Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel ... - Fremantle Ports

Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and 

Channel Deepening – Reclamation 

at Rous Head and Offshore 

Placement of Dredged Material 

Water Quality Monitoring Program 

January 2010

P:\FremantlePorts\816_InnerHarbourDredgeMonitoring\006_PrepareWQMP\Reports\FP_IH_Water Quality Monitoring 

Program_Rev1_20100104.docx 

Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening – Reclamation at 

Rous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material 

Water Quality Monitoring Program 

Prepared for 

Fremantle Ports 

Prepared by 

Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd 

January 2010 

Report No. 816_006/1

Client: Fremantle Ports 

Revisions history 

Version 

Preliminary 

draft 

A 

Author 

R. De Roach 

R. De Roach 

0 R. De Roach 

1 

R. De Roach 

M. Bailey 

DISTRIBUTION 

REVIEW 

Recipients 

No. Copies & 

Format 

Date Reviewer Date 

Office of EPA 

(Colin 

Murray), DEC 2 x hardcopy 11/12/09 M. Bailey 11/12/09 

(Kevin 

McAlpine) 

Office of EPA 

(Colin 

Murray), SRT 

(Rachel 

2 x hardcopy 21/12/09 M. Bailey 22/12/09 

Spencer, Jeff 

Cosgrove) 

Office of EPA 1 x digital 

M. Bailey 24/12/09 

(Colin 

copy, 

24/12/09 

Murray) 3 x hardcopy 

OEPA 

30/12/09 

Office of EPA 

Fremantle 

Ports 

Digital copies 

2 x hardcopy 

EPA 

20 x 

hardcopy FP 

4 x hardcopy 

Oceanica 

4/1/10 

L. Banks 

OEPA 

4/1/10 

4/1/10 

Status 

This report is “Draft” until the author and director have signed it off for final release. A “Draft” report should not be 

used for any purpose other than to be reviewed with the intention of generating a “Final” version. 

Approved for final release: 

Author 

Director 

Disclaimer 

This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Fremantle Ports, and is subject to and issued 

in accordance with the agreed terms and scope between Fremantle Ports and Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd. Oceanica 

Consulting Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this 

report by any third party. 

Copying this report without the permission of Fremantle Ports or Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd is not permitted. 

Cover 

Main image: View of Fremantle Port from the Swan River (Marianne Nyegaard); 

Minor images: Light logger deployed above seagrass, Cockburn Sound (Oceanica Consulting); Posidonia sinuosa 

with epiphytes, offshore of Rous Head (Oceanica Consulting). 

The Oceanica logo is a registered trade mark of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd which is protected by law. You may not 

use this trade mark without first obtaining the permission of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd. 

© Copyright 2010 Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd

Contents 

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1. Scope of this WQMP ......................................................................................................... 1 

1.2. Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1 

1.3. Environmental Management Framework ................................................................ 2 

1.3.1. Relation to the Dredge Spoil and Disposal Management Plan ....................... 2 

1.3.2. Fremantle Ports Environmental Management System and 

Construction Contractor’s Construction Environmental Management 

Plans ........................................................................................................................... 2 

2. Environmental Values and Objectives .................................................................... 3 

3. Monitoring Sites .............................................................................................................. 5 

3.1. Water Quality Overlying Seagrass and Coral ........................................................ 5 

3.2. Return Water Plume ........................................................................................................ 5 

3.3. Inner Harbour Dredge Plume ....................................................................................... 6 

3.4. Offshore Dredge and Disposal Plume ....................................................................... 6 

3.5. Recreation and Aesthetic Water Quality ................................................................. 6 

3.6. Inner Harbour and Rous Head Water, Sentinel Mussel and Sediment 

Quality ................................................................................................................................... 6 

3.7. Provision of monitoring site coordinates ................................................................ 7 

4. Environmental Quality Indicators and Targets ................................................. 10 

4.1. Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 10 

4.1.1. Ecosystem Health (EQO1: Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity) ............... 10 

4.1.2. Recreational and Aesthetic Values (EQOs 3 to 5: Maintenance of 

primary and secondary contact recreation values and aesthetic 

values) ...................................................................................................................... 12 

4.2. Sentinel Mussel Quality ................................................................................................ 13 

4.2.1. Fishing and Aquaculture Values (EQO 2: Maintenance of aquatic life 

for human consumption) ...................................................................................... 13 

4.3. Sediment Quality ............................................................................................................. 13 

4.3.1. Ecosystem Health (EQO1: Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity) ............... 13 

4.4. Limits of Reporting ......................................................................................................... 13 

5. Monitoring Process, Schedule and Contingency Management 

Measures .......................................................................................................................... 19 

5.1. Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 19 

5.1.1. Ecosystem Health Values ..................................................................................... 19 

5.1.2. Recreational and Aesthetic Values ..................................................................... 25 

5.2. Sentinel Mussel Quality ................................................................................................ 28 

5.2.1. Fishing and Aquaculture Values (Seafood Safe to Eat) surrounding 

the Inner Harbour and Rous Head ..................................................................... 28 

5.3. Sediment Quality ............................................................................................................. 29 

5.3.1. Ecosystem Health Surrounding the Inner Harbour and Rous Head ............ 29 

6. Compliance Reporting ................................................................................................. 31 

Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening - Water Quality Monitoring Program 

i

7. Quality Assurance / Quality Control ..................................................................... 32 

7.1. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in Field Sampling ...............................32 

7.1.1. Recording of Field Procedures ..............................................................................32 

7.1.2. Non-collection of Field Data .................................................................................32 

7.1.3. Maintenance and Calibration of Field Equipment ............................................32 

7.1.4. Sample Tracking .....................................................................................................32 

7.1.5. Sample Blanks .........................................................................................................33 

7.1.6. Duplicates and Replicates .....................................................................................33 

7.2. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in Laboratory Procedures ..............33 

7.2.1. Traceability of Results ...........................................................................................33 

7.3. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in Data Management ........................34 

7.3.1. Data Management Systems .................................................................................34 

7.3.2. Data Entry Protocols ..............................................................................................34 

7.3.3. Responsibility for Data Management ..................................................................34 

7.3.4. Metadata ...................................................................................................................34 

7.3.5. Archive and Back-up Data ....................................................................................34 

8. References ....................................................................................................................... 36 

ii 

Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening - Water Quality Monitoring Program

List of Tables 

Table 1.1 Key elements of the Project ...................................................................... 1 

Table 2.1 Perth’s Coastal Waters Environmental Values (EVs) and Environmental 

Quality Objectives (EQOs) (EPA 2000, 2009) .............................................. 3 

Table 3.1 Matrix of BPPH management zones vs. seagrass and coral monitoring 

sites ..................................................................................................... 5 

Table 3.2 Matrix of Inner Harbour and Rous Head monitoring locations vs. type of 

monitoring conducted at each location ....................................................... 6 

Table 4.1 Water Quality Triggers for each Level of Management Response within the 

Zone of Influence (ZoI) and Zone of Effect (ZoE)....................................... 10 

Table 4.2 Depth-specific Light Attenuation Coefficient (LAC; m -1 ) Water Quality 

Trigger Values based on 10% Minimum Light Requirement (MLR) for 

Seagrasses .......................................................................................... 11 

Table 4.3 Depth-specific Light Attenuation Coefficient (LAC; m -1 ) Water Quality 

Trigger Values based on 20% Minimum Light Requirement (MLR) for 

Corals ................................................................................................. 11 

Table 4.4 Physico-chemical water quality - indicators, trigger levels (where 

applicable; see Section 4.1) and areas of application (cross-reference 

with Figure 3.1). ................................................................................... 15 

Table 4.5 Toxicants in water - indicators, trigger levels (where applicable; see 

Section 4.1) and areas of application (cross-reference with Figure 3.1). ........ 16 

Table 4.6 Toxicants in mussel tissue - indicators, trigger levels (where applicable; 

see Section 4.2) and areas of application (cross-reference with Figure 

3.1). ................................................................................................... 17 

Table 4.7 Toxicants in sediment - indicators, trigger levels (where applicable; see 

Section 4.3) and areas of application (cross-reference with Figure 3.1). ........ 18 

List of Figures 

Figure 2.1 Moderate Ecological Protection Areas (MEPAs; E3) in relation to the 

proposed dredging, disposal and reclamation areas. The marine waters 

outside of the moderate ecological protection areas are classified as High 

Ecological Protection Areas (HEPA; E2) (EPA 2000). The estuarine waters 

upstream of the Inner Harbour MEPA are not encompassed by the EPA 

(2000) classification, but will be managed as a MEPA for this Project. ............. 4 

Figure 3.1 Environmental monitoring sites (as described in Section 3). .......................... 8 

Figure 3.2 Inner Harbour and Rous Head environmental monitoring sites (as 

described in Section 3) ............................................................................ 9 

Appendix A Ministerial Statement No. 801 

List of Appendices 

Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening - Water Quality Monitoring Program 

iii

1. Introduction 

1.1. Scope of this WQMP 

This Water Quality Monitoring Program (WQMP) has been prepared for Fremantle Ports Inner 

Harbour and Channel Deepening Project (the ‘Project’), in accordance with Condition 6 of 

Ministerial Statement 801 – Marine Water and Sediment Quality (W.A. Minister for 

Environment, 18 th August 2009; Appendix A) and will be implemented to: 

1. Achieve the environmental quality objectives (EQOs) for the protection of Projectrelevant 

Environmental Values (EVs), as defined in Perth’s Coastal Waters: 

Environmental Values and Objectives (EPA 2000) and also applied to the Swan River 

Estuary (Section 2); 

2. Provide a map defining the levels of Ecological Protection that will apply for the 

duration of Project implementation (Section 2); 

3. Provide environmental quality indicators and associated ‘trigger’ levels or targets, 

based on ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000a) and EPA (2005a) (amongst other relevant 

guideline reference sources), for assessing the performance of managing discharges to 

meet relevant EQOs (Section 4); 

4. Specify appropriate management and mitigation measures to be applied if monitoring 

demonstrates that the environmental quality ‘trigger’ levels are exceeded (Section 5); 

and, 

5. Employ protocols and schedules for reporting performance against the EQOs using the 

environmental quality ‘trigger’ levels for discharges (Sections 3 to 7). 

