NIWA Client report - Waikato€¦ · Web viewThese context views make it easy to delve into the detail of the KN at a range of levels to examine drivers, effects and management actions

Knowledge Networks to Support Report Cards for Waikato River Restoration

Prepared for Waikato River Authority

April 2014

Authors/Contributors:John QuinnDavid Rowe

For any information regarding this report please contact:John QuinnProgramme Leader Ensuring Ecosystem HealthFreshwater Ecology+64-7-856 [email protected]

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research LtdGate 10, Silverdale RoadHillcrest, Hamilton 3216 PO Box 11115, HillcrestHamilton 3251New Zealand

Phone +64-7-856 7026Fax +64-7-856 0151

NIWA Client Report No: HAM2014-035Report date: April 2014NIWA Project: WRA14203

© All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system.

Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client.

ContentsExecutive summary................................................................................................................5

1 Introduction....................................................................................................................6

2 Methods..........................................................................................................................7

3 Results............................................................................................................................8

3.1 Tuna KN.................................................................................................................8

3.2 Whitebait KN.........................................................................................................10

3.3 Waipa Hill farm KNs.............................................................................................12

3.4 Mainstem Waikato River KNs: Taupō Gates to Ohakuri Dam and Below Karapiro to Ngaruawahia...........................................................................15

3.5 Lake Hakanoa KN................................................................................................21

4 Conclusions.................................................................................................................24

5 Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................24

6 References...................................................................................................................25

FiguresFigure 1: Waikato Tuna knowledge network. 9Figure 2: Waikato Whitebait knowledge network. 11Figure 3: Waipa hill farm stream sediment and clarity KN. 13Figure 4: Waipa hill farm streams Nitrogen and Phosphorus KN. 14Figure 5: Taupō gates to Ohakuri Dam KN. 16Figure 6: Below Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN. 17Figure 7: Neighbour views of ‘Swimming’, ‘River tourism’ and ‘River focused

city’ attributes of the Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN. 18Figure 8: Neighbour views of (A) ‘Tuna, (B) ‘Macroinvertebrates’ and (C)

‘Riparian Vegetation’ . 19Figure 9: Predecessor view of the attribute ‘Flood defence’ in the Karapiro to

Ngaruawahia KN. See Figure 6 for the key to label and arrow colours. 20Figure 10: Aerial photograph of Lake Hakanoa and its catchment. 21Figure 11: Lake Hakanoa KN. 22


Reviewed by Approved for release by

B. Williamson R. Storey

Formatting checked by


Executive summaryThe restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems, such as the Waikato River, is complex necessitating a holistic, systems approach to achieve success. Systems thinking and display tools are also required to underpin the development of Report Cards on progress towards restoration and to demonstrate the links between indicators and stakeholder values that are often difficult to measure directly.

This report provides examples of graphical conceptual linkage models, referred to as “Knowledge Networks” (KNs), for key topics and geographic locations within the Waikato River Catchment that were selected by the Waikato River Authority.

Tuna (shortfin and longfin eels) fishery.

Whitebait (inānga, smelt/porohe (also referred to as “number 2 whitebait”) and kōkopu (shortjaw, banded, giant and kōaro) fishery.

Waipa hill farm streams nutrients.

Waipa hill farm streams sediment and clarity.

Waikato mainstem from Taupō Gates to Ohakuri Dam.

Waikato mainstem from Karapiro Dam to above the confluence with the Waipa at Ngaruawahia.

Lake Hakanoa.

This selection provides an introduction to how KNs can be used, at varying levels of resolution, to display systems thinking. Also demonstrated are the use of exploratory tools within the freeware yEd Graphic Editor package to drill down and navigate around the KNs to investigate component interactions. We recommend that the files be made freely available for use by interested parties.

Attributes within the KNs for which data are routinely measured are identified. This information will be used to inform selection of indicators for use in the development of Waikato River Restoration Report Cards.

We contend that these KNs provide valuable tools for summarising what is known on important restoration topics on one page. This will enhance planning of restoration projects and underpin development and communication of report cards. KNs should be viewed as “living documents” that are updated as new knowledge and insights become available.

