River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...
River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...
River and stream water quality and ecology - Greater Wellington ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>River</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>stream</strong> <strong>water</strong> <strong>quality</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>ecology</strong> in the <strong>Wellington</strong> region: State <strong>and</strong> trends<br />
predominantly pastoral (10 sites) or urban catchments (5 sites) <strong>and</strong> are<br />
considered to have low elevation source of flows.<br />
(b) CCME WQI<br />
Water <strong>quality</strong> classified according to the CCME WQI is summarised for each<br />
RSoE site in Table 4.6. Across the 55 RSoE sites scores ranged from 20.5<br />
(poorest score) for Mangapouri Stream at Bennetts Road to 90.6 (best score) for<br />
Hutt <strong>River</strong> at Te Marua. Similar to the <strong>Greater</strong> <strong>Wellington</strong> WQI classifications,<br />
RSoE sites located in catchments dominated by indigenous forest tended to have<br />
the highest CCME WQI scores (ie, assigned to the upper quartile of scores). In<br />
contrast, all sites with CCME WQI scores in the lower quartile range were<br />
located in either pastoral or urban catchments; all but one of the seven urban sites,<br />
Porirua Stream at Glenside, scored within the lower quartile.<br />
A comparison of the CCME <strong>and</strong> <strong>Greater</strong> <strong>Wellington</strong>’s WQI outputs shows that<br />
both indices generally rank sites in a similar fashion (Figure 4.16), despite some<br />
differences in the <strong>water</strong> <strong>quality</strong> variables, guidelines <strong>and</strong> calculations. For<br />
example, 13 of the 14 sites that received CCME WQI scores in the upper quartile<br />
range were allocated grades of ‘excellent’ by <strong>Greater</strong> <strong>Wellington</strong>’s WQI.<br />
Similarly, all but two of the 14 sites that received CCME WQI scores in the<br />
lower quartile range were graded as ‘poor’ by <strong>Greater</strong> <strong>Wellington</strong>’s WQI. On<br />
closer examination, while the overall ranking pattern is similar between the two<br />
WQIs, there is wide variation between individual ranks for some sites; 11 sites<br />
changed rank by at least 10 positions depending on the WQI used. The largest<br />
difference was for Mangaroa <strong>River</strong> at Te Marua – this site was ranked 44 th using<br />
<strong>Greater</strong> <strong>Wellington</strong>’s WQI but 24 th by the CCME WQI.<br />
(worst) 55<br />
GW WQI rank<br />
(best)<br />
50<br />
45<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55<br />
(best)<br />
CCME rank<br />
REC l<strong>and</strong>cover class<br />
Indigenous forest<br />
Exotic forest<br />
Pasture<br />
Urban<br />
Figure 4.16: Scatter plot of individual <strong>water</strong> <strong>quality</strong> ‘ranks’ assigned to the 55<br />
RSoE sites from the CCME WQI versus <strong>Greater</strong> <strong>Wellington</strong>’s WQI. The REC<br />
l<strong>and</strong>cover class for each site is also indicated<br />
(worst)<br />
WGN_DOCS-#1100598-V3 PAGE 41 OF 160