Protecting riparian margins and stock exclusion
It’s a three-step approach – remove stock, widen your fenced riparian margins, and then plant the right vegetation!
Our position in a nutshell
Fenced and vegetated riparian margins that are wide enough provide a buffer between land use activities and water bodies (footnote 1). This will help protect water bodies by filtering out and processing microbial, nutrient, and sediment contamination which then enhances water quality, visual clarity, and habitat (footnote 2, 3). Fencing water bodies protects them from stock defecating or urinating in them and from damage caused by stock trampling riverbeds and their banks (footnote 4).
The Resource Management (Stock Exclusion) Regulation 2020 (Stock Exclusion Regulations) do not go far enough to protect waterways from stock or achieve the National Objectives Framework outcomes. Your regional plan needs to include rules to stop intensified stock rates and heavy hoofed animals accessing all (footnote 5) water body types (footnote 6). This includes streams less than 1m in width and wetlands that do not meet the national requirements for riparian setbacks (footnote 7). In minority cases, where low stocking rates, with light hoofed animals, over large areas are concerned, non-fenced water bodies may be acceptable.
While stock exclusion is an important first step, those excluded buffer areas need to effectively filter runoff from land. Appropriate set back requires at least 10 metres from any permanent river, lake, or wetland, and three metres from the edge of any other river (both intermittent and ephemeral). Riparian margin widths of between 10 – 20 metres should be established and maintained next to more sensitive water bodies such as lakes and wetlands (footnote 8). Large setbacks also ensure there is enough room for flooding and natural erosion processes to occur without undermining fences or planting.
Once stock is excluded from all water bodies and there is enough space between the fence and the water margin to manage and treat run-off in each specific catchment, plant the right type of vegetation to supercharge this protection buffer! For example, dense (native) grasses or other ground-covering species ensure sediment is caught before water flows into streams. Vegetation can provide spawning habitat for example for īnanga, while taller tree species provide shading to keep water temperatures down and prevent algal and macrophyte growth. Vegetation will also help to stop faecal matter and phosphorous getting into water bodies and consequently provide for a range of freshwater values for the wai, freshwater indigenous species, trout and salmon, and for the community. Also think about public places and peoples access to water bodies when planting riparian margins.
Regional stock exclusion rules and vegetated riparian margins need to be part of a wider package to manage water quality and protect habitat. So, take an integrated, whole systems approach to manage freshwater to provide for the health and well-being of water bodies and freshwater ecosystems.
Footnotes
1. Parkyn, S., Shaw, W., and Eades, P. (2000). Review of information on riparian buffer widths necessary to support sustainable vegetation and meet aquatic functions. NIWA Client Report ARC00262.
2. Pingram, M.A., Collier, K. J., Hamer, M. P., David, B. O., Catlin, A.K. and Smith, J. P. (2019). Improving region-wide ecological condition of wadeable streams: risk analyses highlight key stressors for policy and management. Environmental Science and Policy 92: 170-181.
3. McKergow LA, Matheson FE, Quinn JM 2016. Ecological Management and Restoration 17(3): 218-227. doi: 10.1111/emr.12232
4. Fenemor, A. and Samarasinghe, O. (2020). Riparian setback distances from water bodies for high-risk land uses and activities. Manaaki Whenua/ Landcare Research. Prepared for: Tasman District Council.
5. except isolated troughts and drinking containers.
6. Monaghan R, Manderson A, Basher L, Spiekermann R, Dtmond J, Smith C, Muihead R, Burger D, McDowell R 2021. Quantifying contaminant losses to water from pastoral landuses in New Zealand II. The effects of some farm mitigation actions over the past two decades, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, DOI:10.1080/00288233.2021.1876741
7. Fenemor, A. and Samarasinghe, O. (2020). Riparian setback distances from water bodies for high-risk land uses and activities. Manaaki Whenua/ Landcare Research. Prepared for: Tasman District Council.
8. Fenemor, A. and Samarasinghe, O. (2020). Riparian setback distances from water bodies for high-risk land uses and activities. Manaaki Whenua/ Landcare Research. Prepared for: Tasman District Council.
The NPS-FM directive
The NPS-FM directs you to set target attribute states (TASs) to achieve environmental outcomes.
