Summary Liao t card river health repor 2012

River health is important. Healthy provide water Introduction to the catchment for drinking, agriculture, and industry; fish and other The Liao River, one of ’s seven major rivers, is produce for consumption; the assimilation of waste located in the northeast of China. It is composed of products; buffers against flooding; and recreational the West Liao River, East Liao River, Liao Main River opportunities. As rivers become unhealthy, they lose and Huntai River. Covering a large area, the basin their capacity to provide these valuable goods and has distinct natural and human geography, with the services. most developed areas is in the middle and lower This document summarises the results of a pilot parts of the basin. Key threats to river health include river health study in the Liao River. This document water resources development; industrial, urban, and has been prepared as part of the River Health and rural pollution; clearing of natural vegetation; the Environmental Flow in China Project. The work construction of in-stream barriers; changes to the described was funded by: natural flow regime; and the riparian extraction of • The Australia-China Environment Development sand and gravel. Partnership • The China Special Science and Technology Program on Water Pollution, Control and Treatment The key steps in this process were (i) development of conceptual models; (ii) a field trial to gather the necessary data, (iii) an assessment of different indicators against catchment disturbance to identify those that respond predictably to changes in river health, (iv) classification of rivers in the basin, to allow for comparisons between similar rivers, (v) establishing reference values, and (vi) scoring sites and indicators. Catchment facts Drainage: 219,631 km2

River length: 1345km Liao River Basin Annual rainfall: 300-950mm

Mean annual runoff: 16,499 billion m3

Population: 33.97 million (199)

Land use: 35.7% mountain 23.5% hill 34.5% plain 6.3% sand dune

Further information on the project and detailed technical reports on the river health assessment are available at: http://www.watercentre.org/research/applied-research/acedp FECO ma Targ sholds Sum ry ets and thre card river health report Sampling sites and data collection

Data collected Sampling Sampling Sampling period Water Nutrients Fish Algae Macro location sites quality invertebrates 70 August 2009      Hun River 62 May 2010      Liao trunk stream 44 May 2009 June 2010    

Key findings and recommendations • The assessment showed that the health was condition for assessing the Eastern Liao River. poorest at the main channel of Liao River, and These sites may not necessarily be suitable for best in the headwaters of the Taizi. River health this purpose. Detailed research is needed to is considered “fair” in both the Taizi and Hun revise and improve the reference values used in River, although the average score of Taizi was assessing the health of Liao River. higher than that of the Hun River. The average • Seasonal variation was not considered, but river health score was “poor” in the Western should be assessed as part of future studies. Liao River, and “fair” in the Eastern Liao River.

Most sites sampled in the main channel of the 1.0 Liao River were considered in poor health. Good-very good (0.6-1.0) Fair (0.4-0.6) • Results for the Eastern and Western Liao River 0.8 Poor (0.2-0.4) both show significant degradation of the fish Critical (0.0-0.2) communities. No sites in the Eastern and Western Liao River scored higher than 0.5, 0.6 which was notably lower than the upper scores 0.4

in the Hun River (0.11-0.68), and Taizi (0.06 - Health score 0.65)., The fish indices generally scored lower than the other indices. 0.2 • Reference sites in the Taizi Hill-Mountain

region were used as a benchmark for assessing 0.0 River Taizi Hun River Liao Eastern Liao Western streams in the Western Liao River. Likewise Average health scores for the main monitored in this the Taizi floodplain was used as the reference program. s Summary Targets and threshold

For each indicator, it was necessary to set reference At each site, for each indicator a score from 0 – 1 was values as a benchmark against which individual sites assigned, using the reference values as a benchmark. can be assessed. These define: Scores ranked along a scale ranging from very good • what is a “good” score - the value expected in a (0.8-1) to critical (0-0.2). Scores were calculated using the healthy river following formula: • what is a “poor” score - the value that indicates Site Target value - observed value unacceptable or critical river condition indicator = 1 - score Target value - threshold value Importantly, different reference values need to be These scores were then aggregated to produce defined for different river types. Reference values were combined scores for different indicator groups, sites, established using expert opinion, together with a and regions. In calculating an overall site score, different combination of: indicator groups were given different weighting. Macroinvertebrates and fish scores were given the • Existing Chinese standards (GB3838-2002) and greatest weighting, followed by algal scores. The water Australian guidelines (ANZECC 2000). • Values derived for sites in the catchment using quality and nutrient indicator groups were given the data collected in the study. lowest weighting, given they are most prone to the affects • Results from national and international studies. of short-term fluctuations in river health. In addition, an The adoption of the last of these options was due indicator group was automatically given a “critical” rating to the limited available data from undisturbed if either the dissolved oxygen (for water quality) or the sites in the catchment. This approach should be NH4 (for nutrients) value was in the critical range - due to phased out as soon as more local data become the significance of these indices for river health. available. Basis for values

