Caboolture Region Water Quality Study - Moreton Bay Regional ...

Caboolture Water Quality Study 

1999 - 2001

Caboolture Region Water 

Quality Study 

1999-2001 

R. Counihan, J. Hodge and B. Cook 

Waterways Scientific Services 

Queensland Environmental Protection Agency 

For 

The Caboolture Shire Council 

April, 2002


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – WATER QUALITY CONDITION 

Water quality data collected during three environmental monitoring programs since January 1999 was 

collated and assessed to monitor the health of major waterways in Caboolture Shire. Data was 

obtained from the Caboolture Shire Council’s Environmental Monitoring Program, the Environmental 

Protection Agency and Ecological Health Monitoring Program (EHMP), and the Pumicestone Region 

Coastal Monitoring Program (PRCMP). Indicators of water quality, sediment quality and faecal 

contamination were used during assessments. Water quality was assessed by comparing values for 

indicators at monitored sites with locally derived reference values (EPA, 2001), whereas guidelines for 

sediment quality and faecal contamination were adopted from the National Guidelines (ANZECC & 

ARMCANZ, 2000) 

A synopsis of the water quality analysis for each waterway, and then for waterway health overall, 

follows. Figure i shows the overall water quality assessments for all sites assessed for 2000-2001 

period. 

Sites in the estuarine reach of the Caboolture River had poor water quality, primarily caused by low 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and high turbidity and nutrient concentrations. Above the tidal limit 

in the freshwater reach, three of the five sites had good ratings. Water clarity, pH and salinity were 

generally good throughout the river, although turbidity was elevated at some estuarine sites. Nutrient 

(nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations were elevated at most of the estuarine sites. Water quality 

in the estuary was impacted by discharge from a major wastewater treatment plant, resulting in 

increased nutrient loads and reduced levels of dissolved oxygen. Recent upgrades to the main 

treatment plant are likely to lead to improvements in water quality throughout the estuarine reach of 

the Caboolture River. 

The majority of sites monitored in Wararba Creek were found to have poor water quality, although the 

most upstream site had good water quality. All sites monitored had moderate to high concentrations of 

total phosphorous and low dissolved oxygen and most had high concentrations of ammonia. 

Overall water quality at all sites in Sheepstation Creek was in moderate to poor condition, with the 

more upstream sites being in poorer condition than the downstream sites. All sites had low dissolved 

oxygen levels, and upstream sites had high concentrations of total phosphorous and turbidity. Faecal 

coliform contamination was moderate at all sites monitored. Concentrations of oxidised nitrogen, total 

nitrogen and turbidity have improved in recent years. Concentrations of toxicants in sediments were 

low. 

Water quality at most sites in Lagoon Creek was rated as poor. All sites had poor condition ratings for 

dissolved oxygen, and most sites had high concentrations of turbidity and ammonia and moderate 

concentrations of oxidised nitrogen. 

Overall water quality at sites along Burpengary Creek was poor. All sites had low dissolved oxygen 

and high concentrations of total phosphorous. Downstream sites had high concentrations of ammonia. 

Sites located adjacent to and downstream from the major area of urban development on the creek 

were generally in worse condition than more upstream sites. Faecal contamination was not evident at 

most sites, and moderate at two sites. 

Saltwater Creek passes through the main industrial area of the Caboolture Shire and most sites had 

poor water quality. Dissolved oxygen, turbidity, ammonia and total phosphorous concentrations 

typically failed to meet the guideline values and median values of faecal coliforms were high at most 

sites. Sediment quality was poor at sites within and adjacent to stormwater retention structures located 

at a timber yard, and at a site adjacent to a stormwater outlet. 

Water quality throughout Deception Bay was variable. Generally the sites closer to land had poorer 

water quality than those further from land. Excluding conductivity (which is not a useful indicator in a 

2


marine environment), most sites rated good for all indicators. However sites close to the mouth of the 

Caboolture River and the canals on the Redcliffe peninsula had elevated concentrations of nutrients 

and in some cases chlorophyll-a. This likely reflects their proximity to the land-sourced influences 

entering Deception Bay. EHMP monitoring has reported an increase in the frequency of Lyngbya 

blooms in Deception Bay. 

Overall, water quality on Bribie Island was moderate to poor, with only two sites out of sixteen rated 

as being in good condition (Figure 12). However, it is important to note that these assessments are 

based upon comparisons with water quality from natural reference waterways and because canals are 

man-made waterways, it may not be appropriate to expect the water quality of a natural waterway to 

be achievable in a canal. The major differences between the Bribie Island sites and the guideline 

values were low concentrations of dissolved oxygen and high concentrations of ammonia, especially 

in canal sites. Sites in Freshwater lagoon and Shirley Creek had high concentrations of faecal 

coliforms, possibly arising from the high abundance of waterbirds that use these areas and from urban 

run-off. Such urban influences might be expected in a man-made canal. 

Overall results of water quality assessments for Pumicestone Passage showed that water quality 

deteriorated with increasing distance from the opening of the passage to the ocean. Poor water quality 

ratings in the central area of the passage were due to high turbidity and poor secchi depth. 

Concentrations of total phosphorus were good throughout the passage, however total nitrogen 

concentrations were high at most sites monitored. All of these sites were close to the entrance of the 

Northern creeks into the passage, many of which also has high nitrogen concentrations (see below). 

Water quality was variable throughout the Northern Creeks. Most indicators were comparable to 

values for reference creeks in south-east Queensland. However, many of the creeks in the Northern 

creeks area had elevated concentrations of nitrogen. In some cases this was probably due to high 

organic inputs (eg from decaying vegetation matter), but in a few cases ammonia and oxidised 

nitrogen concentrations were elevated. Low concentrations of dissolved oxygen and low pH were also 

prevalent in many of the Northern Creeks, however these waterways are dystrophic systems and low 

pH and dissolved oxygen is natural for these stream types. It is likely therefore that the overall water 

quality condition assessments made in this report underestimate the quality of water in these systems. 

Overall, extremely variable patterns of water quality were detected throughout the Caboolture region, 

including variable patterns in long-terms trends over time. However, results suggest that the more 

developed urban areas show evidence of deterioration in water quality and that heavily industrialised 

areas have high concentrations of some toxicants in sediments. Some sites in close proximity to 

highways and major road had elevated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons and lead in the 

sediments. Faecal contamination was evident near some industrial sites and in canal developments, 

the latter probably due to poor flushing, urban run-off and inputs from congregations of waterbirds. 

These observations highlight opportunities for management intervention for the improvement of the 

ecological health of waterways throughout the Caboolture Shire. 

Figure i. (overleaf) Summary map of results of water quality assessments for the Caboolture Region for the year 2001 – 2001. 

These ratings represent assessments based on water quality data for the period October 2000 to September 2001. The dots 

indicate the latest water quality assessments in comparison to the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green = good, yellow 

= moderate, red = poor, grey = insufficient data or median was detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). 

3

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

Wararba Ck 

# 

# 

CABOOLTURE 

# 

# 

# 

# # 

# # # 

Sheepstation Ck 

Burpengary Ck 

Lagoon Ck 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# # # # 

# 

# 

# 

Mellum Ck 

# 

# # # 

# 

# 

# # 

# 

# 

# # 

# 

# 

Bells Ck 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

Hussey Ck 

Elimbah Ck 

# 

Ningi Ck 

# 

# 

# 

# # 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

Caboolture # Rv 

# 

# 

# 

Saltwater Ck 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# # # 

# 

# 

# # 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

Pumicestone 

# Passage 

# # 

## # # 

# 

# 

# # 

# # # # 

# # 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

Bribie 

Island 

# 

# 

# # 

### 

# 

# 

Deception Bay 

Water quality condition 

# Good 

# Moderate 

# Poor 

Shire boundary 

Major land use 

Settlement 

Open Space/Forest 

Rural 

Other/unknown 

N 

4 0 4 8 Kilometres 

Figure i Page 4 

#


CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................2 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................7 

1.1 OVERVIEW OF CABOOLTURE SHIRE AND ITS WATERWAYS ...................................................................7 

2.0 SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY AND OTHER DATA ...................................................................7 

2.1 CABOOLTURE SHIRE COUNCIL’S ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM.........................................7 

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH MONITORING PROGRAM (EHMP) ..8 

2.3 THE PUMICESTONE REGION COASTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (PRCMP) ..........................................8 

2.4 OTHER SOURCES OF DATA CONSIDERED IN THIS REPORT ....................................................................8 

2.4.1 Prioritising stream regeneration works to protect and restore fish habitat. ........................... 8 

2.4.2 Atlas of Natural Assets, Riparian and Reserve Vegetation, Caboolture Shire Council......... 8 

2.4.3 State of the Rivers: Pumicestone Region Subcatchments, 2001.......................................... 8 

2.4.4 Land-use map, Caboolture Shire Council............................................................................ 10 

3.0 WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................10 

3.1 WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES..........................................................................................................10 

3.2 SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES .....................................................................................................11 

3.3 FAECAL COLIFORM GUIDELINES ......................................................................................................11 

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY DATA.................................................................................12 

4.1 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT WATER QUALITY DATA ..........................................................................12 

4.2 ASSESSMENT OF LONG-TERM TRENDS............................................................................................14 

4.3 DATA USED IN WATER QUALITY ANALYSES ........................................................................................14 

5.0 MONITORING RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 145 15 

5.1 CABOOLTURE RIVER CATCHMENT ...................................................................................................16 

5.1.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................. 16 

5.1.2 Caboolture River.................................................................................................................. 16 

5.1.3 Wararba Creek .................................................................................................................... 19 

5.1.4 Sheepstation Creek ............................................................................................................. 20 

5.1.5 Lagoon Creek ...................................................................................................................... 20 

5.2 BURPENGARY CREEK .....................................................................................................................21 

5.3 SALTWATER CREEK........................................................................................................................23 

5.4 DECEPTION BAY.............................................................................................................................26 

5.5 BRIBIE ISLAND................................................................................................................................28 

5.6 PUMICESTONE PASSAGE.................................................................................................................30 

5.7 NORTHERN CREEKS .......................................................................................................................32 

5.7.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................. 33 

5.7.2 Lamerough Canals .............................................................................................................. 35 

5.7.3 Bells Creek........................................................................................................................... 35 

5.7.4 Coochin and Mellum Creeks................................................................................................ 35 

5.7.5 Coonowrin/Saltwater Creek.................................................................................................35 

5.7.6 Hussey Creek ...................................................................................................................... 35 

5.7.7 Glass Mountain Creek ......................................................................................................... 35 

5.7.8 Bullock Creek....................................................................................................................... 36 

5.7.9 Elimbah Creek ..................................................................................................................... 36 

5.7.10 Ningi Creek ........................................................................................................................ 36 

6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................................................................................................37 

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................38 

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................39 

APPENDIX A: WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMS, SITES AND INDICATORS .....................................39 

APPENDIX B: DATA PRESENTATION- BOX AND WHISKER PLOTS ..............................................................46 

APPENDIX C: RESULTS OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY......................................................48 

C1:Water quality assessments for recent years ........................................................................... 48 

C2: Medians of water quality data for selected indicators at all sites ........................................... 53 

C3: Box plots - Northern Creeks (PRCMP DATA)........................................................................ 57 

C4: Box plots – Bribie Island (CSC DATA)................................................................................... 77 

C5: Box plots – Bribie Island (PRCMP DATA) ............................................................................. 85 

C6: Box plots – Caboolture Region (EPA DATA) ......................................................................... 89 

C7: Box plots - Caboolture Region (CSC DATA) ......................................................................... 93 

C8: Box plots – Burpengary Creek (CSC DATA) ....................................................................... 105 

C9: Box plots – Saltwater Creek (CSC DATA) ........................................................................... 108 

C10: Box plots – Pumicestone Passage (EPA DATA) ............................................................... 111 

5


C11: Box plots – Pumicestone Passage (PRCMP DATA) ......................................................... 115 

C12: Box plots – Deception Bay (EPA DATA)............................................................................ 119 

APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF LONG TERM TRENDS ........................................ 123 

APPENDIX E: RESULTS OF DEPTH PROFILE ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 124 

APPENDIX F: MAP OF FISH COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 126 

APPENDIX G: MAP OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION ASSESSMENT................................................................ 127 

APPENDIX H: MAP OF LAND USE ZONES............................................................................................. 128 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Waterway attributes asessed in the State of the Rivers Reporting. .................................................................................11 

Table 2. State water quality guidelines for coastal central and southern Queensland for protection of aquatic ecosystems. .......11 

Table 3. Key to symbols used in the results of integrated assessment tables. ..............................................................................14 

Table 4. Waterways assessed in this study and the subcatchment to which they were assigned. ...............................................15 

Table 5. Results of water quality assessments for the Caboolture River Region...........................................................................17 

Table 6. Concentrations of toxicants in sediments.........................................................................................................................19 

Table 7. Median faecal coliform concentrations (CFU/100ml) from all samples collected since 1999...........................................19 

Table 8. Water quality assessments for the Caboolture River Region...........................................................................................22 

Table 9. Median faecal coliform concentrations (CFU/100ml) from all samples collected since 1999...........................................22 

Table 10. Water quality assessments for Saltwater creek.. ...........................................................................................................24 

Table 11. Concentrations of toxicants in sediments.......................................................................................................................25 

Table 12. Median faecal coliform concentrations (CFU/100ml) from all samples collected since 1999.........................................25 

Table 13. Water quality assessments for Deception Bay. .............................................................................................................27 

Table 14. Water quality assessments for Bribie Island.. ................................................................................................................29 

Table 15. Median faecal coliform concentrations (CFU/100ml) from all samples collected since 1999.........................................29 

Table 16. Water quality assessments for tPumicestone Passage. ................................................................................................34 

Table 17. Water quality assessments for the Northern Creeks......................................................................................................34 

Table 18. Indicators assessed at the sites monitored by the Caboolture Shire Council’s Environmental Monitoring Program. ....39 

Table 19. Indicators assessed at the sites monitored by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency...............................40 

Table 20. Indicators assessed at the sites monitored by the Pumicestone Catchment Coordination Association (PRCMP)........41 

Table 21. Sites monitored by all agencies including geographic basin information, stream information and geographical 

locations...............................................................................................................................................................................42 

Table 22. Abbreviations for watertypes relevant for the present study. .........................................................................................47 

Table 23. Water quality assessments for all indicators at all sites from 1999 to 2001. ..................................................................48 

Table 24. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in the Northern Creeks ...............................................................53 

Table 25. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites on Bribie Island ..........................................................................53 

Table 26. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Pumicestone Passage............................................................54 

Table 27. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in the Caboolture River ..............................................................55 

Table 28. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Burpengary Creek ..................................................................56 

Table 29. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Saltwater Creek......................................................................56 

Table 30. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Deception Bay ........................................................................56 

Table 31. Significant linear trends for each site and indicator combination.. ...............................................................................123 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure i. Summary map of results of water quality assessments for the Caboolture Region for the year 2001 – 2001...................3 

Figure 1. Water quality monitoring sites assessed in this study.......................................................................................................9 

Figure 2. Important statistics for the test site data assessment. ....................................................................................................12 

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the method of assessing individual indicators against guideline values using box plot 

diagrams..............................................................................................................................................................................13 

Figure 4. Decision rules used in the generation of colour ratings for sites during steps 2 and 3 of the assessment process. ......13 

Figure 5. Example of a visual water quality trend assessment. .....................................................................................................14 

Figure 6. Final water quality assessments for the Caboolture River Region for the year 2000-2001.. ..........................................16 

Figure 7. Box plots of results for dissolved oxygen for sites in the Caboolture River.....................................................................16 

Figure 8. Box plots of results for total nitorgen for sites in the Caboolture River.. .........................................................................16 

Figure 9. Final water quality assessments for the Burpengary Creek for the year 2000-2001. .....................................................21 

Figure 10. Final water quality assessments for the Saltwater Creek for the year 2000-2001 ........................................................23 

Figure 11: Final water quality assessments for the Deception Bay for the year 2000-2001.. ........................................................26 

Figure 12. Final water quality assessments for Bribie Island for the year 2000-2001....................................................................28 

Figure 13. Final water quality assessments for Pumicestone Passage for the year 2000-2001....................................................30 

Figure 14. Box plots of results for conductivity in sites in Pumicestone Passage ..........................................................................32 

Figure 15. Box plots of results for secchi at sites in Pumicestone Passage ..................................................................................32 

Figure 16. Final water quality assessments for Northern Creeks for the year 2000-2001 .............................................................33 

Figure 17. Box plot of pH in Elimbah Creek ...................................................................................................................................33 

Figure 18. Schematic representation of box and whisker plots......................................................................................................46 

Figure 19. Example of a box and whisker plot, showing values recorded at monitoring sites (left) and reference sites (right) for 

chlorophyll-a. .......................................................................................................................................................................46 

Figure 20. Results of Regression Analysis for pH at site BRI-1 to test for stratification with depth. ............................................124 

Figure 21. Results of Regression Analysis for dissolved oxygen at site BRI-5 to test for stratification with depth. .....................126 

Figure 22. Results of Regression Analysis of dissolved oxygen for site BRI-6 to test for stratification with depth ......................125 

Figure 23: Overall fish habitat ratings in the Caboolture region (Langdon, 2001)........................................................................126 

Figure 24. Riparian vegetation size index ...................................................................................................................................127 

Figure 25. Riparian vegetation integrity index .............................................................................................................................127 

Figure 26. GIS-based land use mapping (Caboolture Shire Council) ..........................................................................................128 

6


1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Caboolture Shire Council (CSC) has conducted an Environmental Monitoring Program in major 

waterways within the Shire since January 1999. The objective of this monitoring was to assess, 

monitor and manage the health of major waterways in the Shire. 