1.2. Project Description 

The Project involves the dredging of approximately 3.1 million m 3 of consolidated and 

unconsolidated material and its disposal at an offshore spoil disposal area (Gage Roads) or its 

reuse in land reclamation at Rous Head. Dredging will be undertaken to deepen the Deep 

Water Channel, Entrance Channel and Inner Harbour (Figure 2.1) to allow 14 m draft ships to 

utilise the Fremantle Inner Harbour. An area of seabed at Rous Head will also be reclaimed 

using dredged material (Figure 2.1). A combination of a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge 

(TSHD) and a Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) will be used. 

The key elements of the Project are provided in Table 1.1. For a full description of the 

Project, including a detailed Project schedule, please refer to the Dredge Spoil and Disposal 

Management Plan (DSDMP, Fremantle Ports, 2009). 

Table 1.1 Key elements of the Project 

Component 

Description 

Construction of a seawall around the 

reclamation area 

• 20 weeks (prior to the dredging programme). This component of 

the works will be managed under the CEMP and therefore is only 

made reference to in the DSDMP and is not considered further. 

Duration of Dredging • 26 weeks. 

Deepening of Fremantle Port Inner 

Harbour 

• Dredging to a declared depth of RL -15.0 m Low Water Mark 

Fremantle (LWMF); 

• Removal of approximately 0.9 million m 3 of dredged material. 

Deepening of the Entrance Channel • Dredging to declared depths between RL -16.1 m and RL -16.8 

m (LWMF); 

• Removal of approximately 1.1 million m 3 of dredged material. 

Deepening of Deep Water Channel • Dredging to declared depths between RL -16.5 m and RL -18.0 

m (LWMF) within an area up to 169 ha; 

• Removal of approximately 1.1 million m 3 of dredge material. 

Rous Head Reclamation Area • Placement of approximately 1.6 million m 3 dredged material for 

reclamation of an area of 27 ha of seabed (Stage 3); 

• Construction of a protective seawall 1000 m long. 

Proposed Offshore Spoil Disposal 

area 

• Placement of approximately 1.5 million m 3 of dredged material 

within an area of approximately 150 ha (1.5 km 2 ) located north 

of Gage Roads. 

Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening - Water Quality Monitoring Program 1

1.3. Environmental Management Framework 

1.3.1. Relation to the Dredge Spoil and Disposal Management Plan 

This WQMP is a distinct component of the DSDMP (Fremantle Ports, 2009) which has been 

prepared for this Project. The DSDMP defines the following management strategies to 

manage the potential impacts of the Project identified in the Public Environmental Review 

(PER): 

• Management Strategy 1 – Water Quality, Sedimentation and Indirect Impacts to 

Benthic Primary Producer Habitat (BPPH); 

• Management Strategy 2 – Direct Impacts to BPPH; 

• Management Strategy 3 – Marine Fauna; 

• Management Strategy 4 – Introduced Marine Pests; 

• Management Strategy 5 – PASS Material and Contaminated Sediments; 

• Management Strategy 6 – Hydrocarbon and Chemical Spills; and, 

• Management Strategy 7 – Shoreline Stability. 

This WQMP further defines the monitoring program, contingency management measures and 

reporting requirements of Management Strategies 1 and 5 above, focussing on water, 

seafood (mussel) and sediment quality. The DSDMP should be referred to for definition of 

other monitoring actions and management measures that are relevant to: (i) the direct 

assessment of BPPH health and loss (including both indirect and direct impacts to seagrass, 

coral and macroalgae), as relevant to Management Strategies 1 and 2, and (ii) Management 

Strategies 3, 4, 6 and 7. 

1.3.2. Fremantle Ports Environmental Management System and Construction 

Contractor’s Construction Environmental Management Plans 

Other potential environmental impacts that fall outside the DSDMP implementation 

requirements shall be managed under Fremantle Ports’ existing Environmental Management 

System (EMS) and the contractor’s Project Environmental Plan (PEP; Boskalis, 2009). 

2 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening - Water Quality Monitoring Program

2. Environmental Values and Objectives 

As applicable to Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening Project and listed in 

Table 2.1 below, four Environmental Values (EVs) have been identified as relevant to Perth’s 

coastal waters, together with six Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) or management 

goals to protect those values (EPA 2000, 2009), and will also be applied to the Swan River 

Estuary. 

Table 2.1 

Perth’s Coastal Waters Environmental Values (EVs) and Environmental Quality 

Objectives (EQOs) (EPA 2000, 2009) 

Environmental 

Value (EV) 

Ecosystem Health 

Fishing and 

Aquaculture 

Recreation and 

Aesthetics 

Industrial Water 

Supply* 

Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) 

EQO1: Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity 

Ecosystem integrity, considered in terms of structure and function, will be maintained 

throughout Perth’s coastal waters. The level of protection of ecosystem integrity shall 

be high (E2) throughout Perth’s coastal waters, except in areas designated E3 

(moderate protection) and E4 (low protection). 

EQO2: Maintenance of Aquatic life for human consumption 

Seafood will be safe for human consumption when collected or grown in all of Perth’s 

coastal waters except areas designated S2. 

EQO3: Maintenance of primary contact recreation values 

Primary contact recreation (e.g. Swimming) is safe in all of Perth’s coastal waters 

except areas designated S3. 

EQO4: Maintenance of secondary contact recreation values 

Secondary contact recreation (e.g. Boating) is safe in all of Perth’s coastal waters 

except areas designated S4. 

EQO5: Maintenance of aesthetic values 

The aesthetic values of Perth’s coastal waters will be protected except in those areas 

designated S5. 

EQO6: Maintenance of industrial water supply values 

Perth’s coastal waters will be of suitable quality for industrial water supply purposes 

except in areas designated S6. 

* - No industrial water supply uses are known to occur within the immediate vicinity of project activities. 

Management of water quality for EQO1 will also address EQO6. 

With respect to spatial definition of the designated areas described in Table 2.1 (i.e. E2 to E4 

- areas with defined levels of ecological protection; S2 to S6 – areas and exclusion zones with 

defined social values), the only relevant areas in proximity to the proposed project area are 

the Moderate Ecological Protection Areas (MEPAs; E3) and High Ecological Protection Area 

(HEPA; E2) shown in Figure 2.1. In addition, a temporary MEPA of 75 m radius surrounding 

the point of return water discharge from the reclamation area will be enacted for the duration 

of the Project implementation, also shown in Figure 2.1. Upon completion of the dredging 

campaign, the temporary MEPA will revert to a HEPA classification. 

The estuarine waters upstream of the Inner Harbour MEPA are not encompassed by the EPA 

(2000) classification, but will be managed as a MEPA for this Project. In the absence of 

formal classification of the appropriate level of protection for Swan River estuarine waters, 

the EPA (2005a) approach has been followed, whereby the waters along the eastern margin 

of Cockburn Sound were designated as being highly disturbed and having a moderate level of 

ecosystem protection. This area of the Swan River contains yacht clubs, boating facilties and 

has a history of industrial contamination and human disturbance and therefore for the 

purposes of this WQMP, values will be compared to those triggers for a moderate level of 

ecological protection (MEPA). Exceedances of these MEPA triggers will then instigate further 

investigation. 


Figure 2.1 

Moderate Ecological Protection Areas (MEPAs; E3) in relation to the proposed 

dredging, disposal and reclamation areas. The marine waters outside of the 

moderate ecological protection areas are classified as High Ecological Protection 

Areas (HEPA; E2) (EPA 2000). The estuarine waters upstream of the Inner Harbour 

MEPA are not encompassed by the EPA (2000) classification, but will be managed 

as a MEPA for this Project. 


3. Monitoring Sites 

3.1. Water Quality Overlying Seagrass and Coral 

Sites to monitor water quality overlying seagrass and coral have been located in BPPH 

management zones in each of five regions, as well as at reference sites (Figure 3.1). These 

regions are: 

• The Deep Water Channel; 

• The Offshore Disposal Area; 

• Rous Head and north of the Harbour Entrance; 

• South of the Harbour Entrance; and 

• Hall Bank corals. 

As described in the DSDMP (Fremantle Ports, 2009), the monitoring site locations are based 

on BPPH management zones defined by modelling of seagrass and coral minimum light 

requirements. The management zones shown in Figure 3.1 are: 

• Zone of Loss (ZoL - < 30% minimum light requirement); 

• Zone of Effect (ZoE - 30 to 100% minimum light requirement); and 

• Zone of Influence (ZoI – total suspended solids (TSS) – 2 mg/L above background for 

any 3 hour duration throughout the dredging period). 

The locations of water quality monitoring sites overlying seagrass shown in Figure 3.1 are 

based on habitat mapping that was ground-truthed in December 2009 (Oceanica, 

unpublished), as per the matrix of regions vs. management zones shown in Table 3.1 (and 

rationale described in the DSDMP). 

The locations of water quality monitoring sites overlying corals shown in Figure 3.1 are at the 

northern and western sections of Hall Bank. The two sites overlie coral communities of similar 

benthic cover, species composition and depth distribution. There are no known reference 

sites for Hall Bank corals in the Perth metropolitan region. 

Table 3.1 

Matrix of BPPH management zones vs. seagrass and coral monitoring sites 

Region Zone of Loss Zone of Effect 

Zone of 

Influence 

Reference Total 

Seagrass Sites 

Deep Water 

Channel 

- 2 sites 2 sites 2 sites 6 

Offshore 

Disposal Area 

- 2 sites 2 sites 2 sites 6 

Rous Head and 

north of the 


2 sites 2 sites 2 sites 2 sites* 8 

Entrance 

South of the 


- 2 sites 2 sites 2 sites* 6 

Entrance 

Total 26 

Coral Sites 

Hall Bank Corals - - 2 sites - 2 

Total 2 

* Note that these reference sites as shown in Figure 3.1 are within the Zone of Influence; however, it is not 

anticipated that these sites will be impacted by the dredge plume. In the unlikely event that one of these 

reference sites shows any influence from dredging (e.g. via aerial observations and comparison to other 

reference sites), then it shall be relocated. 

