Brierley Fryirs Outhet Massey

8/13/2019 Brierley Fryirs Outhet Massey

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/brierley-fryirs-outhet-massey 1/32

Applied Geography 22 (2002) 91–122www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Application of the River Styles framework as abasis for river management in New South

Wales, Australia

G. Brierley a,∗, K. Fryirs a, D. Outhet b, C. Massey c

a Department of Physical Geography, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australiab New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation, PO Box 3720, Parramatta, NSW

2124, Australiac New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation, PO Box 118, Bega, NSW 2550,

Australia

Received 1 February 2001; received in revised form 15 June 2001; accepted 3 July 2001

Abstract

If strategies in natural resource management are to ‘work with nature’, reliable biophysicalbaseline data on ecosystem structure and function are required. The River Styles framework provides a geomorphic template upon which spatial and temporal linkages of biophysical pro-cesses are assessed within a catchment context. River Styles record river character and behav-iour. As the capacity for a river reach to adjust varies for each style, so too do managementissues and associated rehabilitation programmes. The framework also provides a basis forassessing geomorphic river condition and recovery potential, framed in terms of the evolution-ary pathways of differing River Styles in the period since the European settlement of Australia.

Within a catchment context, the River Styles framework provides a unified baseline uponwhich an array of additional information can be applied, thereby providing a consistent frame-work for management decision-making. The framework was developed as a research tool bygeomorphologists working in collaboration with the New South Wales Department of Landand Water Conservation, which has used it for a range of river management applications.Target conditions for rehabilitation programmes are framed within a catchment vision thatintegrates understanding of the character, behaviour, condition and recovery potential of eachreach. A prioritization procedure determines the most cost-effective and efficient strategiesthat should be implemented to work towards the catchment vision. In addition, the River Stylesframework is being used to identify rare or unusual geomorphic features that should be pre-

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-9850-8427; fax: +61-2-9850-8420.

E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Brierley).

0143-6228/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 1 4 3 - 6 2 2 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 9



92 G. Brierley et al. / Applied Geography 22 (2002) 91–122

served, assess riparian vegetation patterns and habitat availability along river courses, andderive water licensing, environmental flow and water quality policies that are relevant to riverneeds in each valley. Based on these principles, representative biomonitoring, benchmarking

and auditing procedures are being developed to evaluate river health. © 2002 Published byElsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Australia; Fluvial geomorphology; River management; River rehabilitation; River styles

Introduction

The theory and practice of environmental management in Australia have beensubjected to major changes in the past decade or so, with increasing emphasis onstakeholder and community initiatives in natural resources management (Conacher &Conacher, 2000). Many researchers now work directly with managers to bring aboutchanges in environmental practice. Geographers are ideally placed to work at theinterface between scientific understanding of biophysical processes and direct man-agement applications, through the provision of tools and techniques for catchmentplanning and on-the-ground applications in conservation and rehabilitation pro-grammes (Brookes & Shields, 1996; Downs & Thorne, 1996; Rutherfurd, Jerie,Walker, & Marsh, 2000). In this study, collaboration between researchers at Macqua-rie University and the New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conser-

vation (NSW DLWC) is documented, showing how this collaboration has changedthe focus of river management practices in New South Wales, particularly in theBega catchment, on the south coast.

Over the last decade or so principles from fluvial geomorphology have beenembraced as a core component of river management practices in Australia and over-seas (e.g. Newson, 1992; Sear, 1994; Downs, 1995a; Kondolf, 1995a; Sear, New-son & Brookes, 1995; Newson, Clark, Sear, & Brookes, 1998; Brierley, 1999;Rutherfurd, Jerie, Walker, & Marsh, 1999). Geomorphology provides an ideal start-ing point for evaluating the interaction of biophysical processes within a catchment,as geomorphological processes determine the structure, or physical template, of a

river system. Understanding of geomorphic processes, and determination of appropri-ate river structure and function at differing positions in catchments, are criticalcomponents in sustainable rehabilitation of aquatic ecosystems (Southwood, 1977;Poff & Ward, 1990; Newson, 1992; Brookes, 1995; Imhof, Fitzgibbon, & Annable,1996; Maddock, 1999). The geomorphic structure and function of many rivers aretied innately to vegetation cover and composition, and the loading of large woodydebris (e.g. Hickin, 1984; Brooks, 1999a; Millar, 2000). These interactions inducedirect controls on the distribution of flow energy, dictating local-scale patterns of erosion and deposition at differing flow stages. When tied to sediment availabilityand flow variability, geomorphic structure dictates the diversity of hydraulic units and

associated habitats along river courses, and many other facets of aquatic ecosystemfunctioning (e.g. nutrient flow, transfer of organic materials, etc.; see Taylor, Thom-son, Fryirs, & Brierley, 2000). Based on these considerations, river morphology and



93G. Brierley et al. / Applied Geography 22 (2002) 91 – 122

vegetation associations must be appropriately reconstructed before sympatheticrehabilitation of riverine ecology will occur. Two examples of differing patterns of interactions of biophysical processes related to the geomorphic structure of rivers

are presented in Fig. 1.Most Australian rivers are now part of highly modified landscapes in which human

activities are dominant. Efforts at river rehabilitation cannot realistically aim toreconstruct landscapes of the period prior to European settlement. The catchmentconditions under which many rivers now operate (in terms of water and sedimenttransfer and vegetation coverage) have been fundamentally altered, in many casesirreversibly. As many river systems are now adjusting to a new set of boundaryconditions (Cairns, 1989), management programmes must strive to adopt riverrehabilitation strategies that work with the contemporary catchment conditions. Asrivers demonstrate remarkably different characters, behaviours and evolutionary traits(both between and within catchments), individual catchments need to be managedin a flexible manner, recognizing what forms and processes occur where, why andhow often, and how these processes have changed over time. To achieve this, aphysical template is required upon which to assimilate and order information, identifygaps and, most importantly, highlight linkages of biophysical processes and theirmanagement implications. Without this template, management programmes areapplied in an ad hoc manner. It is not unduly cynical to ask how management stra-tegies can work within a sustainable framework if the principles adopted do not‘work with nature’, building on a catchment-framed understanding of river character

and behaviour. Unfortunately, at the beginning of the 21st century there remains aserious lack of baseline information on the character, behaviour and distribution of different river types across the Australian continent.

The River Styles framework provides a geomorphic tool for catchment-wideassessment of river character, behaviour, evolution and condition (Brierley & Fryirs,2000; Fryirs & Brierley, 2001). The framework was developed by Gary Brierley,Kirstie Fryirs and colleagues in the Department of Physical Geography at MacquarieUniversity, working in direct collaboration with river managers and applied geomor-phologists in the NSW DLWC, with support from Land and Water Australia (LWA).To date, the framework has been applied to 14 New South Wales coastal catchments.

NSW DLWC staff are now applying it across many other catchments in the state tomeet the requests of stakeholder committees and boards. A statewide GIS databasewill be established so that the information can be readily accessed by anyone inter-ested in river management activities.

A River Style is a river reach with a near-uniform assemblage of geomorphicunits (Brierley & Fryirs, 2000). Stage 1 of the River Styles framework entails theidentification, interpretation and mapping of River Styles throughout a catchment(Brierley & Fryirs, 2000) to provide a baseline survey of river character and behav-iour. The second stage assesses the geomorphic condition of each reach of each stylein the catchment, framed in terms of an analysis of river evolution. By placing each

reach in its catchment context, its geomorphic recovery potential is determined instage 3 (see Fryirs & Brierley, 2000). From this, predictions of likely future rivercondition are determined. With this information in hand, realistic target conditions



94 G. Brierley et al. / Applied Geography 22 (2002) 91 – 122




Fig. 1. Geomorphology as a physical template. Note: Principles from fluvial geomorphology can be

applied to derive a template with which to explain the interaction of various biophysical processes along

river courses, including vegetation type, hydraulic diversity and habitat availability. In Example A, the

geomorphic structure of an intact valley fill comprises a relatively flat and featureless swamp, with adiscontinuous channel and localized ponding. The moisture gradient across the swamp results in different

vegetation associations, with Melaleuca sp. at the margins and Juncus sp. in the centre (Inset B). All

flood events inundate the swamp surface and filter through the organic-rich sediments, thereby maintaining

base flows to downstream reaches. One of the most frequently occurring river types in coastal catchments

of New South Wales comprises pockets of floodplain within partly confined valleys (Example B). An

array of geomorphic units is evident, including primary, backwater and chute channels, a dissected bar

platform, and floodplain pockets (Inset A). As noted in Inset B, differing geomorphic surfaces have distinct

substrates, inundation frequencies and associated magnitude–frequency relationships. This results in the

prominence of primary colonising species on bar surfaces, open forest associations on the floodplain, and

swamp associations in valley marginal back channels.

for river rehabilitation programmes are identified for each reach in stage 4, framedwithin a catchment-based vision. Working with local/regional catchment managers,a physically based procedure to prioritize management strategies for river rehabili-tation and conservation is then applied.

