ENVIROLINK TOOLS Framework for identifying and assessing significance of river uses and values Mary-Anne Baker, TDC

BACKGROUND Plan objectives for river management dependent on identification of uses and values. Relative significance of values important Level of water abstraction affected by significance of instream values Method to assess relative significance.

SIGNIFICANCE Range of significance levels; –Water Conservation Orders –Outstanding –RMA –Outstanding –Significant –NPS –Outstanding –Notable

Varied Regional Plan Terminology Significant Regionally significant Diverse range Important Nationally threatened Rare / Rare association Particularly uncommon

TOOL DEVELOPMENT 2008 Workshop What values? Programme Councils/consultants Review processes Literature review; Methodology development; –Salmonid angling exemplar Council/expert groups –Determine criteria –Test /report back – WORKSHOP Final Report –August 09 (OK there is a bit of slippage!)

Water Management Outcomes Consistent terminology – locally and nationally –Standard methods Data needs identified Identify management objectives –based on uses and values of water bodies –A tool to assist decision makers especially where there are competing uses and values Better Risk Management –Identify management needs Competing applications –easier to assess with better framework More certainty for potential water users and communities

What it doesn’t do Provide the answers for water management objectives Establish criteria for lakes and wetlands. Consider past values Anticipate future values or uses

Salmonid Fisheries Provided guidance for developing methodology. Includes –trout (brown, rainbow, lake and brook) –salmon (chinook, sockeye, atlantic) No salmon in Tasman but criteria applicable.

Applying the Method Attributes to reflect social, economic, environmental, cultural wellbeing easier said than done A key concept was the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum. –Provided rationale and context for this activity Need for discipline in language and terminology Wilderness/scenic attractiveness

Lucky to have good data (NAS) –data, angler perceptions Water quality thresholds already determined

Data Gaps Users perceptions about –the importance of the river, –scenic value –wilderness value –Overall evaluation of the fishery River labelling

More robust analysis than already in Plan –Consistency with WCO and WONI outputs –Intuitively accurate Comprehensive Implications for management –Better understanding of where issues may arise

Gaps Attributes not included; –Contribution to a collective value –Scarcity –Access –Future/potential value –Past value –Existence value Relevance for management decisions