CSC is presently reviewing the Environmental Monitoring Program, with a view to expand the current 

program to better assess the ecological health of waterways in the Shire. 

In addition to the CSC’s Environmental Monitoring Program, the Queensland Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and an NHT Coast and Clean Seas Project (the Pumicestone Region Coastal 

Monitoring Program (PRCMP)) have also conducted water quality monitoring in the Caboolture 

Region. Data from these three monitoring programs were collated to generate a large data set upon 

which to base this water quality study. 

The objectives of this study were to: 

assess the current condition of waterways for which water quality data exists; 

determine trends in water quality data; 

consider the findings of other studies (see below) describing biological health, habitat and landuses. 

1.1 Overview of Caboolture Shire and its waterways 

The Caboolture Shire is located in southeast Queensland, midway between Brisbane and the 

Sunshine Coast. The region is characterised by diverse land uses, including rural and urban 

settlements, commercial and industrial developments, and large areas of open spaces, and is 

experiencing considerable growth. Significant environmental features of the region include the Glass 

House Mountains, various National Parks, diverse flora and fauna and its waterways, including 

Pumicestone Passage. 

Waterways of the Caboolture region include wetlands, streams, rivers, estuaries and bays. This 

diverse range of waterways provide important socio-economic opportunities, such as recreation and 

fishing, and ecological functions, such as fish spawning and nursery grounds, waterbird feeding and 

roosting sites, and habitat for wide range of other flora and fauna. These waterways, and their socioeconomic 

and environmental values, contribute to the natural character of the Caboolture region and 

are important in maintaining the local economy. 

Water quality monitoring is an important part of the process of managing and protecting water quality 

in the Caboolture region and the social, economic and ecological values that healthy waterways 

support. 

2.0 SOURCES OF WATER QUALITY AND OTHER DATA 

Water quality data were obtained from three independent monitoring programs that have recently 

undertaken monitoring of water quality in the Caboolture Region (Figure 1): CSC’s Environmental 

Monitoring Program, EPA’s monitoring program, and the PRCMP’s monitoring program. These 

programs, and other sources of data used in this study, are described below. 

2.1 Caboolture Shire Council’s Environmental Monitoring Program 

CSC has been expanding its Environmental Monitoring Program since its inception in January 1999. 

In 2000, the program monitored various indicators at 54 sites in eight of the major waterways 

throughout the Shire. Water quality was assayed monthly at most sites, although sites in the Bribie 

Island canals were monitored every three months. Table 18 (Appendix A) lists the sites, the duration of 

monitoring and the indicators monitored. Physico-chemical indicators such as dissolved oxygen, 

7


turbidity and conductivity and nutrients were monitored at all sites. Secchi depth and phytoplankton 

biomass was monitored at the canal sites, as were depth profiles for physico-chemical indicators. 

Toxicants in sediments were monitored at some sites in Saltwater Creek, Sheepstation Creek and 

Lagoon Creek. 

2.2 Environmental Protection Agency and Ecological Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) 

For the purposes of this study, the water quality data obtained from the EHMP program, a Healthy 

Waterways program, will not be distinguished from EPA water quality data (since the water quality 

component of EHMP is operated by EPA, ensuring that sampling techniques and quality assurance 

measures are identical). Although the EPA has been conducting water quality monitoring in 

Queensland since the 1970’s, only data collected since 1995 has been analysed in this study. Fiftyfour 

sites across Deception Bay, Pumicestone Passage and Caboolture River were monitored 

monthly. The indicators measured at each site are listed in Table 18 (Appendix A). Physico-chemical, 

nutrient, secchi depth and phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll-a) indicators were monitored at most 

sites. 

2.3 The Pumicestone Region Coastal Monitoring Program (PRCMP) 

The Pumicestone Region Coastal Monitoring Program (PRCMP) was an NHT-funded Coast and 

Clean Seas Project for which water quality was monitored in Pumicestone Passage and its major 

tributaries since 1997. Fifty-eight sites (Appendix A) were assessed in this study for physico-chemical 

and secchi depth indicators. Nutrient concentrations were monitored at sixteen of those sites and are 

reported here. 

2.4 Other sources of data considered in this report 

Data types other than water quality were also considered in this study, including physical and 

biological attributes. Findings based on these other data types have not been summarised in this 

study, although they are referred to when appropriate. For a complete list of all data and information 

sources, please refer to the reference list. 

2.4.1 Prioritising stream regeneration works to protect and restore fish habitat. 

(Langdon, 2001). 

This ongoing project assesses stream condition by monitoring the structure of fish communities. 

Although a number of measures of fish community condition are generated only the overall site rating 

is considered in this study (Figure 23, Appendix F). 

2.4.2 Atlas of Natural Assets, Riparian and Reserve Vegetation, Caboolture Shire Council 

In 1995 CSC adopted the Atlas of Natural Assets (ANA, 1998), which documents remnant vegetation 

and plant diversity within the Shire. The Atlas provides essential information about the natural 

resources of the Shire to decision-makers, planners, developers and the general public. The 

assessment and mapping of riparian vegetation was updated in 1998 by WBM Oceanics Australia 

(Figures 24 and 25, Appendix G). 

2.4.3 State of the Rivers: Pumicestone Region Subcatchments, 2001 

The Pumicestone Region Subcatchments State of the Rivers report (SoR, 2001) provides a 

comprehensive assessment of the physical condition of rivers and streams of the region. Of relevance 

to this study are the assessments of the Northern Creeks, the Caboolture River, Lagoon Creek and 

Bribie Island. Attributes that were assessed in the SoR are presented in Table 1. 

8


Figure 1. Water quality monitoring sites assessed in this study. Data was obtained from the Caboolture Shire Council’s 

Environmental Monitoring Program (CSC), the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency’s monitoring programs (EPA) and 

the Pumicestone Region Coastal Monitoring Program (PRCMP). 

PRCMP 

9


Table 1. Waterway attributes assessed in State of the Rivers Reporting (SoR, 2001) 

Attribute 

Reach environs 

Channel habitat diversity 

Stream bed and bank sediments 

Bank Stability 

Stream bed and bar stability 

Riparian vegetation condition 

Aquatic habitat 

Water quality 

Overall condition 

Description 

The extent of clearing, weed invasion in riparian vegetation, land 

use, vegetation types and forms of disturbance. 

Proportion of various channel habitats, reported as an index of 

habitat diversity. Includes pools, riffles, backwaters, waterfalls, 

glides and runs. 

Sediment composition and size. 

Proportion of the bank that is considered stable. 

Density of bars and overall bed stability. 

Proportion of cover and structure of riparian vegetation. 

Proportion of stream bed covered by in-stream debris, rock 

outcrops, vegetation, overhangs. 

Odours, unnatural colours, forms, iron stains, discharge pipes, 

slime and algae, water surface scum and oils. 

Rating of all of the above attributes. 

2.4.4 Land-use map, Caboolture Shire Council 

CSC maintains a GIS-based land-use mapping system that records the spatial distribution of major 

land-uses such as commercial, industrial, extractive resources, residential, rural, open space and state 

forest (Figure 26, Appendix H). 

3.0 WATER QUALITY GUIDELINES 

Three categories of indicators were compared with guidelines to determine the condition of the 

waterways: water quality indicators, sediment quality indicators, and faecal contamination indicators. 

The guidelines used for each of these are discussed below. 

3.1 Water Quality Guidelines 

Water quality was assessed by comparing water quality at monitored sites with locally derived 

reference values, as recommended in the Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine 

Waters (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & Agriculture and 

Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000). 

Reference values for an indicator are the measured values for that indicator at local reference sites, 

that is, sites in local ecosystems that are in a substantially natural condition. Reference values provide 

a reliable measure of natural water quality as they take local environmental conditions into 

consideration. However, reference values do not in themselves represent water quality guidelines. To 

determine an appropriate guideline, the degree of departure from “reference condition” (i.e. reference 

values) that can be tolerated by the ecosystem needs to be determined. The National guidelines 

(ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000) suggest that for physico-chemical indicators, the 20 th and 80 th 

percentiles of the reference data should form the guidelines, and that the median value for indicators 

at monitoring sites should fall within this range. 

The Queensland EPA has developed water quality guidelines for Queensland (EPA, 2001) using the 

approach recommended by the National Guidelines (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000). The Queensland 

guidelines are based on at least five years of monthly data, and are therefore unbiased with respect to 

time. The geographic region of the reference sites is assessed to derive guidelines for southern, 

central or northern regions of Queensland. In this study, the Southern Queensland Water Quality 

Guidelines (EPA, 2001) were used. Guidelines are specified for several water types: ocean, open 

coastal, enclosed coastal/lower estuary, mid estuary, upper estuary, lower catchment and upper 

catchment. 

10


Table 2. Queensland water quality guidelines (v2, EPA, 2001) for coastal central and southern Queensland for protection of 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Water type Organic N Ammonia Oxidised N Total N Filt. React. P Total P 

μg/L μg/L μg/L L μg/L μg/L μg/L 

Upper Catchment 270 13 30 320 20 40 

Lower catchment 400 15 40 500 20 50 

Upper estuarine 400 40 30 470 25 70 

Mid-estuarine 210 20 15 300 15 35 

Enclosed coastal 180 15 5 200 15 35 

Marine 100 15 3 120 10 25 

Water type Chlorophyll-a Turbidity Susp. Solids Secchi depth Dissolved O 2 pH 

μg/L NTU mg/L m % saturation units 

Upper Catchment 2.0 10 5 n/a 90-105 6.5-8.0 

Lower catchment 5.0 10 5 n/a 85-105 6.5-8.0 

Upper estuarine 10.0 20 30 0.4 75-100 7.0-8.0 

Mid-estuarine 5.0 10 20 0.8 80-100 7.0-8.5 

Enclosed coastal 2.5 7 15 1.0 85-100 7.5-8.4 

Marine 1.0 2 10 90-100 8.0-8.4 

3.2 Sediment Quality Guidelines 

The National guidelines (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000) for toxicants in sediments were used to assess 

sediment quality in the Caboolture Region. These guidelines presents two values in their guidelines, a 

lower trigger level, below which there is a low probability of detrimental effects to benthic biota, and a 

high trigger level, above which there is a high probability of toxic effects to biota. For some toxicants, 

National guidelines do not exist due to limited data. For these toxicants, the guidelines recommend 

deriving an interim guideline value based upon natural background levels multiplied by two. Where this 

was required, the background level used was the lowest value measured for a given waterway. 

In this report, a site is considered to be in good condition with regard to sediment toxicants if the 

measured concentration is less than the low trigger level, moderate if between the low and high trigger 

levels, and poor if above the high trigger level. 

Typical reference values for some trace metals in estuaries and creeks in Queensland have been 

reported by Moss and Costanzo (1998) and are referred to in this document. However, these reference 

values were derived from samples of fine sediment only, i.e. sediment less than 63 μm, and may not be 

indicative of reference values for all sediment grades. 

3.3 Faecal Coliform Guidelines 

Faecal coliform concentrations were monitored to indicate levels of faecal contamination in some 

major waterways. National faecal coliform guidelines have been developed to assess faecal 

contamination levels and human health risks in recreational waterways (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 

2000). However, the sampling regime used by the CSC (monthly samples) differs from that 

recommended by ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) (which specifies at least five samples taken at 

approximately weekly intervals). Consequently, results for faecal coliform concentrations from this 

study cannot be compared directly with those guidelines. 

11


In this study, National guidelines (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000) were used to define low, moderate 

and high concentrations of faecal coliforms, corresponding respectively to good, moderate and poor 

water quality. The guidelines recommend median faecal coliform concentrations lower than 150 CFU 

per 100mL for primary contact activities (e.g. swimming) and median concentrations lower than 1000 

CFU per 100mL for secondary contact activities (e.g. canoeing). Therefore, concentrations of less 

than 150 CFU per 100mL are defined as “low” concentrations, and concentrations between 150 and 

1000 CFU per 100mL are defined as “moderate”. Concentrations greater than 1000 CFU per 100mL 

are regarded as “high”. 

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF WATER QUALITY DATA 

4.1 Assessment of Current Water Quality Data 

A three-stage process was employed in the assessment of water quality at monitored (test) sites 

throughout the Caboolture Region for water quality data (sediment toxicants and faecal coliforms were 

considered separately and not included in the integrated assessment). The three steps of the 

processes are: 

1. assessment of test site data for individual indicators against guideline values; 

2. assessment of indicator categories (comprised of multiple indicators); and 

3. an (overall) integrated assessment based on individual indicators and indicator categories. 

The statistics of importance in this assessment were the median, and 20 th and 80 th percentiles. The 

median is the value that divides the data in half, 50 percent of the measurements being above (or 

equal to) it and 50 percent being below (or equal to it). The 20 th percentile is the value below which 20 

percent of the data lie. The 80 th percentile is the value below which 80 percent of the data lie. This is 

graphically illustrated in Figure 2. 

80th percentile: 80 percent of 

values fall below this line 

Median 



Figure 2. Important statistics for the test site data assessment. 

Step 1 of the assessment process involved an assessment of measurements of individual indicators 

against guideline values for each site. For some indicators, ( pH and dissolved oxygen) both high and 

low concentrations were of interest (i.e. trigger values exist for upper and lower limits). For these twotailed 

indicators the median and 20 th and 80 th percentiles were assessed against guideline values. For 

all other indicators where only high levels were of interest (i.e. there was only an upper limit trigger 

value), the median and 20 th percentile values were assessed against trigger values. 

This assessment generated a coloured rating of green, yellow or red for the individual indicator, 

meaning a good, moderate or poor result for the assessment respectively (Figure 3). 

12


Green: Median is within guidelines derived from 

20 th and 80 th percentiles of reference values 

Yellow: Median exceeds but 20 th percentile is 

within the guidelines (or median is lower but 

80 th percentile is with guidelines for two-tailed 

indicators). 

Red: Median and 20 th percentile exceed 

guidelines (or median and 80 th are lower than 

guidelines for two-tailed guidelines). 

Reference Site Green Yellow Red 

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the method of assessing individual indicators against guideline values using box plot 

diagrams. A full description of the interpretation of box plots is given in Appendix B, p. 54. 

Step 2 of the process involved combining related indicators into a single indicator category to avoid 

over-representation of related indicators in the final assessment. Indicators were grouped into the 

following categories: 

 

 

 

 

 

Nitrogen (organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate plus nitrite and total nitrogen); 

Phosphorus (filterable reactive phosphorus and total phosphorus); 

Microalgal growth (chlorophyll-a); 

Water clarity (turbidity, suspended solids and secchi depth); 

Dissolved oxygen (dissolved oxygen). 

Colour ratings for indicator categories were generated based on the colour rating of the constituent 

indicators, using the decision rules presented in Figure 4. 

Figure 4. Decision rules used in the generation of colour ratings for sites during steps 2 and 3 of the assessment process. 

Criteria 

Result 

0 red More green than yellow 

Yes 

 

No 

 

1 red More yellow than green 

No 

 

Yes 

 

2 or more red 

Step 3 of the process involved an integrated assessment of the indicator categories (from Step 2), 

using the same decision rules as presented in Figure 4. This generated an integrated colour rating (i.e. 

green, yellow or red) for water quality at each test site, presented as a coloured dot (green, yellow, or 

red) on the relevant map and tables of results (see Table 2). A grey dot was generated if there was 

insufficient data to assess water quality against guidelines. 

13


Table 3. Key to symbols used in the results of integrated assessment tables. 

Integrated Water 

Quality Rating 

 

 

 

 

Good water quality 

Moderate water quality 

Poor water quality 

Description 

Insufficient data or the detection limit was greater than the guidelines and 

median was equal to the detection limit 

4.2 Assessment of Long-Term Trends 

Long-term trends were assessed using two independent methods: statistical regression analysis and 

change in integrated water quality assessments over time (years). The regression analysis detects 

linear trends in water quality data over time, ie trends of increasing or decreasing concentrations of 

indicators. However the small samples sizes of the data for this study (i.e. data for only two or three 

years at monitored sites) reduces the power of this technique to resolve temporal patterns. 