3.2. Return Water Plume 

Water samples will be taken at six monitoring sites along a plume transect at increasing 

distance from the return water outlet / weir box, with an example shown in Figure 3.1 and 

Figure 3.2. The transect will follow the approximate trajectory of the plume and therefore 


will be dynamic. One site will incorporate taking sample water from the weir box itself - this 

will only occur if there is safe access to the site. Three samples will occur along the plume 

trajectory at distances of 10 m, 200 m and 500 m beyond the silt curtain. The fifth and sixth 

sites will be reference sites and located at the Cottesloe Reef Fish Habitat Protection Area 

(Figure 3.1). 

3.3. Inner Harbour Dredge Plume 

Samples will be taken at four monitoring sites along a plume transect at increasing distance 

from the dredge head while it is operational within the Inner Harbour, with an example 

shown in Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2. The transect will follow the approximate trajectory of the 

plume and therefore will be dynamic. Four samples will occur along the plume trajectory at 

distances of 10 m, 50 m, 100 m and 500 m from the dredge head. An additional (fifth) ‘at 

source’ water sample will be taken from the dredge ‘tailings’ slurry, prior to deposition within 

the reclamation area. 

3.4. Offshore Dredge and Disposal Plume 

Water samples will be taken at four monitoring sites along a plume transect at increasing 

distance from either (i) the dredge head while it is operational within Deep Water Channel or 

(ii) the local site of offshore disposal, with an example shown in Figure 3.1. The transect will 

follow the approximate trajectory of the plume and therefore will be dynamic. Four samples 

will occur along the plume trajectory at distances of 10 m, 50 m, 100 m and 500 m from 

either the dredge head or local site of offshore disposal. 

3.5. Recreation and Aesthetic Water Quality 

As depicted in Figure 3.1, six monitoring locations have been located in the vicinity of 

proximal public beaches, for contingency water quality sampling to determine potential 

impacts on recreational and aesthetic values: 

• Port Beach (‘Sandtracks’ surf break); 

• Fremantle Surf Life Saving Club; 

• Cottesloe Beach; 

• Bather’s Beach; 

• South Beach; and, 

• Preston Point Beach (in the Lower Swan River). 

3.6. Inner Harbour and Rous Head Water, Sentinel Mussel and 

Sediment Quality 

A total of six locations surrounding the Inner Harbour and Rous Head will be utilised for water 

quality monitoring (3 locations), sentinel mussel quality monitoring (all 6 locations) and 

sediment quality monitoring (5 locations), as depicted in Figure 3.1, Figure 3.2 and Table 3.2. 

Table 3.2 

Matrix of Inner Harbour and Rous Head monitoring locations vs. type of monitoring 

conducted at each location 

Type of 

Monitoring 

Rocky Bay 

(RB) 


Port Site 1 

(FP1)** 

Monitoring Location 


Port Site 7 

(FP7)** 

Rous Head 


Site 2 

(RH2)** 

Rous Head 

Site 3 

(RH3)** 

Mussel 

Reference 

(MR) 

Water 

Quality 

* * * 

Sentinel Mussel 

Quality 

 

Sediment 

Quality 

 

* To be monitored by the Department of Water, with information made available to Fremantle Ports. 

** Sites established for Fremantle Ports existing operational Marine Quality Management Program (MQMP). 


3.7. Provision of monitoring site coordinates 

Monitoring site coordinates will be provided electronically to the Office of the EPA, as and 

when they become available throughout the Project. 


Figure 3.1 Environmental monitoring sites (as described in Section 3). 


Figure 3.2 

Inner Harbour and Rous Head environmental monitoring sites (as described in 

Section 3) 


4. Environmental Quality Indicators and Targets 

4.1. Water Quality 

4.1.1. Ecosystem Health (EQO1: Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity) 

Light requirements for Seagrass and Coral Health 

Water quality triggers will be based on light attenuation in the water column, related to the 

minimum light requirements (MLR) of seagrass and corals, as described in the DSDMP 

(Fremantle Ports, 2009). Specifically, the Light Attenuation Coefficient (LAC), a measure of 

the attenuation of light with depth through the water column, will be assessed against trigger 

values that are specific to depth, habitat (seagrass or corals) and BPPH management zones. 

The higher the LAC, the less light that can penetrate the water column to reach 

photosynthesising BPP, such as seagrass and corals. 

Water quality triggers for each level of management response (see Section 5.1.1 – Seagrass 

and Coral Health) are based on a stepwise percentage increase above the LAC that was used 

to determine the inner boundary of the BPPH management zone being monitored. The 

predicted Zone of Loss (ZoL) is not included in management response, since any BPPH within 

the ZoL is assumed to be lost through physical disturbance (within the dredging and disposal 

footprints) or high turbidity and sedimentation immediately adjacent to Project activities. 

Table 4.1 presents the triggers developed during the environmental impact assessment 

(Fremantle Ports, 2009) for each management response level (Levels 1-4) with example LAC 

trigger levels for a hypothetical monitoring site within a seagrass community at 10 m depth. 

Actual trigger values to be applied at monitoring sites within the ZoI or ZoE have been 

calculated for one metre depth intervals for: 

1. Seagrass sites: based on a 10% MLR of the most sensitive species (Posidonia 

sinuosa) (Table 4.2); and 

2. Coral sites: based on a 20% MLR - the light requirements obtained from the 

literature for coral taxa present at Hall Bank (Cooper, et al., 2007) (Table 4.3). 

Further rationale regarding the development and application of LAC trigger values is provided 

within the DSDMP (Fremantle Ports 2009). 

Table 4.1 

Water Quality Triggers for each Level of Management Response within the Zone of 

Influence (ZoI) and Zone of Effect (ZoE) 

Management 

Response 

Level 

Trigger 

Example LAC trigger levels 

(for a seagrass site at 10m depth) 

ZoI ZoE ZoI ZoE 

No Exceedance LAC0.100 

Level 2 

Level 3 

Level 4 

LAC>trigger 

for >21 days 

LAC>trigger 

for >4 wks 

LAC>trigger 

for >6 wks 

LAC 30% higher 

than trigger 


than trigger 


than trigger 

LAC>0.100 

for >21 days 

LAC>0.100 

for >4 wks 

LAC>0.100 

for >6 wks 

LAC>0.130 

LAC>0.140 

LAC>0.150 


Table 4.2 

Depth-specific Light Attenuation Coefficient (LAC; m -1 ) Water Quality Trigger Values 

based on 10% Minimum Light Requirement (MLR) for Seagrasses 

Water Depth 

(m) 

Zone of Influence 

LAC trigger based 

on MLR Threshold 

Zone of Effect 

LAC triggers based on % increase 

30% 40% 50% 

1 1.000 1.300 1.400 1.500 

2 0.500 0.650 0.700 0.750 

3 0.333 0.433 0.467 0.500 

4 0.250 0.325 0.350 0.375 

5 0.200 0.260 0.280 0.300 

6 0.167 0.217 0.233 0.250 

7 0.143 0.186 0.200 0.214 

8 0.125 0.163 0.175 0.188 

9 0.111 0.144 0.156 0.167 

10 0.100 0.130 0.140 0.150 

11 0.091 0.118 0.127 0.136 

12 0.083 0.108 0.117 0.125 

13 0.077 0.100 0.108 0.115 

14 0.071 0.093 0.100 0.107 

15 0.067 0.087 0.093 0.100 

16 0.063 0.081 0.088 0.094 

17 0.059 0.076 0.082 0.088 

18 0.056 0.072 0.078 0.083 

Table 4.3 

Depth-specific Light Attenuation Coefficient (LAC; m -1 ) Water Quality Trigger Values 

based on 20% Minimum Light Requirement (MLR) for Corals 

Water Depth 

(m) 

Zone of Influence 

LAC trigger based 

on MLR Threshold 

Zone of Effect 

LAC triggers based on % increase 

30% 40% 50% 

1 0.699 0.9087 0.9786 1.048 

2 0.349 0.4537 0.4886 0.524 

3 0.233 0.3029 0.3262 0.349 

4 0.175 0.2275 0.245 0.262 

5 0.140 0.182 0.196 0.210 

6 0.116 0.1508 0.1624 0.175 

7 0.100 0.13 0.14 0.150 

8 0.087 0.1131 0.1218 0.131 

9 0.078 0.1014 0.1092 0.116 

10 0.070 0.091 0.098 0.105 

11 0.064 0.0832 0.0896 0.095 

12 0.058 0.0754 0.0812 0.087 

Physico-chemical water quality indicators 

Water quality triggers for physico-chemical parameters, specifically dissolved oxygen and pH, 

adopted as indicators of ecosystem health within MEPAs and HEPAs, are based on 

environmental quality criteria developed within the Environmental Quality Criteria Reference 

Document for Cockburn Sound (EPA 2005a), as shown in Table 4.4. 

Toxicants in water 

Water quality triggers for toxicants including metals, organotins, organochlorine pesticides, 

and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, adopted as indicators of ecosystem health values 

within MEPAs and HEPAs, as shown in Table 4.5, are based on a combination of: 

• 99% species protection values for HEPAs (except cobalt which is 95% species 

protection), and 90% species protection values for MEPAs, as defined by Table 3.4.1 


of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000a) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh 

and Marine Water Quality (as agreed with the DEC in previous correspondence); and 

• for ‘other’ chemicals not listed within the above, Low Reliability Values (LRVs) defined 

in Chapter 8 of ANZECC / ARMCANZ (2000a) and Table 2c of EPA (2005a). 