Knowledge Networks to Support Report Cards for Waikato River Restoration 5

1 IntroductionRestoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems, such as the Waikato River, is complex. The condition/states of the river, and associated floodplain, lake and wetland ecosystems, are determined by an interacting web of pressures and ecological feedbacks, and multiple actions will be required to restore their health and well-being to the desired state (Rutherford et al. 2010). This complexity necessitates a holistic, systems approach to achieve restoration success. It will involve a suite of coordinated actions, by a variety of management agencies, hapu and stakeholders working in partnership, to manage multiple pressures and implement effective restorative actions, which vary spatially in the large, diverse Waikato River catchment.

Knowledge Networks (“KNs”, graphical conceptual models) can play a key role in guiding effective restoration by summarizing, on one page, diverse knowledge on the linkages between key awa values (e.g., fisheries, biodiversity, swimming safety), pressures and restorative actions, and facilitating cross-cultural understanding of complex issues (Kragt et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2008). KNs can also support development of Restoration Report Cards by showing the linkages between attributes of the ecosystem that can be measured and pressures and values that are not readily measurable.

This report presents a range of KNs developed to support the Waikato River Clean-up overseen by the Waikato River Clean-up Trust and Waikato River Authority (WRA) by: (i) contributing to the foundations of Restoration Report Cards; and (ii) providing tools that can be used by the WRA and applicants to the Clean-up Trust for prioritization and design of restoration projects.

The topics for KN development, agreed with WRA in August 2013, cover the key whitebait and tuna fisheries, subsystems of the mainstem Waikato River (Taupō Gates to Ohakuri Dam and below Karapiro Dam to Ngaruawahia above the Waipa confluence), the lowland Lake Hakanoa, and Waipa headwater hill farm streams.

The KNs should be considered as “living models” that are adapted as new understandings develop and for different purposes/stages in the planning process. The freely available graphics software used in KN development includes tools for focusing on parts of the KN by drawing out “context views” of neighbours, predecessors and successors of attributes of interest. To facilitate these uses, the KN files will be made available to the WRA and on request to interested parties.

6 Knowledge Networks to Support Report Cards for Waikato River Restoration

2 MethodsThe KNs were developed using the freeware yEd Graph Editor, a powerful desktop application that can be used to quickly and effectively generate high-quality diagrams http://www.yworks.com/en/products_yed_about.html. The use of a freeware programme makes the KN graphics editable by users and enables detailed exploration of relationships between “neighbouring” attributes and the ascendants and descendants of attributes of interest. This feature becomes particularly useful in the larger more complex KN’s such as those developed for the Waikato mainstem reaches.

The KNs were informed by a variety of information sources, including: information on the iwi values for focus topics/areas gathered during hui conducted in the Waikato River Independent Scoping Study (WRISS, (Rutherford et al. 2010)); published information (e.g., Collier et al. 2010; McDowall, 2011); accumulated knowledge of the authors through their careers and inputs from colleagues and members of the Report Cards Roopu at a hui at TARIT on 8 April 2014. Documentation of the rationale for each of the large number of interactions included in the KNs is beyond the scope of this brief report.


http://www.yworks.com/en/products_yed_about.html

3 Results

3.1 Tuna KNThe tuna KN is presented in Figure 1. It summarises the key influences on tuna (shortfin and longfin eel) production in standing water (lake, pond and wetland) habitats and flowing (river, stream and drain) habitats, tuna health as a food resource, tuna recruitment from the coast and within freshwater habitats, the tuna regulatory frameworks and the overall catchment management framework. It shows the linkages between potential actions and Te Ture Whaimana (Vision and Strategy) goals for restoring the health and wellbeing of the awa.

The catch of shortfin and longfin tuna and elvers by commercial fishers is controlled by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) whereas Iwi bylaws and regulations manage the customary catch.

The measured attributes (italics bold labels in Fig. 1) directly related to tuna are: (i) the commercial harvest (recorded through the Quota Management System by river sections (e.g., Waipa, Lower River, hydro lakes)); and (ii) the elver catch at the Karapiro Dam face, used in the elver trap and transfer scheme. Waikato Regional Council’s (WRC) regional fish monitoring programme (David and Hamer, 2010) also provides an indication of tuna density (as an indication of healthy tuna populations) in 96 stream reaches (each monitored every 3 years). Other data from fish surveys, carried out in a range of research and consulting studies, are accumulated in the National Freshwater Fish Database (http://www.niwa.co.nz/freshwater-and-estuaries/nzffd) and provide another source of unstructured data on tuna populations.

