Ranking NZ river values – application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS)Ken Hughey and Mary-Anne Baker2010

1

AcknowledgementsA big thanks to: • FRST, for funding the Envirolink Project

that led to development of this system;• The multiple participants who have worked

together, and ‘separately’ on system development.

2

The challenge• Need a ‘prioritisation’ tool now, for multiple

statutory and non statutory purposes.• A tool that works regionally but also has national

level application potential.• A tool that will work with the best available

information.• A tool that is user friendly.• A tool that, when applied, provides defensible

(e.g., Environment Court) results.

3

The approach• In late 2008 we established a project steering group.

• Initiated literature review. Some work, e.g., kayaking (but 20+ yrs ago); the Waters of National Importance project, but of limited value.

• No one had developed a system to look objectively/ quantitatively or in a standardised, user friendly way across a range of values.

• We developed a methodology, the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS).

• RiVAS applied to range of values at selected councils …

4

The values tested

• Salmonids – Tasman: done; subsequently, Marlborough; Hawkes Bay: in press

• Irrigation – Canterbury; Tasman: done• Native Birdlife – Canterbury; Tasman: done• Native fish – Wellington and Tasman: in progress• Iwi – Southland: done• Natural character – Marlborough; Tasman: done• Swimming – Manawatu-Whanganui; Tasman: done• Kayaking – West Coast; Tasman: done; subsequently, Hawkes

Bay: in press• Hydro – Bay of Plenty; Tasman: in progress

5

The method – multi-criteria driven, standardised numeric scale, and expert panel based approach• Very few ‘values’ have full or up-to-date, comparable or

quantitative, data, either nationally or regionally – notable exception is F&G NZ’s salmonid angling surveys.

• No contemporary data for some values, e.g., swimming or natural character, while others are mixed, e.g., native birdlife.

• Used the best available information - filled the gaps with expert judgement: there is no other way!

• Method built around key attributes of river values, populating where possible with real data, and then converting this information to numeric scales for ranking values = this is known as multi criteria analysis.

• Ultimately this led to us using expert panels and best available information as the cornerstones of the project.

6

Using the Best Available Information• Mandated in Fisheries Act 1996 under the

Information Principles (S10)• Supported by numerous Environment Court

decisions• Bottom line: cannot wait forever for the

collection of perfect data so we use the Best Available Information, in a precautionary way

• We are absolutely explicit about the data we use – nothing is hidden

Why we use Expert panels• The most appropriate people to find, populate and

interpret the Best Available Information are experts in the various values

• Experts are also best placed for identifying the attributes, indicators and importance thresholds of the values

• The choice and credibility of experts is vital – a credible panel tends to act cautiously because its members, by definition, have to remain credible

• An independent facilitator can keep experts ‘honest’• Independent peer reviewers are also an important

moderating influence

The method – operationalisingAssessment criteria • Step 1: define river value categories and river segments• Step 2: identify all of the value’s attributes – economic, social, environmental, cultural• Step 3: select and describe primary attributes – reduce to a list of <10• Step 4: identify indicators – choose objective over subjective wherever possible

Determining significance• Step 5: determine indicator thresholds – quantify these where possible and think nationally• Step 6: apply indicators and their thresholds – convert all to 1=low; 2=medium; 3= high• Step 7: weight the primary attributes – preferably equal weighting, but otherwise as needed• Step 8: determine river significance – sum total and determine overall importance, e.g., in

relation to water conservation order criteria• Step 9: outline other factors relevant to the assessment of significance

Method review• Step 10: review assessment process and identify future information needs, e.g., survey needs

9

So, what does the output look like at the end of the day?

The following two applications – for native birdlife and irrigation in Canterbury are examples showing:• the sorts of input data, • the integrating system, and • the final ranked outputs.

Demonstration 1: Birdlife - Canterbury

River

PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES SCORING OF PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES

1. R

elat

ive

dist

inct

iven

ess

(Sub

j)

2. A

mou

nt o

f H

abita

t (O

bj)

3. N

umbe

rs

(Obj

)

4. B

reed

ing

guild

s (O

bj)

5. N

umbe

r of

'thre

aten

ed o

r at

risk'

spec

ies

pres

ent (

Obj

)

6. P

ropo

rtion

of

'thre

aten

ed o

r at

risk'

pop

ulat

ions

(O

bj/S

ubj)

1. R

elat

ive

dist

inct

iven

ess

of h

abita

t

2. A

mou

nt o

f H

abita

t

3. N

umbe

rs

4. B

reed

ing

guild

s

5. N

umbe

r of

'thre

aten

ed o

r at

risk'

spec

ies

6. S

peci

es

stro

ngho

lds

Sum

Wei

ghts

1

Ran

k1

Overall evaluation of importance

INDICATORS

INDICATOR THRESHOLDS

1= H

abita

t or s

peci

es w

idel

y re

pres

ente

d in

NZ;

2=

Hab

itat o

r spe

cies

rare

ly re

pres

ente

d in

NZ;