4.1.2. Recreational and Aesthetic Values (EQOs 3 to 5: Maintenance of primary 

and secondary contact recreation values and aesthetic values) 

Toxicants at primary contact areas 

Water quality triggers for toxicants including metals, organotins, organochlorine (OC) 

pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), adopted to protect recreational 

values within primary contact areas, as shown in Table 4.5, are based on the approach 

defined by the NHMRC (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters: 

“The quantitative risk assessment should consider the expected exposure in terms 

both of dose (i.e. ‘Is there significant ingestion’) and of frequency of exposure. The 

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC/NRMMC 2004) provide a point of 

reference for exposure through ingestion but with a few exceptions these relate to 

significant lifetime exposure. 

Mance et al (1984) suggested that environmental quality standards for chemicals in 

recreational waters should be based on the assumption that recreational water makes 

only a relatively minor contribution to intake. They assumed a contribution for 

swimming of an equivalent to 10% of drinking water consumption. Since most 

authorities (including WHO) assume consumption of 2 litres of drinking water per day, 

this would result in an intake of 200 mL per day from recreational contact with water 

(WHO 2003). This provides for a simple screening approach in which a substance 

occurring in recreational water at a concentration of 10 times that stipulated in the 

drinking water guidelines may merit further consideration.” 

Water pH in Primary and Secondary Contact Areas 

The water quality guideline trigger for pH has been adopted from Tables 6 and 7 of 

Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document for Cockburn Sound (EPA 2005a), which 

state the same Environmental Quality Standard (EQS) for either primary or secondary 

contact recreation: 

“The median of the sample concentrations from the area of concern (either from one 

sampling run or from a single site over an agreed period of time) should not exceed 

the range of 5 – 9 pH units.” 

Water clarity and aesthetics of Primary Contact Areas 

The guideline trigger for water clarity has been adopted from Table 6 of Environmental 

Quality Criteria Reference Document for Cockburn Sound (EPA 2005a), which states the 

following Environmental Quality Guideline (EQG) for primary contact recreation: 

“To protect the visual clarity of waters used for swimming, the horizontal sighting of a 

200 mm diameter black (Secchi) disc should exceed 1.6 m.” 

This trigger has also been adopted as a surrogate target to manage potential impacts on the 

aesthetic values of waters in areas of primary contact. Community perceptions of what 

constitutes aesthetic values that should be maintained will also prompt management, e.g. 

based on aerial imagery and public complaints. 


4.2. Sentinel Mussel Quality 

4.2.1. Fishing and Aquaculture Values (EQO 2: Maintenance of aquatic life for 

human consumption) 

Seafood Safe to Eat around the Inner Harbour and Rous Head 

Triggers for the concentration of toxicants in seafood (mussels) including metals, organotins, 

OC pesticides, PAHs and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), adopted to protect fishing and 

aquaculture values, as shown in Table 4.6, are based on the guidance and EQCs of: 

• The Western Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Programme (DoF 2007); and 

• The Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code (FSANZ, 2009), specifically as 

defined under Standard 1.4.1 - Contaminants and Natural Toxicants and Standard 

1.4.2 - Maximum Residue Limits (Australia Only). 

These triggers have also been adopted as surrogate targets to manage potential impacts on 

non-human higher order consumers of seafood (e.g. dolphins). 

4.3. Sediment Quality 

4.3.1. Ecosystem Health (EQO1: Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity) 

Ecosystem Health surrounding the Inner Harbour and Rous Head 

Triggers for sediment concentrations of toxicants including metals, organotins, OC pesticides, 

PAHs and PCBs, adopted to manage ecosystem health values in HEPAs and MEPAs, as shown 

in Table 4.7, are based on the ISQG-low guideline triggers defined by Table 3.5.1 of the 

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000a). 

4.4. Limits of Reporting 

Note that the laboratory limits of reporting are below guideline trigger levels for all 

parameters of concern identified during the assessment process. 


Table 4.4 Physico-chemical water quality - indicators, trigger levels (where applicable; see Section 4.1) and areas of application (cross-reference with Figure 3.1). 

Indicator Environmental Value Target / Trigger Level Detection 

Limit 

Inner Harbour 

Dredge Plume 

Return Water 

Plume 

Offshore 

Dredge and 

Disposal Plume 

Recreation and 

Aesthetic Sites 

Seagrass 

Health Sites 

Coral Health 

Sites 

TSS - Contextual information / Validation of plume modelling 0.5 mg/L 

Water, 

Mussel, and 

Sediment 

Quality Sites ¥ 

NTU - Contextual information 1.5 NTU 

Secchi Depth 

LAC 

Primary contact recreation 

and aesthetics 

Ecosystem health (seagrass 

& coral) 

>1.6 m (EPA 2005) 0.1 m * - Public access 

restricted* 

Site-specific LAC triggers based on MLRs as defined in 

DSDMP 

Temperature - Contextual info (to be compared against regional 

temperature signals) 

DO (% saturation) Ecosystem health EQG for high and moderate protection areas, i.e. >90% 

and >80% saturation, respectively. DO never< 

60%saturation (EPA 2005) 

pH Ecosystem health EQG for high and moderate protection areas, i.e. ±0.2 pH 

units (from ref sites) 

(EPA 2005) 

pH 

Primary & secondary 

contact recreation 

EQS from EPA (2005) 

5 – 9 pH units 

* - Public access 

restricted* 

* - Public 

access 

restricted* 

* 

0.01 log 10 / m * - RB only 

0.1°C 

1% saturation 

0.1 pH units 

0.1 pH units 

Salinity - Contextual info 0.1 ppt 

TN - Contextual info 50 µgN/L 

TP - Contextual info 5 µg P/L 

* - Monitored for contextual information only, no applicable target or trigger level. 

¥ - Monitored at three sites only (RB, FP1, FP7; see Figure 3.2). 


Table 4.5 Toxicants in water - indicators, trigger levels (where applicable; see Section 4.1) and areas of application (cross-reference with Figure 3.1). 

Indicator Ecosystem Health Trigger Levels Primary Contact Recreation Trigger 

Levels 

Detection limit Inner Harbour Dredge Plume Return Water Plume Recreation and Aesthetic 

Sites 

Metals 

High Ecological Protection 

(µg/L) 

Moderate Ecological Protection 

(µg/L) 

µg/L µg/L Ecosystem health Ecosystem health Primary contact recreation 

Arsenic III 2.3 # N/A N/A 1 

Arsenic V 4.5 # N/A N/A 1 

Arsenic (total) N/A N/A 70 0.4 

Cadmium 0.7 14 20 0.6 

Cobalt 1 14 N/A 1 

Chromium III 7.7 49 N/A 5 

Chromium VI 0.14 20 500 2** 

Total Chromium N/A N/A N/A 2 

Copper 0.3 3 20,000 1** 

Lead 2.2 6.6 100 2 

Mercury 0.1 0.7 10 0.1 

Nickel 7 200 200 2 

Silver 0.8 1.8 1000 0.8 

Vanadium 50 160 N/A 1 

Zinc 7 23 N/A 2 

Organotins 

Tributyltin 0.0004* 0.02 N/A 0.002** 

Dibutyltin ¥ N/A N/A N/A 0.002 

Monobutyltin ¥ N/A N/A N/A 0.002 

Organochlorine Pesticides 

Aldrin 0.003 # N/A N/A 0.001 

Dieldrin 0.01 # N/A N/A 0.001 

Aldrin + Dieldrin N/A N/A 3 0.001 

Endrin 0.004* 0.01 N/A 0.001 

Endosulfan 0.005* 0.02 300 0.001 

trans-Chlordane 0.0001 # N/A 10 0.001** 

cis-Chlordane 0.0001 # N/A 10 0.001** 

Oxychlordane 0.0001 # N/A 10 0.001** 

p,p-DDE 0.0005 # N/A N/A 0.001 

p,p-DDT 0.0004 # N/A 200 0.001 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Naphthalene 50* 90 N/A 0.01 

Phenanthrene 0.6 # 4 # N/A 0.01 

Anthracene 0.01 # 1.5 # N/A 0.01 

Fluoranthene 1 1.7 N/A 0.01 

Benzo(a)pyrene 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.01 

# - Based on Low Reliability Values (LRVs) - Action is not mandatory if LRVs are exceeded, but regulators and management agencies should be advised and consideration given to developing strategies that will ensure environmental impacts are avoided (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000a; EPA 2005a). 

* - 99% species protection value utilised (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000a). 

** - Detection limit higher than trigger level. 


Table 4.6 

Toxicants in mussel tissue - indicators, trigger levels (where applicable; see Section 

4.2) and areas of application (cross-reference with Figure 3.1). 

Indicator 

Trigger levels 

(to protect fishing & aquaculture 

values) 

Detection Limit 

Metals mg/kg wet weight mussel tissue mg/kg wet weight mussel tissue 

Water, Mussel, and Sediment 

Quality Sites 

Arsenic (inorganic) 1.0** 0.025 

Cadmium 2.0** 0.005 

Chromium N/A 0.005 

Copper 30*** 0.025 

Lead 2.0** 0.005 

Mercury 0.5** 0.005 

Nickel N/A 0.005 

Silver N/A 0.01 

Zinc 290*** 0.005 

Organotins 

Tributyltin ¥ N/A 0.001 

Dibutyltin ¥ N/A 0.001 

Monobutyltin ¥ N/A 0.005 

Organochlorine Pesticides 

ppb 

mg/kg wet weight mussel tissue 

Aldrin 0.1**** 0.01 

Dieldrin 0.1**** 0.01 

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1**** 0.01 

alpha-BHC 0.01**** 0.01 

beta-BHC 0.01**** 0.01 

delta-BHC 0.01**** 0.01 

trans-Chlordane 0.05**** 0.01 

cis-Chlordane 0.05**** 0.01 

Oxychlordane 0.05**** 0.01 

p,p-DDE 1**** 0.01 

p,p-DDD 1**** 0.01 

p,p-DDT 1**** 0.01 

HCB 0.1**** 0.01 

Heptachlor 0.05**** 0.01 

Heptachlor epoxide 0.05**** 0.01 

Polycyclic 

Hydrocarbons 

Aromatic 


Naphthalene ¥ N/A 0.01 

Phenanthrene ¥ N/A 0.01 

Anthracene ¥ N/A 0.01 

Fluoranthene ¥ N/A 0.01 

Benzo(a)pyrene ¥ N/A 0.01 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 


Total PCBs 0.5 in fish 0.002 

¥ - Reported for information, but no management actions are directly triggered, since there are no guideline values. 