You must identify ways to achieve TAS through limits (rules) and action plans. Stock exclusion and vegetated riparian margins (footnote 9) are a proven (footnote 10) way to achieve TASs for contaminants such as sediment, E.coli and phosphorus, as well as contributing to broader ecosystem health outcomes, amenity, habitat and natural form and character. This means that you will need to include rules and appropriate resource consent conditions relating to stock exclusion, setbacks, and vegetated riparian margins to achieve your TASs. These should apply to all land uses and activities near water bodies including cultivation, commercial vegetable production, pastoral grazing and earthworks for infrastructure and urban development.
Because of the well documented link between vegetated riparian margins and the health of freshwater ecosystems, an effective way to demonstrate and track this connection is to include a TAS for the percentage of vegetated riparian margins you want to achieve. This will help you measure and meet environmental outcomes related to ecosystem health and threatened species. Northland Regional Council, for example, have recently established the extent of riparian buffers along their waterways with remote sensing. This method could form a baseline measure for a TAS on riparian vegetation.
The Stock Exclusion Regulations provide minimum requirements to exclude some stock from wide water bodies on low slope land (under 5 degrees) (footnote 11). Regional plan rules can and should, be more stringent than the Stock Exclusion Regulations. Your plan is able to contain rules that apply to more types of animals (e.g. sheep), more waterbodies (e.g. small waterbodies), on more land (e.g. land steep than 5 degrees) and for wider setbacks (e.g. 10 metres). The Stock Exclusion regulations anticipate that tighter regional rules will be necessary (see regulation 19). Rules that default to minimum standards will not achieve the required freshwater outcomes of the NPS-FM.
Importantly, human contact is a compulsory value in the NPS-FM. This means that you will need to find ways to ensure pathogens, water clarity, deposited sediment, and other contaminants are reduced to a level that achieves these community values. Vegetated riparian buffers are a method to help achieve this compulsory value through filtering out sediment before it reaches the waterbody. People also value water bodies for many reasons (amenity, spiritual, cultural, drinking water etc.) and use them for a range of activities such as swimming, waka ama, fishing and mahinga kai. Planted riparian margins can support these community values too.
Action plans can be prepared to achieve any TAS and will be an important tool for prioritising and coordinating the non-regulatory work needed to achieve setbacks and vegetated riparian margins. Action plans can identify priority areas for non-regulatory works, such as planting, and coordinate funding for fencing and planting on private land. Action plans can also provide specific detail about the best type of vegetation planting for a riparian margin, for a specific location, to achieve an identified environmental outcome (footnote 12). We expect you to prioritise rules and use action plans to compliment the rules you have set in your regional plan.
Footnotes
9. Death, R. (2018). Buffer management benefits and risks report. Innovative River Solutions, School of Agriculture & Environment, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
10. Fenemor, A. and Samarasinghe, O. (2020). Riparian setback distances from water bodies for high-risk land uses and activities. Manaaki Whenua/ Landcare Research. Prepared for: Tasman District Council.
11. Regardless of future change in regulations, sloped land needs to be managed to effectively protect water bodies from land use activities and Regional plan rules can safeguard this need.
12. McKergow, L., Matheson, F., Goeller, B., Woodward, B. (2022). Riparian buffer design guide: Design to meet water quality objectives. NIWA Information Series 103. 16pp.
What do we want to see?
There is overwhelming evidence that stock exclusion and appropriately vegetated riparian margins that are wide enough, will improve water quality and provide habitat that supports ecosystem health (footnote 13, 14). This has been proven time and again. It is a tangible concept for all the community to grasp, but can become tangled when looking to implement, so it can be easily broken down into a three-step approach. This three-step approach can have significant and lasting benefits for a range of freshwater values that you will need to achieve through the NPS-FM. We want to see you take leadership and facilitate this ‘easy win’ in your region.
You will need to get animals out of the water – permanently.
It will have the most direct and effective impact on water ways as it immediately eliminates the direct discharge of effluent from animals into the water. It stops vegetation from the banks or beds of the lake and river being damaged by stock walking on it.
