- Author assessment of available information to determine state grades and trends
- Assessments for all components are generally somewhat comparable to 2011, as they are based largely on the same monitoring data.

This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
No division-scale assessment available. Minimal new development since 2011.
Limited water quality data available
Observations generally consistent with sampling period and hydrological conditions
Very limited water quality data available; potential water quality issues around turbiditiy and nutrients arising from grazing and feral pests
Recent local improvements in some water quality parameters, against a background of values exceeding guidelines
Widespread, ongoing and serious issues of sedimentation, anoxia, eutrophication and salinisation
Water quality concerns, including nutrients, sediment and pesticides. Significant development of coordinated monitoring and reporting schemes.
Widespread concerns over water quality in rivers, particularly sediment and nitrogen; evidence of improved outcomes of land-use practices in northern and south-eastern catchments
Very little water quality data available; no comprehensive assessments available
Very little water quality data available
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Very little water quality data available; no comprehensive assessments available
Very little water quality data available
Broadscale enriched levels of nutrients and sediment
Ongoing, widespread exceedences of nutrient and suspended solids
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Widespread exceedance of nutrient guidelines
Ongoing, widespread exceedences of nutrient and suspended solids guidelines; little evidence of substantial, long-term improvements
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Majority of sites in moderate to poor condition
Ongoing, widespread exceedences of nutrient and suspended solids guidelines; little evidence of substantial, long-term improvements
Continuing exceedance of water quality guidelines
Ongoing exceedences of nutrient and salinity levels
Very little water quality data available; no comprehensive assessments available
Very little water quality data available
This assessment summary component has changed from 2011.
The original 2011 summary, grade, trend and confidence levels have been replicated here to assist comparison of changes between reporting cycles.
Limited data, mainly from Daly and Darwin
Very little water quality data except for Ord River and around Darwin; sedimentation issues arising from extensive land uses
Local areas of high nutrient values; otherwise, moderate to very good condition
Nitrogen levels of local concern; salinity generally within guidelines
There are no significant changes in long-term water quality as a result of human activities
Water quality has changed substantially as a result of human activities in some areas, but not to the extent that the changes are significantly affecting ecosystem function
Water quality has changed substantially as a result of human activities, and these changes are significantly affecting ecosystem function in some areas
Water quality has changed substantially across a wide area of the region as a result of human activities, and ecosystem function is seriously affected in much of the region
Improving
Stable
Deteriorating
Unclear
Adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence and high level of consensus
Somewhat adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence or high level of consensus
Limited: Limited evidence or limited consensus
Very limited: Limited evidence and limited consensus
Low: Evidence and consensus too low to make an assessment
Comparable: Grade and trend are comparable to the previous assessment
Somewhat comparable: Grade and trend are somewhat comparable to the previous assessment
Not comparable: Grade and trend are not comparable to the previous assessment
Not previously assessed
Comments
Nil.