** - Maximum Level for metals in molluscs (FSANZ 2009) 

*** - Generally Expected Levels [90th-percentile] for metals in molluscs (FSANZ 2009) 

**** - Extraneous Residue Limit (ERL) Molluscs & Fish (FSANZ 2009) 


Table 4.7 

Toxicants in sediment - indicators, trigger levels (where applicable; see Section 4.3) and 

areas of application (cross-reference with Figure 3.1). 

Indicator 

Ecosystem Health 

Trigger Levels 

Detection Limit 

Water, Mussel, and Sediment 

Quality Sites 

Metals mg/kg dry weight mg/kg dry weight Ecosystem Health 

Arsenic 20 0.5 

Cadmium 1.5 0.1 

Chromium 80 0.2 

Copper 65 0.2 

Lead 50 0.2 

Mercury 0.15 0.01 

Nickel 21 0.2 

Silver 1 0.2 

Zinc 200 0.2 

Organotins µg Sn / kg dry wt µg Sn / kg dry wt 

Tributyltin 5 0.05 

Dibutyltin ¥ N/A 0.05 

Monobutyltin ¥ N/A 0.05 

Organochlorine Pesticides µg/kg dry weight µg/kg dry weight 

Dieldrin 0.02 1* 

Endrin 0.02 1* 

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0.32 1* 

trans-Chlordane 0.5 1* 

cis-Chlordane 0.5 1* 

Oxychlordane 0.5 1* 

Heptachlor N/A 1 

p,p-DDE 2.2 1 

p,p-DDD 2 1 

p,p-DDT 1.6 1 

Total DDT+DDD+DDE N/A 1 

Total Organochlorine Pesticides N/A 1 

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons µg/kg dry weight µg/kg dry weight 

Naphthalene 160 10 

Acenaphthylene 44 10 

Acenaphthene 16 10 

Fluorene 19 10 

Phenanthrene 240 10 

Anthracene 85 10 

Total Low Weight PAHs 552 10 

Fluoranthene 600 10 

Pyrene 665 10 

Benz(a)anthracene 261 10 

Chrysene 384 10 

Benzo(a)pyrene 430 10 

Dibenz(ah)anthracene 63 10 

Total High Weight PAHs 1700 10 

Total PAHs 4000 10 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

µg/kg dry weight 

Total PCBs 23 10 

¥ - Reported for information, but no management actions are directly triggered, since there are no guideline values. 

* - Detection limit higher than trigger level. 


5. Monitoring Process, Schedule and Contingency 

Management Measures 

5.1. Water Quality 

Water quality monitoring and management response triggers provide a mechanism to 

manage impacts to environmental, recreational and aesthetic values associated with water 

quality and provide an early warning of potential impacts. 

5.1.1. Ecosystem Health Values 

LAC monitoring for Seagrass and Coral Health 

Frequency 

• Continuous logging (every 15 minutes) of light starting one week prior to dredging 

(baseline) and then until completion of dredging and disposal. 

Recorded light data will be downloaded from loggers each fortnight. 

Location 

• Twenty-six locations overlying seagrass and two locations overlying coral (plus one 

site in Rocky Bay for contextual purposes) as detailed in Sections 3.1, 3.6 and 

Figure 3.1. 

• Monitoring will be targeted and focussed on data collection at those sites within 

proximity of the visible plume/s (as based on field observation and aerial imagery), 

which technically defines the potential zone of influence, plus associated reference 

sites. That is, not all sites will be sampled for the full duration of the dredge program 

and when dredging, only those sites within the proximity of the visible dredge, 

disposal and/or return water plumes will be sampled, plus associated reference sites. 

Method 

• Calculate LAC from underwater light intensity measured by two light loggers deployed 

at each location with at least 2 m of vertical separation. 

• LAC will be processed for each location (within 72 hours from collection of all light 

loggers) and presented as a 14-day rolling median. 

• For contextual purposes TSS concentration will also be determined at each location by 

collection of a single integrated-depth water sample, sent to a NATA-accredited 

laboratory for analysis of the concentration and determination of the organic 

component via loss on ignition (LOI). 

• For contextual purposes a profile of turbidity (NTU) will also be measured at each 

location. 

• For contextual purposes, temperature loggers will be deployed at both coral 

monitoring sites, for fortnightly download. 

• Median LAC will be compared to LAC triggers described in Section 4.1.1 – Light 

requirements for Seagrass and Coral Health, to determine the appropriate 

management response as listed below. 

Contingency Management Measures 

No exceedance 

• Where LAC is determined to be below “No exceedance” trigger levels at seagrass and 

coral health monitoring sites, the lack of exceedance will be noted in fortnightly 

reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to Fremantle Ports and the 

Office of the EPA. 

Regional exceedance 

• Where LAC is determined to be above the “No exceedance” trigger levels at seagrass 

and coral health monitoring sites, exceedances in the first instance will be investigated 

to determine whether the dredging and spoil disposal activities were responsible 

(wholly or in part) for observed elevations of turbidity. Investigations of possible 

causes will examine: 

o 

o 

Whether any similar trends were observed at reference sites; 

The location of the dredging and spoil disposal activities in relation to the 

affected site(s); 


o The extent and position of the visible dredge plume in relation to the affected 

site(s); 

o The weather conditions, sea state and tides at the time of the exceedance; 

and, 

o The spatial distribution of affected sites in relation to unaffected sites and the 

position of the dredge. 

• In the event that it is considered that dredging or spoil disposal has not contributed to 

the exceedance/s, then the exceedance/s, together with reasons as to why the 

dredging or spoil disposal were not responsible, will be noted in fortnightly reporting 

(by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to Fremantle Ports and the Office of the 

EPA. 

• In the event that it is considered that dredging or spoil disposal has contributed to the 

exceedance, the following management and monitoring strategies will be 

implemented, related to each level of exceedance and management response. 

Level 1 Management Response: 

• Where LAC is determined to be above the “No exceedance” trigger levels, but below 

Level 2 trigger levels, then the exceedance will be noted in fortnightly reporting (by 

the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to Fremantle Ports and the Office of the 

EPA; 

• The exceedance will be investigated and management strategies will be developed 

(e.g. additional silt curtains, raising of weir box to lower flow rate of return water) to 

be implemented if Level 2 triggers are exceeded; and, 

• Coral/seagrass monitoring teams will be informed of the exceedance and the potential 

need for upcoming monitoring. 


• Where LAC is determined to be above the Level 2 trigger levels, but below Level 3 

trigger levels, then the exceedance will be noted in fortnightly reporting (by the 

Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to Fremantle Ports and the Office of the EPA; 



be implemented as soon as practically possible if water quality does not improve; 

• Where LAC is determined to be above the Level 2 trigger level, then: 

o the CEO of the Office of the EPA will be informed of the exceedance and 

proposed management strategies (see below) as soon as practicable and no 

later than within 72 hours of detection of the exceedance (i.e. subsequent to 

processing of LAC data); 

o if applicable, any management actions already implemented within 72 hours 

shall also be reported; and 

o all management strategies will be implemented as soon as practicable. 

• LAC monitoring and dredge and disposal activities shall continue; and 




• Where LAC is determined to be above the Level 3 trigger levels, but below Level 4 

trigger levels, then the exceedance will be noted in fortnightly reporting (by the 

Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to Fremantle Ports and the Office of the EPA; 



be implemented as soon as practically possible, if water quality does not improve; 









• LAC monitoring and dredge and disposal activities shall continue; and, 





• Where LAC is determined to be above the Level 4 trigger levels, then the exceedance 

will be noted in fortnightly reporting (by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to 

Fremantle Ports and the Office of the EPA; 



be implemented if water quality does not improve; 









• Coral or seagrass monitoring in the region of the water quality exceedance shall 

commence within 2 weeks of the exceedance, as described in the DSDMP (Fremantle 

Ports 2009); and, 

• Subsequent management measures shall be in accordance with the seagrass and/or 

coral health contingency monitoring and management plan described in the DSDMP 

(Fremantle Ports 2009). 

Toxicants within Inner Harbour Dredge Plume 

Frequency 

• Baseline prior to dredging, then weekly for the duration of dredging of the 300,000 m 3 

potentially contaminated sediment within the Inner Harbour and then one sampling 

occasion one week after dredging of the potentially contaminated sediment. 

Location 

Four ‘dynamic transect’ sites within the Inner Harbour dredge plume (at distances 

10 m, 50m, 100 m and 500 m from dredge head) as detailed in Section 3.3, 

Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 (N.B. ‘mock’ sites at the same distances of separation along 

a transect within the Inner Harbour, at a random location overlying the footprint of 

potentially contaminated sediment, shall be used for (i) baseline sampling and (ii) 

water quality sampling in the week subsequent to dredging of that sediment, if the 

dredge has moved out of the Inner Harbour). 

Method 

• Collect a single integrated-depth water sample from each location, every week. 

• Store chilled and send samples to a laboratory accredited by the National Association 

of Testing Authorities (NATA) for analyses of the concentration of toxicant analytes 

listed in Table 4.5 (metals, organotins, OC pesticides, PAH). 

• Toxicant concentration data shall be processed (within 5 days of laboratory receipt 

samples) and compared against moderate protection triggers where available and 

listed in Table 4.5, to determine the appropriate management response as listed 

below. 