The identification and characterization of a River Style is not simply a visualassessment of a river, but a summary understanding of how that river operates orbehaves within its valley setting. The geomorphic unit framework (Brierley, 1996)provides the fundamental interpretative tool that sets the River Styles framework

apart from other ‘classification’ schemes. These building blocks of rivers record theform-process associations occurring along a reach. The River Styles framework endeavours to move beyond visual and mechanical approaches to river classificationto provide a more process-based procedure for analysing river character and behav-iour (cf. Mosley, 1987; Church, 1992; Rosgen, 1994, 1996; Montgomery &Buf fington, 1997; Raven, Fox, Everand, Holmes, & Dawson, 1997; Newson et al.,1998; Rowntree & Wadeson, 1999). Prescriptive and regionally specific river classi-fication procedures provide little sense of river process, river change, river conditionor trajectory (Kondolf, 1995a; Kondolf & Downs, 1996; Miller & Ritter, 1996).Unlike these schemes, the River Styles framework is:

Open-ended and generic. New variants can be added as the framework is appliedin new environmental settings. It is not a rigid scheme that ‘pigeonholes’ riversinto categories.

Process-based . Understanding of the character and behaviour of both channel andfloodplain zones provides the process-based knowledge to manage rivers in a waythat ‘works with nature’.

Catchment-based . Linkages of biophysical processes in catchments, such as waterand sediment fluxes and vegetation dispersal, can be analysed.

Structured hierarchically. Processes occurring at finer scales can be explained by

those occurring at higher levels in the hierarchy (see Brierley & Fryirs, 2000, andreferences therein).

Set within the context of river evolution. Understanding a river’s capacity to adjust




Fig. 2. Procedures used to identify River Styles. Note: The degree of valley confinement along a reach

is the first step in the identification of River Styles. Three classes are differentiated: confined, partly

confined and alluvial valley settings. Different procedures are used to identify River Styles for each of

these classes. In confined valley settings, the abundance of floodplain pockets forms the first level of analysis, followed by bed material texture and the make-up of geomorphic units on the valley floor (cf.

Grant, Swanson, & Wolman, 1990; Montgomery & Buf fington, 1997). In partly confined valley settings,

the extent and role of bedrock control on the distribution of floodplain pockets is the key determinant in

the differentiation of bedrock- and planform-controlled River Styles. Bed material texture and geomorphic

units determine finer levels of analysis. Differentiation of alluvial River Styles is based initially on the

presence and continuity of the channel. For absent or discontinuous channels the valley floor texture and

array of geomorphic units are key considerations. For alluvial rivers with continuous channels, conven-

tional planform-based notions are followed in the identification of River Styles (cf. Rust, 1978), with

additional layers reflecting bed material texture (cf. Schumm, 1977) and the assemblage of geomorphic

units along the reach (cf. Brierley, 1996).

within its valley setting provides the basis for assessing how far from its ‘natural’condition the river sits, and why that type of river has changed. Only then canthe contemporary condition of a river be realistically assessed.

Directly linked to assessment of the trajectory of future river condition (recovery

potential). Analysis of river change provides a basis to predict how a river willadjust in the future. This provides a geomorphic basis for determining future targetconditions for river rehabilitation and creating a catchment-framed vision.

In the River Styles framework, differentiation of river character and behaviour is

initially based on the valley setting of a river, using procedures outlined in Fig. 2.Using this procedure, 21 River Styles have been identified in coastal valleys of NewSouth Wales. The critical geomorphic units that comprise each style are indicated









Fig. 4. Schematic planform views of River Styles in coastal catchments of New South Wales. Note:

Each River Style has a characteristic planform and geomorphic unit assemblage. River Styles in con fined

valley settings have no floodplain or occasional floodplain pockets. The shape of the valley (sinuous,

irregular or straight) dictates the position of discontinuous floodplain pockets and the alignment of thechannel within the partly confined valley setting. Discontinuous alluvial channels have a number of forms,

ranging from ponds through discontinuous channels to featureless swamps. Alluvial valley settings with

continuous channels are characterized by continuous floodplains along both channel margins. These rivers

display an array of forms largely dependent on channel slope and the texture of the channel banks and

bed. Geomorphic unit assemblages range markedly from style to style. As the River Styles framework

is open-ended, new variants or river can be identified, such as the multi-channel sand belt.

on Fig. 3, and schematic planform representations are presented in Fig. 4. Given theopen-ended nature of the procedure, the range of River Styles is not prescriptive andcan be added to as new variants arise. For example, although no braided rivers areevident in coastal valleys of New South Wales, sand or gravel braided rivers couldeasily be added to the procedural trees shown in Figs 2 and 3.

The explanatory and predictive bases of the River Styles framework provide arigorous physical basis for management decision-making. The key management

applications and implications outlined in this manuscript are as follows.

1. The River Styles framework is used to determine management programmes that‘work with nature’.

2. Rare or unique River Styles are identified, such that appropriate conservation mea-sures can be developed and applied.

3. Linkages of biophysical processes within a catchment are integrated into rivermanagement plans.

4. Geomorphic condition and river recovery potential are assessed.5. A catchment-based physical vision is derived.6. Realistic target conditions are identified for each reach in the catchment.

7. A catchment-based prioritization framework for river management programmesis developed.

8. Representative reaches are selected for various biomonitoring programmes usedto audit the impacts of environmental flows, water licensing and water quality.

This paper demonstrates the application of the River Styles framework in severalon-going management programmes carried out by NSW DLWC. Particular emphasisis placed on Bega catchment, on the south coast of New South Wales, where detailed

geomorphic research has been undertaken (Brooks & Brierley, 1997, 2000; Brier-

ley & Fryirs, 1998, 1999; Fryirs & Brierley, 1998, 1999, 2001; Brierley, Cohen,Fryirs, & Brooks, 1999a).




Applications of the River Styles framework

Using River Styles to develop management programmes that work with nature

All too often rivers have been managed to some norm, with undue emphasis placedon their stability. In the River Styles framework, management programmes arederived to ‘work with’ the contemporary character and behaviour of rivers, recogniz-ing the diversity of patterns and rates of adjustment. Interpretation of form-processassociations for the assemblage of geomorphic units that make up a River Style

Table 1

The capacity for adjustment of various examples of River Styles and typical associated management

response

River Style Capacity for adjustment Management response

Confined valley

setting

Gorge Minimal Preserve and protect

Bed material organization can

locally adjust

Partly confined

valley setting

Bedrock- controlled Local channel expansion Woody debris placementdiscontinuous Floodplain stripping Fencing and revegetation

floodplain Ensure compatible land use

Alluvial valley

setting -

discontinuous

channel

Floodout Shifting loads of sediment Ensure compatible land use on the

accumulation as feeder active shallow-angle fan

channel(s) shift Proactive nickpoint control

Chain-of-ponds Pond expansion and deepening Fencing and revegetation

Ensure compatible land use

Proactive nickpoint control

Alluvial valley

setting - continuous

channel

Meandering fine Bed incision Bed control

grained Channel expansion Fencing and revegetation

Channel abandonment Ensure compatible land use

Meandering gravel Channel migration Bed control

bed Bed incision Bank protection

Channel expansion Woody debris placement Floodplain stripping Fencing and revegetation

Ensure compatible land use




provides insight into the capacity for river adjustment in a reach. Different manage-ment problems tend to arise in differing types of river. As a consequence, differentriver rehabilitation techniques must be applied, as effective management responses

aim to fix underlying causes rather than the symptoms of change. Examples of dif-fering patterns of river adjustment, and typical management responses as applied byNSW DLWC, are summarized in Table 1. Certain types and rates of geomorphicchange fall within the natural range of behaviour for any River Style. The degreeof inherent stability varies naturally from style to style, from reach to reach, and

from subcatchment to subcatchment. Accordingly, some stream systems are moresensitive to physical and biological disturbance than others.

Hence, identification of River Styles guides what types of problems are to beexpected where, and what natural patterns and rates of adjustment are expected for

different types of streams. The key is to determine the capacity for adjustment foreach style by interpreting the potential ways in which a river can adjust within itsvalley setting (cf. Downs, 1995b). For example, the natural proportion of erodingbanks varies markedly from one River Style to another. In a chain-of-ponds style,bank erosion is unexpected, but in an alluvial meandering style, natural patterns of bend migration may result in active erosion along up to 50% of banks. In somesettings, channel avulsion is a ‘natural’ component of the river’s long-term behav-ioural regime. For example, wandering gravel-bed rivers ‘naturally’ switch channelsat differing flow stages. Therefore, trying to maintain stability (no change) is not asustainable basis for rehabilitating such streams. It is now recognized that reducing

rates of change that have been accelerated by disturbance in the period since Euro-pean settlement is the only practical solution to river rehabilitation in many instances.

Most reaches that are sensitive to adjustment are found in alluvial valley settings,where the river has the capacity to adjust its form. The removal of riparian vegetationand large woody debris along many alluvial reaches of rivers in coastal New SouthWales in the period since European settlement has brought about profound changes toriver morphology (Abernethy & Rutherfurd, 1998; Brooks, 1999b). Positive feedback mechanisms induced by increased channel capacity have increased sediment trans-port capacity and stream power conditions to such a degree that changes to rivercharacter and behaviour are to all intents and purposes irreversible. However, over70% of river courses mapped in New South Wales coastal catchments compriseconfined or partly confined valley settings (Brierley et al., 1999b). In the latter set-tings, processes such as catastrophic stripping are promoted as high stream powersare generated and flow energy is concentrated across the valley floor (cf. Nanson,1986). While the capacity for these streams to strip their floodplains under a fullyvegetated cover is conjectural, contemporary river management programmes mustrecognize the potential for profound adjustments to river morphology in thesereaches. It is only in the light of understanding of the natural range of character andbehaviour of differing river reaches, framed in terms of a river’s capacity for adjust-

ment, that management strategies can be devised that ‘work with nature’.