Consequently, most discussion on temporal trends in water quality is based on changes in overall 

water quality assessment at a site over years (see Figure 5). This approach provides a robust method 

of detecting changes in water quality based upon their compliance with the guidelines, and as such is 

likely to represent real changes in water quality. 

Site 

Source Water 

Type 

Stream Name Trend 2001 2000 1999 

CAB-1 CSC UC Caboolture Rv or 

CAB-3 CSC LC Caboolture Rv 

CAB-6 CSC ME Caboolture Rv or 

CAB-7 CSC ME Caboolture Rv 

Improvement 

No trend 

Deterioration 

Variable trend 

Figure 5. Example of trend analysis of water quality assessment. The change in water quality assessments (coloured dots) over 

the years 1999 to 2001 were used to assess the direction of change (if any) of an indicator (green trend= improvement, red 

trend= deterioration, black trend= variable trend, blank= no trend). The direction of the arrow indicates whether concentrations 

of the indicators have increased or decreased. 

4.3 Data used in water quality analyses 

The data from the three programs were assessed for recent water quality condition, as well as water 

quality condition over previous years. Usually 12 months of monthly data is required for an accurate 

assessment of water quality. Some of the water quality programs did not comprise regular monthly 

sampling. As such, the data used in the analyses presented in this report were treated as follows: 

CSC- Bribie Island sites (3-monthly sampling) 

CSC-all other sites 

EPA – all sites 

PRCMP– all sites 

Data collected 

3/2000 – 9/2001 2001 

1/1999 – 11/1999 1999 

10/2000 – 9/2001 2001 

10/1999 – 9/2000 2000 

1/1999 – 9/1999 1999 

10/2000 – 9/2001 2001 

10/1999 – 9/2000 2000 

10/1998 – 9/1999 1999 

10/1999 – 4/2000, 12/2000 – 4/2000 2000 

10/1998 – 9/1999 1999 

10/1997 – 9/1998 1998 

Data 

reported as 

14


5.0 MONITORING RESULTS 

Data from the three programs have been collated and assessed (as described in Section 4.0) and are 

presented below for each sub-catchment of the region (Table 3). 

Table 4. Waterways assessed in this study and the subcatchment to which they were assigned. The waterways of each 

subcatchment are grouped in the following pages. 

Sub-catchment 

Caboolture River 

Burpengary Creek 

Saltwater Creek 


Bribie Island 

Pumicestone Passage 

Northern Creeks 

Waterways 

Lagoon, Wararba, Sheepstation Creeks, Caboolture River 




Shirley, Westaways and Poverty Creeks, Pacific Harbour, 

Bribie Gardens 


Bells, Coochin, Mellum, Hussey, Glass Mountain, Bullock, 

Elimbah, Ningi, Saltwater Creeks, Lamerough Canal. 

For each sub-catchment, the following results are presented: 

maps showing results of the integrated assessment of water quality at each site; 

tables showing results of current water quality assessments for each indicator/site 

combination; 

tables showing trends in water quality assessments (Table 22, Appendix C); 

tables showing medians for water quality indicators for each site (Tables 23 – 29, Appendix 

C), 

box plots showing levels of indicators in relation to guidelines for each site (Appendix C), and 

if applicable, 

tables showing results of assessments of toxicants in sediments and faecal coliforms. 

15

Caboolture River Catchment 

5.1 Caboolture River Catchment 

5.1.1 Overview 

Overall, the estuarine reach of the Caboolture River had poor water quality (Figure 6). However, 

above the tidal limit three of the five sites had good ratings. The majority of sites monitored in Wararba 

Creek were found to have poor water quality, although the most upstream site had good water quality. 

Water quality at all sites in Sheepstation Creek was moderate or poor, with upstream sites being of 

lower quality than the downstream sites. Water quality at seven of the eight sites in Lagoon Creek was 

rated as poor; one site received a moderate rating. 

Figure 6. Final water quality assessments for the Caboolture River Region for the year 2000-2001. These ratings represent 

assessments based on water quality data for the period October 2000 to September 2001. The dots indicate the latest water 

quality assessment in comparison to the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green = good, yellow = moderate, red = poor, 

grey = insufficient data or median was detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). 

5.1.2 Caboolture River 

Overall, the estuarine reach of the Caboolture River had poor water quality, caused primarily by poor 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen, turbidity and nutrients. Above the tidal limit (between CAB-4 and 

CAB-5) three of the five sites had good ratings. 

Dissolved oxygen and pH values were generally lower than the guidelines in the mid reaches of the 

river, and clarity was poor through the same areas (Figure 7). Downstream of the South Caboolture 

Wastewater Treatment Plant discharge (between CAB-4 and CAB-5) nutrient concentrations were 

above guideline values at most sites (Figure 8). However, nutrient concentrations reduced with 

distance downstream, and oxidised nitrogen and ammonia were within guidelines at the mouth of the 

river. Peak nutrient concentrations occurred at sites immediately upstream and downstream of the 

discharge from the sewage treatment plant. Chlorophyll-a followed the same pattern as nutrients, and 

concentrations exceeded guidelines at all sites other than the most upstream site (CAB-41). Similarly, 

upstream sites received good ratings for faecal coliforms, whereas sites further downstream were in 

only moderate condition (Table 7). 

16


Table 5. Results of water quality assessments for the Caboolture River Region, 2001. These ratings represent assessments 

based on water quality data for the period October 2000 to September 2001. The dots indicate the latest water quality 

assessment in comparison to the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green= good, yellow= moderate, red= poor, grey= 

insufficient data or median was detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). The arrows indicate trends in median 

concentrations over the last 3 years. The colour of the arrow indicates whether the water quality has improved (green) or 

deteriorated (red), and the direction of the arrow shows whether the median increased (up) or decreased (down). Double-ended 

arrows (black) indicate variable trends. 

Site 

Water Type 

Stream 

Source 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 

Total Nitrogen 

Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic N 

FRP 

OVERALL 

CAB-1 UC Caboolture Rv CSC 

CAB-2 LC Caboolture Rv CSC 



CAB-5 ME Caboolture Rv CSC 




Cab-0 ECLE Caboolture Rv EPA 

Cab-1.6 ME Caboolture Rv EPA 







Cab-17.1 UE Caboolture Rv EPA 



Cab-41 LC Caboolture Rv EPA 

LAG-1 LC Lagoon Ck CSC 








SHE-1 LC Sheepstation Ck CSC 




WAR-1 LC Wararba Ck CSC 






War-0 LC Wararba Ck EPA 

17


Figure 7. Box plots of results for dissolved oxygen for sites in the Caboolture River. Refer to Appendix B, 

p. 54, for details on the interpretation of box plots. 

STP 

STP 

Weir 

Figure 8. Box plots of results for total nitrogen for sites in the Caboolture River. Refer to Appendix B, p. 

54, for details on the interpretation of box plots. 

Nutrient concentrations have increased over recent years at most estuarine sites (Table 5). An 

analysis of changes in water quality assessments suggested that at most sites between 4.8 km and 

17.1 km upstream, nitrogen (in all species) has increased (Table 5, Table 23). Some sites that had 

good water quality condition ratings for ammonia and total phosphorus in 2000 had poor condition 

ratings in 2001; this increase may represent a real increase in nutrient input to Caboolture River, or 

may be related to changes in laboratory techniques. The regression analysis of long-term trends 

indicated improving trends of secchi depth at many sites (Cab-1.6, Cab-7.6, Cab-15.1, Cab-18.8) and 

nutrients at sites near the river mouth since 1994. (For example, at site Cab-1.6 total phosphorus 

improved by 4% and ammonia by 21% annually; see Table 28 in Appendix F for full results). 

Regression analysis also indicated that pH has decreased at some of the estuarine sites since 1994, 

although the amount of change was small (Table 31, Appendix D). 

A comparison of water quality condition with previous years shows that most freshwater sites (CAB- 

1,2,3,4) have shown improvements in nutrients and that dissolved oxygen and turbidity have also 

improved at some sites (Table 5). 

The pattern of poor water quality at estuarine sites and better quality water at freshwater sites was 

also evident in a number of other physical indicators, including the size and integrity of riparian 

vegetation, reach environs, bank stability and channel diversity (Appendix, G, ANA, 1998; SoR, 2001). 

Similarly, some upstream sites in the Caboolture River have fish communities classed as being in 

18


Table 6. Concentrations of toxicants in sediments. The values shown are the measured values. For most sites samples were 

taken on two occasions. * indicates toxicants for which guidelines do not exist. For these toxicants ANZECC (2000) 

recommends comparisons be made to twice the value of the lowest value (in some cases the highest detection limit was 

considered the lowest value). Values marked green are less than the low-trigger level, yellow values are between the low and 

high-trigger level, and values marked red are high than the high trigger level. 

Site 

Date 

Arsenic 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Copper 

Molybdenum 

Nickel 

Lead 

Zinc 

Mercury 

Selenium 

Total 

Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons 

SHE3 

SHE4 

06/07/2000


condition has remained fairly stable over recent years, although concentrations of oxidised nitrogen 

have improved at the more downstream sites (WAR4,5,6). 

The only site (WAR-2) to have an overall good water quality rating has also been found to have fish 

communities that are classed as being in reference condition (Langdon, 2001). Other sites further 

downstream, despite their poor water quality rating, had fish populations at moderate to sub-reference 

conditions. The size of the riparian vegetation was good throughout Wararba Creek, although the 

integrity was moderate to poor (Appendix G, ANA, 1998). 

Two of the six sites monitored on Wararba Creek received good ratings for faecal coliforms, whereas 

the other four received moderate ratings. Sorces of faecal contamination may include wild animals 

and domestic stock. 

5.1.4 Sheepstation Creek 

Water quality at all sites in Sheepstation Creek was rated as being in moderate or poor condition, with 

the more upstream sites being of poorer condition than the downstream sites. All sites had poor 

dissolved oxygen levels, the upstream sites had high levels of turbidity and total phosphorous, and all 

sites were rated as being in moderate condition for faecal coliforms. Analysis of changes in water 

quality assessments over recent years indicated a reduction in concentrations of oxidised nitrogen and 

total nitrogen at most sites, and a reduction in turbidity at downstream sites. 

Concentrations of toxicants at two sites in Sheepstation Creek were good (below trigger levels) for all 

toxicants, although lead concentrations were moderate at one site on one date, which may have 

originated from roadways given this site is in an urbanised area. 

Riparian vegetation, aquatic vegetation, reach environs and aquatic habitat are in poor or moderate 

condition at downstream sites, whereas these attributes are in moderate to good condition further 

upstream (SoR, 2001). Stream bed and bank stability have been classed as stable throughout 

Sheepstation Creek, and fish communities at two sites in the middle reaches of the creek have been 

classified as being degraded to severely degraded (SoR, 2001). 

5.1.5 Lagoon Creek 

Water quality at seven of the eight sites in Lagoon Creek was rated as poor; the remaining site 

received a moderate rating. All sites had low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, with lowest levels 

being recorded at the most downstream site. However, this site is a freshwater wetland and low 

dissolved oxygen and pH could be expected due to the accumulation of organic matter and limited 

water flow. Most sites also had high levels of turbidity and high concentrations of ammonia. Many sites 

showed an improvement in concentrations of oxidised nitrogen and total nitrogen in recent years, and 

some sites showed improvements in turbidity (Table 5). The regressions trend analysis also showed 

that other sites have reduced in condition with regard to turbidity, and that some sites have 

deteriorated with regard to dissolved oxygen and pH (Table 31). 

Most biological and physical indicators such as fish, riparian vegetation, reach environs, bank stability 

and bed and bar stability all increased in quality from downstream to upstream sites (Appendix, F, G; 

SoR, 2001; Langdon, 2001). However, aquatic habitat was moderate at downstream sites and 

decreased to poor at the more upstream sites; aquatic vegetation was poor throughout the creek 

(SoR, 2001). 

Sites LC6 and LC7 were had moderate concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons in the 

sediments (Table 6), which may be a consequence of their proximity to highways and main roads of 

the shire. Lead concentrations were moderate at one site on one occasion, and concentrations of all 

other toxicants were good at all other sites (Table 6). Most sites received good condition ratings for 

faecal coliforms, although sites LAG-5 and 6 received only moderate ratings. 

20


5.2 Burpengary Creek 

All sites in Burpengary Creek had poor water quality rating (Figure 9, Table 7). All sites had poor 

condition for dissolved oxygen, particularly sites adjacent to and downstream from the town of 

Burpengary (see medians, Table 28). All sites also had high concentrations of total phosphorous, and 

downstream sites had high concentrations of ammonia. Oxidised nitrogen concentrations (medians) 

have improved in recent years at most of the sites in Burpengary Creek (Table 9, Table 23). However, 

phosphorus ratings have deteriorated at two sites (BUR-3 and BUR-5). 

Figure 9. Final water quality assessments for the Burpengary Creek for the year 2000-2001. These ratings represent 




Faecal coliform concentrations were good at most sites, and moderate at two sites (BUR-5 and BUR- 

1). These sites are at the margins of the residential area and may be influenced by stormwater run-off 

from rural areas (Table 8). 

The condition of fish populations ranged from degraded to sub-reference, with the best sites located 

upstream of Burpengary. Two sites above and one adjacent to the town had fish populations that were 

in either a moderate or degraded condition (Appendix F, Langdon, 2001). These sites also have poor 

to moderate aquatic habitats (SoR, 2001). Aquatic vegetation and riparian vegetation also received 

very poor and moderate ratings respectively along the creek (SoR 2001, ANA, 2001) 

21


Table 8. Water quality assessments for the Caboolture River Region, 2001. These ratings represent assessments based on 

water quality data for the period October 2000 to September 2001. The dots indicate the latest water quality assessment in 

comparison to the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green= good, yellow= moderate, red= poor, grey= insufficient data or 

median was detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). The arrows indicate trends in median concentrations over 

the last 3 years. The colour of the arrow indicates whether the water quality has improved (green) or deteriorated (red), and the 

direction of the arrow shows whether the median increased (up) or decreased (down). Double-ended arrows (black) indicate 

variable trends. 

Site 


Stream 

Source 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic N 

FRP 

FINAL 

BUR-1 ME Burpengary Ck CSC 

BUR-2 LC Burpengary Ck CSC 





Table 9. Median faecal coliform concentrations (CFU/100ml) from all samples collected since 1999. Green: low counts (median 

< 150 CFU/100ml); Yellow: moderate counts (median 150 - 1000 CFU/100ml); Red: High counts (median >1000 CFU/100ml). 

Site CFU /100 ml 

BUR-1 700 

BUR-2 62 

BUR-3 150 

BUR-4 82 

BUR-5 400 

BUR-6 104 

. 

22


5.3 Saltwater Creek 

Saltwater Creek runs through the main industrial area in Caboolture Shire and all sites had poor water 

quality (Figure 10, Table 9). However, two of these sites were located inside water retention structures 

and would therefore be expected to have poor water and sediment quality (see below). Dissolved 

oxygen was poor at all sites, and has been deteriorating over recent years (Table 10, 23). Turbidity 

was typically high at most sites, and both ammonia and total phosphorous were regularly above 

guideline values. Conductivity and pH were generally good (Table 10). 

Figure 10. Final water quality assessments for the Saltwater Creek for the year 2000-2001. These ratings represent 




The site (SAL-6) is within a retention structure and had poor water quality, with high nutrients, turbidity, 

conductivity, and high concentrations of toxicants in sediment (Tables 9 and 10). This retention 

structure traps stormwater run-off from adjacent timber yards, discharging the water directly to 

Saltwater Creek. The site adjacent this structure (SAL-7) had the highest median concentrations of 

ammonia, oxidised nitrogen and total phosphorous in the creek (Table 26, Appendix E). In recognition 

of the need to improve current environmental practices, local timber yard industry representatives, and 

state and local government agencies are presently reviewing current practices, and industry is 

implementing stormwater management programs. 

23


Table 10. Water quality assessments for Saltwater creek, 2001. These ratings represent assessments based on water quality 

data for the period October 2000 to September 2001. The dots indicate the latest water quality assessment in comparison to the 

Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green= good, yellow= moderate, red= poor, grey= insufficient data or median was 

detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). The arrows indicate trends in median concentrations over the last 3 

years. The colour of the arrow indicates whether the water quality has improved (green) or deteriorated (red), and the direction 

of the arrow shows whether the median increased (up) or decreased (down). Double-ended arrows (black) indicate variable 

trends. 