• Where a toxicant analyte is determined to be above the trigger level, then: 




processing of toxicant data); 




• The exceedance will also be noted in fortnightly reporting (by the Environmental 

Monitoring Contractor) to Fremantle Ports and the Office of the EPA; 


• If water quality does not improve and is deemed to be an ongoing environmental risk, 

the following hierarchy of management measures shall be implemented as soon as is 

practicable: 

o Where relevant to each particular analyte for which an exceedance has 

occurred, further testing of water samples may be conducted to ascertain the 

‘bioavailable’ fraction or potential ecotoxicity of the analyte, for comparison 

with relevant guidelines as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000a), EPA (2005a) 

and/or appropriate alternate guidance. 

o The cause of any exceedance shall be investigated and the spatial extent of 

exceedance estimated, including: 

• water quality sampling at an increased frequency; 

• water quality monitoring for toxicants at additional sites with crossreference 

to aerial imagery depicting plume extent at the time of 

exceedance; and 

• the potential for vertical stratification of toxicant concentration within 

the lower Swan River estuary, i.e. sampling of surface and bottom 

waters). 

o The volume of contaminated material remaining to be dredged shall be 

characterised. 

o The dredge program may be re-designed to better mix contaminated with 

uncontaminated material. 

o Dredging shall be re-located from the contaminated area, until a sediment 

removal and remediation plan is in place, in agreement with the Office of the 

EPA. 

Toxicants within Return Water Plume 

Frequency 

• Baseline prior to discharge of reclamation water, then weekly during return water 

discharge, and one week thereafter or until water quality meets HEPA criteria. 

Location 

• Six sites including one site within the reclamation pond, one site within the weir box, 

three ‘dynamic transect’ sites within the return water plume (at distances 10 m, 

200 m and 500 m from silt curtain) and two ‘static reference’ sites within the 

Cottesloe Reef Fish Habitat Protection Area, as shown in Figure 3.1 (N.B. ‘mock’ sites 

at the same distances of separation along a transect offshore of the return water 

discharge outlet / weir box, shall be used for (i) baseline sampling and (ii) water 

quality sampling in the week subsequent to conclusion of return water discharge). 

Method 

• Collect a single integrated-depth water sample from each location, every week. 

• Store chilled and send samples to a NATA-accredited laboratory for analyses of the 

concentration of toxicant analytes listed in Table 4.5 (metals, organotins, OC 

pesticides, PAH). 


samples during dredging and reclamation of the 300,000 m 3 of potentially 

contaminated sediment; within 10 days thereafter) and compared against moderate 

and high protection triggers as applicable and where available and listed in Table 4.5, 

to determine the appropriate management response as listed below. 













• If water quality does not improve and is deemed to be an ongoing environmental risk, 

the following hierarchy of management measures shall be implemented as soon as is 

practicable: 


occurred, further testing of water samples may be conducted to ascertain the 

‘bioavailable’ fraction or potential ecotoxicity of the analyte, for comparison 

with relevant guidelines as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000a), EPA (2005a) 

and/or appropriate alternate guidance. 

o The cause of any exceedance shall be investigated, potentially including water 

quality monitoring for toxicants at additional sites and/or at an increased 

frequency. 

o Any exceedance of high protection triggers shall also initiate water quality 

sampling for toxicants at public beach sites for assessment against triggers for 

primary contact recreation as described in Section 5.1.2 - Water Clarity and 

Aesthetics of Primary Contact Areas (Beaches and Lower Swan). 

o Additional protection barriers shall be implemented, e.g. additional silt curtains, 

raising of weir box to reduce flow volume of return water. 

o Return water discharge shall cease until it can be demonstrated that no risk to 

the environment is posed by toxicants. 

Water pH within Return Water Plume 

Frequency 

• Baseline prior to discharge of reclamation water, then weekly until the completion of 

reclamation and conclusion of return water discharge, and one week thereafter or until 

water quality meets HEPA criteria. 

Location 








Method 

• Measure pH of surface water (50 cm below water surface, at least 5 water samples) 

and bottom water (50 cm above sediment surface, at least 5 water samples) at each 

site every week in accordance with EPA (2005a,b). 

• Compare median pH of surface and bottom waters at potential impact sites against 

‘reference’ sites for moderate and high protection triggers as listed in Table 4.4 (i.e. 

potential impact sites to exhibit no greater deviation than ±0.2 pH units from 

reference sites), to determine the appropriate management response as listed below. 


• Where pH is determined to exceed the trigger level, then: 




processing of pH data); 






• If water pH does not improve and is deemed to be an ongoing environmental risk, the 

following hierarchy of management measures shall be implemented as soon as is 

practicable: 

o The cause of exceedance shall be investigated. 

o Additional protection measures shall be implemented, e.g. raising of weir box 

to reduce flow volume of return water. 


o 

o 

Management measures shall be implemented to neutralise return water to 

within acceptable pH range. 

Return water discharge shall cease until it can be demonstrated that no risk to 

the environment is posed from unacceptably low (or high) water pH. 

Dissolved Oxygen within proximity of Inner Harbour Dredge, Return Water, Offshore 

Dredge and Disposal Plumes 

Frequency 

• Baseline prior to dredging or discharge of reclamation water, then weekly (or 

fortnightly at Inner Harbour sites monitored by DoW) until the completion of dredging 

or reclamation and conclusion of return water discharge, and one week thereafter or 

until water quality meets relevant criteria. 

• Monitoring will be targeted and focussed on data collection at those sites within 

proximity of the visible plume/s (as based on field observation and aerial imagery), 

which technically defines the potential zone of influence, plus associated reference 

sites. That is, not all sites may be sampled, and to reiterate for emphasis, when 

dredging only those sites within proximity of the visible dredge, disposal and/or return 

water plumes will be sampled, plus associated reference sites. 

Location 

Total of twenty-one sites including: 

• Four ‘dynamic transect’ sites within the Inner Harbour dredge plume (at distances 

10 m, 50m, 100 m and 500 m from dredge head) as detailed in Section 3.3, 

Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 (N.B. ‘mock’ sites at the same distances of separation along 

a transect within the Inner Harbour, at a random location overlying the footprint of 

potentially contaminated sediment, shall be used for (i) baseline sampling and (ii) 

water quality sampling in the week subsequent to dredging of that sediment, if the 

dredge has moved out of the Inner Harbour). 








• Three water quality sites surrounding the Inner Harbour, monitored by the DoW, as 

detailed in Section 3.6 and Figure 3.1 (N.B. salinity and total nutrients will also be 

monitored by the DoW at these sites for contextual purposes). 

• Eight ‘dynamic transect’ sites within the offshore dredge plume (4 sites) and disposal 

plume (4 sites) (at distances 10 m, 50m, 100 m and 500 m from dredge head or 

location of spoil disposal) as detailed in Section 3.4 and Figure 3.1 (N.B. ‘mock’ sites 

at the same distances of separation along a transect within the offshore deep water 

channel and disposal area, at a random location overlying the footprint of sediment to 

be dredged and disposed shall be used for (i) baseline sampling and (ii) water quality 

sampling in the week subsequent to dredging and disposal of that sediment). 

Method 

• Measure daytime DO saturation within bottom waters (0-50 cm from sediment 

surface) at each site every week (or fortnight at DoW sites) in accordance with EPA 

(2005a,b). 





• For contextual purposes the water turbidity (NTU) and temperature profile will also be 

measured at each location. 

• For contextual purposes, Secchi depth will also be measured at each site in 

accordance with EPA (2005a,b). 

• Compare rolling 2-week median DO saturation of bottom waters at each potential 

impact site against EQG triggers for moderate and high protection as listed in 

Table 4.4. 


• If EQG triggers are exceeded, determine whether environmental quality standards 

(EQS) for high or moderate protection areas as defined by EPA (2005a) have been 

exceeded (i.e. rolling 2-week median DO shall not be below 60% saturation), to 

determine the appropriate management response as listed below. 


• Where DO saturation is determined to breach the EQS trigger level, then: 




processing of DO data); 






• If bottom water DO saturation does not improve and is deemed to be an ongoing 

environmental risk, the following hierarchy of management measures shall be 

implemented as soon as is practicable: 


o Daily monitoring shall be implemented. 

o Additional protection barriers and measures shall be implemented, e.g. 

additional silt curtains, raising of weir box to reduce flow volume of return 

water. 


the environment is posed. 

o Further management measures shall be implemented to ensure that bottom 

water DO saturation meets the applicable standard, e.g. single-shift dredging. 

o Dredging shall be relocated from the area subject to DO exceedance until the 

Office of the EPA is satisfied that the risk to the environment is acceptable. 

5.1.2. Recreational and Aesthetic Values 

Water Clarity and Aesthetics of Primary Contact Areas (Beaches and Lower Swan) 

Frequency 

• Weekly for the first 6 weeks of the dredging program, and thereafter only if prompted 

by visual analysis of weekly aerial imagery and/or a significant number of public 

complaints. 

• Aerial imagery to be collected every second day for the duration of dredging of the 

300,000 m 3 potentially contaminated sediment within the Inner Harbour. 

Location 

• Six contingency ‘recreation/aesthetic’ beach sites as detailed in Section 3.5 and 

Figure 3.1. 

Method 

• Measure Secchi depth at each site every week in accordance with EPA (2005a,b). 





• Compare Secchi depth at each site against triggers for primary contact recreation as 

listed in Table 4.4 (i.e. Secchi depth should be no less than 1.6 m), to determine the 

appropriate management response as listed below. 



• Where Secchi depth is found to exceed the trigger level, then: 

o the CEO of the Office of the EPA and DoH will be informed of the exceedance 

and proposed management strategies (see below) as soon as practicable and 

no later than within 72 hours of detection of the exceedance (i.e. subsequent 

to processing of Secchi depth data); 






• If Secchi depth does not improve and is deemed to be an ongoing risk to primary 

contact recreation or aesthetic values, the following hierarchy of management 

measures shall be implemented as soon as is practicable: 

o Additional protection barriers shall be implemented (e.g. additional silt 

curtains, raising of weir box to reduce flow volume of return water, single-shift 

dredging, relocate dredge) to ensure Secchi depth is as high as reasonably 

practicable at beach sites, focussed particularly on peak periods of beach use. 

o Public will be notified of nature and predicted duration of temporary reductions 

in water clarity via means such as erection of signage, advertisements or 

notices in the press. 

o Return water discharge shall cease and/or dredging causing the exceedance 

shall be relocated until it can be demonstrated that no risk to primary contact 

recreation or aesthetic values is posed by the lowered water clarity. 

