality and ecological monitoring.

While the consensus was to integrate water quality and ecological monitoring
sites, this decision had to balance the question about whether the most valuable
or informative water quality and ecological data come from river reaches of
different order or from different locations in a catchment. Arguably, ecological
data should ideally be collected over a wide range of reach sizes and orders,
while water quality data should be collected on high-order reaches, to measure
the integrated effects of land use, and to facilitate load estimates. This position
conflicts with the consensus about integrating water quality and ecological
monitoring sites. The panel’s decision balanced this with the advantages of
combined sites (e.g. water quality data informing ecology data, consistent trend
analyses for both water quality and ecology, etc.)

Protocols for ecological sampling at non-wadeable sites should be developed to
enable integration of water quality and ecological monitoring sites.
3.
Fixed monitoring sites are generally preferable to rotating sites for trend analysis,
because site-specific trend analyses are considered valuable, and adequate numbers
of data derived from fixed sites are required for these analyses. It was noted that
rotating network designs can be comprised of fixed sites that are sampled in a multiyear rotation.
4.
Comparisons of reference classes or reference conditions versus impacted classes
should be included. The panel considered that some comparisons between impacted
classes are also important, but did not specify which classes should be included.
Unimpacted reference sites are a high priority gap in the current river monitoring
network.

8
While there was consensus that reference classes and reference conditions
have high priority for comparisons of state and trend, the high-priority impacted
classes (e.g., pastoral, urban) which should be included in those comparisons
were not identified. This information gap also prevents identification of the
appropriate reference sites. In addition, the most important comparisons
between two or more impacted classes were not identified.
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)
5.
Use of both Freshwater Environments of New Zealand (FWENZ) and River
Environment Classification (REC) for assessment of the environmental classes for the
current ecological monitoring network was recommended. Updated site lists and
datasets are required to carry out the assessments of the current networks.
6.
For identifying prospective sites to fill high-priority gaps in the network, a procedure that
combines stratification using an environmental classification with randomised site
selection within classes is recommended. Proximity to hydrometric sites should be
used to screen prospective sites.
7.
Relationships between regional council and national requirements for reporting on
freshwater environments need to be clarified. Similarly, relationships between
monitoring to assess ecological conditions and to assess human health risks need to
be identified.
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)
9
5
References
Davies-Colley, R.; Larned, S.; Unwin, M.; Verburg, P.; Hughes, A.; McBride, G.;
Ballantine, D.; Hudson, N.; Daughney, C.; Hamill, K. (2011). Dependable
monitoring of freshwaters for national-scale environmental reporting. NIWA
Client report HAM2011-055 for the Ministry for the Environment.
Davies-Colley, R.; Verburg, P.; Hughes, A.; Storey, R. (2012). National
Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR). Variables for National
Freshwater Monitoring. NIWA Client report HAM2012-006 for the Ministry for the
Environment.
Hudson, N.; Ballantine, D.; Gibbs, M.; de Winton, M.; Storey, R.; Verburg, P.; Hamill,
K. (2011). Investigation of single indicators for water quality assessment and
reporting. NIWA client report HAM2011-066 for the Ministry for the Environment.
Hudson, N.; Ballantine, D.; Storey, R.; Schmidt, J.;Davies-Colley, R.; (2012).
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR). Indicators for
National Freshwater Reporting. NIWA Client report HAM2012-025 for the Ministry
for the Environment.
Larned, S; Snelder, T.; Schmidt, J. (2012). National Environmental Monitoring and
Reporting (NEMaR). Network design principles for National Freshwater
Monitoring. NIWA Client report CHC2012-027 for the Ministry for the
Environment.
10
National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting (NEMaR)