Site 


Stream 

Source 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic N 

FRP 

FINAL 

SAL-1 LC Saltwater Ck CSC 









The retention structure site also had poor sediment quality, with arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, 

lead, zinc and mercury all above the ANZECC high trigger levels. In June 2000, the site adjacent to 

this retention structure recorded sediment toxicant concentrations similar to those recorded within the 

structure. In January 2001, the site upstream of the structure also recorded elevated sediment toxicant 

levels. However, this site is located at a stormwater discharge pipe and many of these metals have 

been previously linked to urban stormwater run-off (Moss and Costanzo, 1998). Both of these events 

were not detected in later sampling (Table 10). Concentrations of mercury, lead and zinc at some of 

the upstream sites were also found to be above the ANZECC low trigger levels 

Fish and macro-invertebrate studies have reported mixed results for Saltwater Creek. Macroinvertebrate 

investigations failed to indicate either good or poor water quality at all sites, other than at 

one of the more upstream sites, which was in good ecological condition (SCCMAP, 1999). The most 

abundant fish species at most sites was Gambusia holbrooki (mosquitofish), which is frequently 

associated with poorer water quality and degraded stream habitat. Native gudgeons (Hypseleotris 

spp.) dominated only one upstream site. 

The upstream section of Saltwater Creek (SC1-8) had moderate riparian vegetation integrity and the 

size was rated as good despite being situated in an industrial land-use area (Appendix G, ANA, 1998). 

In the residential areas downstream of SC8, the size and integrity of riparian vegetation were both 

good (Appendix G, ANA, 1998). 

Median concentrations of faecal coliforms were high at all sites within Saltwater Creek, except for the 

most upstream site (SAL-1; Table 11), which is located at the upstream margin of the industrial area. 

All sites downstream of SAL-1 had elevated concentrations of faecal contamination, indicating 

potential sources of faecal contamination from within the industrial area. 

24


Table 11. Concentrations of toxicants in sediments. The values shown are the measured values. For most sites samples were 

taken on two occasions. * indicates toxicants for which guidelines do not exist. For these toxicants ANZECC (2000) 

recommends comparisons be made to twice the value of the lowest value (in some cases the highest detection limit was 

considered the lowest value). Values marked green are less than the low-trigger level, yellow values are between the low and 

high-trigger level, and values marked red are high than the high trigger level. 

Site 

Date 

Arsenic 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Copper 

Molybdenum 

Nickel 

Lead 

Zinc 

Mercury 

Selenium 

Total 

Petroleum 

Hydrocarbons 

SAL1 

SAL2 

SAL3 

SAL4 

SAL5 

SAL6 

SAL7 

SAL8 

SAL9 

29/06/2000


5.4 Deception Bay 

Water quality throughout Deception Bay was variable (Figure 11). Generally the sites closer to land 

had poorer water quality than those further from land. Conductivity was elevated at all sites, although 

in a marine environment such as this, this indicator does not accurately represent problems with 

salinity. Excluding conductivity, most sites rated good for all indicators, although sites close to the 

mouth of the Caboolture River (Dec-j,l) and close to the canals on the Redcliffe peninsula (Dec-u,y,x) 

had elevated concentrations of nutrients and in some cases chlorophyll-a. This likely reflects their 

proximity to the land-sourced influences entering Deception Bay. 

Figure 11: Final water quality assessments for the Deception Bay for the year 2000-2001. These ratings represent assessments 


assessment in comparison to the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green = good, yellow = moderate, red = poor, grey = 

insufficient data or median was detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). 

Many sites showed improvements in nitrogen (total and organic) and FRP (dissolved inorganic 

phosphorus with some particulate phosphorus) (Table 12, 23, 30). However total phosphorus, 

dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll-a concentrations have deteriorated over recent years at some sites 

(Table 13). The regression analysis of long-term trends indicated improving dissolved oxygen 

concentrations and secchi depth at the site Dec-m (Table 31, Appendix F), even though this site is 

close to the Caboolture River mouth. 

The Ecological Health Monitoring Program (EHMP) has detecting an increasing frequency of Lyngbya 

blooms in Deception Bay in recent years. This phytoplankton smothers mangrove roots and seagrass 

communities. The nuisance macro-algae Caulerpa taxifolia was also present in some areas of 

northern Deception Bay. 

26


Table 13. Water quality assessments for Deception Bay. These ratings represent assessments based on water quality data for 

the period October 2000 to September 2001. The dots indicate the latest water quality assessment in comparison to the 


detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). The arrows indicate trends in median concentrations of the last 3 years. 

The colour of the arrow indicates whether the water quality has improved (green) or deteriorated (red), and the direction of the 

arrow shows whether the median increased (up) or decreased (down). Double-ended arrows (black) indicate variable trends. 

Site 


Stream 

Source 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 

Total 

Nitrogen 

Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic N 

FRP 

FINAL 

Dec-a ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-c ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-d ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-j ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-l ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-m ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-r ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-u ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-v ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-x ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-y ECLE Deception Bay EPA 

27

Bribie Island 

5.5 Bribie Island 

Overall, water quality on Bribie Island was moderate to poor, with only two sites out of sixteen rated as 

being in good condition (Figure 12). However, it is important to note that these assessments are based 

upon comparisons with water quality from natural reference waterways, and because canals are manmade 

waterways, it may not be appropriate to expect the water quality of natural waterway to be 

achievable. 


Hussey Creek 

# WE-a 

Water Quality Assessment 

# Good 

# Moderate 

# Poor 

Waterways 

2 0 2 4 Kilometres 

N 

Glass Mountain 

Creek 

# PV-a 

Bribie 

Island 

Bullock Creek 

Elimbah Creek 

Ningi Creek 

BRI-8 BRI-6 

# 

# 

# 

BRI-5 

# 

PH-b 

BRI-7 

# # 

## 

PH-a 

# BRI-4 

# 

BRI-3 

# 

BRI-2 

# 

BRI-1 

SHI-1 

# # 

### 

SHI-4 

SHI-3 SHI-2 

Figure 12. Final water quality assessments for Bribie Island for the year 2000-2001. These ratings represent assessments 




The major differences between the Bribie Island sites and the guideline values, were low 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen and high concentrations of ammonia, especially in canal sites. 

One site in the entrance to Pacific Harbour and one site in Poverty Creek received an overall poor 

rating due to poor turbidity and secchi depth. Since the canals are mostly surrounded by residential 

development, the major influence on the water quality in the canals is likely to be stormwater run-off. 

Over recent years dissolved oxygen concentrations have decreased and conductivity has increased, 

although turbidity improved at many sites (Table 13, 23, 25). Sites in Shirley Creek have also shown 

improvements in both turbidity and pH in recent years. 

An analysis of water quality data taken at increasing depth from the surface indicated that the water 

was well-mixed and showed little evidence of depth stratification. There was some stratification for pH 

at the site BRI-1 in Pacific Harbour, where pH increased with increasing depth, and for dissolved 

oxygen at sites BRI-5 and BRI-6 in the Bribie Gardens Estate, where dissolved oxygen increased with 

depth (Figures 20, 21,22 in Appendix G). The shallow depth of the canals probably prevents 

stratification; the deepest water quality sample was taken at 3m. 

28

Bribie Island 

The size and integrity of riparian vegetation in the canal areas of Bribie Island was poor, and aquatic 

vegetation and channel diversity were both in poor condition (Appendix F, G, ANA, 1998; SoR, 2001). 

However, these results are likely to be typical of canal estates. 

Table 14. Water quality assessments for Bribie Island, 2001. These ratings represent assessments based on water quality data 

for the period October 2000 to September 2001. The dots indicate the latest water quality assessment in comparison to the 


detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). The arrows indicate trends in median concentrations of the last 3 years. 

The colour of the arrow indicates whether the water quality has improved (green) or deteriorated (red), and the direction of the 

arrow shows whether the median increased (up) or decreased (down). Double-ended arrows (black) indicate variable trends. 

Site 

Water type 

Stream 

Source 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

FINAL 

BRI-1 ECLE Bribie Canals CSC 



BRI-4 LC Bribie Canals CSC 





SHI-1 UE Shirley Ck CSC 

SHI-2 UE Shirley Ck CSC 

SHI-3 ME Shirley Ck CSC 

SHI-4 ME Shirley Ck CSC 

PH-a ECLE Pacific Harbour PRCMP 

PH-b ECLE Pacific Harbour PRCMP 

PV-a ECLE Poverty Ck PRCMP 

WE-a ME Westaways Ck PRCMP 

Westaways Creek, at the northern end of the island had poor dissolved oxygen and moderate secchi 

depth readings, resulting in an overall moderate rating for the site. Despite this, studies of fish 

communities in this creek have found that stocks are in sub-reference conditions (Langdon, 2001). 

Faecal coliforms were generally low at all sites in the canal estates (Table 15). However, the median 

at the freshwater lagoon site (BRI-4) and sites in Shirley Creek were high. Faecal coliform 

contamination at these sites possibly arises from the high abundance of waterbirds that congregate at 

these sites, although at the freshwater lagoon sites, poor flushing and urban run-off may also be 

contributing factors. 

Table 15. Median faecal coliform concentrations (CFU/100ml) from all samples collected since 1999. Green: low counts (median 

< 150 CFU/100ml); Yellow: moderate counts (median 150 - 1000 CFU/100ml); Red: High counts (median >1000 CFU/100ml). 

Site CFU /100 ml Site CFU /100 ml 

BRI-1 29 BRI-7 15 

BRI-2 54 BRI-8 39 

BRI-3 75 SHI-1 300 

BRI-4 3100 SHI-2 1500 

BRI-5 58.5 SHI-3 2050 

BRI-6 12.5 SHI-4 1500 

29


5.6 Pumicestone Passage 

Overall results of water quality assessments for Pumicestone Passage showed that water quality 

deteriorated with increasing distance from the opening of the passage to the ocean (Figure 13). At the 

northern end of the passage conductivity, turbidity and secchi depth were variable and at the southern 

end, turbidity and secchi depth were variable between sites (Table 16, Figures 14 and 15). Poor water 

quality ratings in the central area of the passage were due to high turbidity and poor secchi depth 

(Table 16). These patterns probably resulted from water exchange patterns in the Passage, whereby 

tidal water drains from approximately one-third the distance from the northern mouth of the Passage. 

The patterns of influence of terrestrial run-off in passage water quality are evident in Figures 14, 15). 

Concentrations of total phosphorus were good throughout the passage, however total nitrogen 

concentrations were high at most sites monitored (Table 16). All of these sites were close to the 

entrance of creeks into the passage. 

Figure 13. Final water quality assessments for Pumicestone Passage for the year 2000-2001. These ratings represent 




30


Table 16. Water quality assessments for Pumicestone Passage (EPA sites 2001; PRCMP sites: 2000). The dots indicate the 

latest water quality assessment in comparison to the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green= good, yellow= moderate, 

red= poor, grey= insufficient data or median was detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). The arrows indicate 

trends in median concentrations over the last 3 years. The colour of the arrow indicates whether the water quality has improved 

(green) or deteriorated (red), and the direction of the arrow shows whether the median increased (up) or decreased (down). 

Double-ended arrows (black) indicate variable trends. 

Site 


Stream 

Source 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Pum-a ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-b ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-c ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-d ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-e ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-f ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-g ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-h ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-i ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-j ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-k ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-l ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

Pum-m ECLE P’stone Passage EPA 

PP-a ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-b ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-c ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-d ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-e ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-f ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-g ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-h ECLE Tripcony Bight PRCMP 

PP-i ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-j ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-k ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-l ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-m ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-n ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-o ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

PP-p ECLE Shirley Creek PRCMP 

PP-q ECLE P’stone Passage PRCMP 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic N 

FRP 

FINAL 

31


Figure 14. Box plots of results for conductivity in sites in Pumicestone Passage 

Figure 15. Box plots of results for secchi depth for sites in Pumicestone Passage 

Many sites have moderate or poor turbidity and/or secchi depth, and analysis of changes in water 

quality assessment for these indicators suggest that they have deteriorated over recent years (Table 

16, 23). The regression analysis of long-term trends indicated many improving and some deteriorating 

trends at many sites within the Passage (Table 31, Appendix F). For example, dissolved oxygen and 

secchi depth showed significant improvements at many sites (Pum-b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, l, m), and 

nutrients improved at Pum-d (ammonia by 16% per year and FRP by 10% per year), which is in the 

northern Passage between the Bells and Coochin Creek mouths. At Pum-k, in the southern Passage 

between Elimbah and Ningi Creek mouths, ammonia showed significant improvements (~25% 

annually), although organic nitrogen concentrations increased (~10% annually)(Table 31) 

. 

32


5.7 Northern Creeks 

5.7.1 Overview 

Overall water quality was variable throughout the Northern Creeks (Figure 16, Table 17). Most 

indicators were comparable to values for reference creeks in south-east Queensland, however low 

concentrations of dissolved oxygen and low pH resulted in poor water quality ratings for some 

waterways (Table 17). However, the Northern Creeks contain tannin stained waters due to dissolved 

organic matter. This dissolved organic matter releases humic acid and generates naturally low pH 

levels for these water types (Bayly, 1966). Nitrogen concentrations were high at some sites throughout 

the Northern Creeks area (Table 17). 

Figure 16. Final water quality assessments for Northern Creeks for the year 2000-2001. These ratings represent assessments 




33


Table 17. Water quality assessments for the Northern Creeks, 2000. The dots indicate the latest water quality assessment in 

comparison to the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (green= good, yellow= moderate, red= poor, grey= insufficient data or 

median was detection limit which was greater than the guidelines). The arrows indicate trends in median concentrations over 

the last 3 years. The colour of the arrow indicates whether the water quality has improved (green) or deteriorated (red), and the 

direction of the arrow shows whether the median increased (up) or decreased (down). Double-ended arrows (black) indicate 

variable trends. 

Site 


Stream 

Source 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Filterable 

Reactive 

Phosphorous 

FINAL 

BE-a ECLE Bells Ck. PRCMP 

BE-b ME Bells Ck. PRCMP 

BE-c ME Bells Ck. PRCMP 

BE-d ME Bells Ck. PRCMP 

BE-e ME Bells Ck. PRCMP 

BE-f ME Bells Ck. PRCMP 

BU-a ECLE Bullock Ck. PRCMP 

BU-b ME Bullock Ck. PRCMP 

BU-c ME Bullock Ck. PRCMP 

BU-d ME Bullock Ck. PRCMP 

CO-a ME Coochin Ck. PRCMP 

CO-b ME Coochin Ck. PRCMP 

CO-c ME Coochin Ck. PRCMP 

EL-a ME Elimbah Ck. PRCMP 

EL-b ME Elimbah Ck. PRCMP 

EL-c ME Elimbah Ck. PRCMP 

EL-d ME Elimbah Ck. PRCMP 

EL-e UE Elimbah Ck. PRCMP 

EL-f UE Elimbah Ck. PRCMP 

GM-a ME Glass Mtn Ck. PRCMP 

GM-b ME Glass Mtn Ck. PRCMP 

HU-a ME Hussey Ck. PRCMP 

HU-b ME Hussey Ck. PRCMP 

LC-a ECLE Lamerough Canal PRCMP 

ML-b ME Mellum Ck. PRCMP 

NG-a ECLE Ningi Ck. PRCMP 

NG-b ME Ningi Ck. PRCMP 

NG-c ME Ningi Ck. PRCMP 

SW-a ME Saltwater Ck. PRCMP 

SW-b ME Saltwater Ck. PRCMP 

34


5.7.2 Lamerough Canals 

Water quality at the one site in Lamerough Canals was within all guideline values and has remained 

consistently good over recent years. Overall, the site had good water quality. This may be due in part 

to its proximity to oceanic waters. 

5.7.3 Bells Creek 

Overall, Bells Creek had moderate water quality, due primarily to low dissolved oxygen concentrations 

and low pH, which are likely to be normal for these creeks. Excluding dissolved oxygen and pH, all 

indicators were in good condition at all sites, with the exception of total nitrogen concentrations, which 

were elevated at the two sites monitored (BE-a and BE-f). In this case the total nitrogen probably 

represents organic nitrogen (ammonia and oxidised nitrogen concentrations were within guidelines) 

and may indicate large amounts of decaying organic matter such as vegetation debris. 

The water quality assessments have remained stable for most indicators at most sites (Table 16). 

However the regression analyses of long-term trends detected improvements in secchi depth at BE-a 

(9.3% per year since 1997) (Table 31, Appendix F). 

In terms of the condition of physical attributes of the Bells Creek, the most upstream site (BE-f) 

appeared to be more degraded, with unstable banks, general erosion, low channel diversity, very poor 

riparian and aquatic vegetation and poor aquatic habitat (SoR, 2001). Fish communities have also 

been found to be degraded in this upstream site (Appendix F, Langdon, 2001). 

5.7.4 Coochin and Mellum Creeks 

Coochin and Mellum Creeks had poor overall water quality with the exception of one site (CO-b) 

(Figure 16, Table 17). Although dissolved oxygen and pH were low, which is expected of these types 

of creeks, concentrations of total nitrogen were high, causing the poor water quality. Both oxidised 

nitrogen and ammonia concentrations were above guideline values. The sources if nitrogen may 

include agriculture and urban run-off from adjacent areas. 