Toxicants within Reclamation Area 

Frequency 

• Daily during the period between dredging commencing and reclamation water 

discharge commencing. 

Location 

• One site within proximity of the dredge inflow within the reclamation area will be 

sampled. 

Method 

• Collect a single water sample from a location selected in close proximity to the dredge 

inflow. 

• Store chilled and immediately send samples to a NATA-accredited laboratory for 

analyses of the concentration of toxicant analytes listed in Table 4.5 (metals, 

organotins, OC pesticides, PAH). 

• Toxicant concentration data shall be processed within 5 days from collection and 

compared against triggers for primary contact recreation where available and listed in 

Table 4.5, to establish the risk to primary contact values following commencement of 

return water discharge. 






to processing of toxicant data); 






• If water quality is considered a risk to primary contact recreation values, the following 

hierarchy of management measures shall be implemented as soon as is practicable: 

o Return water discharge shall not commence until it can be demonstrated that 

no risk to primary contact recreation values at adjacent beaches is posed by 

toxicants. 

o Erect signage at beaches to warn public of potential health risk of toxicants. 


o 

o 

The cause of any exceedance shall be investigated, potentially including water 

quality monitoring for toxicants at additional sites. 

Additional protection barriers shall be implemented, e.g. additional silt curtains, 


Toxicants at Primary Contact Areas 

Frequency 

• Baseline prior to dredging, and thereafter only if toxicants within the Inner Harbour 

dredge plume or return water plume outside of the silt curtain exceed triggers for high 

protection of ecosystem health (see Section 5.1.1 - Toxicants within Return Water 

Plume). 

Location 

• Six contingency ‘recreation/aesthetic’ beach sites as detailed in Section 3.5 and 

Figure 3.1. 

Method 

• Collect a single integrated-depth water sample from each site, every week. 



organotins, OC pesticides, PAH). 

• Toxicant concentration data shall be processed (within 10 days from collection of 

baseline samples, within 5 days from collection of samples triggered by return water 

plume exceedances) and compared against triggers for primary contact recreation 

where available and listed in Table 4.5, to determine the appropriate management 

response as listed below. 












• If water quality does not improve and is deemed to be an ongoing risk to primary 

contact recreation values, the following hierarchy of management measures shall be 

implemented as soon as is practicable: 

o Erect signage at beaches to warn public of potential health risk of toxicants. 

o The cause of any exceedance shall be investigated, potentially including water 

quality monitoring for toxicants at additional sites. 




primary contact recreation values is posed by toxicants. 

Water pH in Primary and Secondary Contact Areas within Proximity of the Return Water 

Plume 

Frequency 

• Baseline prior to discharge of reclamation water, and thereafter only if pH within the 

return water plume outside of the silt curtain exceed triggers for high protection of 

ecosystem health (see Section 5.1.1 – Water pH within Return Water Plume). 

Location 









• In the event of exceedance (refer below), six contingency ‘recreation/aesthetic’ beach 

sites as detailed in Section 3.5 and Figure 3.1. 

Method 

• Measure pH of surface water (50 cm below water surface, at least 5 water samples) 

and bottom water (50 cm above sediment surface, at least 5 water samples) at each 

site every week in accordance with EPA (2005a,b). 

• Compare median pH of surface and bottom waters at potential impact sites against 

primary and secondary contact triggers as listed in Table 4.4 (median pH must be 

within the range of 5 – 9 pH units), to determine the appropriate management 

response as listed below. 


• Where pH is determined to exceed the trigger level, then: 




to processing of pH data); 






• If water pH does not improve and is deemed to be an ongoing risk to primary or 

secondary contact recreation values, the following hierarchy of management measures 

shall be implemented as soon as is practicable: 


o Measurements of pH shall be conducted at contingency ‘recreation/aesthetic’ 

beach sites (as described above), as detailed in Section 3.5 and Figure 3.1; 

and median pH of surface and bottom waters at potential impact sites compare 

against primary contact triggers (median pH must be within the range of 5 – 9 

pH units). If primary contact triggers are exceeded, erect signage to warn 

public of potential health risk. 

o Additional protection measures shall be implemented, e.g. raising of weir box 

to reduce flow volume of return water. 

o Management measures shall be implemented to neutralise return water to 

within acceptable pH range. 


primary and secondary contact recreation values is posed from unacceptably 

low (or high) water pH. 

5.2. Sentinel Mussel Quality 

5.2.1. Fishing and Aquaculture Values (Seafood Safe to Eat) surrounding the 

Inner Harbour and Rous Head 

Frequency 

• Baseline collection of natural mussels prior to dredging, then collection of deployed 

sentinel mussels every six weeks during dredging of the Inner Harbour Channel and 

associated reclamation, with one sentinel mussel survey thereafter (subsequent to 

Inner Harbour Channel dredging and conclusion of reclamation return water 

discharge). 

Location 

Five sites surrounding the Inner Harbour Channel dredging and reclamation area, plus 

one offshore reference site, as detailed in Section 3.6 and Figure 3.1 (N.B. collection 

of natural mussels for baseline survey should be as close as possible to these sites, 

where substrate and mussels are available). 


Method 

• Sentinel mussels shall be deployed at each site in cages (in triplicate) for collection 

and replacement every 6 weeks. 

• Cages shall be cleaned of biofouling every 3 weeks (in between collection). 

• Collected mussels shall be stored chilled and immediately sent to a NATA-accredited 

laboratory for analyses of the concentration of toxicant analytes listed in Table 4.6 

(metals, organotins, OC pesticides, PAH, PCBs). 


samples) and median analyte concentrations compared against ‘seafood safe to eat’ 

triggers where available and listed in Table 4.6, to determine the appropriate 



• Where a toxicant analyte is determined to be above the trigger level, exceedances in 

the first instance will be investigated to determine whether the dredging and spoil 

disposal activities were responsible (wholly or in part) for the observed higher levels of 

toxicants in mussel flesh. Investigations of possible causes will examine: 

o Whether any similar trends were observed at the mussel reference site; 

o The location of the dredging and spoil disposal activities in relation to the 

o 

affected site(s); and 

The spatial distribution of affected sites in relation to unaffected sites and the 

position of the dredge. 

• In the event that it is considered that dredging or spoil disposal has not contributed to 

the exceedance/s, then the exceedance/s, together with reasons as to why the 

dredging or spoil disposal were not responsible, will be noted in fortnightly reporting 

(by the Environmental Monitoring Contractor) to Fremantle Ports and the Office of the 

EPA. 

• Where a toxicant analyte is determined to be above the trigger level and it is 

considered that dredging or spoil disposal has contributed to the exceedance, then: 

o 

the CEO of the Office of the EPA and DoH will be informed of the exceedance 









• If mussel quality is deemed to be an ongoing risk to public health, depending on 

location and severity of contamination, and advice from the EPA and DoH, 

management measures may include: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Signage erected at adjacent areas to warn public that natural mussels in area 

may not be safe to eat. 

Establish cause of exceedance, e.g. initiation of more detailed monitoring of 

water quality to determine (i) source and spatial spread of toxicants, and (ii) 

risks posed to environmental and other values (e.g. water quality risks to 

crayfish industry utilising water from Rous Head Harbour). 

Initiation of sampling and analysis of toxicant levels in naturally occurring 

mussels in areas likely to be affected. 

Initiation of sampling and analysis of toxicant levels in fish species targeted by 

recreational fishermen and/or dolphins in areas potentially affected. 

5.3. Sediment Quality 

5.3.1. Ecosystem Health Surrounding the Inner Harbour and Rous Head 

Frequency 

• Monthly during dredging of the Inner Harbour Channel and associated reclamation, 

with one sediment survey thereafter (subsequent to Inner Harbour Channel dredging 

and conclusion of reclamation return water discharge) (N.B. sufficient baseline 

sediment quality data was deemed available within the SAP Implementation Report for 


this Project (SKM 2008) and Fremantle Ports ongoing operational Marine Quality 

Monitoring Plan – Oceanica, 2009). 

Location 

• Five sites surrounding the Inner Harbour Channel dredging and reclamation area, as 

detailed in Section 3.6, Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 (plus one additional ‘post-dredge’ 

site within the boundary of the temporary MEPA for sampling after the conclusion of 

reclamation water discharge). 

Method 

• Collect triplicate sediment samples from each site, every month. 



organotins, OC pesticides, PAH, PCBs). 

• Toxicant concentration data shall be processed (within 5 days from collection of 

samples) and compared against moderate and high protection triggers as applicable 

and where available and listed in Table 4.7, to determine the appropriate 













• If sediment quality is deemed to be an ongoing environmental risk, the following 

hierarchy of management measures shall be implemented as soon as is practicable: 


occurred, conduct further testing of sediment samples may be conducted to 

ascertain the ‘bioavailable’ fraction or potential ecotoxicity of the analyte, for 

comparison with relevant guidelines as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000), EPA 

(2005) and/or appropriate alternate guidance. 

o The cause of any exceedance shall be investigated, potentially including 

sediment quality monitoring for toxicants at additional sites. 



o Return water discharge shall cease and/or dredging relocated until the Office of 

the EPA is satisfied that the risk to the environment from toxicants in sediment, 

as sourced from dredging works, is acceptable. 


6. Compliance Reporting 

In summary, reporting of WQMP results and contingency management measures will be 

entirely in accordance with Ministerial Condition 4 (refer Appendix A) with the following 

additional detail: 

• Water, mussel or sediment quality results will be reported to the Office of the EPA 

within 2 weeks of field monitoring event, via immediate email and in hardcopy. 

• Reporting of non-exceedances will be directly posted to Fremantle Ports’ website. 

• Exceedance of triggers and proposed management measures will be reported to the 

CEO of the Office of the EPA (and DoH, where relevant) within 72 hours of detection of 

the exceedance (i.e. subsequent to processing of data), via immediate email and in 

hardcopy. 