3=

Hab

itat o

r spe

cies

not

repr

esen

ted

in o

ther

regi

ons

in N

Z

2a. h

a fo

r bra

ided

rive

r bird

s

2b. k

m fo

r mai

nly

sing

le c

hann

el b

ird ri

vers

3. N

umbe

r of n

ativ

e w

etla

nd b

irds

4. R

ange

s fro

m 0

-8, e

.g.,

a= o

pen-

wat

er d

iver

s; b

= de

ep w

ater

wad

ers

5. R

ange

: 0-1

2, e

.g. b

lue

duck

(BD

), bl

ack

stilt

(B

S), w

rybi

ll (W

B)

6. R

ange

: 0-1

2, e

.g.,

blue

duc

k (B

D),

blac

k st

ilt

(BS)

, wry

bill

(WB

)

1= lo

w; 2

= m

ediu

m; 3

= hi

gh

1=<4

999h

a an

d/or

5-1

0km

; 2=5

000-

9999

ha a

nd/o

r 11

-30k

m; 3

= >1

0000

ha a

nd/o

r >30

km

1= <

999

indi

vidu

als;

2=

1000

-499

9 in

divi

dual

s; 3

= >5

000

indi

vidu

als

1-4

= lo

w =

1; 5

-6=

med

ium

= 2

; 7-8

= hi

gh =

3

1=1;

2-3

= 2;

4 o

r mor

e =

3

1 or

mor

e >

5%, o

r 3 o

r mor

e 1-

4.9%

= h

igh

= 3;

2

at 1

-4.9

% =

med

ium

= 2

; 1 a

t 1-4

.9%

= lo

w; N

one

>1%

= 0

Stan

dard

DSS: If column 6, population thresholds (threatened spp >5%) = 3; or total score is 15 or more = national importance; if all columns 1-5 are 2 or less and column 6 is 0; or the total score <10 = local; otherwise regional

Waiau 3 7412 4408 a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h

B-FT, B-BG, BDo, WB, BlSh

B-FT(>5%); B-BG; BDo 3 2 2 3 3 2 15 7 National

Waimakariri 3 14342 3896

a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h

WB, B-FT, BDo, B-BG, CT, BlSh

B-FT (>5%); B-BG; WB (10%); BDo 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 1 National

Avon 2 c.30 1500 a,b,d,f,g,h

BlSh, B-BG, R-BG 2 2 2 1 0 7 13 Local

Kaituna 1 c.10 200 a,b,d,f,g,h SCG, BlSh 1 1 2 1 1 6 17 Local

Rakaia 3 32102 4842 a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h

WB, B-FT, BDo, B-BG, W-FT, CT, BlSh

B-FT; B-BG; WB (30%); Bdo, W-FT 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 1 National

Waitaki - Lower 3 8104 6636

b,c,d,e,f,g,h

B-FT, B-BG, BDo, BlSh

B-FT (8%); B-BG; BDo 3 3 3 3 3 2 17 5 National

Waitaki - Upper 3 30000 8407

a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h

BS, WB, B-FT, BDo, CT, BlSh

BS (100%); B-FT (15%); B-BG; WB (20%); BDo 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 1 National

Demonstration 2: Irrigation – Canterbury

Rivers

Primary Attributes and indicators Conversion to threshold values

1. T

echn

ical

feas

ibili

ty o

f ab

stra

ctio

n 2.

Tec

hnic

al fe

asib

ility

of

stor

age

3. R

elia

bilit

y (R

OR

)

4. R

elia

bilit

y (S

tora

ge)

5. S

ize

of re

sour

ce

6. S

oil m

oist

ure

defic

it

7. Ir

rigab

le a

rea

8. R

ecei

ving

env

ironm

ent

9. A

ltern

ativ

e su

pply

10. S

ocio

eco

nom

ic

bene

fit

1. T

echn

ical

feas

ibili

ty o

f ab

stra

ctio

n

2. T

echn

ical

feas

ibili

ty o

f st

orag

e

3. R

elia

bilit

y (R

OR

)

4. R

elia

bilit

y (S

tora

ge)

5. S

ize

of re

sour

ce

6. S

oil m

oist

ure

defic

it

7. Ir

rigab

le a

rea

8. R

ecei

ving

env

ironm

ent

9. A

ltern

ativ

e su

pply

10. S

ocio

eco

nom

ic

bene

fit

Agg

rega

te

Ranking ROR weighted

Expe

rt ra

nkin

g

Expe

rt ra

nkin

g

MA

LF/ M

ean

4% -

72%

Cur

rent

ly a

nnua

l vol

ume

Stra

tegi

c W

ater

stud

y

Rai

nfal

l ave

rage

ove

r irr

igab

le a

rea

Irrig

able

are

a

Ran

k 1

- 5 w

ith 1

bei

ng lo

w ri

sk a

nd 5

be

ing

high

risk

(exp

ert a

sses

smen

t)