Stock must be excluded from water bodies and fencing is the most common method to do this. Alternative stock exclusion technology, like GPS tracked halters/ collars, is becoming cheaper and more widely used although mainly in the dairy sector to date. Stock access to waterways, for example when moving animals to new pasture or for drinking water supply can risk effluent entering directly into water ways (footnote 15). Free access to waterways by stock is also seen as damaging and poor business practice, while reticulated stock drinking water is proven to have better financial return. Rules must go further than the Stock Exclusion Regulations 2020 and include all water body types. Remember you must also identify and map natural inland wetlands smaller than those listed in the Stock Exclusion Regulations and where there are threatened species.
On rare occasions, some grazing scenarios (such as light hoofed animals, in low stocking rates) may not require entire vast areas of waterway to prioritise fencing, however, important vegetated areas will need to be fenced. Let’s fence and revegetate our gullies in native vegetation.Make sure setbacks are appropriate – the distance between the fence and the waterway needs enough space to effectively filter run-off from that catchment. The appropriate setback width for riparian margins varies due to a range of factors such as what contaminant is being trapped, soils, drainage and hydrology, rainfall, and vegetation present. Slope is an important factor to determine an appropriate width (footnote 16). Steeper land requires wider buffers.
At a minimum, and considering the factors above, we expect a riparian setback width in your regional plan will be at least ten metres for any permanent river, lake, or wetland, and three metres from the edge of any other river (both intermittent and ephemeral). The wider the riparian setback along the water body, generally the greater protection it provides to that water bodies from surface overflow contaminants (footnote 17).
Take a precautionary approach to fencing setbacks as lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands fluctuate and if stock have been present near waters edges, faecal matter can be picked up and enter water bodies as levels change. Setbacks should be wider for wetlands and lakes; between 20 – 30 metres as they are highly sensitive, non-flushable receiving environments that tend to accumulate contaminants, especially sediment. Stock that have access to riparian margins can also impact riparian spawning habitat by disturbing areas where indigenous fish lay their eggs. We want to see all stock restricted from trampling vegetated riparian margins and damaging stream habitat (footnote 18).
Plant the riparian margins. There are benefits to planning which species and plant sequences will provide the most effective buffer and filtration system for each given situation (as outlined above relating to the range of factors to determine protection for the environmental outcome sought). For example, 5m of long grass that filters out contaminants before reaching 5m of more bushy vegetation may be appropriate for flatter land while 30m of long grass may be required for steeper adjacent land. Planning plant sequencing is about selecting certain plants to plant in specific locations to provide the best protection for the waterway.
Larger, diverse plant species near to the water body such as trees can provide extra stream habitat, shade, and protection for freshwater species, while reducing water temperature (often needed for fish spawning) and attracting insects that can fall into the water and be taken up as food for species to eat. The more planting, the greater the interconnected benefits for habitat and protecting the health and well-being of water and ecosystems (and for people!).
When thinking about planting, it is important to consider public access to the banks of waterways where there is public use. Walkers, swimmers or anglers who need to traverse the banks may find it difficult through dense plantings – particularly if they are very old or very young. In these cases, rank grass or less dense planting may be most appropriate. Decisions around planting and access will need to be made at a river reach level and will be dependent on public use patterns in the catchment, land use and the current state of the water body. Allow for flexibility in your approach so that public access to water bodies can be considered while achieving the objectives sought for the water body.
We want to see effectively vegetated riparian margins, with appropriate setbacks and stock exclusions, applied across the entire waterbody network and established for all water body types, whether lakes, streams, wetlands, or rivers. This includes small and ephemeral or intermittent streams. Small headwater streams are important and help determine water quality for the catchment as they capture run-off and are critical for sustaining biodiversity and ecosystems downstream (footnote 19,20). There is also evidence that small streams are the greatest contributors of contaminants and should be protected alongside other water body types (footnote 21). Riparian systems as they connect to the wider watersheds and terrestrial environment also hold wider benefits for limiting soil erosion, maintaining in-stream biodiversity, and mitigating the impact of climate change (footnote 22).