Conservation of unique or rare River Styles

Identification of unique or rare reaches of a River Style provides a basis upon

which to conserve these rivers to maintain the geodiversity of fluvial landscapes (cf.Boon, 1992; Naiman, Lonzarich, Beechie & Ralph, 1992; Newson, 1992; Downs &Gregory, 1994; Penn, 1999; Rutherfurd et al., 1999, 2000). This has implications forconservation programmes at local, catchment, regional or even state/national levels(Koehn, Brierley, Cant, & Lucas, 2001). River Styles assessments undertaken incoastal New South Wales have identified river variants not previously described inthe geomorphology literature. For example, in the Richmond catchment, discontinu-ous sand-bed and multi-channel sand-belt River Styles were identified in the sand-stone landscape in the south of the catchment (Goldrick, Brierley, & Fryirs, 1999).As another example, the wandering gravel-bed and low sinuosity boulder-bed River

Styles are only found (so far) in isolated sections of the Bellinger, Hastings, Macleayand Tweed catchments on the north coast. Similarly, the distribution of intact valley-fill and chain-of-ponds styles has highlighted the limited range over which theseonce prevalent river types extend. These two styles maintain base flow and filteringprocesses throughout catchments, providing unique habitats for aquatic fauna (seeFig. 1a). Identification of these rare or unique reaches has only been achieved throughcatchment-wide baseline surveys of river character and behaviour. Sadly, such base-line data are still missing across much of the Australian continent.

Implications of catchment-framed biophysical linkages in river management plans

In proactive river rehabilitation programmes, upstream-downstream and tributary-trunk stream linkages of biophysical processes are a fundamental component in thedesign of reach-based plans (cf. Downs & Brookes, 1994; Brookes, 1995; Kondolf &Downs, 1996; Brookes & Sear, 1996; Sear, 1996; Fryirs & Brierley, 2001). Issuessuch as sediment movement, water transfer and seed dispersion are critical factorsin determining what can realistically be achieved in each reach. In the River Stylesframework, assessment of upstream-downstream linkages places each reach withinits catchment context, enabling off-site impacts to be interpreted. For example, if anickpoint is excavating a valley fill, the potential exists for extensive sediment

removal. Impacts will vary, depending on the downstream River Style. While sedi-ments may be flushed through confined or partly confined valley settings, withimpacts restricted to local bed aggradation and transitory infilling of pools, theremay be much more profound impacts if the sediment slug reaches an alluvial RiverStyle, where the capacity for river adjustment may be significant (e.g. lateral channelexpansion, sedimentation on floodplains, increased homogeneity of the channel bed,etc.). Alternatively, if upstream sediment availability is limited, the potential forgeomorphic river recovery in over-enlarged channels downstream is limited (cf.Kemp, Harper & Crossa, 1999; Fryirs & Brierley, 2001).

In the River Styles framework these issues are addressed by analysing the down-

stream pattern of River Styles. The example presented in Fig. 5 shows how down-stream patterns of flow and sediment transfer vary along river courses in two adjacentsubcatchments in Bega catchment.




Fig. 5. River Styles in Wolumla catchment, South Coast, New South Wales. Note: Six River Styles have

been identified in Wolumla catchment, which drains an area of around 130 km2

of granitic terrain in thesouthern part of Bega catchment on the New South Wales south coast (Brierley & Fryirs, 2000). AlongWolumla Creek four River Styles occur. In the headwaters, which drain from the escarpment zone, theGorge River Style (A) is characterized by bedrock steps and waterfalls, separated by rapids and bedrock-induced pools. Gradients are steep and no floodplain occurs along the valley margin. Immediately down-stream of the escarpment, the valley widens and an alluvial channelized fill River Style (B) develops.This is characterized by continuous valley flats along both sides of an incised trench. The floor of thetrench comprises a series of inset features, sand bars, sand sheets and swampy low-flow channels. Priorto European settlement, this reach contained an intact valley fill River Style (River Style E along FrogsHollow Creek). Further downstream, a partly confined valley with bedrock controlled discontinuous RiverStyle (C) occurs. The channel abuts the valley margin along 10–90% of the sinuous valley. Discontinuouspockets of floodplain occur between bedrock spurs or on the insides of bends. The channel is characterized

by point bars, point benches, inset features and sand sheets. At the lower end of Wolumla Creek thevalley narrows considerably, and a confined valley with occasional floodplain pockets River Style (D)occurs. This is characterized by occasional shallow, narrow pockets of floodplain. The channel abuts thevalley margin along 90% of its length. Significant bedrock outcrops induce an irregular series of pools,islands, runs and sand bars. Frogs Hollow Creek, to the east, is a discontinuous watercourse. The intactvalley fill River Style (E) at the base of the escarpment is one of the last remnants of a pre-Europeanswamp in Bega catchment (see Fig. 1A). This swamp is threatened by a nickpoint that forms the upperboundary of the confined valley with occasional floodplain pockets River Style (F) immediately down-stream. In the middle section of Frogs Hollow catchment, the last remaining floodout River Style (G) inBega catchment occurs. This reach is characterized by an intact swamp surface over which sands aresplayed at the mouth of a discontinuous channel. As noted along lower Wolumla Creek, lower FrogsHollow Creek comprises a confined valley with occasional floodplain pockets River Style (H). The dif-fering patterns of River Styles along Wolumla and Frogs Hollow Creeks result in differing connectivity

of biophysical processes along these river courses. Water, sand and nutrients are readily flushed alongWolumla Creek, with peaked flood flows. In contrast, retention of base flows, fine grained sediment andnutrients is much more significant along the discontinuous channels of Frogs Hollow Creek. These con-ditions result in the maintenance of remnant habitat niches along swamp zones.




Assessment of geomorphic condition and river recovery potential

Effective river management plans must work with the character and behaviour of

each reach, the linkage of biophysical processes that determine the present and likelyfuture behaviour of the reach, and associated assessments of river condition andrecovery potential. Although significant research has focused on ecological conditionand recovery potential components (e.g. Gore, 1985; Gore, Kelly, & Young, 1990;Milner, 1994; Bradshaw, 1996; Hobbs, 1997), few procedures are available for evalu-ating these components in geomorphic terms (cf. Sear, 1994; Brookes, 1995;Brookes & Sear, 1996). Those tools that are available need to be expressed in termsof practical guidelines for assessing river condition and recovery potential. This over-sight has been addressed in the River Styles framework (Fryirs & Brierley, 2000).

Any assessment of river condition must be framed relative to some benchmark orreference point (Cairns, 1989; Kondolf & Downs, 1996). However, simple analysisof changes to river forms and processes does not provide a direct measure of geo-morphic river condition. In the River Styles framework, geomorphic condition isassessed relative to the natural range of variability that is considered to be appropriatefor the River Style and the reach setting, given the present-day controls. Studies of river evolution are used to assess the nature, extent and rate of changes imposedsince European settlement (cf. Kondolf & Larson, 1995). This provides an indicationof how far from a ‘good’ or ‘natural’ geomorphic structure and function differingreaches of river are. Reaches that have fully adjusted to contemporary controls, are

self-maintaining, and are operating within their natural range of variability are putin the ‘good’ category. Reaches that are still recovering and/or have accelerated ratesof change are put in the ‘moderate’ or ‘poor’ categories, depending on the degreeof degradation.