Potential target values for indicators of aquatic ecosystems in very good condition and potential critical values for indicators representing the threshold at which aquatic ecosystem health collapses “Very good” “Critical” Group Indicator Region

Target threshold standards Chinese standards Australian Literature data study Pilot opinion Expert Water quality EC (uS/cm) All ≤400 ≥1500 P P DO (mg/L) All ≥7.5 ≤2 P P P Phenols (mg/L) Midlands and Lowlands ≤0.002 ≥0.1 P P

BOD5 (mg/L) Lowlands ≤3 ≥10 P P P P

CODMn (mg/L) Lowlands ≤2 ≥15 P P P Nutrients Total nitrogen (mg/L) All ≤0.2 ≥2 P P P Total phosphorus (mg/L) All ≤0.02 ≥0.4 P P P

NH4 (mg/L) All ≤0.15 ≥2 P P P P Algae Algal biotic index All 7 0 P P Algal Berger Parker index All ≤0.15 ≥0.90 P Macro Macroinvertebrate family Highlands and Midlands ≥30 0 P P P P invertebrates richness Lowlands ≥22 0 P P P P Macroinvertebrate Highlands and Midlands ≥131 0 P P P BMWP score Lowlands ≥81 0 P P P P EPT family richness Highlands ≥15 0 P P P P Midlands ≥10 0 P P P P Lowlands ≥7 0 P P P P Fish Fish species index All 65 0 P P P Fish biotic index All 25 5 P P Fish Berger Parker index All ≤0.15 ≥0.90 P Sampling sites

Nansha stream which flows into the Taizi River

Water quality Tianshan Tongliao Algae

Nutrients Siping Macroinverts Fish

Downstream of Shifosi Reservoir, main channel of Liao River Water quality

Algae

Nutrients Macroinverts Fish

Shengyang Chifeng

Water quality Liao River

Algae Fudedian Site, main channel of Liao River

Nutrients Hun River Macroinverts Fish

Taizi River L Haicheng

0 25 50 100 150 200 Bohai Kilometres Shabaotai Site, main channel of Liao River major city (population > 500,000) city (population < 500,000) eport Card R Agricultural area hods Samp R esuIrrigatedlt agriculturals area g met ling sites Natural area plin Urban area Sam stream class boundary Water quality Water quality Map legend Algae Algae

Site and indicator health

Nutrients Nutrients Good-very good (0.6-1.0) Water quality Fair (0.4-0.6) Algae

Poor (0.2-0.4)

Macroinverts Macroinverts Critical (0.0-0.2) Nutrients Fish Fish No data/not applicable Water quality

Algae

Macroinverts

Fish Nutrients Macroinverts Fish Water quality

Algae

Nutrients Macroinverts Fish Tianshan Tongliao Siping

Water quality

Algae Shengyang

Chifeng Nutrients

Liao River Macroinverts Water quality Fish

Algae Hun River Nutrients

Water quality

Macroinverts Water quality Algae Fish

Algae Nutrients Taizi River

Nutrients Haicheng

L Macroinverts

Water quality Fish Macroinverts Fish Algae 0 25 50 100 150 200 Water quality Water quality

Algae Nutrients

Algae Bohai

Kilometres Nutrients

Nutrients Macroinverts

Fish Macroinverts

Macroinverts Fish Fish Report Card Results g methods Samplin

Water quality

Algae

Nutrients Macroinverts

Fish Water quality

Tianshan Tongliao Algae Nutrients

Siping Macroinverts Fish

Water quality

Algae

Nutrients Macroinverts Fish Water quality

Algae

Nutrients Macroinverts Fish Shengyang Water quality

Chifeng Algae Nutrients

Liao River Macroinverts Hun River Fish What makes up the pentagon? Water Algae quality Water quality conductivityElectrical Each pentagon presents the river health score dex Alg in al Mn r b e i COD k o Algae r t

a i

c

Dissolved P oxygen for each of the 5 different indicator groups

i

r n

5

e d

g e

r

x

e

Nutrients

B

BOD

sampled at an individual site. The l

a

g l Taizi River A Volatile Haicheng scores for each indicator in a group are phenols Macroinverts Nutrients

L Macroinverts aggregated to give a single group score. Total phosphorus BMWP score Fish The group score is indicated by the colour 4 NH of the relevant section of the pentagon: a 0 25 50 100 150 200 EPT family richness Fish Fish biotic index section that is green represents a score of Macroinvertbrate Total nitrogen Bohai family richness Kilometres 0.6 to 1.0 (good to very) while red indicates a Fish Berger score of 0.0-0.2 (critical). Parker index Fish species richness