Habitat measures are recorded in Waikato Regional Council’s (WRC) Regional Environmental Monitoring of Streams (REMS) programme (Collier and Kelly, 2005), which provides assessments of macroinvertebrate community indices (and semi-quantitative abundance) and qualitative assessments of a number of stream habitat attributes that are related to tuna habitat quality. However, the number of sites is quite limited relative to total habitat, with 22 permanent (reference) Waikato catchment sites surveyed annually along with 32 randomly selected sites that are monitored on a rolling 3 year schedule (total of 96 sites monitored). Attributes assessed include: width and completeness of riparian zone, stream side cover, bank stability, channel structure, pool/riffle:run/bend ratio, bottom substrate, embeddedness and compaction, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, depth, width and organic matter. Macrophyte cover has been assessed since 2005 and periphyton cover assessed since 2001.

Other habitat and pressures are measured in WRC’s Riparian Characteristic Survey, which records riparian fencing and stock access to waterways, along with vegetation on banks (Hill & Kelly 2002, Storey 2010). However, the number of sites is limited to 172 randomly selected from over a range of land use management types, which provide a regional perspective.


http://www.niwa.co.nz/freshwater-and-estuaries/nzffd

Figure 1: Waikato Tuna knowledge network.



3.2 Whitebait KNThe Waikato whitebait KN (Fig. 2) summarises the key influences on whitebait production including contributions of inānga, smelt/porohe, and kōkopu (predominantly banded and giant kōkopu, but also including shortjaw and kōaro) and how these feed into Te Ture Whaimana goals. Unlike tuna that spawn in the tropical ocean, whitebait spawn within freshwater catchments making the abundance of good spawning habitat and appropriate flow regimes crucial factors in maintenance of healthy whitebait fisheries. For inānga these habitats occur in the lowland reaches of the Waikato and other rivers where the river is tidal but still freshwater dominated. For kōkopu, spawning occurs in riparian areas throughout the catchment during high flow events, with eggs hatching when wetted on subsequent events. For smelt/porohe, spawning occurs on clean sandy beach areas (Rowe et al. 2002).

Like tuna, whitebait species need to migrate between spawning, rearing and adult habitats to complete their life cycles, so barriers to migration are key constraints. This is particularly so for inānga and smelt/porohe that lack the climbing ability of kōkopu juveniles.

The regulatory frameworks influencing whitebait include both catchment and coastal management and involve numerous agencies. However, the whitebait catch is less regulated than tuna. Despite there being a commercial whitebait fishery, there are no limits on total catch. However, DOC provides rules on fishing methods and WRC has rules on whitebait “stands” used by fishers.

Matters related to whitebait stands have important influences on the whitebait fishery, including effects on access, impacts on inānga spawning habitat (both directly, through building structures, and indirectly, though effects on Glyceria spread) and effects on water quality (Fig. 2). A recent survey (WRC & WRRT, 2013) located 597 stands without associated baches, 80 stands with small baches (1 room) and 192 stands with medium-large baches (> 1 room).

There is limited routine measurement of whitebait catch. Genesis Energy’s consent conditions require Genesis to undertake annual catch per unit effort surveys of adult inānga stocks and they also obtain catch records from a small number of regular/fulltime whitebait fishers and the purchase records of the two main whitebait buyers.

There is limited monitoring of attributes that influence juvenile rearing habitat and adult populations of kōkopu, inānga and smelt/porohe in the Waikato catchment as part of the WRC REMS and regional freshwater fish monitoring, as described above for tuna. WRC also carries out 5 yearly surveys of riparian fencing and vegetation across farms throughout the Waikato catchment (69 Waipa sites, 40 Waikato sites below Karapiro Dam, 63 upper Waikato sites and 41 Lake Taupō tributary sites) that provides additional information on the trends in riparian management and vegetation by land use type and subregion (Storey, 2010).


Figure 2: Waikato Whitebait knowledge network.


3.3 Waipa Hill farm KNsTwo “issue focused” KNs were developed for Waipa hill farms drawing strongly on the research learnings from the Whatawhata Integrated Catchment Management study (e.g., Dodd et al. 2008a; Quinn et al. 2009; Quinn and Stroud, 2002). These KNs capture knowledge on sediment (Fig. 3) and nutrient (Fig. 4) drivers, potential mitigation controls, and effects on key values of local stream and downstream rivers and Te Ture Whaimana goals.

Farm economics have not been included explicitly because they are embedded in all of the actions/mitigations and the land use decisions within the KN and are quite site specific (Dodd et al. 2008b).