Assessment of river condition, in itself, provides an insuf ficient physical platformfrom which to rehabilitate rivers. Effective management strategies that ‘work withnature’ must appreciate the trajectory of change. Extensive geomorphic research onriver evolution, magnitude-frequency relations, and notions such as complexresponse, have highlighted how recovery processes, and their geomorphic conse-quences, are not necessarily the reverse of geomorphic responses to degradational

influences (e.g. Schumm, 1973; Simon, 1989; Hupp, 1992; Renwick, 1992; Fryirs &Brierley, 2000). The critical question here is: if the river were to be left alone, wouldits condition deteriorate or improve? Principles applied in the River Styles framework follow the lead from ecology, promoting enhanced geomorphic recovery of riversas a basis for effective management programmes (see Kondolf, 1995a; Fryirs &Brierley, 2000). Limiting factors to geomorphic recovery are identified, such as sedi-ment supply and transport capacity, the nature and variability of discharge (i.e. watertransfer), vegetation distribution and character (including seed dispersion), the pos-ition of a reach within the catchment, the connectivity of processes throughout thecatchment, and off-site impacts of degradation or disturbance in upstream or down-

stream reaches.Based on principles documented in Fryirs and Brierley (2000), an example of the

application of the principles used to assess river condition and recovery potential in




Fig. 6. Application of the recovery potential framework for the partly confined valley with bedrock-

controlled discontinuous floodplain River Style. Note: In this figure a series of condition and potential

recovery endpoints are identified for the partly confined valley with bedrock-controlled floodplain River

Style in Bega catchment. Moving down the left-hand side of the figure, good, moderate and poor con-ditions of the style reflect changes that have occurred since European settlement. The extent of disturbance,

and processes occurring in adjacent reaches (especially upstream), determine the likely pathway of adjust-

ment of the reach (on the right-hand side of the figure). The reach can recover towards a restored condition

whereby geomorphic structure and function is akin to an intact condition. Alternatively, if systematic or

irreversible change has occurred to catchment boundary conditions, the reach will adjust towards a created

condition. The recovery trajectory is used to designate appropriate target condition for management of

the reach. Such a figure can be further broken down to provide short-to medium-term target conditions

for river rehabilitation. The particular patterns of geomorphic adjustment and recovery, and associated

identification of goals for river rehabilitation, are River Style speci fic.




the River Styles framework is shown in Fig. 6. There are two components to thisfigure. The vertical line on the left represents the continuum from an intact to adegraded condition. The contemporary character and behaviour of the reach can lie

at any position along this degradation pathway, depending on the river’s sensitivityto disturbance, the character and degree of disturbance, and the time since disturb-ance. At any stage along this pathway, rivers are adjusting their character and behav-iour to disturbance. If a natural system is resilient to disturbance, it oscillates in formaround a mean condition and remains close to an intact condition (position A or Bon Fig. 6). If disturbance is severe, such that a threshold condition is breached, theriver cannot self-adjust, and falls along the degradation pathway (positions C, Dor E).

The right-hand side of Fig. 6 shows directions of river recovery following thecumulative impacts of disturbance. Two pathways are shown. In the first instance,the river system endeavours to return to a condition akin to its original or intactstate (i.e. a restored river condition; position F). Alternatively, if catchment boundaryconditions have been altered to such a degree that geomorphic changes to river struc-ture are irreversible, the recovery pathway moves the river towards a new condition,termed river creation (position G).

The transition to recovery, termed a turning point on Fig. 6, can occur at anystage along the sliding scale of the degradation pathway, as it is determined by arange of local, reach and off-site constraints. However, in general, the further downthe degradation scale a reach sits, the less likely it is to regain a fully restored

condition. Ultimately, the endpoint of recovery, whether restored or created, isattained when a reach achieves a structure and function that is self-maintaining underthe conditions operating within the catchment.

Since effective river rehabilitation strategies work with both the contemporarycondition and trajectory of river changes, it is necessary to determine where eachreach lies on the pathways indicated on Fig. 6. Given that each catchment includesa variety of River Styles at various stages of degradation and recovery, limitingfactors to geomorphic recovery vary not only between catchments, but also betweenreaches. Placing the condition of a reach in the context of its within-catchmentposition, and producing an associated map of river recovery potential, provide a

biophysical platform with which to derive a realistic catchment-framed vision forriver management programmes.

Creating a catchment-framed biophysical vision

Most river rehabilitation projects in Australia, and elsewhere, have generally beenapplied in a piecemeal manner over relatively short reaches, without a sound under-standing of the broader spatial and temporal context (e.g. Downs & Brookes, 1994;Brookes & Shields, 1996; Newson et al., 1998; Harper et al., 1999). Such reactivestrategies are not the most ef ficient and cost-effective way to achieve rehabilitation

success in ecological terms. Projects that fail to consider current trends in sedimentdelivery and the dominant fluvial processes in the reach are likely to require costlymaintenance, or fail to achieve their intended goal (Sear et al., 1995; Sear, 1996).




All too often, however, this intended long-term goal is overlooked or poorly speci-fied. Defining a catchment-framed ‘vision’ is a critical early step in effective riverrehabilitation (Kondolf, 1995b).

A vision statement envisages an improved state for a system that can be achievedat some stage in the future. The mission, goals and objectives of environmentalprojects fit into this over-arching vision. This provides a basis for assessing whethermanagement efforts are successful. Bringing groups together to develop a sharedvision generates the commitment and focus needed for a successful project (Rogers &Bestbier, 1997; Rutherfurd et al., 2000; Koehn et al., 2001). Application of the RiverStyles framework has been used to identify an achievable structure and function forriver courses across a catchment, maximizing the potential to produce a self-adjusting(i.e. natural) river morphology that minimizes the need for invasive management

techniques. Reach-scale goals can then be framed within a catchment-wide ‘vision’.This ‘vision’ of what is realistically achievable within a specified time-frame isderived from an understanding of the linkages between biophysical processes withinthe catchment, recognizing on-going and likely future ‘pressures’ that will be experi-enced, and prospective environmental changes (cf. Newson, 1994). From theseinsights, thresholds of probable concern and associated management responses canbe identified (e.g. Mackenzie, van Coller, & Rogers, 1999). Adoption of these prin-ciples within NSW DLWC has resulted in coherent and proactive rehabilitation pro-grammes that are spatially and temporally integrated (Table 2).

The character and behaviour of individual River Styles, and their downstream

pattern, provide an appropriate biophysical framework with which to develop riverrehabilitation schemes that fit into the catchment-based vision. Due regard is givento potential off-site impacts, ensuring that balanced perspectives on sediment transferare determined. For example, it may be pointless to expend significant effort and

resource on ‘fixing’ a downstream reach if a large sediment slug sits immediatelyupstream, as the future geomorphological behaviour of the downstream reach willreflect river responses to the transfer and/or accumulation of those materials.

Application of these principles is exemplified by the designation of a ‘vision’ forWolumla catchment in Table 3. Extensive adjustments to river morphology haveoccurred here since European settlement (Brierley & Fryirs, 1998, 1999; Fryirs &Brierley, 1998, 1999). The catchment vision for management seeks to minimize ratesof sediment loss from valley floors, improve riparian vegetation cover, and retainbase-flow conditions for longer durations. In turn, this will lead to improved ecologi-cal associations along river courses. In general terms, strategies aim to minimizeerosion and sedimentation problems by locking up sediment as appropriate. Wher-ever practicable, zones of instability (such as nickpoints) are prevented fromextending further through the catchment. Riparian vegetation plans are tied to thegeomorphic structure of the river, with parallel weed management programmes.

Trapping of fine-grained materials enhances the retention of base flows, maximizing

the potential for aquatic ecosystem functioning and improving water quality inreceiving basins (cf. Zierholz, Prosser, Fogarty, & Rustomji, 2001). To achieve thesebiophysical goals, different reach-based strategies are required for the various River




T a

b l e 2

U s e o f R i v e r S t y l e s w i t h i n t h e r e g i o

n s o f N S W

D L W C ( a s o f N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 0 )

R e g i o n

C a t c h m e n t - I d e n t i f y i n g

F u n d i n g

R e h a b i l i t a t i o n

R e h a b i l i t a t i o n

A s s e s s i n g R

i v e r M o n i t o r i n g

F l o w

W a t e r

b a s e d v i s i o n r a r e o

r

p r i o r i t i z a t i o n p l a n s

w o r k s

c a p a c i t y f o r h

e a l t h p r o g r a m m e s

p o l i c y a l l o c a

t i o n

a n d

u n i q u e r i v e r s

a d j u s t m e n t

a n d

p l a n n i n g

f o r

l i c e n s

i n g

c o n s e r v a t i o n

N o r t h c o a s t

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

X

H u n t e r

P

P

P

P

P

X

P

P

F

F

S y d n e y S o u t h

P

P

X

P

P

P

P

P

P

X

C o a s t

B a r w o n

P

P

F

P

P

P

P

P

P

F

C e n t r a l w e s t

P

P

P

P

P

X

X

X

X

X

M

u r r u m b i d g e e

P

P

P

F

F

F

P

P

P

F

M

u r r a y

P

P

N A

N A

N A

P

F

F

F

F

F a r w e s t

P

P

N A

N A

N A

F

P

P

F

F

P =

p r e s e n t l y u s i n g ,

F =

i n t e n d u s e i n n e a r f u t u r e ,

N A =

n o t a p p l i c a b l e ( e . g . n o r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p l a n s b e i n g d o n e ) , X =

n o t u s i n g R i v e r S t y l e s f o r

t h i s p u r p o s e




Table 3

A biophysical vision for Wolumla catchment

Overall vision: Community and government working together, with nature, to improve the health of riverine ecosystems.

What are we trying to achieve? The Wolumla Catchment Rivercare Plan has set priorities for on-

ground works based on several criteria including: sediment and water storage and delivery issues,

exotic weed eradication and planting of native vegetation, enhancing ecological recovery potential,

cost effectiveness and ‘demonstration’ value.

What are we managing for? The aim is to return the river system to a sustainable (self-maintaining)

geomorphic and ecological condition, minimising the need for ongoing (reactive) maintenance.

What do we want the river to be like? Healthier, catchment-wide river system with natural sediment

regime, improved water quality, native vegetation and ecological associations.

Issue Long-term vision Short-term action

Sediment regime Upper catchment Lock up sediment in cut-and-

fill River Styles at the base of Protect remnant swamps and

the escarpment. floodouts from nickpoint retreat.