There is a financial cost to retire and reduce productive area, however, there is a positive net benefit from retiring and restoring riparian margins on primary land (footnote 23). The benefits usually outweigh the costs by between 2:1 and 20:1. One New Zealand study found that:
the costs of restoring the riparian margin are low (fencing and natural revegetation), the optimal width of the buffer is estimated at 30 m. At medium and high costs (fencing with mānuka/kānuka planting) the optimal riparian width was 27 and 17 m, respectively. (footnote 24)
The study also found a national-level planting initiative could yield net benefits of $1.7 billion to $5.2 billion per year. This means that incentives through Action Plans should be included to support plantings, particularly native planting to achieve the range of benefits that vegetated riparian buffers provide to support habitat and water quality TASs.
Footnotes
13. Cooke, S. J., Vermaire, J. C., Baulch, H. M., Birnie-Gauvin, K., Twardek, W. M. And Richardson, J. S. (2021). Our failure to protect the stream and its valley: A call to back off from riparian development. Freshwater Science, vol. 41:2.
14. Holmes, R., Hayes, Matthaei, J., Closs, G., Williams, M & Goodwin, E. (2016). Riparian management affects instream habitat condition in a dairy stream catchment, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, DOI: 10.1080/00288330.2016.1184169
15. Collins, R., Mcleod, M., Hedley, M., Donnison, A., Close, M., Hanly, J., Horne, D., Ross, C., Davies‐Colley, D., Bagshaw, C. & Matthews, L. (2007) Best management practices to mitigate faecal contamination by livestock of New Zealand waters, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 50:2, 267-278, DOI: 10.1080/00288230709510294
16. Liu, X., Zhang. X. and Zhang, M. (2008). Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: A review and analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality 37: 1667–1674.
17. Fenemor, A. and Samarasinghe, O. (2020). Riparian setback distances from water bodies for high-risk land uses and activities. Manaaki Whenua/ Landcare Research. Prepared for: Tasman District Council.
18. Denyer, K. (2010). From headwaters to harbour: Hooked on native fish. NZ Landcare Trust.
19. Wipfli MS, Richardson JS, Naiman RJ 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 72-85.
20. Freeman, M. C., Pringle, C. M., Jackson, C. R. (2007). Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 5-14.
21. McDowell, R. W., Cox, N., Snelder, T. H. (2017). Assessing the Yield and Load of Contaminants with Stream Order: Would Policy Requiring Livestock to Be Fenced Out of High-Order Streams Decrease Catchment Contaminant Loads? Journal of Environmental Quality 46:1038–1047. doi:10.2134/jeq2017.05.0212.
22. Daigneault, A., Eppink, F. F., and Lee, W. G. (2017). A national riparian restoration programme in New Zealand: Is it value for money? Journal of Environmental Management 1 (187):166-177.
23. Eppink, F., Daigneault, A. Greenhalgh, S. And Lee, W. (2017). A National Riparian Restoration Infrastructure Network – is it value for money? Landcare Research | Manaaki Whenua Policy Brief
24. Eppink, F., Daigneault, A. Greenhalgh, S. And Lee, W. (2017). A National Riparian Restoration Infrastructure Network – is it value for money? Landcare Research | Manaaki Whenua Policy Brief
How should the NPS-FM be implemented?
Include riparian buffer target attribute states in your regional plan
Include TASs in your regional plan that identify the percentage of your waterways that will have vegetated riparian margins, and what width these will be. Remote sensing can help with assessing the extent of riparian margins. Make sure these targets are achieved within a reasonable timeframe. Use Table 1 below to assist this process. This should be accompanied by a detailed Action Plan about sequencing and timing for your planting plan to protect the most critical areas first and with the right species to reduce identified contaminant problems.
Table 1 Proposed riparian setback attribute and attribute states.
Table 1 Proposed riparian setback attribute and attribute states.
Include stock exclusion setback rules for all water bodies.
The Stock Exclusion Regulations require stock to be excluded 3-metres from the edge of a lakebed or wide-river (being greater than 1-metre) and identified larger natural wetlands. This does not go far enough to achieve national bottom lines for a range of TASs. You will need to include more stringent, evidence based, effective riparian margin setback rules to stop direct impacts and stop overland flow of contaminants reaching water bodies.
We want you to implement regulation 17 of the stock exclusion regulations (relating to natural wetlands (of any size) that support threatened species). Regulation 17 references the threatened species compulsory value in the NPS-FM and states that any natural wetland that supports threatened species populations must exclude all stock.