These “issue focused” KNs are less holistic than the “whole system” KNs developed for the upper and middle Waikato River (see sections 3.4 and 3.5). However, it is easier to see the linkages in issue-focused KNs without use of yEd graph interrogation tools such as context views of “neighbours, predecessors and successors” (see Section 3.4). The issue-focused KNs also allow more detail on processes in the KN without excessive clutter. Disadvantages are that (i) the effects on ecosystem health are specific to the focus issue and not integrated with influences of other pressures and (ii) the co-benefits of actions that influence other aspects of land and water sustainability (e.g., riparian reforestation effects on invertebrate and fish communities) are not shown. For example, comparison of Figures 3 and 4 shows that many potential management actions influence both sediment and nutrient losses from hill farms – this would be shown in a whole system KN but is missed in a single issue-focused KN.

Attributes for which there are routine monitoring data available have italic bold labels in the KNs. However this information is only available for a small number of sites that are included in the REMS invertebrate, habitat and fish surveys (as described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2). WRC’s Rivers Water Quality Network (Vant, 2013) provides information on sediment and nutrient concentrations and water clarity at 16 sites in the Waipa catchment. However, only about six of these are representative of hill farm streams and the sites are mostly on larger rivers that are influenced by mixed land uses, geologies and soils, making it difficult to deduce links between water and environmental quality and management practices. NIWA’s Integrated Catchment Management research at Whatawhata Hill farm (currently leased by AgResearch from Tainui Group Holdings) provides a 19 year record of stream hydrology, habitat and biota responses to a selection of hill-farm management changes at 9 sites (including a native reference).


Figure 3: Waipa hill farm stream sediment and clarity KN.


Figure 4: Waipa hill farm streams Nitrogen and Phosphorus KN.



3.4 Mainstem Waikato River KNs: Taupō Gates to Ohakuri Dam and Below Karapiro to Ngaruawahia

These KNs provide holistic summaries of the links between the land and water regulatory frameworks, pressures, actual and potential mitigations, the internal and external processes operating in the river-lake system, key river values and Te Ture Whaimana goals (Figures 5 and 6). The geographic scope of the Taupō to Ohakuri KN (Fig. 5) takes in the upper Waikato River mainstem, its tributary inflows (but not tributaries themselves), geothermal inputs, and the Aratiatia and Ohakuri hydro-electric dams. The Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN involves a simpler river system (no hydro lakes) but has significant urban influences that bring in different potential actions (e.g., ‘Urban residential and industrial development’ and ‘River commuting’) (Fig. 6).

The large number of attributes (over 150) and links in these KNs make it difficult to follow individual linkages in the main KN, and there is a danger of being overwhelmed by the complexity - despite the fact that the KN is a simplification of the system we are trying to manage! Fortunately, the yEd software can generate “context views”, showing the neighbours, predecessors and successors of individual attributes, which make it easy to examine the individual parts of the KN. Context views provide the ability to examine parts of the system, whilst maintaining the holistic framework.

Figure 7 provides example neighbour views for the Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN attributes Swimming’, ‘River tourism’ and ‘River focused city’, whereas Figure 8 shows the neighbour views for the attributes ‘Tuna’, ‘Macroinvertebrates’ and ‘Riparian vegetation’ and Figure 9 shows the predecessor view for the attribute ‘Flood defence’. These context views make it easy to delve into the detail of the KN at a range of levels to examine drivers, effects and management actions.

The large river reaches have more monitoring data than the Waipa hill farm streams (Figs. 3 and 4), but there remain many information gaps (Figs 5 and 6).


Figure 5: Taupō gates to Ohakuri Dam KN.


Figure 6: Below Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN.


Figure 7: Neighbour views of ‘Swimming’, ‘River tourism’ and ‘River focused city’ attributes of the Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN.


Figure 8: Neighbour views of (A) ‘Tuna, (B) ‘Macroinvertebrates’ and (C) ‘Riparian Vegetation’ . attributes of the Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN. See Figure 6 caption for key.


Figure 9: Predecessor view of the attribute ‘Flood defence’ in the Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN. See Figure 6 for the key to label and arrow colours.


