TGPC: Greater Wellington letter to Chair, PCTG BOI - Attachment 2

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Literature review of Porirua Harbour and catchmentAppendix 2: Annotated BibliographyRichardson, J. R. , A. A1dridge and W. d. L. Main (1979). Disi"ibuii0, I o11he New Zeulo, ,d cockleChione stutchburyi ulpuuoinhonuilnlet. Oceanographic Institute, DSIR, Field Report N' 14The NZ cockle dominates the mudflats of Pauatahanui Inlet and as part of the PEP, acensus survey was carried out on November 30 1976. Baseline cockle survey (latersurveys described by Grange and others 1993, 1996, 1999)Slidolph, S. R. (1980). A record of some coastal marine diatoms from Porirua Harbour, NorthIsland, New Zealand. New ZealandJournulofBomi?y 18. 379-403.Comprehensive list of diatom (algae) flora of POTirua Harbour area, including speciessize, description and occurrence. Samples were collected over 3 years. Illustrations ofalgae species foundSlidolph, S. R. (1981). Gyrusigmu bullicwi, I var. Iurgidum, a new diatom variety from POTiruaHarbour, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Borony 19. 405.Describes in Latin a new diatom species that occurs in POTirua HarbourWear, R. and M. Haddon (1987). Natural diet of the crab Ovalipes calhttrws (Crustacea,Portunidae) around central and northern New Zealand. Marine Ecology Progress Series 35. . 39-49Examines the gut content of crabs to deterrinne the most important elements of their dietDiet varied according to location around New Zealand but juvenile molluscs andcrustaceans were the most important components. Crustaceans were the most importantdietary component at Paremata, whilst molluscs (Nucu!a lionvigiona) were mostimportant at PIimmerton. Table of fauna found in the guts of the crabsEstuarine water qua"tyBerry, A. (1996b). Cousinl warer quality 1/10niiorii?g network. WeSIerit Welling10/1 Region1995/96. Resource Investigations Department, Wellington Regional Council, Publication N"WRC/RINV-T-96124Summary of routine summer and annual coastal sampling of water quality in terms ofenterococci and faecal conforms, in relation to contact recreation in order to assess healthrisks. Discusses broad spatial and temporal trends. Data tables and graphs available asappendixBerry, A. (1997a). Annual cousinl warer quality report for Ihe weSIern Welling10n Region1996/97. Resource Investigations Department, Wellington Regional Council, Report N"WRC\RINV-T-97115Routine coastal sampling of water quality as initiated in Berry (1996b). Similar to Berry(1996b) but also summarises water quality for each location and compares data collectedsince 1990, (no significant change). Water quality in relation to seafood consumption isalso analysed. Sample site near the mouth of POTirua Stream is usually poor, and the areaaround the Paremata Bridge is usually within guideline values. Other sites are fine forcontact recreation except for PIimmerton in the summer. Faecal coliforms are lowenough to safely consume shellfish at Paremata bridge only.Berry, A. (1998a). Annual COQsiul water qunlii), I'eporifor Ihe weSIerii Well^}Igton Region1997/98. Resource Investigation Department, Wellington Regional Council, Report N"WRC/RINV-G-9814Report for Porirua City Council & Wellington City CouncilBlaschke and Rutherford Environmental ConsultantsFebruary 20.028
Literature review of Porirua Harbour and catchmentAppendix 2: Annotated BibliographyRoutine coastal water quality report as initiated with Berry (1996). Similar to Berry(1997a) but does not compare years. Shellfish are not monitored at Porirua Harbour. 14sites monitored in POTirua Harbour: one of these exceeded the enterococci guidelinesBerry, A. (1999). Annual coastal water q!tuffty rayon for the weSIern Wellington Region,1998/99. Resource Investigation Department, Welling10n Regional Council, Publication N'WRC/RINV-G-9914.Routine coastal water quality report as initiated with Berry (1996b). Similar to Berry(1998a) but also discusses possible sources. Poor water quality at the site closest toPorirua Stream mouth, receives Te Hiko Street stormwater discharge, Semple SIdischarge and inputs from the POTirua Stream mouth. PIimmerton Beach also failed toreach contact recreation guidelines. The mouth of Taupo Stream had enterococci countsof 300-3,000 per looml. Taupo Stream is likely to receive faecal materials from animalsMCBride (1995) found that the concentration of bacteria dropped along PIimmertonBeach with increased distance from Taupo Stream. High counts at the water ski club,Pauatahanuilnlet are likely 10 be sourced from localstreams draining CainbourneMCBride, G. B. , M. Moore and A. Donnison (1995). Review o1 seawaier qualify at Ponywa'srecreuiionul benches, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. and the MeatIndustry Research Institute of New Zealand Inc. for POTirua City Council and WellingtonRegional Council, Consultancy Report N" PCC300Review of all available data to describe the bacteriological contamination of POTirua'sbeaches. Detailed statistical analysis of spatial and temporal trends, taking into countvariations caused by wind, tide and stream flow. The dominant source of faecalconforms at PIimmerton Beach is local, with the magnitude of the faecal count beingproportionate 10 distance from Taupo Stream. Finds no evidence that sewage works areresponsible for high bacteriological counts.Davis, K. and C. I. Wilson (1983). A buc!eriologicul survey o1 Pony!{a Harbour undPawomhttnwil, Ilei. Wellington, Wellington Regional CouncilConclusions by site including Pauatahanui Inlet and Onepoto Arm relating to waterquality standards. PIimmerton/Paremata displayed a high standard of water qualityPauatahanui Inlet water unlikely to have met standard for shellfish gathering or bathingRainfall and accumulated run-off were the major factors influencing faecal coliformlevels. The water quality in the Onepoio Arm was adversely affected during wet weatheralthough to a lesser extentthan Pauatahanuilnlet. Faecal conform levels were exceededat most sites (not always associated with high rainfall) therefore the waters are probablyriot suitable for gathering shellfish or bathingMilne, I. R. (2005). 0111he beaches. Recreuiio, tat water quality o11he Well^I^8101t Region, 2004-2005. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Report N" GWR. INV-G-05/189.Routine recreational water quality as initiated with Berry (1996b) and similar toStephenson (2004). 14 sites monitored in POTirua Harbour; 5 sites exceeded theenterococci guidelines once, and two exceeded them twice. Not all of these events wereassociated with high rainfallMilne, I. (2005). Recreu!ional warer quality Iechnical repori. Greater Wellington RegionalCouncil, GWR. INV-T-05189Presents the results of all routine recreational water quality monitoring undertaken at 23freshwater and 27 marine sites between Nov 2001 and Mar 2005. Filamentous algaecover and microbiallevels were assessed against health guidelines for recreation. AlsoReport for Porirua City Council & Wellington City CouncilBlaschke and Rutherford Environmental ConsultantsFebruary 201029
Page 5 and 6: ,,Literature review of Porirua Harb
Page 7 and 8: Literature review of Porirua Harbou
Page 11 and 12: ILiterature review of Porirua Harbo
Page 13 and 14: ,Literature review of Porirua Harbo
Page 15 and 16: .Literature review of Porirua Harbo
Page 25 and 26: , .iLiterature review of Porirua Ha
Page 27: ';Literature review of Porirua Harb
Page 39 and 40: I,-Literature review of Porirua Har
Page 43 and 44: *Literature review of Porirua Harbo
Page 45 and 46: ,.Literature review of Porirua Harb
Page 47 and 48: , ,Literature review of Porirua Har

TGPC: Greater Wellington letter to Chair, PCTG BOI - Attachment 2

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?