Ranking NZ river values – application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS)

Ken Hughey and Mary-Anne Baker2010

1

Acknowledgements

A 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

guil

ds (

Obj

)

5. N

umbe

r of

'th

reat

ened

or

at

risk

' spe

cies

pr

esen

t (O

bj)

6. P

ropo

rtio

n of

'th

reat

ened

or

at

risk

' pop

ulat

ions

(O

bj/S

ubj)

1. R

elat

ive

dist

inct

iven

ess

of h

abit

at

2. A

mou

nt o

f H

abita

t

3. N

umbe

rs

4. B

reed

ing

guil

ds

5. N

umbe

r of

'th

reat

ened

or

at

risk

' spe

cies

6. S

peci

es

stro

ngho

lds

Sum

Wei

ghts

1

Ran

k1

Overall evaluation of importance

INDICATORS

INDICATOR THRESHOLDS

1= H

abit

at o

r sp

ecie

s w

idel

y re

pres

ente

d in

NZ

; 2=

H

abita

t or

spec

ies

rare

ly r

epre

sent

ed in

NZ

; 3=

H

abita

t or

spec

ies

not r

epre

sent

ed in

oth

er r

egio

ns

in N

Z

2a. h

a fo

r br

aide

d ri

ver

bird

s

2b. k

m f

or m

ainl

y si

ngle

cha

nnel

bir

d ri

vers

3. N

umbe

r of

nat

ive

wet

land

bir

ds

4. R

ange

s fr

om 0

-8, e

.g.,

a= o

pen-

wat

er d

iver

s; b

=

deep

wat

er w

ader

s

5. R

ange

: 0-1

2, e

.g. b

lue

duck

(B

D),

bla

ck s

tilt

(B

S),

wry

bill

(W

B)

6. R

ange

: 0-1

2, e

.g.,

blue

duc

k (B

D),

bla

ck s

tilt

(B

S),

wry

bill

(W

B)

1= lo

w; 2

= m

ediu

m; 3

= h

igh

1=<

4999

ha a

nd/o

r 5-

10km

; 2=

5000

-999

9ha

and/

or

11-3

0km

; 3=

>10

000h

a an

d/or

>30

km

1= <

999

indi

vidu

als;

2=

100

0-49

99 in

divi

dual

s; 3

=

>50

00 in

divi

dual

s

1-4

= lo

w =

1; 5

-6=

med

ium

= 2

; 7-8

= h

igh

= 3

1=1;

2-3

= 2

; 4 o

r m

ore

= 3

1 or

mor

e >

5%

, or

3 or

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

Sta

ndar

d

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

fea

sibi

lity

of

abst

ract

ion

2. T

echn

ical

fea

sibi

lity

of

stor

age

3. R

elia

bilit

y (R

OR

)

4. R

elia

bilit

y (S

tora

ge)

5. S

ize

of r

esou

rce

6. S

oil m

oist

ure

defi

cit

7. I

rrig

able

are

a

8. R

ecei

ving

env

iron

men

t

9. A

ltern

ativ

e su

pply

10. S

ocio

eco

nom

ic

bene

fit

1. T

echn

ical

fea

sibi

lity

of

abst

ract

ion

2. T

echn

ical

fea

sibi

lity

of

stor

age

3. R

elia

bilit

y (R

OR

)

4. R

elia

bilit

y (S

tora

ge)

5. S

ize

of r

esou

rce

6. S

oil m

oist

ure

defi

cit

7. I

rrig

able

are

a

8. R

ecei

ving

env

iron

men

t

9. A

ltern

ativ

e su

pply

10. S

ocio

eco

nom

ic

bene

fit

Agg

rega

te

Ranking ROR weighted

Exp

ert r

anki

ng

Exp

ert r

anki

ng

MA

LF/

Mea

n 4%

- 7

2%

Cur

rent

ly a

nnua

l vol

ume

Stra

tegi

c W

ater

stu

dy

Rai

nfal

l ave

rage

ove

r ir

riga

ble

area

Irri

gabl

e ar

ea

Ran

k 1

- 5

with

1 b

eing

low

ris

k an

d 5

bein

g hi

gh r

isk

(exp

ert a

sses

smen

t)

Byp

ass

solu

tion

rank

ing

from

% (

map

s fr

om C

SWS)

Ran

king

fro

m 1

(lo

w, M

acke

nzie

)- 3

(W

aipa

ra)

(hig

h, E

xper

t ass

essm

ent)

3 =

3

3 =

3

>40

% =

3, >

20%

=2,<

20%

=1

>30

00=3

, <10

0 =

1

>70

= 3

,>5

= 2

,

>17

00 =

1,>

1200

= 2

> 1

00,0

00 h

a =

3, >

500

0 ha

= 2

Ran

k 5

= 1

, 3 a

nd 4

= 2

, 1 a

nd 2

= 3

> 6

0% =

1, >

30%

= 2

Dir

ect t

rans

fer

(3 =

3)

Sum

Irri

gate

d ar

ea a

nd s

ize

of r

esou

rce

cube

d, r

elia

bilit

y so

il m

oist

ure

and

alte

rnat

ive

supp

ly +

50%

, rem

aind

er

aggr

egat

ed. W

eigh

ting

for

irri

gabl

e ar

ea a

nd s

ize

of r

esou

rce

only

app

lies

if S

oil M

oist

ure

defi

cit i

s >1

, oth

erw

ise

they

rec

eive

a 5

0% w

eigh

ting.

Nat

iona

l - ir

riga

ted

area

3, s

ize

of

reso

urce

3, s

oil m

oist

ure

defi

cit 2

or

grea

ter.

Loc

al -

res

ourc

e si

ze =

1,

irri

gate

d ar

ea =

1 o

r no

soi

l moi

stur

e de

fici

t. R

emai

nder

reg

iona

l

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