Whitewater Kayaking in the Tasman District: Application of the River Values Assessment System (Rivas)

Source: Hughey, K.F.D., Baker, M‐A. (eds). (2010a). The River Values Assessment System: Volume 1: Overview of the Method, Guidelines for Use and Application to Recreational Values. LEaP Report No.24A, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Part B: Whitewater kayaking in the Tasman District: Application of the River Values Assessment System (RiVAS) Kay Booth (Lindis Consulting) Andy England (Whitewater New Zealand) Trevor James (Tasman District Council) Stu McGowan (Kayaker) Geoff Miles (Kayaker) Matt Price (Kayaker) 6.3 Introduction 6.3.1 Purpose This section presents the results from an application of the river values assessment system (RiVAS) for whitewater kayaking in the Tasman District undertaken in June 2010. This is the third application of the RiVAS for whitewater kayaking; the first was conducted in the West Coast Region (Booth, et al., Part A, herein) and the second by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC in prep.). A workshop was held on 26 June to apply this method to Tasman District rivers. Hughey et al. (Chapter 3 herein) outline the RiVAS method. 6.3.2 Preparatory step: Establish an Expert Panel The Expert Panel for the whitewater kayaking application in Tasman District comprised Trevor James, Stu McGowan, Geoff Miles and Matt Price (all experienced kayakers from Tasman District). Andy England (Whitewater New Zealand) acted as an advisor. Kay Booth (Lindis Consulting) facilitated the workshop and drafted this chapter. Credentials of members of the Expert Panel and the advisors are provided in Appendix 6B‐1. It was noted that a lot of valuable information about rivers emerged during the workshop; and having a council staff member is invaluable for recording this information at RiVAS workshops. 6.3.3 Summary of this assessment The Expert Panel applied seven resource and user attributes to assess 52 whitewater kayaking runs in the Tasman District. The method was applied to differentiate sites of high, medium and low importance for whitewater kayaking. Few data were available, so the Expert Panel relied on their own assessments for most attributes. Minor revision was made to the RiVAS approach for whitewater kayaking, notably the scarcity attribute was redefined as ‘regional value’ (and national value was separately recorded), and density of hydraulic features was applied with respect to the primary kayaking opportunity (i.e., revised to suitability of the hydraulic features to the primary user group). 6.4 Application of the method 6.4.1 Step 1: Define river value categories and river segments River value categories Whitewater kayaking is a multi‐dimensional form of recreation. It is undertaken by people with different skill levels and encompasses a range of types of experiences (e.g., easy introductory paddling to technically challenging descents). It may be undertaken as a commercial activity (e.g., skill instruction or river guiding), part of a school or tertiary education programme/curriculum, or competitively. Whitewater kayaking is usually undertaken in groups for safety reasons, giving the activity a strong social dimension. It is resource‐dependent – it requires whitewater and is strongly 121 The River Values Assessment System: Volume 1 influenced by the type and quality of whitewater. Whitewater kayaking is also a continually evolving activity, and has changed dramatically since the 1970s with the advent of plastic craft and specialised designs. This has resulted in an ability to paddle a wide range of river environments, including increasingly difficult rivers. Kayak design continues to advance and a variety of boat options are available to suit different types of water and paddling styles. Whitewater kayaking is undertaken using a double‐bladed paddle with the kayaker in a sitting position and enclosed in a water‐tight cockpit. Kayaking is the primary activity focus of this chapter, however this assessment also covers canoeing – where paddlers use a single‐bladed paddle in a kneeling position. Other whitewater pursuits (e.g., rafting, river bugging and river boarding) were excluded from this assessment, because some different characteristics apply to them. River segments In advance of the workshop, one member of the Expert Panel identified river reaches that were kayaked. These were mostly drawn from a list already compiled by the Council for the Tasman Resource Management Plan. The resultant list was discussed by the Panel at the beginning of the assessment workshop and additions made. The list represents sections of rivers that are regularly kayaked (as at 2010), or hold value for whitewater kayakers even if seldom kayaked. Many rivers were divided into multiple kayak runs (e.g., 14 rivers sections were listed for the Buller River). Three ‘park and play’ features were separately listed from river runs, as they represent different ‘sections’ of the river effectively. ‘Park and play’ refers to a single high quality river feature (e.g., a wave, hydraulic or eddy line), that is easily accessible by road and may be a destination in itself due to the potential kayaking experience it offers. Key Grade 1‐2 runs, including adjacent flatwater river sections, were included in the assessment as the Panel considered them to be critical for whitewater kayaking as ‘learning grounds’. These were defined as the sections used regularly by local canoe clubs. A total of 52 river sections were identified (see Appendix 6B‐4). This identification of rivers was based on Panel members’ local knowledge and with reference to a whitewater kayaking guidebook (Charles 2006). Using this approach, the selected rivers represent the most valuable kayaking whitewater rivers in the region. Tasman rivers which were not included in the assessment were considered to hold: 1. Negligible value for whitewater kayaking: either they had no whitewater kayaking value or they had been kayaked but were considered to hold low value (i.e., unlikely to become popular owing to factors such as unusual flow regimes or variable terrain); or 2. Unknown kayaking value (yet to be paddled); or 3. Known kayaking value but not accessible at the time of the assessment. It was noted that the Buller River Earthquake section had been missed in the West Coast whitewater kayaking RiVAS application. This section is in the West Coast Region and, therefore, should have been assessed in that Region. So they were not missed altogether, these sections were assessed by the Tasman Expert Panel (who were familiar with the sections). The assessment of kayaking river sections in this study pertains to present‐day kayaking opportunities. The Panel stressed that river value may change over time, subject to access provision and other factors. 122 The River Values Assessment System: Volume 1 As part of the assessment, the river grade and mode of access were recorded (Appendix 6B‐4). A river’s grade does not imply value (all grades may be equally valued) but provides a means to identify the type of kayaking experience available on that section of river. See Table 6‐2. Table 6‐2 International scale of whitewater difficulty (Charles 2006:14‐15) Grade I Moving water with a few riffles and small waves. Few or no obstructions. Grade II Easy rapids with waves up to one metre. Clear channels obvious without scouting. The ability to move your craft across the current is not necessary. Grade III Rapids with high, irregular waves and narrow passages. The ability to spin and manoeuvre is necessary. Grade IV Difficult rapids requiring a series of controlled moves, cross‐current and spinning in confused water. Scouting often necessary and a reliable roll is mandatory. Grade V Very difficult, long and violent rapids. Nearly always must be scouted. Definite risks in the event of a mishap. Requires a series of controlled, precise, ‘must make’ moves to navigate successfully. Grade VI Extreme, very dangerous and only for experts. Close inspection is mandatory and all possible safety precautions should be taken. Initial assessment On the advice of Whitewater New Zealand, the Expert Panel started the workshop by undertaking an ‘overall importance for whitewater kayaking’ assessment of all river sections. Collectively, the Panel assigned high, moderate or low value to each river section. This was then set aside and revisited at the end of the workshop. When compared with the RiVAS assessment results, a close match was evident. Of the 52 sections, 10 differed (the RiVAS assessment rated 5 sections higher, 2 sections lower, and 3 sections differed by only a slight margin – e.g., high c.f. moderate‐high). The Panel discussed each point of difference and opted in each case to retain the value assessed by the RiVAS method. See the discussion in Step 8B. Outcomes The activity of whitewater kayaking was defined: excludes rafting, river bugging and similar pursuits but includes all types of whitewater kayaking on rivers of Grade II and above. A list of Tasman river sections used for whitewater kayaking was identified. 6.4.2 Step 2: Identify attributes Attributes to describe whitewater kayaking developed for the West Coast case study (Booth et al., Part A herein) were ‘taken as given’. Outcome A list of all attributes is provided in Appendix 6B‐2. This list is the same as that presented for the West Coast Region. 6.4.3 Step 3: Select and describe primary attributes The primary attributes used for the West Coast and Hawke’s Bay case studies were applied to Tasman rivers. The Panel discussed the primary attributes at the beginning of the workshop to familiarise themselves and discussion centred on the Advisors concern that the present method favoured rivers of higher grades. With respect to this concern, several approaches were discussed and trialled during the workshop, including: 123 The River Values Assessment System: Volume 1 Perception of wilderness: The issue with this attribute was that the more accessible rivers, valued be Grade II paddlers, by definition are unlikely to have high wilderness value.

Load more