You can use techniques like eDNA to assist in rapidly identifying small wetlands containing populations of threatened species (plants, animals, aquatic species, and birds). While it shouldn’t be the only technique you use to monitor for threatened species across wetlands in your region, eDNA is a fast and cost-effective method that may save you further wetland monitoring to identify threatened species. You can then write regional rules for an appropriate setback distance to protect these values.
In some grazing scenarios, where there are low stocking rates of light hoofed animals over a large area (for example, sheep across some geologies), high quality water bodies can be achieved without fencing. In such cases where the effects are indeed small/ minor, some flexibility not to fence the entire waterway may be acceptable. Issues can still arise from small numbers of sheep near waterways, for example where sheep congregate in groups causing pugging near or in waterways, or they bank de-vegetate. This should be mitigated by providing shade away from waterways.
Vegetated riparian margins, where stock is excluded should be a minimum of 10-metres wide alongside permanent rivers, lakes, and wetlands and 3-metres wide for all other rivers such as small streams, ephemeral and intermittent rivers (footnote 25).
Setback widths need to consider the environmental outcomes
To set minimum setback requirements, you need to consider the function the vegetated riparian margin needs to achieve, i.e., the environmental outcome sought.
Ask yourself, is the TAS set to provide habitat or to manage sediment? Or does this catchment have challenging conditions such as erodible soils, and high slope land that require additional TASs? All relevant considerations should be factored into action plans as well and a response tailored to the specific water body and land use activity.
Having appropriate vegetated riparian margins will maximise the effort and benefits associated with establishing them. Plant the right plants, with enough buffer width to help justify why the cost of creating the riparian margin and taking land out of production will benefit the water body (footnote 26). Also beware of bold claims about the production value of the buffer area. Independently check production-value claims of riparian margin land, as these areas will be mostly excluded from Best Practice-fertilised pastures, which should require application a certain distance from waterways.
Footnotes
25. Storey, R. G., Parkyn, S., Neale, M. W., Wilding, T. and Croker, G, (2011). Biodiversity values of small headwater streams in contrasting land uses in the Auckland region. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45 (2): 231-248.
26. Fenemor, A. and Samarasinghe, O. (2020). Riparian setback distances from water bodies for high-risk land uses and activities. Manaaki Whenua/ Landcare Research. Prepared for: Tasman District Council.
How we know the NPS-FM is being achieved
You will identify vegetated riparian margins as target attribute states and include requirements to exclude stock and establish riparian setbacks as rules in your regional plan. Rules will exclude stock from all waterbody types (except on the rare occasion that only low stocking rate, light footed animal will be present and dispersed along large areas), including small and ephemeral streams. Action plans will provide non-regulatory mechanisms to provide detail on what vegetation to plant and how to sequence planting in the right way to respond to contaminant matters and meet identified environmental outcome.
Your community will no longer see any stock in waterways. Instead, waterways will be fenced, and the riparian margins appropriately vegetated to achieve the outcomes set by the community. This may include a vision for diverse habitat, natural character, and fresh, clean waterway environments to use and enjoy or for the intrinsic rights of water bodies themselves.
Implementation Toolbox
The toolbox will continue to be developed as new information becomes available:
Tools: are helpful diagrams, processes, or ways to support how you should implement the NPS-FM.
Examples: provide text suggestions to help draft objectives (values and environmental outcomes), policies, and rules (limits) in your regional plans, including how monitoring could be achieved. It includes examples of how attributes and base line states, target attribute states, environmental flows and levels, and other criteria, where appropriate, can be written or presented to help achieve environmental outcomes.
Case studies: illustrate where the NPS-FM has been well applied (or not) throughout the country and provides national or international lessons to help implement the NPS-FM.
Evidence: provides relevant case law to support how the NPS-FM must be applied.
Resources: provide links to supporting literature and best information available to implement the NPS-FM.
Tools
Buffer: Is the strip of land that connects an upland or hillslope area with streams, lakes, or wetlands, where land-use activity is modified to prevent adverse effects on water quality, biota and habitat within the watercourse (footnote 27).
Setback: Is defined in the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NPS-PF) as ‘the distance measured horizontally from a feature or boundary that creates a buffer within which certain activities cannot take place’ .