Fish communities upstream of the Mellum Creek site are in a degraded state (Appendix F, Langdon, 

2001), and channel diversity, aquatic vegetation and aquatic habitat are also very poor in this area 

(SoR, 2001). The poor ecological health may reflect the surrounding land-uses that involve clearing 

and logging (SoR, 2001). 

5.7.5 Coonowrin/Saltwater Creek 

Saltwater Creek had poor water quality at the downstream site (SW-a) (Table 17) and good water 

quality at the upstream site (SW-b, although fewer indicators were monitored). The poor water quality 

was caused by poor water clarity and elevated concentrations of nitrogen. 

5.7.6 Hussey Creek 

Water quality in Hussey Creek was moderate. Apart from low dissolved oxygen values, which are 

probably normal, concentrations of nitrogen were elevated at the one site monitored (Table 17). The 

condition of aquatic vegetation (very poor), riparian vegetation (poor) and channel diversity (very low) 

indicate, however, that the creek is more impacted than suggested by the water quality analysis (SoR, 

2001). 

5.7.7 Glass Mountain Creek 

Both sites monitored in Glass Mountain Creek had poor water quality. The primary causes for these 

poor ratings were poor water clarity at both sites and elevated nitrogen concentrations at GM-a. 

Riparian vegetation and vegetation in surrounding areas were good in the lower catchment, however 

the condition of in-stream vegetation and in-stream habitats were only moderate (SoR, 2001). 

35


5.7.8 Bullock Creek 

Final water quality ratings were variable for sites in Bullock Creek. Water clarity was moderate to poor 

at all sites, and deteriorating over recent years at BU-d. Turbidity at the most upstream site (BU-d) 

was very high, although the box plots show that this assessment is based on a small sample size 

(Figure 4d, Appendix E). Nutrient concentrations were good at the three sites monitored, with the 

exception of elevated total nitrogen (probably from decaying organic matter() at BU-a. 

5.7.9 Elimbah Creek 

Elimbah Creek has a number of potential pollutant sources in its catchment, including extensive pine 

plantations, turf farm and a poultry farm. Despite this, water quality remained good throughout the 

creek. Dissolved oxygen concentrations and pH were both low at the upstream sites, but this is 

probably normal for these creeks. 

Other studies at upstream sites have found that Elimbah Creek had high concentrations of dissolved 

constituents and high iron concentrations, both of which could be related to the natural lithography of 

the area (Cullen, 2000). High aluminium concentrations have also been detected, although no source 

has been identified (Cullen, 2000). Most other biological and physical indicators have been 

categorised as moderate (including riparian vegetation, fish communities, macro-invertebrate 

communities, reach environs and aquatic habitats) (SoR, 2001; Langdon, 2001). Aquatic vegetation 

and channel diversity, however, have been rated as very poor (SoR, 2001). 

Figure 17. Box plot of pH in Elimbah Creek, showing that further from the mouth of the creek, pH is lower, because flushing with 

oceanic water from Pumicestone Passage is poorer. 

5.7.10 Ningi Creek 

Water quality in Ningi Creek varied from good to good, although all sites had low dissolved oxygen 

and the most upstream site had low pH. Poor water quality was caused by elevated concentrations of 

nitrogen, due in part to increased inputs of organic nitrogen probably from decaying organic matter. 

Despite Ningi Creek being classified poor by the SoR (2001), riparian vegetation was in good 

condition in the lower reaches and moderate condition in the upper reaches (Appendix G, ANA, 1998). 

However, aquatic vegetation, channel diversity and bed stability have been classified as very poor, 

very low and unstable respectively (SoR, 2001) 

. 

36


6.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS 

Variable patterns of water quality condition were resolved throughout the Caboolture region, including 

variation in patterns of long-term trends over time. However, results suggest that more developed 

(settled) areas, and some sites in agriculture areas, show evidence of deterioration in water quality. 

Values for pH and dissolved oxygen were below reference values for the Northern Creeks. However, 

these creeks are dystrophic systems, which are characterised by naturally low concentrations of these 

indicators. Reference values for pH and dissolved oxygen for these water types need to be 

determined to ensure that water quality can be assessed against guidelines that reflect “natural” 

conditions more adequately. 

The heavily industrialised areas had high concentrations of some toxicants in sediments and some 

sites in close proximity to highways and major roads had elevated concentrations of total petroleum 

hydrocarbons and lead in the sediments. 

Faecal contamination was evident near some industrial sites and in canal developments, the latter 

probably due to poor flushing, urban run-off and inputs from congregations of waterbirds. Despite 

being suggestive of faecal contamination in Saltwater Creek and in some canals on Bribie Island, 

these results were not derived from a sampling regime recommended by the National Guidelines 

(ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000) and were therefore not directly comparable with the guidelines. 

Overall, water quality, sediment and faecal coliform monitoring has resolved important trends in the 

ecological condition of major waterways in the Caboolture region, and has highlighted “hotspots” 

which present opportunities for management intervention to improve water quality. 

37


REFERENCES 

Bayly, I.A.E. (1966) Queensland’s Coastal Dune Lakes and their Life. Wildlife Australia 3: 154 – 157. 

Cullen, E. L. (2000). Surface Water Quality of the Freshwater section of Elimbah Creek, Pumicestone 

Passage. Hons Thesis, School of Natural Resource Sciences. Queensland University of Technology. 

EPA (2001) Draft Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (version 2), Queensland Environmental 

Protection Agency, Brisbane. 

Langdon, S. (2001). Prioritising stream regeneration works to protect and restore fish habitat NHT 

project - Progress report. CSC/Griffith Uni. 

SoR (2001). State of the Rivers: Pumicestone Region Subcatchments. Prepared by Eberhard, R. and 

van Manen, N. Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Natural Resource Sciences, Brisbane. 

Burgess, R., Tapsall, A., Juniper, M., Morton, R. (1998). Atlas of Natural Assets, Riparian and 

Reserve Vegetation. Report prepared by WBM Oceanics Australia for Caboolture Shire Council. 

SCCMAP. (1999). Saltwater Creek Catchment Management Plan. Volume 1. Prepared by Geo-End 

Australia, Willing & Partners and Natural Resource Assessments for Pine Rivers Shire Council, 

Caboolture Shire Council and Redcliffe City Council. 

38


APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Water quality monitoring programs, sites and indicators 

Table 18. Indicators assessed at the sites monitored by the Caboolture Shire Council’s Environmental Monitoring Program. 

Physico-chemical parameters include dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, temperature, pH. Various species of nutrients 

were monitored at different sites. 

Report 

site name 

CSC site 

code 

Stream 

Start of 

monitoring 

Physicochemical 

Nutrients 

Secchi Chlorophyll-a 

Toxicants in 

sediments 

BRI-1 C1 Pacific Harbour Canals 1/1999 



BRI-4 C4 Lagoon 1/1999 

BRI-5 C5 Bribie Gardens 1/1999 




SHI-1 S1 Shirley Ck 1/1999 




BUR-1 BC1 Burpengary Ck 3/2000 






CAB-1 CBa Caboolture Rv 2/1999 

CAB-3 CBb Caboolture Rv 2/1999 

CAB-4 CBc Caboolture Rv 2/1999 

CAB-2 CBd Caboolture Rv 2/1999 

CAB-8 1R Caboolture Rv 3/1999 

CAB-7 2C Caboolture Rv 3/1999 

CAB-6 3S Caboolture Rv 3/1999 

CAB-5 4D Caboolture Rv 3/1999 

LAG-1 LC1 Lagoon Ck 3/1999 








SAL-1 SC1 Saltwater Ck 3/1999 









SHE-1 SSC1 Sheepstation Ck 1/1999 




WAR-1 W1 Wararba Ck 2/2000 






39


Table 19. Indicators assessed at the sites monitored by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Physico-chemical 

parameters include dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, temperature, pH. Various species of nutrients were monitored at 

different sites. 

Report site 

name 

Stream 

Commencement of 

monitoring reported 

herein 


Nutrients Secchi Chlorophyll-a 

Cab-0 Caboolture Rv 3/2000 

Cab-1.0 Caboolture Rv 3/2000 











Cab-41 Caboolture Rv 3/2000 

Dec-a Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-b Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-c Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-d Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-e Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-f Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-g Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-h Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-i Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-j Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-k Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-l Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-m Deception Bay 1/1995 

Dec-n Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-o Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-p Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-q Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-r Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-s Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-t Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-u Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-v Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-w Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-x Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-y Deception Bay 3/2000 

Dec-z Deception Bay 3/2000 

Pum-a Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-b Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-c Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-d Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-e Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-f Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-g Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-h Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-i Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-j Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-k Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-l Pumicestone 1/1995 

Pum-m Pumicestone 1/1995 

War-0 Wararba Ck 3/2000 

War-2.0 Wararba Ck 3/2000 

40


Table 20. Indicators assessed at the sites monitored by the Pumicestone Catchment Coordination Association (PRCMP). 

Physico-chemical parameters include dissolved oxygen, conductivity, turbidity, temperature, pH. Various nutrients were 

monitored at different sites. 

Report site 

name 

Stream 

Commencement of 

monitoring reported 

herein 


Secchi 

Nutrients 

BE-a Bells Ck. 12/2000 

BE-b Bells Ck. 4/1998 

BE-c Bells Ck. 12/2000 

BE-d Bells Ck. 2/1998 

BE-e Bells Ck. 6/1998 

BE-f Bells Ck. 2/1998 

BU-a Bullock Ck. 12/2000 

BU-b Bullock Ck. 4/1998 

BU-c Bullock Ck. 12/2000 

BU-d Bullock Ck. 4/1998 

CO-a Coochin Ck. 10/1997 

CO-b Coochin Ck. 10/1997 

CO-c Coochin Ck. 10/1997 

CO-d Coochin Ck. 10/1997 

EL-a Elimbah Ck. 2/2000 

EL-b Elimbah Ck. 1/1998 

EL-c Elimbah Ck. 1/1998 

EL-d Elimbah Ck. 1/1998 

EL-e Elimbah Ck. 1/1998 

EL-f Elimbah Ck. 1/1998 

EL-g Elimbah Ck. 2/1999 

GM-a Glass Mountain Ck. 12/2000 

GM-b Glass Mountain Ck. 10/1997 

HU-a Hussey Ck. 4/1998 

HU-b Hussey Ck. 10/1997 

HU-c Hussey Ck. 10/1997 

LC-a Lamerough Canal 2/1998 

ML-a Mellum Ck. 6/1998 

ML-b Mellum Ck. 6/1998 

ML-c Mellum Ck. 1/1998 

NG-a Ningi Ck. 12/2000 

NG-b Ningi Ck. 4/1998 

NG-c Ningi Ck. 2/1998 

PH-a Pacific Harbour 6/1998 

PH-b Pacific Harbour 6/1998 

PP-a Pumicestone 6/1998 

PP-b Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-c Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-d Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-e Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-f Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-g Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-h Tripcony Bight 10/1997 

PP-i Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-j Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-k Pumicestone 12/2000 

PP-l Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-m Pumicestone 12/2000 

PP-n Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-o Pumicestone 10/1997 

PP-p Shirley Ck. 6/1998 

PP-q Pumicestone 10/1997 

PV-a Poverty Ck. 12/1999 

PV-b Poverty Ck. 6/1998 

SW-a Saltwater Ck. 8/1999 

SW-b Saltwater Ck. 1/1998 

WE-a Westaways Ck. 6/1998 

41


Table 21. Sites monitored by all agencies including geographic basin information, stream information and geographical 

locations. 

Report 

site name 

CSC/PRCMP 

Code 

Source Basin Basin Name Stream Stream Name Latitude Longitude 

CAB-8 1R CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.10568 153.01180 

CAB-7 2C CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.09112 152.97492 

CAB-6 3S CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.09498 152.97010 

CAB-5 4D CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.09110 152.96320 

BUR-1 BC1 CSC 142 PINE RIVER 11 Burpengary Ck -27.15170 153.00955 






BRI-1 C1 CSC 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 65 Bribie Canals -27.07188 153.15688 








CAB-1 CBa CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.09597 152.83473 

CAB-3 CBb CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.10985 152.88523 

CAB-4 CBc CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.08850 152.93892 

CAB-2 CBd CSC 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.12200 152.85827 

LAG-1 LC1 CSC 142 PINE RIVER 51 Lagoon Ck -27.00512 152.85075 








SHI-1 S1 CSC 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 66 Shirley Ck -27.07847 153.16553 




SAL-1 SC1 CSC 142 PINE RIVER 60 Saltwater Ck -27.19127 152.98415 










SHE-1 SSC1 CSC 142 PINE RIVER 50 Sheepstation Ck -27.12668 152.89308 




WAR-1 W1 CSC 142 PINE RIVER 13 Wararba Ck -27.00665 152.83245 






Cab-0 Cab-0 EPA 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.15307 153.04035 


42


Table 21. (cont) 

Report 

site name 

CSC/PRCMP 

Code 


Cab-1.0 Cab-1.0 EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.14775 153.03340 

Cab-1.6 Cab-1.6 EPA 142 PINE RIVER 10 Caboolture Rv -27.13050 153.03431 




















Dec-a Dec-a EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.10000 153.10833 

Dec-a Dec-a EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.10000 153.10833 

Dec-b Dec-b EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.10000 153.22000 

Dec-b Dec-b EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.10000 153.22000 

Dec-c Dec-c EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.11167 153.16833 

Dec-c Dec-c EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.11167 153.16833 

Dec-d Dec-d EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.12000 153.07667 

Dec-d Dec-d EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.12000 153.07667 

Dec-e Dec-e EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.13000 153.09167 

Dec-e Dec-e EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.13000 153.09167 

Dec-f Dec-f EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.13500 153.07833 

Dec-f Dec-f EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.13500 153.07833 

Dec-g Dec-g EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.13333 153.17667 

Dec-g Dec-g EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.13333 153.17667 

Dec-h Dec-h EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.14167 153.05500 

Dec-h Dec-h EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.14167 153.05500 

Dec-i Dec-i EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.14493 153.06556 

Dec-j Dec-j EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.15000 153.05833 

Dec-k Dec-k EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.15397 153.04539 

Dec-l Dec-l EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.15333 153.04833 

Dec-m Dec-m EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.15405 153.05567 

Dec-n Dec-n EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.16167 153.04667 

Dec-o Dec-o EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.16300 153.04540 

Dec-p Dec-p EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.15667 153.06667 

Dec-q Dec-q EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.16299 153.06557 

Dec-r Dec-r EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.15500 153.12000 

Dec-r Dec-r EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.15500 153.12000 

Dec-s Dec-s EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.18333 153.03833 

Dec-t Dec-t EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.18167 153.06000 

Dec-u Dec-u EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.18104 153.06558 

Dec-v Dec-v EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.17167 153.08667 

Dec-v Dec-v EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.17201 153.08576 

Dec-w Dec-w EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.17667 153.18833 

Dec-w Dec-w EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.17667 153.18833 

Dec-x Dec-x EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.19167 153.13667 

Dec-x Dec-x EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.19167 153.13667 

Dec-y Dec-y EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.19833 153.09500 

43


Table 21 (cont). 