3.5 Lake Hakanoa KNHakanoa is a small (58ha), shallow (mean depth 1.65 m), eutrophic Waikato riverine lake on the urban fringe of Huntly. It has a catchment dominated by pasture with pockets of native vegetation and wetlands on the streams the drain from the south and east (Fig. 10). The lake had surface reaching macrophytes (Egeria) prior to the 1970s but these collapsed following herbicide application for weed control (Hudson et al. 2008). Subsequently, there was a decrease in water quality (e.g., reduced clarity, increased algal blooms) although there is evidence of improvement during the 2000s, possibly related to improvements in lake edge riparian vegetation through the efforts of Friends of Hakanoa community group (Hudson et al. 2008; Paul et al. 2011).

Figure 10: Aerial photograph of Lake Hakanoa and its catchment.

The KN developed for this lake (Fig. 11) is an adaptation of that in Hudson et al. (2008) in the light of additional monitoring in 2009-10 and modelling of selected land management scenarios (i.e., pasture to pine land use conversion, treatment wetlands, removal of septic tanks) (Paul et al. 2011). Notably the 2009-2010 surveys showed that the lake remained well mixed vertically (unstratified) so that potential management actions included previously around lake destratification have been dropped in the current KN. This demonstrates how KN’s can be used as “living documents” that are updated as new knowledge comes to hand to keep them current.


Figure 11: Lake Hakanoa KN.


The modelling study of Paul et al. (2011) predicts that average algal biomass could be reduced by around 30% by either conversion of the catchment’s pasture farmland to pine forest or turning 3% of the catchment into treatment wetlands. Such predictions are helpful for identifying the magnitude of change that can be expected, rather than just the direction of change as shown by the colour of arrows in the KN. The modelling results also highlight that it is likely that both catchment and in-lake management actions would be needed to produce substantial change in the lake’s high level values (green ellipses in Figure 11).

The KN indicates that there is a reasonable level of monitoring information for the lake’s core limnological aspects and vegetation but a lack of monitoring of native and exotic fish species, kooura (freshwater crayfish) and kaaeo (freshwater mussels).

This KN makes explicit a number of dilemmas between competing values by showing the conditions that favour different values of yachting, coarse fishing, native biodiversity and hauanga kai (i.e., Waikato-Tainui term for the more widely used “mahinga kai” best described as “places where resources are gathered” (Williams 2010)) and the high level values of Te Ture Whaimana. For example, yachting is favoured by improved aesthetics and associated water clarity and lack of odours and algal blooms, but would be strongly inhibited by the return of abundant macrophytes and the use of windbreaks to reduce resuspension of sediment (Fig. 11). Similarly, reduction of coarse fish to encourage development of macrophytes and littoral plants, which would enhance water clarity, reduce algal blooms and enhance hauanga kai, would reduce coarse fishing. This highlights that there is a need for either compromise or prioritisation of values before deciding on rehabilitation actions.


4 ConclusionsThis report has presented examples of knowledge networks that operate at different spatial scales and levels of holism. These examples demonstrate how KNs can contribute to developing a shared knowledge of the complex ecosystems that the Waikato Catchment community is seeking to rehabilitate in the context of key aspects of the regulatory, social and cultural systems. We intend to use them in development of Restoration Report Cards for the awa to identify indicators of key processes and values for which there are existing data and those for which new monitoring is required. We also see a role for such KNs for communicating how selected indicators relate to stakeholder values and for developing restoration strategies.

5 AcknowledgementsThanks to Cheri van Schravendijk-Goodman (Waikato Raupatu River Trust) for input to the whitebait KN, regarding the whitebait stands and their management, and to the Karapiro to Ngaruawahia KN. This KN also benefited from input by Dr Cindy Baker. Dr Richard Storey introduced us to the yEd graphic tools. Dr Andrew Hughes provided input to the Waipa Hill Streams Sediment and Clarity KN. The Report Card Roopu (comprising representatives from each of the 5 Waikato river iwi) also provide helpful input to the KNs on Tuna, Whitebait, Taupō Gates to Ohakuri Dam, and Karapiro Dam to Ngaruawahia. The report was improved by constructive reviews of earlier drafts by Cheri van Schravendijk-Goodman, Dr Bruce Williamson and Dr Richard Storey.

This report was funded by the Waikato River Clean-up Trust (project WRA 12-053) and NIWA’s MBIE-funded Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Aquatic Ecosystems programme (CO1X1002).


6 ReferencesCollier, K., Kelly, J. (2005) Regional Guidelines for Ecological Assessments of

Freshwater Environments : Macroinvertebrate Sampling in Wadeable Streams. Environment Waikato.