Footnotes
27. Parkyn, S., Shaw, W., and Eades, P. (2000). Review of information on riparian buffer widths necessary to support sustainable vegetation and meet aquatic functions. NIWA Client Report ARC00262.
Riparian management scheme design steps (modified from Collier et al. 1995; and Fenemor & Samarasinghe. 2020) (footnote 28)
Step 1. Management issue
Identify the problem and where they occur in the catchment system. An inventory will help, recording the location of problems in the water bodies, their severity, and their likely causes.
Step 2. Contributing factors
Identify the factors that have permitted the problem(s) to develop. The ability to tackle these factors at source will influence the effectiveness of riparian actions.
Step 3. Restoration targets
Identify outcomes sought (such as environmental outcomes) and set draft targets (target attribute states) for the riparian management scheme (including riparian margin covers) using available guidelines (including these riparian setbacks), iwi plans, and in compliance with Government standards and rules in the Council’s regional plan(s).
Step 4. Restoration feasibility
Determine the feasibility of using riparian management within current land operations to achieve the draft targets. Consider maintenance requirements. Are any other management actions necessary to achieve the desired outcome(s)? For example, if nitrogen loss to water bodies is affected more by land management practices above upgradient groundwater sources than by riparian buffers, or if point sources such as stock crossings or roads are key contributors.
Step 5. Draft design
Prepare a draft riparian management scheme proposal. Agree on the most important problems to solve; for example, by implementing different guidelines in different parts of the riparian margin or by staging implementation.
Step 6. Consultation
Assess community and industry views, interest, and support, including review of benefits and costs to determine if riparian management is still feasible. Can riparian margin work be included in other programmes such as fencing remaining areas or when river channel or willow management works occurs?
Step 7. Final design and implementation
Design and implement a phased riparian management scheme using appropriate guidelines targeted to the site/s and land use. Incentives should be considered and if relevant, budgeted into long-term plans.
Footnotes
28. Fenemor, A. and Samarasinghe, O. (2020). Riparian setback distances from water bodies for high-risk land uses and activities. Manaaki Whenua/ Landcare Research. Prepared for: Tasman District Council.
Examples
[When available]
Case studies
Northland Regional Council have automated riparian vegetation mapping across every FMU
Northland Regional Council have created a riparian vegetation width estimate for every stream reach across the entire region. This impressive initiative means that setting policy should be much easier as they already know what the average setbacks is in the catchment. The semi-automated solution uses a GIS processing toll which involves two steps:
1. Developing a current woody vegetation coverage map for the entire Northland Region
2. Use the vegetation coverage map to estimate riparian vegetation width for each reach by spatial overlay
Below the map illustrates the mapping that estimates riparian vegetation widths.
Link to report here
Figure 2. Demonstration of the methodology used for estimating riparian vegetation width
Footnotes
29. Charles, C 2023. High-resolution Digital River Network for Northland. A GIS-based river network model derived from regional LiDAR. Prepared for Northland Regional Council. Water Technology Report Number 22010283_R01V02.
Evidence
[When available]
Resources
Allibone R, David B, Hitchmough R, Jellyman D, Ling N, Ravenscroft P, Waters J 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44: 271 287.
ANZECC, ARMCANZ 2000. The Guidelines. Australia and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality.
Barber A 2014. Erosion and sediment control guidelines for vegetable production: Good management practices version 1.1. Prepared by Agrilink for Horticulture New Zealand. Pp. 40.
Basher LR, Hicks DM, Ross CW, Handyside B 1997. Erosion and sediment transport from the market gardening lands at Pukekoe, Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Hydrology (NZ) 36:73–95.
Canning AD. 2018. Predicting New Zealand riverine fish reference assemblages. PeerJ 6:e4890
Clapcott J, Young R, Sinner J, Wilcox M, Storey R, Quinn J, Daughney C, Canning A, 2018. Freshwater biophysical ecosystem health framework. Prepared for Ministry for the Environment. Cawthron Report No. 3194. 89 p. plus appendices.
Collier K, Smith B 2006. Distinctive invertebrate assemblages in rockface seepages enhance lotic biodiversity in northern New Zealand. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 3591_3616.