Report 

site name 

CSC/PRCMP 

Code 


Dec-y Dec-y EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.19833 153.09500 

Dec-z Dec-z EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.21667 153.13500 

Dec-z Dec-z EPA 143 BRISBANE RIVER 9544 Deception Bay -27.21667 153.13500 

Pum-a Pum-a EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.82333 153.12953 

Pum-b Pum-b EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.84514 153.11689 

Pum-c Pum-c EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.87336 153.11500 

Pum-d Pum-d EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.89725 153.09847 

Pum-e Pum-e EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.91611 153.07322 

Pum-f Pum-f EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.93822 153.06664 

Pum-g Pum-g EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.95436 153.05719 

Pum-h Pum-h EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.95253 153.08622 

Pum-i Pum-i EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.98475 153.07206 

Pum-j Pum-j EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.00564 153.09342 

Pum-k Pum-k EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.02944 153.09972 

Pum-l Pum-l EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.05508 153.13042 

Pum-m Pum-m EPA 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.08544 153.15414 

War-0 War-0 EPA 142 PINE RIVER 13 Wararba Ck -27.08715 152.93346 

War-2.0 War-2.0 EPA 142 PINE RIVER 10 Wararba Ck -27.08173 152.92339 

BE-a BE-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 53 Bells Ck -26.84337 153.11281 

BE-b BE-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 53 Bells Ck -26.84813 153.10539 

BE-c BE-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 53 Bells Ck -26.85476 153.09307 

BE-d BE-d PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 53 Bells Ck -26.84058 153.08745 

BE-e BE-e PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 53 Bells Ck -26.83670 153.08196 

BE-f BE-f PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 53 Bells Ck -26.83426 153.06418 

BU-a BU-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 47 Bullock Ck -27.01808 153.07659 

BU-b BU-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 47 Bullock Ck -27.02351 153.06988 

BU-c BU-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 47 Bullock Ck -27.01743 153.05781 

BU-d BU-d PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 47 Bullock Ck -27.01827 153.05608 

CO-a CO-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 52 Coochin Ck -26.89496 153.06104 

CO-b CO-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 52 Coochin Ck -26.88797 153.04329 

CO-c CO-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 52 Coochin Ck -26.88393 153.03666 

CO-d CO-d PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 52 Coochin Ck -26.88470 153.02255 

EL-a EL-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 50 Elimbah Ck -27.03559 153.08047 

EL-b EL-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 50 Elimbah Ck -27.04101 153.08069 

EL-c EL-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 50 Elimbah Ck -27.03447 153.06688 

EL-d EL-d PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 50 Elimbah Ck -27.03334 153.05275 

EL-e EL-e PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 50 Elimbah Ck -27.03022 153.03942 

EL-f EL-f PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 50 Elimbah Ck -27.02154 153.03211 

EL-g EL-g PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 50 Elimbah Ck -26.99595 152.99244 

GM-a GM-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 60 Glass Mountain Ck -26.98178 153.04752 

GM-b GM-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 60 Glass Mountain Ck -26.99054 153.02814 

HU-a HU-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 54 Hussey Ck -26.92397 153.05561 

HU-b HU-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 54 Hussey Ck -26.92669 153.04821 

HU-c HU-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 54 Hussey Ck -26.93237 153.03471 

HU-d HU-d PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 54 Hussey Ck -26.93412 152.99356 

LC-a LC-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 55 Lamerough Canal -26.83247 153.11102 

ML-a ML-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 57 Mellum Ck -26.87583 153.03232 

ML-b ML-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 57 Mellum Ck -26.86787 153.02946 

ML-c ML-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 57 Mellum Ck -26.86575 153.02294 

NG-a NG-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 51 Ningi Ck -27.05851 153.08392 

NG-b NG-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 51 Ningi Ck -27.05508 153.07625 

NG-c NG-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 51 Ningi Ck -27.05254 153.05434 

PH-a PH-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 65 Pacific Harbour -27.05176 153.14166 

PH-b PH-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 65 Pacific Harbour -27.05162 153.13785 

PP-a PP-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.82026 153.12822 

PP-b PP-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.83352 153.12023 

PP-c PP-c PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.84565 153.11763 

PP-d PP-d PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.87162 153.11607 

44

Table 21. (cont). 

Report 

site name 


CSC/PRCMP 

Code 


PP-e PP-e PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.89664 153.09872 

PP-f PP-f PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.91525 153.07368 

PP-g PP-g PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.93667 153.06742 

PP-h PP-h PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Tripcony Bight -26.94834 153.05436 

PP-ii PP-ii PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.95347 153.08454 

PP-j PP-j PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -26.98469 153.07176 

PP-k PP-k PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.00479 153.07259 

PP-l PP-l PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.00701 153.09241 

PP-m PP-m PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.01545 153.08826 

PP-n PP-n PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.03047 153.09878 

PP-o PP-o PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.05433 153.13134 

PP-p PP-p PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 66 Shirley Ck -27.08147 153.15598 

PP-q PP-q PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 9544 Pumicestone Passage -27.08617 153.15154 

PV-a PV-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 301 Poverty Ck -26.99222 153.09160 

PV-b PV-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 301 Poverty Ck -26.98752 153.09049 

SW-a SW-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 302 Saltwater Ck -26.90545 153.06272 

SW-b SW-b PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 302 Saltwater Ck -26.90997 153.05425 

WE-a WE-a PRCMP 141 MAROOCHY RIVER 303 Westaways Ck -26.90791 153.09692 

45


Appendix B: Data presentation- Box and Whisker plots 

Box and whisker plots are a widely accepted way of presenting water quality data (Figure 17). They show 

where the data points are concentrated (the box) and the outlying values (the whiskers, asterisks and 

circles). Box and whisker plots are therefore a useful way of visually presenting the distribution of the data. 

Box and whisker plots are used in this report to assess compliance with guidelines. For easy comparison 

with the guidelines (derived from the 20 th and 80 percentiles of reference values for most parameters) the 

boxes represent the 20 th and 80 th percentiles. The top of the box in these plots is the 80 th percentile (80 

percent of the data fall below this line), while the bottom of the box represents the 20 th percentile (20 

percent of the data fall below this line). The dot in the middle of the box represents the median (50 percent 

of the data fall above and 50 percent below this number). 

The whiskers on the box extend to data points that are up to 1½ times the Inter Quartile Range (IQR). The 

IQR is defined as the difference between the 75 th and the 25 th percentiles, and is equal to the range of 

about half the data. Outliers which are less than three times the IQR are shown as asterisks, while those 

greater than three times the IQR are shown as circles. The statistical and graphical package S-Plus 4.5 

was used to produce all box plots and calculate percentiles. 

Values within 3 times the Inter 

Quartile Range 



Median 



Whiskers: values within 1½ 

times the Inter Quartile Range 

Values greater than 3 times 

the Inter Quartile Range 

Figure 18. Schematic representation of box and whisker plots. 

Box and whisker plots are used in this report to assess compliance of each indicator at each site with 

the appropriate guidelines. The data for one or more waterways are presented together with the 

reference values for those watertypes (Figure 18). For easy comparison with the reference values, the 

boxes are colour coded according to their watertype (Figure 18, Table 21). The label for the box for 

each site is also colour coded according to compliance with the guidelines. If the site complied with the 

guidelines for that indicator, the site label is printed in black; if the site did not comply the label is 

printed in red. The number of data points in both the site and reference data is also recorded below 

each box. 

Figure 1k Chlorophyll-a (g/L) at sites in an example waterway 

20 

Chlorophyll-a (g/L) 

15 

10 

5 

0 

(N=10) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=49) (N=57) (N=336) (N=110) (N=111) (N=169) (N=54) 

SITE-1 SITE-2 SITE-3 SITE-4 SITE-5 SITE-6 SITE-7 O OC ECLE ME UE LC UC 

Monitoring Sites 

Reference Sites 

Figure 19. Example of a box and whisker plot, showing values recorded at monitoring sites (left) and reference sites 

(right) for chlorophyll-a. Watertypes are colour-coded, and descriptions for the watertype-code are presented in 

Table 22. Note that sites 1, 2, and 6 complied with water quality guidelines, whereas sites 3, 4, 5 and 7 exceeded 

guidelines. 

46


The monitoring sites are shown on the left, and the reference values on the right. In this case, there is 

one example site shown for each water-type. Sites 4, 5 and 6 failed to comply with the guidelines, and 

the labels for these sites are shown in purple. It is evident from the graph that the median of these 

sites is greater than the 80 th percentile of the relevant reference values. The number of samples 

represented by each box is also shown below the graph. The data for the monitoring sites are based 

on one year’s sampling, while those for the reference sites are based on at least 3 years of monitoring. 

The abbreviations for each water-type are listed in Table 21. 

Table 22. Abbreviations for watertypes relevant for the present study. 

Abbreviation 

O 

OC 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 

LC 

UC 

Water-type 

Ocean 

Open Coastal 

Enclosed Coastal Lower Estuary 

Mid Estuary 

Upper Estuary 

Lower Catchment 

Upper Catchment 

47

Appendix C: Results of water quality assessments 

C1: Assessments of changes in water quality assessments in recent years 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic 

Nitrogen 

Filterable 

Reactive 

Phosphorous 

Table 23. Water quality assessments for all indicators at 

all sites from 1999 to 2001. 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

Water 

Site 

Basin Stream Source 

Type 

Cab-0 ECLE 142 Caboolture River EPA 

Cab-1.0 ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Cab-1.6 ME 142 Caboolture River EPA 




Cab-17.1 UE 142 Caboolture River EPA 




Cab-41 LC 142 Caboolture River EPA 



Dec-a ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-b ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-c ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-d ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-e ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-f ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-g ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-h ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-i ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-j ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-k ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-l ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-m ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-n ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-o ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-p ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-q ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

 

48

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic 

Nitrogen 

Filterable 

Reactive 

Phosphorous 



2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 


Site 


Type 

Dec-r ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-s ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-t ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-u ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-v ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-w ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-x ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-y ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Dec-z ECLE 143 Deception Bay EPA 

Pum-a ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-b ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-c ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-d ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-e ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-f ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-g ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-h ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-i ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-j ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-k ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-l ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

Pum-m ECLE 141 Pumicestone EPA 

War-0 LC 142 Wararba Creek EPA 

War-2.0 LC 142 Caboolture River EPA 

BRI-1 ECLE 141 Bribie Canals CSC 



BRI-4 UE 141 Bribie Canals CSC 





BUR-1 ME 142 Burpengary Ck CSC 

BUR-2 LC 142 Burpengary Ck CSC 

49



50 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

2001 

2000 

1999 

Organic 

Nitrogen 

2001 

2000 

1999 

Filterable 

Reactive 

Phosphorous 


Site 


Type 





CAB-1 UC 142 Caboolture Rv CSC 

CAB-2 LC 142 Caboolture Rv CSC 



CAB-5 ME 142 Caboolture Rv CSC 




LAG-1 LC 142 Lagoon Ck CSC 








SAL-1 LC 142 Saltwater Ck CSC 









SHE-1 LC 142 Sheepstation Ck CSC 




SHI-1 UE 141 Shirley Ck CSC

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic 

Nitrogen 

Filterable 

Reactive 

Phosphorous 



2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 


Site 


Type 

SHI-2 UE 141 Shirley Ck CSC 

SHI-3 ME 141 Shirley Ck CSC 

SHI-4 ME 141 Shirley Ck CSC 

WAR-1 LC 142 Wararba Ck CSC 






BE-a ECLE 141 Bells Creek PRCMP 

BE-b ME 141 Bells Creek PRCMP 

BE-c ME 141 Bells Creek PRCMP 

BE-d ME 141 Bells Creek PRCMP 

BE-e ME 141 Bells Creek PRCMP 

BE-f ME 141 Bells Creek PRCMP 

BU-a ECLE 141 Bullock Creek PRCMP 

BU-b ME 141 Bullock Creek PRCMP 

BU-c ME 141 Bullock Creek PRCMP 

BU-d ME 141 Bullock Creek PRCMP 

CO-a ME 141 Coochin Creek PRCMP 

CO-b ME 141 Coochin Creek PRCMP 

CO-c ME 141 Coochin Creek PRCMP 

CO-d ME 141 Coochin Creek PRCMP 

EL-a ME 141 Elimbah Creek PRCMP 

EL-b ME 141 Elimbah Creek PRCMP 

EL-c ME 141 Elimbah Creek PRCMP 

EL-d ME 141 Elimbah Creek PRCMP 

EL-e UE 141 Elimbah Creek PRCMP 

EL-f UE 141 Elimbah Creek PRCMP 

EL-g LC 141 Elimbah Creek PRCMP 

GM-a ME 141 Glass Mountain PRCMP 

GM-b ME 141 Glass Mountain PRCMP 

HU-a ME 141 Hussey Creek PRCMP 

HU-b ME 141 Hussey Creek PRCMP 

51

pH 

Conductivity 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Turbidity 

Secchi Depth 

Oxidised 

Nitrogen 

Ammonia 


Total 

Phosphorous 

Chlorophyll a 

Organic 

Nitrogen 

Filterable 

Reactive 

Phosphorous 



2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 

2001 

2000 

1999 


Site 


Type 

HU-c ME 141 Hussey Creek PRCMP 

LC-a ECLE 141 Lamerough Canal PRCMP 

ML-a ME 141 Mellum Creek PRCMP 

ML-b ME 141 Mellum Creek PRCMP 

ML-c UE 141 Mellum Creek PRCMP 

NG-a ECLE 141 Ningi Creek PRCMP 

NG-b ME 141 Ningi Creek PRCMP 

NG-c ME 141 Ningi Creek PRCMP 

PH-a ECLE 141 Pacific Harbour PRCMP 

PH-b ECLE 141 Pacific Harbour PRCMP 

PP-a ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-b ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-c ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-d ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-e ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-f ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-g ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-h ECLE 141 Tripcony Bight PRCMP 

PP- ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-j ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-k ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-l ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-m ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-n ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-o ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PP-p ECLE 141 Shirley Creek PRCMP 

PP-q ECLE 141 Pumicestone PRCMP 

PV-a ECLE 141 Poverty Creek PRCMP 

PV-b ECLE 141 Poverty Creek PRCMP 

SW-a ME 141 Saltwater Creek PRCMP 

SW-b ME 141 Saltwater Creek PRCMP 

WE-a ME 141 Westaways Creek PRCMP 

52

C2: Medians of water quality data for selected indicators at all sites 

Table 24. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in the Northern Creeks, 2000 

Site 


Type 

Basin 

Stream Name 

pH 

Conductivity 

(mS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(%sat.) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Secchi (m) 

Oxidised 

nitrogen (μg/l) 

Ammonia 

(μg/l) 

Total nitrogen 

(μg/l) 

Total 

phosphorus 

(μg/l) 

FRP (μg/l) 

BE-a ECLE 141 Bells Creek 8.02 43.00 77.9 7.0 1.2 0.005 0.01 0.27 0.02 0.002 

BE-b ME 141 Bells Creek 7.78 35.20 87.1 8.5 1.0 

BE-c ME 141 Bells Creek 7.78 41.10 69.7 6.0 1.4 

BE-d ME 141 Bells Creek 7.47 38.20 66.3 5.0 1.4 

BE-e ME 141 Bells Creek 7.29 37.00 55.0 6.0 1.3 

BE-f ME 141 Bells Creek 6.98 33.20 43.7 7.0 1.0 0.003 0.01 0.48 0.02 0.002 

BU-a ECLE 141 Bullock Creek 8.09 45.60 82.3 8.0 1.1 0.002 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.002 

BU-b ME 141 Bullock Creek 7.92 44.55 89.7 12.0 0.6 0.002 0.01 0.26 0.02 0.002 

BU-c ME 141 Bullock Creek 7.75 45.40 76.0 11.0 0.8 0.002 0.01 0.37 0.03 0.002 

BU-d ME 141 Bullock Creek 7.52 40.65 99.9 32.5 0.3 

CO-a ME 141 Coochin Creek 7.63 32.90 76.7 7.0 1.0 0.320 0.03 0.59 0.01 0.002 

CO-b ME 141 Coochin Creek 7.26 24.20 72.9 6.5 1.0 

CO-c ME 141 Coochin Creek 6.72 4.34 64.4 3.5 1.1 2.400 0.02 2.60 0.01 0.002 

EL-a ME 141 Elimbah Creek 7.82 34.65 83.1 4.0 1.2 0.007 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.002 

EL-b ME 141 Elimbah Creek 7.50 22.75 84.8 8.0 1.1 

EL-c ME 141 Elimbah Creek 7.48 16.60 75.8 5.0 0.5 

EL-d ME 141 Elimbah Creek 7.18 11.35 66.8 4.0 1.1 

EL-e UE 141 Elimbah Creek 6.55 0.40 60.5 4.5 0.8 

EL-f UE 141 Elimbah Creek 6.47 0.25 60.8 5.5 0.6 

GM-a ME 141 Glass Mountain Creek 7.77 43.85 81.4 21.0 0.7 0.003 0.01 0.35 0.02 0.002 

GM-b ME 141 Glass Mountain Creek 7.32 35.00 75.7 14.5 0.7 

HU-a ME 141 Hussey Creek 7.44 31.30 74.6 7.0 0.9 0.031 0.02 0.31 0.01 0.002 

HU-b ME 141 Hussey Creek 7.18 15.20 66.2 6.0 0.9 

LC-a ECLE 141 Lamerough Canal 7.88 39.30 98.0 5.0 1.4 

ML-b ME 141 Mellum Creek 6.81 7.88 58.1 6.0 0.8 0.780 0.04 1.00 0.01 0.003 

NG-a ECLE 141 Ningi Creek 7.95 46.30 73.5 7.0 1.1 0.003 0.01 0.28 0.03 0.004 

NG-b ME 141 Ningi Creek 7.87 37.25 79.1 9.5 0.9 

NG-c ME 141 Ningi Creek 6.92 32.70 44.0 7.0 0.9 0.010 0.03 0.47 0.03 0.002 

SW-a ME 141 Saltwater Creek 7.24 21.55 81.0 11.5 0.3 0.017 0.01 0.33 0.02 0.002 

SW-b ME 141 Saltwater Creek 7.45 31.70 75.4 8.0 1.1 

Table 25. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites on Bribie Island for 2001 

Site 


Type 

Basin Stream Name 

pH 

Conductivity 

(mS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen (%sat.) 