Maintain balance between Cattle exclusion and fencing off.

sediment input and output Revegetate riparian and within-

along mid-catchment reaches. channel geomorphic surfaces to

stabilise sediment stores.Maintain remnant swamps

and floodouts along Frogs Bed control structures to retain

Hollow Creek and lower- sediment in within-channel

order drainage lines that act swamps.

as sediment sinks. Middle-lower catchment

Riparian revegetation

programmes to reduce rates of

channel expansion, and removal

of floodplain sediment.

Bank control structures to aid

sediment accumulation along the

reach.

Woody debris placement to

stabilize in-channel sediments

and induce pool development. Cattle access points to reduce

bank and bed degradation.

Vegetation associations Remove willows and re- Willow control along river

establish native vegetation courses, with a commitment to

associations along the river sustained maintenance

course. programmes.

Reinstate a continuous Replant native vegetation that

riparian corridor. suits the riparian environment

for each River Style, using

species that are indigenous to

the region.

Continued




Table 3 (Continued)

Issue Long-term vision Short-term action

Water regime Maintain base-flow conditions Conserve and protect swamps

and water storage in remnant and floodouts from nickpoint

swamps and floodouts for retreat.

drought proofing and Undertake riparian and within-

ecological refugia. channel revegetation

programmes.Reduce time of travel and

stream powers by flattening Increase channel roughness

the hydrograph i.e. reduce through woody debris placement

flood peaks. and revegetation of instream

geomorphic surfaces.

Ecological associations Enhance native terrestrial and Reduce channel capacities toaquatic ecological reinstigate channel-floodplain

associations. connectivity. This requires

sediment storage andReinstigate channel-floodplain

connections (e.g. between revegetation of geomorphic units

channel habitat and floodplain at appropriate places along each

wetlands). River Style.

Improve water quality and Protect remnant swamps and

organic matter retention. floodouts.

Maintain and improve the Supply and retain organic matter

viability of remnant in the system through native

ecological niches in swamps revegetation programmes.

and floodouts.

Styles along the primary streams, framing ‘target conditions’ within the broadercatchment ‘vision’.

Identi fication of reach-based target condition

In the past, community groups and their technical advisers found the hardest partof the rehabilitation planning process to be determining the target condition for eachreach of stream. As noted by Kondolf (1998), it is critical that rehabilitation pro-grammes move beyond visual descriptions of river character (cf. Rosgen, 1994, 1996)and associated prescriptive, off-the-shelf management responses. Rather, reach-basedprocesses and the implications of water and sediment delivery and vegetation issuesmust be understood in designating appropriate reach-based plans. Insights into recov-ery potential indicate how achievable the attainment of a ‘good’ condition for thereach is, including what actions need to be implemented to achieve this goal. Therehabilitation group then needs to match resources with actions to determine a practi-

cal target for the reach (Rutherfurd et al., 2000).In the River Styles framework, understanding of form-process associations in

minimally impacted or fully adjusted reaches is used to guide the determination of




Table 4

Rivercare planning in Wolumla Catchment

Background The Wolumla Landcare Group is currently implementing a Rivercare Plan to achieve the goals set out

within the catchment-framed vision (see Table 3). NSW DLWC and the Far South Coast Landcare

Association are providing technical advice and planning assistance. The first priority of the Rivercare

Plan is to protect sediment sinks from incision and sediment removal (i.e. protecting intact valley fill

and floodout River Styles). All potential sediment sources are targeted and stabilisation options are

outlined. Broader ecological issues such as willow (Salix sp.) control and native vegetation replanting

form part of the rehabilitation plan.

Community participation

One of the challenges of improving river/catchment health is educating people about geomorphic

processes. This has been achieved through the use of the River Styles framework. In addition,

communities need to be aware of methods of sustainable options for riparian and riverinemanagement, and the necessity to undertake remedial works. To assist with this endeavour, a project

has been partnered between the Wolumla Landcare Group, Commonwealth Government (NHT), NSW

DLWC, Bega Valley Shire Council, Far South Coast Landcare Association and Land and Water

Australia. The project involves rehabilitating three reaches in Wolumla Catchment (Fig. 7), applying a

range of rehabilitation techniques. These reaches are:

1. Ticehurst - stabilize sediment stores along a 500-m reach of Wolumla Creek, in a partly confined

valley with bedrock-controlled discontinuous floodplain River Style.

2. Sarjents Swamp - apply rehabilitation measures to minimize impacts from a nickpoint that is

retreating into an intact tributary fill, in an area suffering from grazing pressure.

3. Frogs Hollow Swamp - protect an intact, high conservation priority remnant swamp from a

retreating nickpoint.

The sites are all in high-profile areas, close to major roads, and demonstrate several rehabilitation

techniques that fit with the natural character and behaviour of the River Style. All sites have re-

vegetation components as part of their respective recovery plans.

Project title/River Style Description of remedial works Total (material

costs)

Ticehurst 150-m mesh fence and bays $61 000

Partly-confined valley with 150-m rock revetment wall (completed)bedrock-controlled rock flume on small nickpoint

discontinuous floodplain fencing and revegetation

Sarjents Swamp bed-level cattle crossing $2 900 (completed)

Intact valley fill log weir

fencing and revegetation of swamp

Frogs Hollow Swamp concrete flume (currently being designed) $200 000 (planning

Intact valley fill stage)fencing and revegetation

Continued




Table 4 (Continued)

Additional initiatives to achieve the catchment vision

The Bega Valley Shire Council, NSW DLWC and Wolumla Landcare Group are implementing othersediment and vegetation management projects in the catchment. A timber, or mesh wire, bank

protection structure will be constructed on Wolumla Creek within the bedrock-controlled

discontinuous floodplain River Style. This structure will demonstrate the geomorphic function of large

woody debris (LWD) in trapping river sediments and the role of vegetation in stabilizing that

sediment. It will also complement works completed at the downstream Ticehurst site. The Landcare

group have additional National Heritage Trust grants to target smaller, but strategically important,

sediment sources.

Greater appreciation of river processes and sustainable management practices has occurred within

the Wolumla community through communication of findings from the River Styles and sediment

budget studies, and the completion of the demonstration sites. In the year 2000, over 9000 locally

grown trees and shrubs were planted on intact swamps, river banks and other sensitive areas in the

catchment to reduce sediment removal and enhance the ecological integrity of the catchment.

appropriate river character, geomorphic unit assemblage, channel alignment, veg-etation associations and sediment regimes for each River Style. Reference reachesused to define target conditions for each style should occupy a similar position inthe catchment, with near-equivalent channel gradient, hydraulic and hydrologicalconsiderations (Kondolf & Downs, 1996). Generally, as stream order increases, acatchment offers fewer alternative reference reaches. As a result of this, and thewidespread impact of developments in lowland areas, locating suitable reference

reaches for higher-order rivers is problematic. Unfortunately, there are several RiverStyles in New South Wales for which natural, fully adjusted or minimally impactedreaches cannot be identified. For these styles, management programmes should aimto retain or improve geomorphic structure and hence the diversity of aquatic habitatthrough a long-term strategy of low-level intervention.

Technical advisers in the NSW DLWC Rivercare programme and their client com-munity groups are using River Styles maps and reports to locate reference reachesand determine stream rehabilitation techniques. An example from Wolumla catch-ment is outlined in Table 4. Although fluvial geomorphology has always been aconsideration in Rivercare plans developed by NSW DLWC, the River Styles frame-

work provides a template that integrates geomorphic and biologic information, ensur-ing that planners consistently take into account geomorphic behaviour and controlson that behaviour, within-catchment linkages of biophysical processes, and the evol-utionary character and rate of change to river morphology. The River Styles frame-work now forms the basis for all geomorphic assessments undertaken on rivers byNSW DLWC. Community groups who apply rehabilitation programmes have com-mented on the usefulness of River Styles information and the consistent way it ispresented and communicated.

Prioritization of management efforts using the River Styles framework

In developing catchment-wide river management programmes, critical decisionsmust be made on where in the catchment to start and the associated plan of activities.




Such decisions should be made using logical, testable and transparent procedures.While economic, cultural and social values place obvious constraints on how this isundertaken, a physical template forms a critical basis for decision-making.

There has been significant independently based convergence of ideas in the devel-opment of strategic, proactive procedures for river conservation and rehabilitationprogrammes in Australia. For example, procedures outlined by Brierley (1999), Bri-erley and Fryirs (2000), Erskine and Webb (1999), Ladson and Tilleard (1998) andRutherfurd et al. (1999) all view river rehabilitation as a process of recovery enhance-ment whereby management programmes strive to help the river to adjust naturally,reducing the need for on-going reactive management.

Putting aside protection of infrastructure and equivalent site-specific requirements(e.g. rarity of a particular River Style), management emphasis in application of theRiver Styles framework is placed in the first instance on conservation of reaches thatremain in good condition (see Brierley & Fryirs, 2000). The success of rehabilitationprogrammes is maximized by starting with reaches that have a high recovery poten-tial, then working out into more degraded parts of the catchment. As recovery isalready under way, a ‘do-nothing’ option may be quite feasible in reaches of highrecovery potential. Elsewhere, minimally invasive approaches based on riparian veg-etation management may facilitate accelerated recovery. Particular attention is givento strategic reaches or point-impacts where disturbances threaten the integrity of remnant or refuge reaches. An example is an actively retreating headcut (steepnickpoint). Without strategic actions in these reaches, the potential for degrading

offsite impacts elsewhere (particularly in conservation reaches) is considerable. Irres-pective of their geomorphic condition, these reaches must be targeted early in theriver rehabilitation process.