Collier KJ, Cooper AB, Davies-Colley RJ, Rutherford JC, Smith CM, Williamson RB 1995. Managing Riparian Zones: A contribution to protecting New Zealand's rivers and streams. Volume 2: Guidelines. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Collier K, Clements B, David B, Lake M, Leathwick J 2010. Significant natural areas of the Waikato region: streams and rivers - Methodology and draft list of priority sites. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2010/19. Document #: 1480934.
David BO, Jarvis M, Ozkundakci D, Collier KJ, Hicks AS, Reid M 2019. To sea or not to sea? Multiple lines of evidence reveal the contribution of non‐diadromous recruitment for supporting endemic fish populations within New Zealand's longest river. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29(9): 1409-1423.
David BO, Jarvis M, Özkundakci D, Smith J, Duggan IC, Koh SS, Augspurger J, King TM 2022. First observations and early life-history aspects of lake rearing galaxiid larvae in the lower Waikato River Basin, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 10.1080/00288330.2022.2068620, (1-23).
Davies-Colley RJ 1997. Stream channels are narrower in pasture than in forest. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31: 599-608.
Davies-Colley R, Franklin P, Wilcock B, Clearwater S, Hickey C 2013. National Objectives Framework: Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen & pH Proposed thresholds for discussion. NIWA Client Report No: HAM2013-056. Prepared for the Ministry of the Environment.
Daigneault AJ, Eppink FV, Lee WG. 2017. A national riparian restoration programme in New Zealand: Is it value for money? Journal of Environmental Management 1 (187):166-177.
Dunn NR, Allibone RM, Closs GP, Crow SK, David BO, Goodman JM, Griffiths M, Jack DC, Ling N, Waters JM, Rolfe JR 2018. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fishes, 2017. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 24. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 11 p.
Freeman MC, Pringle CM, Jackson CR 2007. Hydrologic connectivity and the contribution of stream headwaters to ecological integrity at regional scales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 5-14.
Graham E, Woodward B, Dudley B, Stevens L, Verburg P, Zeldis J, Hofstra D, Matheson F, Elliott S 2020. Consequences of Inaction: Potential ramifications of delaying proposed nutrient limitations on New Zealand lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Prepared for Ministry for the Environment by NIWA.
Grainger N, Collier K, Hitchmough R, Harding J, Smith B, Sutherland D 2014. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater invertebrates, 2013. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 8. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 28 p.
Greenwood MJ, Harding JS, Niyogi DK, McIntosh AR 2012. Improving the effectiveness of riparian management for aquatic invertebrates in a degraded agricultural landscape: stream size and land-use legacies. Journal of Applied Ecology 49, 213–222.
Hickey CW 2015. Derivation of indicative ammoniacal nitrogen guidelines for the National Objectives Framework. Ministry for the Environment CR 202. Pp. 9.
Hickey CW 2016. Guidelines for the protection of aquatic ecosystems, toxicant trigger values: nitrate – freshwater. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Draft August 2016. Council of Australian Governments Standing Council on Environment and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 26 pp.
Hickey CW 2000. Ecotoxicology: laboratory and field approaches. In: Collier and Winterbourn (eds). New Zealand Stream Invertebrates: Ecology and implications for management. New Zealand Limnological Society. The Caxton Press, Christchurch.
Jowett IG, Richardson J 1996. Distribution and abundance of freshwater fish in New Zealand rivers. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 30: 239-255.
Joy, MK 2009. Temporal and land-cover trends in freshwater fish communities in New Zealand’s rivers: an analysis of data from the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database – 1970 – 2007. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, 17 p.
Joy MK, Foote KJ, McNie P, Piria M 2018. Decline in New Zealand’s freshwater fish fauna: effect of land use. Marine and Freshwater Research https://doi.org/10.1071/MF18028. CSIRO Publishing.
Liu X, Zhang X, Zhang M 2008. Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: A review and analysis. Journal of Environmental Quality 37: 1667–1674.
McDowell RW, Cox N, Snelder TH 2017. Assessing the Yield and Load of Contaminants with Stream Order: Would Policy Requiring Livestock to Be Fenced Out of High-Order Streams Decrease Catchment Contaminant Loads? Journal of Environmental Quality 46:1038–1047 (2017) doi:10.2134/jeq2017.05.0212.