Turbidity (NTU) 

Secchi (m) 

Oxidised 

nitrogen (μg/l) 

Ammonia (μg/l) 


(μg/l) 

Total 

phosphorus 

(μg/l) 

Chlorophyll a 

(μg/l) 

BRI-1 ECLE 141 Bribie Canals 7.93 56.10 72.71 2.00 2.00 0.010 0.060 0.550 0.160 1.48 



BRI-4 UE 141 Bribie Canals 7.28 0.72 41.57 16.00 0.020 0.040 0.500 0.180 6.14 




BRI-8 ECLE 141 Bribie Canals 8.05 56.00 79.08 22.00 0.010 0.030 0.500 0.120 1.60 

PH-a ECLE 141 Pacific Harbour 8.07 45.55 97.0 8.0 0.6 

PH-b ECLE 141 Pacific Harbour 8.08 46.30 95.2 4.5 1.4 

PV-a ECLE 141 Poverty Creek 7.93 43.50 99.5 21.0 0.5 

SHI-1 UE 141 Shirley Ck 7.67 0.51 67.87 18.00 0.045 0.050 0.500 0.270 3.75 

SHI-2 UE 141 Shirley Ck 7.01 0.42 28.91 16.00 0.010 0.170 0.500 0.340 5.39 

SHI-3 ME 141 Shirley Ck 7.07 29.00 47.29 10.00 0.010 0.070 0.500 0.200 3.21 

SHI-4 ME 141 Shirley Ck 7.24 50.50 60.71 6.00 0.010 0.060 0.500 0.200 2.95 

WE-a ME 141 Westaways Ck 7.00 31.40 57.4 6.5 0.7 

53

Table 26. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Pumicestone Passage (2001 for EPA sites, 2000 for PRCMP 

sites) 

Site 


Type 

Basin 

Stream Name 

pH 

Conductivity 

(mS/cm) 

Dissolved Oxygen 

(%sat.) 


Secchi (m) 

Oxidised nitrogen 

(μg/l) 



(μg/l) 

Total phosphorus 

(μg/l) 

Chlorophyll a 

(μg/l) 

Organic Nitrogen 

(μg/l) 

FRP 

Pum-a ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.18 52.89 102.5 1.0 2.5 1.27 

Pum-b ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.08 52.13 97.5 4.0 1.5 

Pum-c ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 7.98 49.99 94.0 9.5 1.0 3.87 

Pum-d ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 7.94 51.02 93.5 11.5 1.0 0.006 0.004 0.290 0.023 3.55 0.280 0.002 

Pum-e ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 7.92 49.69 92.5 9.0 0.9 

Pum-f ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.04 51.75 96.5 7.5 1.0 

Pum-g ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.09 53.03 98.0 10.0 0.9 

Pum-h ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.08 53.08 94.5 7.0 1.2 2.40 

Pum-i ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.11 52.97 98.0 5.5 1.7 

Pum-j ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.13 53.12 96.0 4.0 1.7 

Pum-k ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.16 53.39 96.0 6.0 1.5 0.002 0.002 0.200 0.021 2.07 0.190 0.007 

Pum-l ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.18 53.59 97.5 4.0 1.7 

Pum-m ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.18 53.48 98.0 4.0 2.4 1.57 

PP-a ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.23 47.25 86.8 2.0 2.8 

PP-b ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.18 45.60 86.3 4.0 1.9 

PP-c ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.09 42.80 83.1 7.0 1.1 

PP-d ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 7.87 41.80 77.0 16.0 0.7 

PP-e ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 7.84 37.05 89.7 10.0 0.8 

PP-f ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 7.70 37.70 91.7 7.0 0.9 

PP-g ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 7.72 33.45 88.8 10.5 0.7 

PP-h ECLE 141 Tripcony Bight 8.00 40.25 92.9 10.5 0.7 

PP-i ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.08 42.50 89.7 14.0 0.7 

PP-j ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.05 44.50 92.3 7.5 1.2 0.002 0.01 0.21 0.01 0.002 

PP-k ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.11 45.40 90.6 11.0 1.0 0.002 0.01 0.24 0.02 0.002 

PP-l ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.05 43.35 86.4 5.0 1.4 0.002 0.00 0.21 0.02 0.002 

PP-m ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.11 45.00 91.0 10.0 1.3 0.002 0.00 0.24 0.02 0.002 

PP-n ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.17 45.80 97.7 7.0 1.3 

PP-o ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.22 47.60 90.6 4.0 1.7 

PP-p ECLE 141 Shirley Creek 8.16 47.95 80.6 4.0 1.0 

PP-q ECLE 141 P’stone Passage 8.25 48.00 90.6 2.5 2.3 

54

Table 27. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in the Caboolture River, 2001 

Site 


Type 

Basin 

Stream Name 

pH 

Conductivity 

(mS/cm) 


(% sat.) 


Secchi (m) 

Oxidised Nitrogen 

(μg/l) 


Total Nitrogen (μg/l) 

Total Phosphorous 

(μg/l) 

Chlorophyll a (μg/l) 


(μg/l) 

FRP (μg/l) 

CAB-1 UC 142 Caboolture Rv 8.11 0.36 90.13 2.00 0.010 0.010 0.110 

CAB-2 LC 142 Caboolture Rv 8.13 0.39 100.88 2.00 0.010 0.010 0.120 



CAB-5 ME 142 Caboolture Rv 7.37 17.25 66.00 18.00 0.425 0.180 0.170 




LAG-1 LC 142 Lagoon Ck 6.45 0.31 33.30 8.00 0.010 0.035 0.140 








SHE-1 LC 142 Sheepstation Ck 6.89 0.77 14.67 33.00 0.010 0.200 

SHE-2 LC 142 Sheepstation Ck 7.47 0.46 71.55 18.00 0.010 0.050 0.020 0.165 



WAR-1 LC 142 Wararba Ck 7.51 0.43 63.16 12.00 0.040 0.016 0.170 






Cab-0 ECLE 142 Caboolture Rv 8.10 50.70 96.0 7.0 1.3 0.002 0.003 0.265 0.041 3.02 0.245 0.017 

Cab-1.6 ME 142 Caboolture Rv 8.07 49.79 97.0 8.0 1.2 0.002 0.003 0.285 0.042 3.30 0.265 0.017 







Cab-17.1 UE 142 Caboolture Rv 7.35 15.76 66.5 11.0 0.8 0.430 0.107 1.150 0.110 10.38 0.605 0.053 

Cab-18.8 UE 142 Caboolture Rv 7.27 12.39 72.0 8.0 0.8 11.96 

Cab-19.9 UE 142 Caboolture Rv 7.35 9.60 87.0 8.0 0.8 0.250 0.027 0.960 0.065 18.10 0.645 0.010 

Cab-41 LC 142 Caboolture Rv 7.87 0.51 89.0 1.0 0.3 0.010 0.007 0.285 0.022 1.47 0.265 0.007 

War-0 LC 142 Wararba Creek 7.26 0.38 71.0 5.0 1.1 0.049 0.027 0.545 0.030 13.69 0.490 0.004 

55

Table 28. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Burpengary Creek, 2001 

Site 


Type 

Basin 

Stream 

Name 

pH 

Conductivity 

(mS/cm) 


(% sat.) 



(μg/l) 


Total phosphorous 

(μg/l) 

BUR-1 ME 142 Burpengary Ck 7.19 0.80 24.59 12.00 0.050 0.050 0.100 

BUR-2 LC 142 Burpengary Ck 7.24 0.84 31.30 5.00 0.040 0.070 0.120 





Table 29. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Saltwater Creek, 2001 

Site 


Type 

Basin 

Stream 

Name 

pH 

Conductivity 

(mS/cm) 


(% sat.) 



(μg/l) 



(μg/l) 

SAL-1 LC 142 Saltwater Ck 6.71 0.42 14.40 26.00 0.010 0.020 0.170 









Table 30. Medians for selected water quality indicators at sites in Deception Bay, 2001 

Site 


Type 

Basin 

Stream Name 

pH 

Conductivity 

(mS/cm) 


(% sat.) 


Secchi (m) 


(μg/l) 


Total Nitrogen (μg/l) 


(μg/l) 

Chlorophyll a (μg/l) 


(μg/l) 

FRP (μg/l) 

Dec-a ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.22 52.98 100.0 4.0 1.7 0.002 0.002 0.185 0.027 1.87 0.175 0.010 

Dec-c ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.21 53.68 102.0 1.5 2.4 0.002 0.002 0.150 0.019 1.67 0.140 0.008 

Dec-d ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.21 52.92 101.0 4.0 1.6 0.002 0.002 0.185 0.033 2.56 0.175 0.015 

Dec-j ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.19 52.70 100.0 6.0 1.4 0.002 0.002 0.205 0.041 2.54 0.195 0.019 

Dec-l ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.15 52.27 100.0 6.0 1.1 0.002 0.002 0.240 0.043 3.87 0.230 0.016 

Dec-m ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.07 51.92 98.0 7.0 1.3 2.72 

Dec-r ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.20 53.55 101.0 4.0 1.7 0.002 0.002 0.165 0.028 2.00 0.150 0.014 

Dec-u ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.21 53.24 100.0 6.5 1.2 0.002 0.002 0.190 0.033 3.52 0.180 0.020 

Dec-v ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.23 53.44 104.0 5.0 1.4 0.002 0.002 0.180 0.033 3.03 0.170 0.017 

Dec-x ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.19 53.48 102.0 5.0 1.7 0.002 0.002 0.175 0.041 2.47 0.160 0.020 

Dec-y ECLE 143 Deception Bay 8.24 53.28 107.0 6.0 1.2 0.002 0.002 0.215 0.046 2.40 0.205 0.024 

56

C3: Box plots - Northern Creeks (PRCMP DATA) 

Bells Creek and Lamerough Canals, 2000 

Figure 1a pH at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

9 

8 

pH 

7 

6 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=9) (N=17) (N=16) (N=16) (N=9) (N=673) (N=453) 

BE-a BE-b BE-c BE-d BE-e BE-f LC-a ECLE ME 



Figure 1b Conductivity at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

80 

Conductivity (mS/cm) 

60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=6) (N=8) (N=7) (N=15) (N=14) (N=14) (N=9) (N=671) (N=452) 




Figure 1c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

100 

Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) 

80 

60 

40 

20 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=9) (N=17) (N=16) (N=16) (N=9) (N=663) (N=450) 




57

C3: Box plots - Northern Creeks (PRCMP DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 1d Turbidity at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=9) (N=17) (N=16) (N=16) (N=9) (N=656) (N=440) 




Figure 1e Secchi depth at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

4 

3 

Secchi depth (m) 

2 

1 

0 

(N=7) (N=7) (N=8) (N=16) (N=15) (N=15) (N=9) (N=674) (N=454) 




0.08 

Figure 1f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

Nitrate plus nitrite (mg N/L) 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=9) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




58



0.04 

Figure 1g Ammonia at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

0.03 

Ammonia (mg N/L) 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=9) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




Figure 1h Total nitrogen at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

0.6 

Total nitrogen (mg N/L) 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=9) (N=0) (N=436) (N=481) 




0.06 

Figure 1i Total phosphorus at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

0.05 

Total phosphorus (mg P/L) 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=9) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




59



Figure 1j Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Bells Ck and Lamerough Cnl 

0.025 

Filterable reactive phosphorus (mg P/L) 

0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=9) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




60


Coochin and Mellum Creeks, 2000 

Figure 2a pH at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

6.0 

(N=16) (N=16) (N=15) (N=16) (N=453) 

CO-a CO-b CO-c ML-b ME 



Figure 2b Conductivity at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=14) (N=15) (N=13) (N=14) (N=452) 




Figure 2c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

100 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

(N=16) (N=16) (N=15) (N=16) (N=450) 




61



Figure 2d Turbidity at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

25 

20 


15 

10 

5 

0 

(N=16) (N=16) (N=15) (N=16) (N=440) 




Figure 2e Secchi depth at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

3.0 

2.5 


2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=15) (N=16) (N=14) (N=15) (N=454) 




Figure 2f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

2.0 


1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=7) (N=0) (N=1) (N=1) (N=481) 




62



Figure 2g Ammonia at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

0.08 


0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=7) (N=0) (N=1) (N=1) (N=481) 




Figure 2h Total nitrogen at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

2.5 


2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=7) (N=0) (N=1) (N=1) (N=481) 




Figure 2i Total phosphorus at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 

0.05 


0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=7) (N=0) (N=1) (N=1) (N=481) 




63



Figure 2j Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Coochin and Mellum Cks 


0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=7) (N=0) (N=1) (N=1) (N=481) 




64


Hussey and Saltwater Creeks, 2000 

Figure 3a pH at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

(N=16) (N=16) (N=2) (N=15) (N=453) 

HU-a HU-b SW-a SW-b ME 



Figure 3b Conductivity at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=14) (N=14) (N=2) (N=13) (N=452) 




Figure 3c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

100 


90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

(N=16) (N=16) (N=2) (N=15) (N=450) 




65



Figure 3d Turbidity at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

20 

15 


10 

5 

0 

(N=16) (N=16) (N=2) (N=15) (N=440) 




Figure 3e Secchi depth at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

3.0 

2.5 


2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=15) (N=15) (N=1) (N=13) (N=454) 




Figure 3f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

0.20 


0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

(N=8) (N=0) (N=3) (N=0) (N=481) 




66



Figure 3g Ammonia at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

0.06 


0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=8) (N=0) (N=3) (N=0) (N=481) 




Figure 3h Total nitrogen at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

0.6 


0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=8) (N=0) (N=3) (N=0) (N=481) 




Figure 3i Total phosphorus at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 

0.05 


0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=8) (N=0) (N=3) (N=0) (N=481) 




67



Figure 3j Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Hussey and Saltwater Cks 


0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=8) (N=0) (N=3) (N=0) (N=481) 




68


Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Creeks, 2000 

9.0 

Figure 4a pH at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

6.0 

(N=7) (N=15) (N=7) (N=4) (N=8) (N=16) (N=8) (N=8) (N=16) (N=673) (N=453) 

BU-a BU-b BU-c BU-d GM-a GM-b NG-a NG-b NG-c ECLE ME 



Figure 4b Conductivity at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=7) (N=15) (N=7) (N=4) (N=7) (N=15) (N=8) (N=8) (N=16) (N=671) (N=452) 




Figure 4c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

120 


100 

80 

60 

40 

(N=7) (N=15) (N=7) (N=4) (N=7) (N=15) (N=8) (N=8) (N=16) (N=663) (N=450) 




69



60 

Figure 4d Turbidity at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

(N=8) (N=16) (N=8) (N=4) (N=8) (N=16) (N=9) (N=8) (N=17) (N=656) (N=440) 




Figure 4e Secchi depth at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

6 


4 

2 

0 

(N=7) (N=15) (N=7) (N=4) (N=7) (N=15) (N=8) (N=8) (N=16) (N=674) (N=454) 




Figure 4f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

0.025 


0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=12) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




70



0.05 

Figure 4g Ammonia at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

0.04 


0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=12) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




Figure 4h Total nitrogen at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

0.6 


0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=12) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=0) (N=436) (N=481) 




0.06 

Figure 4i Total phosphorus at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 

0.05 


0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=12) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




71



0.14 

Figure 4j Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Glass Mountain, Bullock and Ningi Cks 


0.12 

0.10 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=12) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=11) (N=0) (N=0) (N=437) (N=481) 




72


Elimbah Creek, 2000 

Figure 5a pH at sites in Elimbah Ck 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

6.0 

(N=9) (N=8) (N=15) (N=16) (N=6) (N=6) (N=453) (N=158) 

EL-a EL-b EL-c EL-d EL-e EL-f ME UE 



Figure 5b Conductivity at sites in Elimbah Ck 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=7) (N=8) (N=13) (N=14) (N=6) (N=6) (N=452) (N=159) 




Figure 5c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Elimbah Ck 


100 

80 

60 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=14) (N=15) (N=6) (N=6) (N=450) (N=158) 




73



Figure 5d Turbidity at sites in Elimbah Ck 

30 


20 

10 

0 

(N=9) (N=8) (N=15) (N=16) (N=6) (N=6) (N=440) (N=153) 




Figure 5e Secchi depth at sites in Elimbah Ck 

3.0 

2.5 


2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=7) (N=8) (N=14) (N=15) (N=6) (N=5) (N=454) (N=160) 




Figure 5f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Elimbah Ck 

0.6 


0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=481) (N=79) 




74



Figure 5g Ammonia at sites in Elimbah Ck 

0.15 


0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=481) (N=79) 




Figure 5h Total nitrogen at sites in Elimbah Ck 

1.2 

1.0 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=481) (N=79) 




Figure 5i Total phosphorus at sites in Elimbah Ck 

0.10 


0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=481) (N=79) 




75



Figure 5j Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Elimbah Ck 


0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=481) (N=79) 




76

C4: Box plots – Bribie Island (CSC DATA) 

Bribie Canals, 2001 

Figure 6a 1a pH at sites in Bribie Canals 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

(N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=673) (N=271) 

BRI-1 BRI-2 BRI-3 BRI-4 BRI-5 BRI-6 BRI-7 BRI-8 ECLE LC 



Figure 6b 1b Conductivity at sites in Bribie Canals 

60 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

(N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=671) (N=272) 