In degraded reaches that are experiencing sustained adjustment, inordinate expenseon river rehabilitation programmes may not yield substantive outcomes, thusadversely impacting on community confidence in terms of river management efforts.Many of these reaches with low recovery potential are found along alluvial streams.The pre-disturbance character of such reaches cannot be regained, and concertedefforts would be required to improve geomorphic and ecological conditions. Manage-ment strategies must work with the prevailing boundary conditions to rehabilitate

these river courses towards a sustainable structure and function that fits the catchmentsetting. Longer-term rehabilitation programmes, requiring invasive rehabilitationtechniques, are expensive and have uncertain outcomes. Rather than spending sig-nificant dollars in trying to rehabilitate these streams, it may be more expedient towait for these reaches to adjust to the prevailing environmental conditions beforeadopting intervention strategies.

In general, the pattern of River Styles, their differing sensitivities to change, andthe rarity of particular styles, have resulted in a fragmented distribution of conser-vation reaches across a catchment. In coastal catchments of New South Wales, how-ever, most near-intact conservation reaches are restricted to headwater zones. Con-

versely, the lowland sections of many rivers are typically degraded, due to theconcentration of impacts from upstream. However, these general trends mask pro-nounced variability, and conservation or rehabilitation priorities must be considered




Fig. 7. Application of the River Styles management prioritization procedure in the designation of river

conservation and rehabilitation programs in Wolumla catchment. Note: In Wolumla catchment, conser-

vation status was assigned to intact or rare reaches of River Styles that have appropriate geomorphic river

structure and near-intact or remnant vegetation associations. These were noted in the gorge, intact valley

fill and floodout River Styles. Strategic reaches were assigned to the areas immediately downstream of

the intact valley fill and floodout River Styles, where nickpoints threaten the integrity of these reaches

with potential loss of remnant ecological niches and release of over 1.5 million m3 of sediment (Fryirs &

Brierley, 1999). Reaches with high recovery potential along the confined valley with occasional floodplain

pockets River Style have little capacity for adjustment. The re-establishment of appropriate native veg-

etation associations and the maintenance of sediment throughput (which will excavate bedrock-induced

pools) will produce a geomorphologically and ecologically self-maintaining river. The most degraded

reaches in the catchment are located along the channelized fill and partly confined valley with bedrock-

controlled discontinuous floodplain River Styles along Wolumla Creek. These reaches have experienced

significant geomorphic change in the period since European settlement (Brierley & Fryirs, 1998; Fryirs &

Brierley, 1998). Vegetation is either non-existent or exotic in character. Large volumes of sediment have

been released and significant erosion still occurs. These reaches will require intervention strategies that

aim to lock up sediment and extensive replanting programmes.




on a catchment-by-catchment basis. As indicated in the example shown in Fig. 7,in many instances management success is only likely to be attained at reasonablecost once rehabilitation outcomes have been achieved through implementation of

sediment and vegetation management plans in upstream reaches.

Use of the River Styles framework in monitoring programmes

River rehabilitation and conservation programmes are increasingly numerous butare rarely systematically and consistently monitored or audited (Kondolf & Micheli,1995). Monitoring provides the fundamental basis from which to ‘learn from mis-takes’, document success and determine whether river rehabilitation strategies areachieving their intended target conditions and catchment-framed vision (Kondolf,1995b, 1996).

The River Styles framework provides a consistent physical baseline upon whichadditional layers of management information can be added. In New South Wales theframework has been used as a basis for making management, policy and licensingdecisions relating to physical river condition and health (e.g. measures of biophysicalstress, environmental flow allocations, habitat assessment, riparian vegetationsurveys) and for auditing procedures (e.g. identification of reference sites for bench-marking and biomonitoring procedures). As noted in Table 2, the specific purpose

to which the River Styles framework has been applied varies across different regionsof New South Wales, depending on management needs. Several examples are out-lined below.

River health/biomonitoring

A basic prerequisite in assessing river condition (or health) is that representativesampling programmes are utilized to compare like with like (Boulton, 1999). Consist-ent application of the River Styles framework allows a statewide comparison to bemade of the biological health and the effects of environmental flows on reaches of

the same style. NSW DLWC staff use River Styles maps to guide the selection of representative sampling points in stream health assessment. The number of samplesper style is based on the relative length of that style to the others in the catchment(the longer the length of the style, the more samples collected). These principlesapply to biomonitoring projects undertaken by NSW DLWC that require the identifi-cation of physically homogeneous reaches. This includes the Integrated Monitoringof Environmental Flows (IMEF) project on regulated rivers in New South Wales,where selection of physically homogeneous reaches is based on water use in thereach, the adjacent land uses and the River Style. Physical stream changes causedby environmental flows are also being analysed using the River Styles framework.

The ‘natural’ behaviour of the style in the monitored reach is used to assess themost likely locations of geomorphic change and thus determine the placement of cross-sections and long sections to monitor that change.




Water allocation licences

It is a condition of many water extraction licences in New South Wales that pump-ing may not start until the gauge at a certain location reaches a certain height. When

these gauges are being established, the licence reach and the River Style are cross-referenced. In this way, water extraction can be controlled in a way that is compatiblewith the behaviour of that style. For example, water extraction would be prohibitedon a stream with the meandering sand-bed style if it significantly decreased the lowflow necessary to keep the bank-toe vegetation alive and prevent accelerated lateralmigration. Conversely, there would be less restriction on a stream within a confinedvalley setting where bedrock margins limit geomorphic change. Another concern isthe maintenance of low-flow-stage refugia. For example, a chain-of-ponds stylemaintains base flow conditions during extended dry spells, while pools along ameandering gravel-bed river provide a fundamental refuge at low-flow stage. In con-trast, maintenance of refugia over the relatively planar bed of a meandering fine-grained style will require a different water allocation strategy. Water allocation andenvironmental flow initiatives should be framed in full recognition of the variabilityof different River Styles.

Environmental fl ow water quality policy

The natural range of water quality and turbidity varies between River Styles. Forexample, fine-grained styles tend to be more turbid than gravel-bed styles. Hence,the River Styles framework provides a basis for calibrating water quality initiatives.

NSW DLWC are using River Styles information to determine strategies and policiesfor water quality aspects of environmental flows. Accelerated stream-bed and bank erosion is often the most likely source of sediment and nutrient overloads in down-stream locations (cf. Wasson, Mazari, Starr, & Clifton, 1998; Gell, Wallbrink, Tas-sicker, & Illman, 1999; Fryirs & Brierley, 2001). Accordingly, information on thebehaviour, condition, recovery potential and conservation category of each style isused to decide on strategies and priorities for sediment control by means of riverrehabilitation in the catchment.

Lessons learnt in applying the River Styles framework

It is recognized implicitly that the River Styles framework is scientifically based,while decision-making in river management is a consultative process, driven by arange of agendas among multiple stakeholders (cf. Smith, 1998; Conacher & Con-acher, 2000). In striving towards a ‘shared’ biophysical vision of what is achievableand what is desirable for catchment-framed river rehabilitation programmes, appli-cation of the River Styles framework provides an initial basis for discussion and aproactive template for management actions. This template is based on the physicsof hydraulics and therefore provides the most compelling and uncompromising factor

when considering management actions. However, recommendations from RiverStyles analyses must be merged with community aspirations in the developmentof viable, effective, catchment-framed river management visions and programmes.




Collective ownership of management plans is required if long-term programmes areto achieve sustainable outcomes (cf. Rogers & Bestbier, 1997). For example,empowerment is critical in the development of maintenance plans for river works,

such as on-the-ground responses following flood events, and weed management pro-grammes.

River management must continue regardless of limitations of knowledge. In allinstances, however, it is advisable that the precautionary principle is observed, andbest use made of available evidence in a conservative manner. Many Rivercaregroups in New South Wales have shown considerable ingenuity in designing riverrehabilitation plans. So long as these plans work with the behaviour of the river, thelocal group takes ownership of the experimental designs, and appropriate auditingprocedures are put in place (and documented), these developments are to be encour-aged (cf. Kondolf & Micheli, 1995). Collective commitment to a process of learningwill yield significant advances in rehabilitation measures. Application of the RiverStyles framework provides a rational basis by which lessons learnt in one reach canbe meaningfully applied elsewhere (i.e. for an equivalent type of river character and

behaviour). However, in all these applications, appropriately documented proceduresfor rigorous auditing programmes are critical if the best environmental outcomes areto be achieved, both now and into the future.

To facilitate adoption of the River Styles framework, ensuring that a suitable com-munication tool is provided for end-users, the procedure was developed and appliedin collaboration with applied geomorphologists and river managers in NSW DLWC.

This association has been invaluable in the adoption of this research tool. Com-munity-based workshops and field days have been used to increase understandingof issues, scope views and define achievable goals within a specified time-frame.This has ensured that potential benefits and limitations of available data and under-standing are fully appreciated.