• Reporting of exceedances together with management measures agreed between 

Fremantle Ports, the Office of the EPA and any other relevant stakeholders, will be 

posted to Fremantle Ports’ website subsequent to such agreement. 


7. Quality Assurance / Quality Control 

Quality assurance and quality control procedures shall generally be in accordance with those 

described in the EPA’s (2005b) Manual of Standard Operating Procedures for Environmental 

Monitoring against the Cockburn Sound Environmental Quality Criteria (2003 - 2004) and 

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000b) Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting, 

as described below. 

7.1. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in Field Sampling 

An appropriate quality assurance and quality control programme shall commence prior to 

sampling and continue through to the final reporting stage, including procedures designed to 

prevent, detect and correct problems in the sampling process and so to characterise errors 

statistically through quality control samples. As a minimum, it includes being able to adhere 

to protocols, being able to avoid contaminating samples, and being able to calibrate field 

instruments and make field observations. 

7.1.1. Recording of Field Procedures 

A complete record of all field procedures will be maintained, including: 

• Sampling locations (must be relocatable — datum type shall be recorded with location 

coordinates); 

• Sampling methods; 

• Sample handling, preservation, and storage procedures; and, 

• Dates and times of collection, preservation, and storage. 

A sample-inventory log and a sample-tracking log will also be maintained. Any circumstances 

potentially affecting sampling procedures shall be documented. 

7.1.2. Non-collection of Field Data 

While every reasonable effort must be made to undertake the field monitoring program 

according to the schedule and procedures described in this WQMP, circumstances delaying 

the collection of data, or in the worst case resulting in the non-collection of data, may 

include: 

• Weather conditions causing unsafe sea conditions to work (the skipper of the vessel 

will be responsible for deciding on whether conditions are safe or not); 

• Equipment failure or malfunction; or 

• Accidental loss of samples. 

Where data cannot reasonably be collected on schedule, then data collection should resume 

at the first available opportunity or the next scheduled sampling date, whichever comes first. 

Justified reasons for any delay or non-collection of data shall be included in data reports. 

7.1.3. Maintenance and Calibration of Field Equipment 

All equipment and field instruments shall be kept clean and in good working order, and 

calibrations and preventative maintenance shall be carried out according to pre-defined 

schedules and recorded carefully. 

7.1.4. Sample Tracking 

Sample tracking procedures require that metadata, including details of sampling date, time, 

location, duration, environmental conditions and procedures used for water, mussel and/or 

sediment collection be recorded. In addition, sample transport information, including chainof-custody 

(COC) forms and sample receipt notifications shall be completed and forwarded to 

the relevant parties, including delivery of the samples to sub-consultants for analysis. 

The original and one copy of the chain-of-custody documentation shall accompany all 

samples provided to the laboratory and further copies made available for filing as required. 

There must be a standard chain-of-custody form available for this purpose. The purpose of 

the form is to clearly identify what samples are included, the treatment that has been/should 


e applied to samples (filtration etc), what analyses are to be performed and by whom, and 

who has had custody of the samples. This information is to be completely documented on 

the form, and the forms must accompany the sample container(s). 

Chain-of-custody must be documented by everyone having responsibility for a set of 

samples. This should also include couriers, but should that not be possible, the courier’s 

signature on the waybill is sufficient. 

The person sending the samples should retain a copy of the form for his or her own records. 

When the samples reach their destination, the person receiving them must complete the 

form(s), keep the copy for their records and return the original with the results. 

7.1.5. Sample Blanks 

Sample blanks may be used to estimate the levels of contamination that are incurred during 

any stage of field sampling activities. Field blanks may be used to estimate the 

contamination caused by sample collection, filtering, containers, equipment and transport. 

When used, blanks can be particularly useful in identifying problems with specific components 

of the monitoring procedure, which can then be quickly rectified. The reliability of the 

sampling procedure (and field officer) may also be ascertained by incorporating field blanks 

into the monitoring programme. Further explanations on the use of different field blanks are 

provided by ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000b). 

7.1.6. Duplicates and Replicates 

Duplicate samples are obtained by dividing a collected sample into two or more subsamples. 

Duplicates can be useful for revealing the size of errors from contamination that is occurring 

between sampling and sample analysis. Ideally, one duplicate should be obtained for about 

every 10 samples. 

Replicate samples are two or more samples that are collected simultaneously to establish the 

reproducibility of sampling. Ideally, three samples are required to enable testing of interand 

intra-laboratory accuracy and precision. 

Duplicate and replicate samples may be used as back-up samples to confirm whether a 

trigger has been exceeded and are particularly useful in situations when field collection is a 

difficult or costly exercise. 

7.2. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in Laboratory Procedures 

Only laboratories accredited with the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) shall 

be utilised to undertake sample analyses. 

7.2.1. Traceability of Results 

Apart from its chain of custody details for each sample, the laboratory must include the 

following information for each analysis: 

• Identity of sample analysed; 

• Identity of analyst; 

• Name of equipment used; 

• Original data and calculations; 

• Identification of manual data transfers; 

• Documentation of standard preparation; and, 

• Use of certified calibration solutions. 

3.4.2 Laboratory Data Reporting 

Laboratory reports shall be provided as part of the monitoring programme, including: 

• The laboratory name and address; 

• Tabulation of samples and analysis data; 

• Identification of the analytical methods used; 

• Limit of Reporting (LOR); 

• Confidence intervals of the analytical results; 


• Date of analysis and name of technician or chemist; and, 

• A quality control/quality assurance statement that includes the analytical results for 

blanks, duplicates, certified reference materials, spike recoveries and any other QA/QC 

information (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000b). 

7.3. Quality Assurance and Quality Control in Data Management 

7.3.1. Data Management Systems 

The data management system shall have the following components: 

• Reliable procedures for recording results of analysis and field observations; 

• Procedures for systematic screening and validation of data; 

• Secure storage of information; 

• A simple retrieval system; 

• Simple means of analysing data; and, 

• Flexibility to accommodate additional information, e.g. new analytes and/or sites. 

7.3.2. Data Entry Protocols 

Appropriate protocols for entering data shall be developed as part of the monitoring 

programme to ensure that the entry of data is accurate. A number of suggested protocols to 

minimise error are provided below: 

• Templates should be used for standardising datasheet formats so data can be 

transferred and imported into the database from a variety of sources. These should 

be provided to all collectors prior to sampling so all information required is collected, 

and presented in a usable format; 

• Data from analytical instruments including field meters and laboratory instruments 

should be electronically transferred to the database where possible to prevent 

transcription errors; 

• The collector(s) of the data must ensure that only correct and validated data is 

provided to the database manager for uploading into the database. A printout of the 

entry should be checked against the field record sheet and the laboratory register. 

Entries can be validated by electronic screening against the expected range and 

against other analytes for the same site and sampling date, and against field 

measurements; and, 

• Appropriate protocols for correctly distinguishing between data values of zero, data 

values obtained that were below the detection limit, and sites where no data was 

collected are as follows: 

o Values of zero will be captured as 0 (zero); 

o Values below the LOR will be assigned the value of the limit and qualified with 

a “

Regular backing up of the monitoring database will occur so that data are not lost in the case 

of system or file failures. 


8. References 

ANZECC / ARMCANZ 2000a. National Water Quality Management Strategy: Paper No 4 - 

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Volume 1 

- The Guidelines (Chapters 3 – Aquatic Ecosystems). Australian and New Zealand 

Environment and Conservation Council / Agriculture and Resource Management 

Council of Australia and New Zealand, October 2000. 

ANZECC / ARMCANZ 200b. National Water Quality Management Strategy: Paper No. 7 - 

Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting. Australian and New 

Zealand Environment and Conservation Council / Agriculture and Resource 

Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, October 2000. 

Boskalis 2009. Fremantle Inner Harbour Deepening & Berth Works Project - Project 

Environmental Plan. Boskalis Australia, December 2009. 

DoF 2007. Western Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (WASQAP) Operations 

Manual. Department of Fisheries, 2007. 

EPA 2000. Perth’s Coastal Waters: Environmental Values and Objectives, the Position of the 

EPA – a Working Document. Environmental Protection Authority, February 2005. 

EPA 2005a. Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document for Cockburn Sound (2003- 

2004): A supporting document to the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 

2005. Environmental Protection Authority, Report 20, January 2005. 

EPA 2005b. Manual of Standard Operating Procedures - For Environmental Monitoring 

against the Cockburn Sound Environmental Quality Criteria (2003 - 2004) - A 

supporting document to the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 2005. 

Environmental Protection Authority, Report 21, January 2005. 

EPA 2009. Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Reclamation at Rous Head 

and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Report and recommendations of the 

Environmental Protection Authority. Environmental Protection Authority, Report 1330, 

June 2009. 

Fremantle Ports 2009. Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening – Reclamation 

at Rous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Dredge and Spoil Disposal 

Management Plan (Revision 6). Fremantle Ports, December 2009. 

FSANZ 2009. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Incorporating amendments up to 

and including Amendment 107). Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2009. 

Mance G, Musselwhite C and Brown VM 1984. Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for 

List II Substances in Water. Arsenic. Technical Report TR 212, Water Research Centre, 

Medmenham, United Kingdom. 

NHMRC / NRMMC 2004. National Water Quality Management Strategy - Australian Drinking 

Water Guidelines. National Health and Medical Research Council / Natural Resource 

Management Ministerial Council, 2004. 

NHMRC 2008. Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. National Health and 

Medical Research Council, February 2008. 

Oceanica 2009. Fremantle Ports Marine Quality Monitoring Programme: Annual Report 

2008-09. Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica Consulting, July 2009. 

SKM 2008. Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour Development: Deep Water and Entrance Channels 

Dredging and Offshore Spoil Disposal, Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation 

Report (Rev 5). Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Sinclair, Knight & Merz, December 

2008. 

WHO 2003. Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments, Volume 1 - Coastal and 

Fresh Waters. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2003. 


Appendix A 

Ministerial Statement No. 801 

(W.A. Minister for Environment, 

18 th August 2009)

Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel ... - Fremantle Ports

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?