25.03.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!