Conclusions

The River Styles framework represents a research tool developed by geomorpholo-

gists that is being used by state agency personnel to understand river character andbehaviour and implement effective, sustainable, on-the-ground management practicesthat work with nature. The procedure provides a rigorous scientific basis for assessinga range of biophysical processes and provides a consistently applied template uponwhich effective management decision-making can take place.

Given its process-based origins, and its emphasis on the evolutionary nature of river courses, the River Styles framework provides a basis for rehabilitation pro-grammes that move beyond visual appraisals of river character. It can be applied inany environmental setting. Analysis of biophysical linkages throughout a catchment,and interpretation of geomorphic condition and recovery potential, allow practitioners

to make consistent comparisons between different river systems.Collaboration with NSW DLWC staff and local stakeholders in applying the River

Styles framework has formed part of a transitional process in many parts of New




South Wales in which proactive rehabilitation strategies now address the causesrather than the symptoms of river degradation, based on solid understanding of biophysical processes. In a sense, a paradigm shift is under way, as River Styles

maps and reports are communicated to river management decision-makers through:

internal NSW DLWC procedures used to assess proposals for the developmentof land (public and private) near rivers;

making River Styles information available to local government planners, and using River Styles information when advising community groups and land owners

about river management issues.

These changes signify increased recognition of the need to develop management

programmes that work with nature, and the fundamental significance of geomorphicinsights in designing such programmes. Indeed, it must be asked how sustainablemanagement programmes can be designed and implemented independently from

these insights. However, much work remains to be completed in obtaining primarybaseline information on river character and behaviour across much of the Aus-tralian continent.

Acknowledgements

A registered trademark for the River Styles® framework is held by MacquarieUniversity and the Land and Water Australia (LWA). The trademark and the RiverStyles accreditation procedure is administered through Macquarie Research Limited(MRL). Funding and support for the development and application of the framework has come from a number of sources including LWA, Head Of fice of NSW DLWC,the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), The Far South Coast Catchment ManagementCommittee, Bega Valley Shire and the North Coast Region of NSW DLWC.Regional of ficers who provided information regarding the use of the River Stylesframework are thanked. The people of the Bega Valley, in particular Wolumla catch-ment, are also thanked for providing access to properties and their participation innumerous projects undertaken by the authors. Two anonymous referees providedinsightful and helpful comments that assisted the communication and contributionof this manuscript.

References

Abernethy, B., & Rutherfurd, I. D. (1998). Where along a river’s length will vegetation most effectively

stabilise stream banks? Geomorphology, 23(1), 55–75.

Boon, P. J. (1992). Essential elements in the case for river conservation. In P. J. Boon, P. Calow, & G.

E. Petts (Eds.), River conservation and management (pp. 11–33). Chichester: Wiley.

Boulton, A. J. (1999). An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and

prognosis. Freshwater Biology, 41, 469–479.




Bradshaw, A. D. (1996). Underlying principles of restoration. Canadian Journal of Aquatic Science,

53(Suppl. 1), 3–9.

Brierley, G. J. (1996). Channel morphology and element assemblages: a constructivist approach to facies

modelling. In P. Carling, & M. Dawson (Eds), Advances in fl uvial dynamics and stratigraphy (pp.263–298). Chichester: Wiley Interscience.

Brierley, G. J. (1999). River Styles: an integrative biophysical template for river management. In I. Ruther-

furd, & R. Bartley (Eds). Proceedings of the Second Stream Management Conference (Vol. 1 pp. 93–

100). Melbourne: CRC for Catchment Hydrology.

Brierley, G. J., & Fryirs, K. (1998). A fluvial sediment budget for Upper Wolumla Creek, South Coast,

New South Wales, Australia. Australian Geographer , 29(1), 107–124.

Brierley, G. J., & Fryirs, K. (1999). Tributary-trunk stream relations in a cut-and-fill landscape: a case

study from Wolumla catchment, N.S.W., Australia. Geomorphology, 28 , 61–73.

Brierley, G. J., & Fryirs, K. (2000). River Styles, a geomorphic approach to catchment characterisation:

implications for river rehabilitation in Bega catchment, New South Wales, Australia. Environmental

Management , 25(6), 661–679.

Brierley, G. J., Cohen, T., Fryirs, K., & Brooks, A. (1999a). Post-European changes to the fluvial geomor-phology of Bega Catchment, Australia: implications for river ecology. Freshwater Biology, 41, 1–10.

Brierley, G. J., Ferguson, R. J., Lampert, G., Cohen, T., Fryirs, K., Reinfelds, I., Goldrick, G., Crighton,

P., Batten, P., & Jansen, J. (1999b). Summary Overview of River Styles in North Coast Catchments

of New South Wales. Macquarie Research Limited Report for NSW Department of Land and Water

Conservation. pp. 55.

Brookes, A. (1995). River channel restoration: theory and practice. In A. Gurnell, & G. E. Petts (Eds),

Changing river channels (pp. 369–388). Chichester: Wiley.

Brooks, A. (1999a). Large woody debris and the geomorphology of a perennial river in southeast Australia.

In I. Rutherfurd, & R. Bartley (Eds). Proceedings of the Second Stream Management Conference,

(Vol. 1 pp. 129–136). Melbourne: CRC for Catchment Hydrology.

Brooks, A. (1999b). Lessons for river managers from the fluvial tardis (Direct insights into post-European

channel changes from a near-intact alluvial river). In I. Rutherfurd, & R. Bartley (Eds). Proceedingsof the Second Stream Management Conference, (Vol. 1 pp. 121–128). Melbourne: CRC for Catch-

ment Hydrology.

Brooks, A. P., & Brierley, G. J. (1997). Geomorphic responses of lower Bega River to catchment disturb-

ance, 1851-1926. Geomorphology, 18 , 291–304.

Brooks, A. P., & Brierley, G. J. (2000). The role of European disturbance in the metamorphosis of lower

Bega River. In S. A. Brizga, & B. L. Finlayson (Eds), River management: the Australasian experience

(pp. 221–246). Chichester: Wiley.

Brookes, A., & Sear, D. A. (1996). Geomorphological principles for restoring channels. In A. Brookes, &

F. D. Shields Jr. (Eds), River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects (pp. 75–

101). Chichester: Wiley.

Brookes, A., & Shields, F. D. Jr. (1996). Perspectives on river channel restoration. In A. Brookes, & F.

D. Shields Jr. (Eds), River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects (pp. 1–19). Chichester: Wiley.

Cairns, J. (1989). Restoring damaged ecosystems: is predisturbance condition a viable option? The

Environmental Professional, 11, 152–159.

Church, M. (1992). Channel morphology and typology. In P. Calow, & G. E. Petts (Eds), The rivers

handbook: hydrological and ecological principles (pp. 126–143). Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Conacher, A., & Conacher, J. (2000). Environmental planning in Australia. Melbourne: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Downs, P. W. (1995a). River channel classification for channel management purposes. In A. Gurnell, &

G. E. Petts (Eds), Changing river channels (pp. 347–365). Chichester: Wiley.

Downs, P. W. (1995b). Estimating the probability of river channel adjustment. Earth Surface Processes

and Landforms, 20, 687–705.

Downs, P. W., & Brookes, A. (1994). Developing a standard geomorphological approach for the appraisal

of river projects. In C. Kirkby, & W. R. White (Eds), Integrated river basin development (pp. 299–

310). Chichester: Wiley.




Downs, P. W., & Gregory, K. J. (1994). Sensitivity analysis and river conservation sites: a drainage basin

approach. In D. O’Halloran, C. Green, M. Harley, M. Stanley, & J. Knill (Eds), Geological and

landscape sensitivity (pp. 139–143). London: Geological Society.

Downs, P. W., & Thorne, C. R. (1996). A geomorphological justi fication of river channel reconnaissancesurveys. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21, 455–468.

Erskine, W. D., & Webb, A. A. (1999). A protocol for river rehabilitation. In I. Rutherfurd, & R. Bartley

(Eds). Proceedings of the Second Stream Management Conference, (Vol. 1 pp. 237–243). Melbourne:

CRC for Catchment Hydrology.

Fryirs, K., & Brierley, G. J. (1998). The character and age structure of valley fills in upper Wolumla Creek

catchment, South Coast, New South Wales. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 23, 271–287.

Fryirs, K., & Brierley, G. J. (1999). Slope-channel decoupling in Wolumla catchment, N.S.W., Australia:

the changing nature of sediment sources following European settlement. Catena, 35, 41–63.

Fryirs, K., & Brierley, G. J. (2000). A geomorphic approach to the identification of river recovery poten-

tial. Physical Geography, 21(3), 244–277.

Fryirs, K., & Brierley, G. J. (2001). Variability in sediment delivery and storage along river courses in

Bega catchment, NSW, Australia: implications for geomorphic river recovery. Geomorphology, 38 ,237–265.

Gell, P., Wallbrink, P., Tassicker, G., & Illman, M. (1999). Secrets in the sediments: a history of sediment

and pollution loads in the lower Torrens River, S.A. In I. Rutherfurd, & R. Bartley (Eds). Proceedings

of the Second Stream Management Conference, (Vol. 1 pp. 287–292). Melbourne: CRC for Catch-

ment Hydrology.

