Recreation information has moved to the "Can I Swim Here?" section of LAWA
This site is in the lower reaches of the Waingongoro River immediately upstream of the mouth, but is generally not tidal. Occasional upstream surging in the ponded area has, however, been noted during low river flow and high tidal conditions during late summer. The Waingongoro drains an extensively farmed catchment and receives point-source treated industrial waste discharges (in its mid-reaches) and treated waste discharges from dairy ponds
The main recreational activities carried out at this site include Whitebaiting (in season), fishing, picnicking and some swimming.
Recreational bathing surveys over the last two summers showed that 85% (2018-2019) and 84%(2019-2020) of samples met the freshwater microbiological water quality guidelines prepared by the Ministry of Environment in conjunction with the Ministry of Health (MfE, 2003) and did not exceed the ‘Action’ level (>550 E.coli cfu/100mls ).
The State of the Environment technical report showing the freshwater recreational monitoring results is available at www.trc.govt.nz/environmental-monitoring-technical-reports/
Macroinvertebrate data for Taranaki shown on LAWA may vary from some data reported elsewhere by the Taranaki Regional Council. This variation is because the level of macroinvertebrate identification used by the TRC has some minor differences from that used by other Councils and LAWA, affecting the taxonomic richness and % EPT taxa scores. Taranaki Regional Council also uses Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) scores which have been modified to reflect the conditions experienced in Taranaki, while the scores shown here are based on the National MCI scores. For more details, the full state of the environment report is available at https://www.trc.govt.nz/council/plans-and-reports/environmental/environmental-monitoring-technical-reports/
This dashboard shows information on macroinvertebrate data collected by regional councils and unitary authorities. Select an indicator to see the available historical results.
This graph is displaying MCI scores over the selected time period. You can adjust this period by changing the dropdowns. These records for the basis for the state and trends displayed on the dashboard.
Find out about how State and Trend are calculated.
The bands for MCI are as outlined in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020
This graph is displaying QMCI scores over the selected time period. You can adjust this period by changing the dropdowns. These records for the basis for the state and trends displayed on the dashboard.
Find out about how State and Trend are calculated.
The bands for QMCI are as outlined in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020
This graph is displaying ASPM scores over the selected time period. You can adjust this period by changing the dropdowns. These records for the basis for the state and trends displayed on the dashboard.
Find out about how State and Trend are calculated.
The bands for ASPM are as outlined in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020
The Cawthron Institute has worked alongside regional councils to verify the processes and methods used for macroinvertebrate data collection, processing of the data in the laboratory, quality control in the field and laboratory and the statistical analysis and interpretation of the results presented.
For more details on each tick, see our 'Can I Trust this Data?' Factsheet.
This council does not monitor macroinvertebrates as part of their stream health monitoring.
This site is a hard-bottomed site and appropriate sampling protocols have been applied. Data shown here have been collected using current best-practice based on Stark et al. (2001).
Macroinvertebrate sampling is done in riffle habitat at this site. Data shown here are therefore following best practice as described in Stark et al. (2001).
Macroinvertebrate samples are collected within the first two weeks after a flood greater than three times the median flow at this site. Stark et al. (2001) suggest a minimum of two weeks 'stand-down' period after a flood greater than three times the median flow. Therefore, data shown here is not following best practice and conclusions based on this data need to be treated with caution.
Samples at this site have been processed following sampling protocol P1 (semi-quantitative - coded abundance). Data shown here is not following best practice as described by Stark et al. (2001), but are still considered robust.
Field data collected at this site had no quality control applied to it.
Data processed at this site has had one of the three Laboratory Quality Control Protocols (i.e., QC1, QC2,Q C3) applied. Data shown here is more robust than data with no laboratory QC applied.