McKergow LA, Matheson FE, Quinn JM 2016. Ecological Management and Restoration 17(3): 218-227. doi: 10.1111/emr.12232
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) 2016. National Stock Exclusion Study: Analysis of the costs and benefits of excluding stock from New Zealand waterways, July 2016. MPI Technical Report No: 2016/55.
Matheson F, Quinn J, Hickey C 2012. Review of the New Zealand instream plant and nutrient guidelines and development of an extended decision-making framework: Phases 1 and 2 final report. Prepared for the Ministry of Science & Innovation Envirolink Fund. NIWA Client Report No: HAM2012-081.
Matheson F, Quinn JM, Unwin M 2016. Instream plant and nutrient guidelines. Review and development of an extended decision-making framework Phase 3, HAM2015-064: 118.
Monaghan R, Manderson A, Basher L, Spiekermann R, Dtmond J, Smith C, Muihead R, Burger D, McDowell R 2021. Quantifying contaminant losses to water from pastoral landuses in New Zealand II. The effects of some farm mitigation actions over the past two decades, New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, DOI:10.1080/00288233.2021.1876741
Norris M, Jones H, Kimberley M, Borman D 2020. Riparian characteristics of pastoral waterways in the Waikato Region, 2002-2017. WRC Technical Report 2020/12. Pp. 125.
Parkyn S 2004. Review of riparian buffer zone effectiveness. Ministry Agric. For. Tech. Paper.2004/05.
Parkyn S, Shaw W, Eades P 2000. Review of information on riparian buffer widths necessary to support sustainable vegetation and meet aquatic functions. NIWA Client Report ARC00262.
Phillips C, Basher L, Spiekermann R 2020. Biophysical performance of erosion and sediment control techniques in New Zealand: a review. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research Contract Report: LC3761.
Pihiri BJ, Pita AB, Hayman DTS, Biggs PJ, Davis MT, Fayaz A, Canning A, French N, Death RG 2020. Does land use affect pathogen presence in New Zealand drinking water supplies? Water Research, 185, 12. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.116229
Pingram MA, Collier KJ, Hamer MP, David BO, Catlin AK, Smith JP 2019. Improving region-wide ecological condition of wadeable streams: risk analyses highlight key stressors for policy and management. Environmental Science and Policy 92: 170-181.
Quinn JM, McKergow LA 2007. Answers to frequently asked questions on riparian management. Prepared for Hawkes Bay regional Council. NIWA Client Report HAM2007-072.
Richardson J, Williams EK, Hickey CW 2001. Avoidance behaviour of freshwater fish and shrimp exposed to ammonia and low dissolved oxygen separately and in combination. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35: 625-633.
Smith CM 1989. Riparian pasture retirement effects on sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen in channelised surface run-off from pastures. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 23: 139-146.
Storey RG, Quinn JM 2008. Composition and temporal changes in macroinvertebrate communities of intermittent streams in Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 109_125.
Storey RG, Parkyn S, Neale MW, Wilding T, Croker G 2011. Biodiversity values of small headwater streams in contrasting land uses in the Auckland region. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45 (2): 231-248.
Townsend AJ, de Lange PJ, Duffy CAJ, Miskelly CM, Molloy J, Norton DA 2007. New Zealand Threat Classification System manual. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 35p.
Vant WN 2021. Trends in river water quality in the Waikato Region, 1991-2020 (Waikato Regional Council, Internal Report 2021/16.
Weeks ES, Death RG, Foote K, Anderson-Lederer R, Joy MK, Boyce P 2021. Conservation Science Statement. The demise of New Zealand's freshwater flora and fauna: a forgotten treasure. Pacific Conservation Biology, 22(2): 110-115. doi:10.1071/pc15038
West DW, Leathwick JR, Dean-Speirs TL 2019. Approaches to the Selection of a Network of Freshwater Ecosystems within NZ for Conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29(9): 1574-1586.
Wipfli MS, Richardson JS, Naiman RJ 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43: 72-85.
Zhang X, Liu X, Zhang M, Dahlgren RA, Eitzel M 2010. A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journal of Environmental Quality 39(1): 76–84.
Fish & Game, Forest & Bird and Choose Clean Water have written this practice note to communicate their expectation on how regional councils should implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPS-FM) into their regional plans. This is one in a series of practices notes which have been prepared on various topics relating to NPS-FM implementation.