Byp

ass s

olut

ion

rank

ing

from

% (m

aps

from

CSW

S)

Ran

king

from

1 (l

ow, M

acke

nzie

)- 3

(W

aipa

ra) (

high

, Exp

ert a

sses

smen

t)

3 =

3

3 =

3

>40%

= 3

, >20

%=2

,<20

%=1

>300

0=3,

<10

0 =

1

>70

= 3,

>5 =

2,

>170

0 =

1,>1

200

= 2

> 10

0,00

0 ha

= 3

, > 5

000

ha =

2

Ran

k 5

= 1,

3 a

nd 4

= 2

, 1 a

nd 2

= 3

> 60

% =

1, >

30%

= 2

Dire

ct tr

ansf

er (3

= 3

)

Sum

Irrig

ated

are

a an

d si

ze o

f res

ourc

e cu

bed,

relia

bilit

y so

il m

oist

ure

and

alte

rnat

ive

supp

ly +

50%

, rem

aind

er

aggr

egat

ed. W

eigh

ting

for i

rrig

able

ar

ea a

nd si

ze o

f res

ourc

e on

ly a

pplie

s if

Soil

Moi

sture

def

icit

is >

1, o

ther

wis

e th

ey re

ceiv

e a

50%

wei

ghtin

g.

Nat

iona

l - ir

rigat

ed a

rea

3, si

ze o

f re

sour

ce 3

, soi

l moi

stur

e de

ficit

2 or

gr

eate

r. Lo

cal -

reso

urce

size

= 1

, irr

igat

ed a

rea

= 1

or n

o so

il m

oistu

re

defic

it. R

emai

nder

regi

onal

Waitaki 3 3 53 11668 370 500 212596 2 0% 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 29 81.5 National

Rakaia 2 3 43 6402 203 700 270000 2 30% 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 28 80.5 National

Rangitata 2 2 42 3154 100 700 270000 2 30% 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 27 79.5 National

Waimakariri 2 2 32 3784 120 700 141000 3 20% 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 25 77 National

Waiau 3 3 39 347 11 700 270000 2 30% 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 26 60 Regional

Sth Ashburton 3 1 26 3059 97 900 54206 1 0 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 25 59 Regional

Hurunui 3 3 30 2302 73 600 63716 3 0 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 25 59 Regional

Orari 3 3 24 189 6 600 105012 4 10% 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 25 59 Regional

Nth Ashburton 3 3 27 315 10 600 105012 4 10% 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 25 59 Regional

Opihi 3 3 18 378 12 700 141000 3 10% 2 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 25 58.5 Regional

Opuha 3 2 28 347 11 600 105012 4 10% 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 24 58 Regional

Ashley 2 2 32 284 9 700 270000 2 10% 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 24 58 Regional

Clarence 3 1 26 2271 72 900 1653 1 0 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 24 52 Local

Hope 3 1 33 1419 45 1200 54206 1 0 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 22 38 Regional

Hakataramea 2 3 38 757 24 500 24000 4 0% 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 1 22 38 Regional

Ahuriri 3 1 18 189 6 500 8077 2 0% 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 1 21 36.5 Regional

Maerewhenua 3 2 13 126 4 600 41000 2 0% 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 2 22 31.5 Local

Pareora 3 3 23 95 3 700 5000 5 20% 2 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 3 2 21 31 Local

Waipara 3 2 4 95 3 600 60000 3 10% 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 21 30.5 Local

Selwyn 3 2 14 126 4 600 41000 3 0% 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 21 30.5 Local

Tengawai 3 1 22 95 3 500 74000 2 0% 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 1 20 30 Local

Waihao 3 1 9 126 4 600 41000 4 10% 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 20 29.5 Local

Avon 3 1 24 32 1 700 1000 3 20% 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 19 23 Local

Cust 3 1 14 158 5 700 1000 3 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 3 2 19 22.5 Local

Okuku 3 1 67 32 1 700 1000 5 100% 2 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 17 20.5 Local

Halswell 3 1 5 32 1 700 1000 5 80% 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 16 18.5 Local

Kaituna 3 1 72 63 2 700 0 5 0% 2 2 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 15 18.5 Local

Some of the lessons/questions to date• Expert panel selection sometimes challenging –

ultimately, credibility extremely important and willingness and ability to work within a collaborative.

• People sometimes sceptical/hesitant until they have worked through the process – ‘working through’ removes this concern, mostly.

• Need a preliminary scan to reduce the size of the task, i.e., based on the best available information remove rivers of no importance for this value.

15

Resource requirements• A ‘champion’ needed within council, and probably an

external consultant to run the project(s);• A credible multi stakeholder group must be established;• For some values, e.g., tangata whenua, considerable time is

needed for consultation and resource gathering;• Cost varies greatly – for first time national level

development of attributes etc then cost is greater than subsequent regional level applications (for latter: estimate of $3-6,000 per value application).

• Guidelines & reports available in the Hughey and Baker (2011) LEAP report 24 published by Lincoln University.

16