Collier, K.J., Hamilton, D., Vant, W.N., Howard-Williams, C. (2010) The waters of the Waikato, Hamilton: 173–191.

David, B., Hamer, M. (2010) Regional Guidelines for Ecological Assessments of Freshwater Environments - Standardised Fish Monitoring for Wadeable Streams.

Dodd, M.B., Quinn, J. M., Thorrold, B.S., Parminter, T.G., Wedderburn, M.E. (2008a) Improving the economic and environmental performance of a New Zealand hill country farm catchment: 3. Short term outcomes of land use change. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, v. 53: 155–169.

Dodd, M.B., Thorrold, B.S., Quinn, J.M., Parminter, T.G., Wedderburn, M.E. (2008b) Improving the economic and environmental performance of a New Zealand hill country farm catchment: 2. Forecasting and planning land use change. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, v. 53, No. 1: 143–153.

Hill, R. and Kelly, J. 2002. Regional Riparian Characteristics - 2002 Survey Manual. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2002/07.Hudson, N., Quinn, J., Rowe, D., Tanner, C., de Winton, M. (2008) Review of options for improving the condition of Lake Hakanoa. NIWA Client Report HAM 2008-067: 39.

Kragt, M.E., Newham, L.T.H., Bennett, J., Jakeman, A.J. (2011) An integrated approach to linking economic valuation and catchment modelling. Environmental Modelling & Software, v. 26: 92–102.

Liu, Y., Gupta, H., Springer, E., Wagener, T. (2008) Linking science with environmental decision making: experiences from an integrated modeling approach to supporting sustainable water resources management. Environmental Modelling and Software, v. 23 No. 7: 846–858.

McDowall, R.M. (2011) Ikawai: Freshwater fishes in Māori culture and economy, Christchurch, Canterbury University Press.

Paul, W., McBride, C., Hamilton, D.P., Hopkins, A., Özkundakci, D. (2011) Restoration of Lake Hakanoa: Results of model simulations. CBER Contract Report 118 (University of Waikato), prepared for Waikato District Council: 28.

Quinn, J.M., Croker, G.F., Smith, B.J., Bellingham, M.A. (2009) Integrated catchment management effects on runoff, habitat, instream vegetation and macroinvertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand, hill-country streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, v. 43, No. 3: 775–802.

Quinn, J.M., Stroud, M.J. (2002) Water quality and sediment and nutrient export from New Zealand hill-land catchments of contrasting land use. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, v. 36, No. 2: 409–429.


Rowe, D.G., Shankar, U, James, M., Waugh, B. (2002) Use of GIS to predict effects of water level on the spawning area for smelt, Retropinna retropinna, in Lake Taupo, New Zealand. Fisheries Management and Ecology, v. 9, 205–216.

Rutherford, K., Quinn, J., Bodmin, B., Boubée, J., Champion, P., Clayton, J., Cooper, B., Dalton, W., de Winton, M., Hickey, C., Hicks, M., Hollis, M., Howard-Williams, C., Iti, W., McBride, G., Palliser, C., Roper, D., Rowe, D., Severne, C., Shirley, G., Skipper, A., Williams, E., Ledgard, S., Manderson, A., Monaghan, R., Wedderburn, L., Auton, E., Duffy, J., MacDonald, G., Shaw, R., Cooke, J., Williamson, B., Giorgetti, A., McDonald, G., Smith, N., Bell, B., Cudby, C., Tipa, G. (2010) Waikato River independent scoping study. NIWA Client report HAM2010-032: 264.

Storey, R. (2010) Riparian characteristics of pastoral streams in the Waikato region, 2002 and 2007. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2010-07: 57.

Vant, B. (2013) Trends in river water quality in the Waikato Region, 1993-2012: Environment Waikato. Technical Report 2013/20.

Waikato Regional Council & Waikato Raupatu River Trust (2013) Identifying traditional whitebait stands in the lower Waikato River: A joint spatial analysis project. Waikato Regional CouncilTechnical Report 2013/13, Hamilton.

Williams, J. (2010) Mahinga kai: the husbandry of consumables by Māori in precontact Te Wāipounamu. Journal of the Polynesian Society v. 119, 145-180.


Documents

NIWA Client report - Waikato€¦ · Web viewThese context views make it easy to delve into the detail of the KN at a range of levels to examine drivers, effects and management actions