Goldrick, G., Brierley, G. J., & Fryirs, K. (1999). River Styles™ in the Richmond Catchment. Report to

the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation, Macquarie Research Limited.

Gore, J. A. (Ed.). (1985). The restoration of rivers and streams: theories and experience. Boston, MA:

Butterworth.

Gore, J. A., Kelly, J. R., & Young, J. D. (1990). Application of ecological theory to determining recovery

potential of disturbed lotic ecosystems: Research needs and priorities. Environmental Management ,

14, 755–762.Grant, G. E., Swanson, F. J., & Wolman, M. G. (1990). Pattern and origin of stepped-bed morphology

in high-gradient streams, Western Cascades, Oregon. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 102,

340–352.

Harper, D. M., Ebrahimnezhad, M., Taylor, E., Dickinson, S., Decamp, O., Verniers, G., & Balbi, T.

(1999). A catchment-scale approach to the physical restoration of lowland UK rivers. Aquatic Conser-

vation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 9, 141–157.

Hickin, E. J. (1984). Vegetation and river channel dynamics. Canadian Geographer , 28 (2), 111–126.

Hobbs, R. (1997). Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning,

37 , 1–9.

Hupp, C. R. (1992). Riparian vegetation recovery patterns following stream channelisation: a geomorphic

perspective. Ecology, 73(4), 1209–1226.

Imhof, J. G., Fitzgibbon, J., & Annable, W. K. (1996). A hierarchical evaluation system for characterisingwatershed ecosystems for fish habitat. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 53(Suppl.

1), 312–326.

Kemp, J. L., Harper, D. M., & Crossa, G. A. (1999). Use of ‘functional habitats’ to link ecology with

morphology and hydrology in river rehabilitation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Eco-

systems, 9, 159–178.

Koehn, J. D., Brierley, G. J., Cant, B. L., & Lucas, A. M., (2001). River restoration framework (online),

Canberra: Land and Water Australia (Occasional Paper 01/01: http://www.lwa.gov.au cited 21 May

2001).

Kondolf, G. M. (1995a). Geomorphological stream classification in aquatic habitat restoration: uses and

limitations. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 5, 127–141.

Kondolf, G. M. (1995b). Five elements of effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restoration Ecology,

3(2), 133–136.

Kondolf, G. M. (1996). A cross section of stream channel restoration. Journal of Soil and Water Conser-

vation, 51, 119–126.




Kondolf, G. M. (1998). Lessons learned from river restoration projects in California. Aquatic Conser-

vation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 8 , 39–52.

Kondolf, G. M., & Downs, P. W. (1996). Catchment approach to planning channel restoration. In A.

Brookes, & F. D. Shields Jr. (Eds), River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects (pp. 129–148). Chichester: Wiley.

Kondolf, G. M., & Larson, M. (1995). Historical channel analysis: techniques for application to riparian

and aquatic habitat restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 5, 109–

126.

Kondolf, G. M., & Micheli, E. R. (1995). Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environmental Manage-

ment , 19(1), 1–15.

Ladson, A. R., & Tilleard, J. W. (1998). Ensuring stream rehabilitation works carried out under NHT

funding are successful and effectively targeted. In I. D. Rutherfurd, A. R. Ladson, J. W. Tilleard, M.

J. Stewardson, S. A. Ewing, G. Brierley, & K. Fryirs (Eds), Research and development needs for river

restoration in Australia (pp. 45–50). Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development

corporation (Occasional Paper 15/98).

Maddock, I. (1999). The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Freshwater Biology, 41, 373–391.

Mackenzie, J. A., van Coller, A. L., & Rogers, K. H. (1999). Rule based modelling for management of

riparian systems. Report to the Water Research Commission (Report no. 813/1/99). Pretoria, South

Africa.

Millar, R. G. (2000). Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel patterns. Water Resources Research,

36 (4), 1109–1118.

Miller, J. R., & Ritter, J. B. (1996). An examination of the Rosgen classi fication of natural rivers. Catena,

27 , 295–299.

Milner, A. M. (1994). System recovery. In P. Calow, & G. E. Petts (Eds), The rivers handbook . Oxford:

Blackwell Science.

Montgomery, D. R., & Buf fington, J. M. (1997). Channel reach morphology in mountain drainage basins.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109, 596–611.Mosley, M. P. (1987). The classification and characterisation of rivers. In K. S. Richards (Ed.), River

channels: environment and process (pp. 295–320). Oxford: Blackwell.

Naiman, R. J., Lonzarich, D. G., Beechie, T. J., & Ralph, S. C. (1992). General principles of classi fication

and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers. In P. J. Boon, P. Calow, & G. E. Petts (Eds),

River conservation and management (pp. 93–123). Chichester: Wiley.

Nanson, G. C. (1986). Episodes of vertical accretion and catastrophic stripping: a model of disequilibrium

floodplain development. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 97 , 1467–1475.

Newson, M. D. (1992). River conservation and catchment management: a UK perspective. In P. J. Boon,

P. Calow, & G. E. Petts (Eds), River conservation and management (pp. 385–395). Chichester: Wiley.

Newson, M. D. (1994). Sustainable integrated development and the basin sediment system: guidance from

fluvial geomorphology. In C. Kirkby, & W. R. White (Eds), Integrated river basin development (pp.

1–10). Chichester: Wiley.Newson, M. D., Clark, M. J., Sear, D. A., & Brookes, A. (1998). The geomorphological basis for classify-

ing rivers. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 8 , 415–430.

Penn, L. J. (1999). Managing our rivers: a guide to the nature and management of the streams of south-

west Western Australia. Perth: Water and Rivers Commission.

Poff, N. L., & Ward, J. V. (1990). Physical habitat template of lotic systems: recovery in the context of

historical pattern of spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Environmental Management , 14(5), 629–645.

Raven, P. J., Fox, P., Everand, M., Holmes, N. T. H., & Dawson, F. H. (1997). River habitat survey: a

new system for classifying rivers according to their habitat quality. In P. J. Boon, & D. L. Howell

(Eds), Freshwater quality: de fining the inde finable? (pp. 215–234). Edinburgh: The Stationery Of fice.

Renwick, W. H. (1992). Equilibrium, disequilibrium and non-equilibrium landforms in the landscape.

Geomorphology, 5, 265–276.

Rogers, K., & Bestbier, R. (1997). Development of a protocol for the rehabilitation of the desired state

of riverine systems in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

Rosgen, D. L. (1994). A classification of natural rivers. Catena, 22, 169–199.




Rosgen, D. L. (1996). Applied river morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology.

Rowntree, K. M., & Wadeson, R. A. (1999). A hierarchical geomorphological model for the classi fication

of selected South African rivers. Pretoria: Water Research Commission (Report No. 497/1/99).

Rust, B. R. (1978). A classification of alluvial channel systems. In A. D. Miall (Ed.), Fluvial sedimentology(pp. 187–198). Calgary: Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists (Memoir 5).

Rutherfurd, I., Jerie, K., Walker, M., & Marsh, N. (1999). Don’t raise the Titanic: how to set priorities

for stream rehabilitation. In I. Rutherfurd, & R. Bartley (Eds), Proceedings of the Second Stream

Management Conference, (vol. 2) (pp. 527–532). Melbourne: CRC for Catchment Hydrology.

Rutherfurd, I., Jerie, K., Walker, M., & Marsh, N. (2000). A rehabilitation manual for Australian streams

(vol. 1). Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.

Schumm, S. A. (1973). Geomorphic thresholds and complex response of drainage systems. In M. Moris-

awa (Ed.), Fluvial geomorphology (pp. 299–310). Binghamton, NY: Publications in Geomorphology.

Schumm, S. A. (1977). The fl uvial system. New York: Wiley Interscience.

Sear, D. A. (1994). River restoration and geomorphology. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater

Ecosystems, 4, 169–177.

Sear, D. A. (1996). The sediment system and channel stability. In A. Brookes, & F. D. Shields Jr. (Eds), River channel restoration: guiding principles for sustainable projects (pp. 149–177). Chichester:

Wiley.

Sear, D. A., Newson, M. D., & Brookes, A. (1995). Sediment-related river maintenance: the role of fluvial

geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 20, 629–647.

Simon, A. (1989). A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes

and Landforms, 14, 11–26.

Smith, D. I. (1998). Water in Australia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Southwood, T. R. E. (1977). Habitat, the template for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology,

46 , 337–365.

Taylor, M. P., Thomson, J. R., Fryirs, K., & Brierley, G. J. (2000). Habitat assessment using the River

Styles™ methodology. Ecological Management and Restoration, 1(3), 223–226.

Wasson, R. J., Mazari, R. K., Starr, B., & Clifton, G. (1998). The recent history of erosion and sedimen-tation on the Southern Tablelands of southeastern Australia: sediment flux dominated by channel

incision. Geomorphology, 24, 291–308.

Zierholz, C., Prosser, I. P., Fogarty, P. J., & Rustomji, P. (2001). In-stream wetlands and their significance

for channel infilling and the catchment sediment budget, Jugiong Creek, New South Wales. Geomor-

phology, 38 , 221–235.

Documents

Brierley Fryirs Outhet Massey