Figure 6c 1c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Bribie Canals 

140 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

(N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=663) (N=269) 




77

C4: Box plots – Bribie Island (CSC DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 1d 6d Turbidity at sites in Bribie Canals 

60 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

(N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=656) (N=261) 




Figure 1e 6e Secchi depth at sites in Bribie Canals 

3 


2 

1 

0 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=7) (N=0) (N=8) (N=8) (N=7) (N=0) (N=674) (N=242) 




0.10 

Figure 1f 6f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Bribie Canals 


0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=437) (N=276) 




78



Figure 1g 6g Ammonia at sites in Bribie Canals 

0.08 


0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=3) (N=3) (N=3) (N=3) (N=3) (N=3) (N=3) (N=3) (N=437) (N=276) 




Figure 1h 6h Total nitrogen at sites in Bribie Canals 

1.4 

1.2 


1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=436) (N=276) 




Figure 1i 6i Total phosphorus at sites in Bribie Canals 

0.8 


0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=437) (N=276) 




79



Figure 6j 1j Chlorophyll-a at sites in Bribie Canals 

15 

Chlorophyll-a (μg/L) 

10 

5 

0 

(N=7) (N=7) (N=7) (N=7) (N=6) (N=7) (N=7) (N=7) (N=676) (N=254) 




80


Shirley Creek, 2001 

Figure 7a 2a pH at sites in Shirley Ck 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=453) (N=158) 

SHI-1 SHI-2 SHI-3 SHI-4 ME UE 



Figure 7b 2b Conductivity at sites in Shirley Ck 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=452) (N=159) 




Figure 7c 2c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Shirley Ck 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=450) (N=158) 




81



Figure 7d 2d Turbidity at sites in Shirley Ck 

200 

150 


100 

50 

0 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=440) (N=153) 




Figure 7e 2f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Shirley Ck 

0.4 


0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=481) (N=79) 




82



Figure 7f 2g Ammonia at sites in Shirley Ck 

1.2 

1.0 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=3) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=481) (N=79) 




Figure 7g 2h Total nitrogen at sites in Shirley Ck 

1.5 


1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=7) (N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=481) (N=79) 




Figure 7h 2i Total phosphorus at sites in Shirley Ck 

3.0 

2.5 


2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=481) (N=79) 




83



Figure 7i 2g Ammonia at sites in Shirley Ck 

1.2 

1.0 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=3) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=481) (N=79) 




Figure 7j 2h Total nitrogen at sites in Shirley Ck 

1.5 


1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=7) (N=8) (N=8) (N=8) (N=481) (N=79) 




Figure 7k 2i Total phosphorus at sites in Shirley Ck 

3.0 

2.5 


2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=481) (N=79) 




84

C5: Box plots – Bribie Island (PRCMP DATA) 

Westaways and Poverty Creeks and Pacific Harbour, 2000 

Figure Figure 8a 6a pH at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

9 

8 

pH 

7 

6 

5 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=7) (N=15) (N=673) (N=453) 

PH-a PH-b PV-a WE-a ECLE ME 



Figure 6b 8b Conductivity at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=7) (N=13) (N=671) (N=452) 




Figure 6c 8c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

100 


80 

60 

40 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=7) (N=15) (N=663) (N=450) 




85

C5: Box plots – Bribie Island (PRCMP DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 6d 8d Turbidity at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

30 


20 

10 

0 

(N=7) (N=8) (N=7) (N=15) (N=656) (N=440) 




Figure 6e 8e Secchi depth at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

3 


2 

1 

0 

(N=8) (N=8) (N=2) (N=14) (N=674) (N=454) 




Figure 8f 6f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

0.025 


0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=10) (N=437) (N=481) 




86



Figure 8g6g Ammonia at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

0.03 


0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=10) (N=437) (N=481) 




Figure 8h 6h Total nitrogen at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

0.4 


0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

(N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=10) (N=436) (N=481) 




Figure 8i 6i Total phosphorus at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific Harbour 

0.06 

0.05 


0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=10) (N=437) (N=481) 




87



Figure Figure 8j 6j Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Bribie Island: Westaways and Poverty Cks and Pacific 

Harbour 

0.025 


0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=0) (N=0) (N=0) (N=10) (N=437) (N=481) 




88

C6: Box plots – Caboolture Region (EPA DATA) 

Caboolture River, 2001 

9.0 

Figure 9a 1a pH at sites in Caboolture Rv 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=12) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=12) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=673) (N=453) (N=158) (N=271) 

Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

Figure 9b 1b Conductivity at sites in Caboolture Rv 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

Figure 9c 1c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Caboolture Rv 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

89

C6: Box plots – Caboolture Region (EPA DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 9d 1d Turbidity at sites in Caboolture Rv 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

Figure 9e 1e Secchi depth at sites in Caboolture Rv 

3 


2 

1 

0 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

Figure 9f 1f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Caboolture Rv 

0.6 


0.4 

0.2 

0.0 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

90



0.25 

Figure 9g 1g Ammonia at sites in Caboolture Rv 

0.20 


0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

1.5 

Figure 9h 1h Total nitrogen at sites in Caboolture Rv 


1.0 

0.5 

0.0 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

Figure 9i 1i Total phosphorus at sites in Caboolture Rv 


0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

91



Figure 9j 1j Chlorophyll-a at sites in Caboolture Rv 

25 


20 

15 

10 

5 

0 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

Figure 9k 1k Organic nitrogen at sites in Caboolture Rv 

0.8 

Organic nitrogen (mg N/L) 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

Figure 9l 1l Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Caboolture Rv 


0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 


Cab-0 

Cab-1.6 

Cab-4.8 

Cab-7.6 

Cab-9.5 

Cab-11.4 

Cab-13.4 

Cab-15.1 


Cab-17.1 

Cab-18.8 

Cab-19.9 

Cab-41 

War-0 

ECLE 

ME 

UE 


LC 

92

C7: Box plots - Caboolture Region (CSC DATA) 


Figure 10a 5a pH at sites in Caboolture Rv 

9 

8 

pH 

7 

6 

5 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=453) (N=271) (N=472) 

CAB-1 CAB-2 CAB-3 CAB-4 CAB-5 CAB-6 CAB-7 CAB-8 ME LC UC 



Figure 10b 5b Conductivity at sites in Caboolture Rv 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=452) (N=272) (N=478) 




Figure 10c 5c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Caboolture Rv 

120 


100 

80 

60 

40 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=450) (N=269) (N=475) 




93

C7: Box plots - Caboolture Region (CSC DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 10d 5d Turbidity at sites in Caboolture Rv 

300 

250 


200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=440) (N=261) (N=409) 




Figure 10e 5f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Caboolture Rv 

1.2 


1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=481) (N=276) (N=483) 




94



300 

Figure 10f 5d Turbidity at sites in Caboolture Rv 

250 


200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=440) (N=261) (N=409) 




Figure 10g 5f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Caboolture Rv 

1.2 


1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=481) (N=276) (N=483) 




95



Figure 10h 5g Ammonia at sites in Caboolture Rv 

0.4 


0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

(N=5) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=481) (N=276) (N=483) 




Figure 10i 5i Total phosphorus at sites in Caboolture Rv 

1.2 


1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=481) (N=276) (N=482) 




96


Lagoon Creek, 2001 

Figure 11a 3a pH at sites in Lagoon Ck 

9 

8 

pH 

7 

6 

(N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=271) 

LAG-1 LAG-2 LAG-3 LAG-4 LAG-5 LAG-6 LAG-7 LAG-8 LC 



Figure 11b 3b Conductivity at sites in Lagoon Ck 

0.6 


0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=272) 




Figure 11c 3c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Lagoon Ck 

120 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=269) 




97



Figure 11d 3d Turbidity at sites in Lagoon Ck 

300 


200 

100 

0 

(N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=261) 




Figure 11e 3f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Lagoon Ck 

1.0 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=276) 




98



Figure 11f 3g Ammonia at sites in Lagoon Ck 

0.8 


0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=4) (N=276) 




Figure 11g 3i Total phosphorus at sites in Lagoon Ck 

2.0 


1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=276) 




99



Figure 12a 6a pH at sites in Sheepstation Ck 

9 

8 

7 

pH 

6 

5 

4 

3 

(N=7) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=271) 

SHE-1 SHE-2 SHE-3 SHE-4 LC 



Figure 12b 6b Conductivity at sites in Sheepstation Ck 

1.2 

1.0 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=7) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=272) 




Figure 12c 6c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Sheepstation Ck 

120 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=7) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=269) 




100



Figure 12d 

Figure 6d Turbidity at sites in Sheepstation Ck 

50 

40 


30 

20 

10 

0 

(N=7) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=261) 




Figure 12e 

Figure 6f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Sheepstation Ck 

0.25 


0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

(N=7) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=276) 




101


Wararba Creek, 2001 

Figure 13a 4a pH at sites in Wararba Ck 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

6.0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=271) 

WAR-1 WAR-2 WAR-3 WAR-4 WAR-5 WAR-6 LC 



Figure 13b 4b Conductivity at sites in Wararba Ck 

1.2 

1.0 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=272) 




Figure 13c 4c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Wararba Ck 


150 

100 

50 

0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=269) 




102



Figure 13d 4d Turbidity at sites in Wararba Ck 

120 

100 


80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=261) 




Figure 13e 4f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Wararba Ck 

6 

5 


4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=276) 




103



Figure 13f 4g Ammonia at sites in Wararba Ck 

0.10 


0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=276) 




Figure 13g 4i Total phosphorus at sites in Wararba Ck 

1.2 


1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=276) 




104

C8: Box plots – Burpengary Creek (CSC DATA) 

Burpengary Creek, 2001 

Figure 14a 7a pH at sites in Burpengary Ck 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=8) (N=453) (N=271) 

BUR-1 BUR-2 BUR-3 BUR-4 BUR-5 BUR-6 ME LC 



Figure 14b 7b Conductivity at sites in Burpengary Ck 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=8) (N=452) (N=272) 




Figure 14c 7c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Burpengary Ck 

120 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=8) (N=450) (N=269) 




105

C8: Box plots – Burpengary Creek (CSC DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 14d 7d Turbidity at sites in Burpengary Ck 

150 


100 

50 

0 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=8) (N=440) (N=261) 




Figure 14e 7f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Burpengary Ck 

0.3 


0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=8) (N=481) (N=276) 




106

C8: Box plots – Burpengary Creek (CSC DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 14f 7g Ammonia at sites in Burpengary Ck 

0.30 

0.25 


0.20 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

(N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=481) (N=276) 




Figure 14g 7i Total phosphorus at sites in Burpengary Ck 

1.0 


0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

(N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=11) (N=8) (N=481) (N=276) 




107

C9: Box plots – Saltwater Creek (CSC DATA) 

Saltwater Creek, 2001 

Figure 15a 8a pH at sites in Saltwater Ck 

9.0 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 

6.5 

6.0 

(N=12) (N=9) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=8) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=271) 

SAL-1 SAL-2 SAL-3 SAL-4 SAL-5 SAL-6 SAL-7 SAL-8 SAL-9 LC 



Figure 15b 8b Conductivity at sites in Saltwater Ck 

4 


3 

2 

1 

0 

(N=12) (N=9) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=8) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=272) 




Figure 15c 8c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Saltwater Ck 

140 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

(N=12) (N=9) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=8) (N=11) (N=12) (N=12) (N=269) 




108

C9: Box plots – Saltwater Creek (CSC DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 15d 8d Turbidity at sites in Saltwater Ck 

400 

300 


200 

100 

0 

(N=12) (N=8) (N=12) (N=12) (N=11) (N=8) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=261) 




Figure 15e 8f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Saltwater Ck 

1.5 


1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=12) (N=9) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=8) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=276) 




109

C9: Box plots – Saltwater Creek (CSC DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 15f 8g Ammonia at sites in Saltwater Ck 

3.0 

2.5 


2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=5) (N=2) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=5) (N=276) 




Figure 15g 8i Total phosphorus at sites in Saltwater Ck 

2.0 


1.5 

1.0 

0.5 

0.0 

(N=12) (N=9) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=8) (N=12) (N=12) (N=12) (N=276) 




110

C10: Box plots – Pumicestone Passage (EPA DATA) 

Pumicestone Passage, 2001 

Figure 16a 3a pH at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

8.5 

8.0 

pH 

7.5 

7.0 


Pum-a Pum-b Pum-c Pum-d Pum-e Pum-f Pum-g Pum-h Pum-i Pum-j Pum-k Pum-l Pum-m ECLE 



Figure 16b 3b Conductivity at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

60 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 





130 

Figure 16c 3c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

120 


110 

100 

90 

80 

70 





111

C10: Box plots – Pumicestone Passage (EPA DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 16d 3d Turbidity at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

50 

40 


30 

20 

10 

0 





Figure 16e 3e Secchi depth at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

4 


3 

2 

1 

0 





Figure 16f 3f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

0.20 


0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.00 





112



Figure 16g 3g Ammonia at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

0.10 


0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 





1.0 

Figure 16h 3h Total nitrogen at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

0.8 


0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 





Figure 16i 3i Total phosphorus at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

0.06 


0.05 

0.04 

0.03 

0.02 

0.01 

0.00 





113



12 

Figure 16j 3j Chlorophyll-a at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

10 


8 

6 

4 

2 

0 





Figure 16k 3k Organic nitrogen at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

0.6 

Organic nitrogen (mg N/L) 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 





Figure 16l 3l Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Pumicestone Psg 

0.025 


0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 





114

C11: Box plots – Pumicestone Passage (PRCMP DATA) 


Figure Figure 17a7a pH at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

8.5 

pH 

8.0 

7.5 

(N=16) (N=17) (N=17) (N=17) (N=8) (N=7) (N=8) (N=8) (N=14) (N=15) (N=8) (N=15) (N=8) (N=8) (N=16) (N=8) (N=15) (N=673) 

PP-a PP-b PP-c PP-d PP-e PP-f PP-g PP-h PP-i PP-j PP-k PP-l PP-m PP-n PP-o PP-p PP-q ECLE 



Figure Figure 17b 

Conductivity at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

80 


60 

40 

20 

0 





Figure Figure 17c7c 

Dissolved oxygen at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

110 


100 

90 

80 

70 

60 





115

C11: Box plots – Pumicestone Passage (PRCMP DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure Figure 17d7d Turbidity at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

30 


20 

10 

0 





Figure Figure 17e7e Secchi depth at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

4 

3 


2 

1 

0 





Figure Figure 17f7f 

Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

0.010 


0.008 

0.006 

0.004 

0.002 

0.000 





116



Figure Figure 17g7g Ammonia at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

0.020 


0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 





Figure Figure 17h7h Total nitrogen at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

0.3 


0.2 

0.1 

0.0 





Figure Figure 17i7i 

Total phosphorus at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

0.08 


0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 





117



Figure Figure 17j7j 

Filterable reactive phosphorus at sites in Pumicestone Passage 

0.025 


0.020 

0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 





118

C12: Box plots – Deception Bay (EPA DATA) 

Deception Bay, 2001 

Figure 18a 2a pH at sites in Deception Bay 

8.6 

8.4 

pH 

8.2 

8.0 

7.8 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=11) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=673) 

Dec-a Dec-c Dec-d Dec-j Dec-l Dec-m Dec-r Dec-u Dec-v Dec-x Dec-y ECLE 



60 

Figure 18b 2b Conductivity at sites in Deception Bay 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=11) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=671) 




Figure 18c 2c Dissolved oxygen at sites in Deception Bay 

120 


110 

100 

90 

80 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=11) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=663) 




119

C12: Box plots – Deception Bay (EPA DATA) (Cont.) 


Figure 18d 2d Turbidity at sites in Deception Bay 

20 

15 


10 

5 

0 

(N=9) (N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=9) (N=11) (N=9) (N=8) (N=8) (N=9) (N=9) (N=656) 




Figure 18e 2e Secchi depth at sites in Deception Bay 

5 

4 


3 

2 

1 

0 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=11) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=674) 




Figure 18f 2f Nitrate plus nitrite at sites in Deception Bay 

0.03 


0.02 

0.01 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=0) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=437) 




120



Figure 18g 2g Ammonia at sites in Deception Bay 

0.020 


0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=0) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=437) 




Figure 18h 2h Total nitrogen at sites in Deception Bay 

0.5 


0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=0) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=436) 




Figure 18i 2i Total phosphorus at sites in Deception Bay 

0.12 

0.10 


0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=0) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=437) 




121



Figure 18j 2g Ammonia at sites in Deception Bay 

0.020 


0.015 

0.010 

0.005 

0.000 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=0) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=437) 




Figure 18k 2h Total nitrogen at sites in Deception Bay 

0.5 


0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=0) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=436) 




0.12 

Figure 18l 2i Total phosphorus at sites in Deception Bay 

0.10 


0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

(N=10) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=10) (N=0) (N=10) (N=9) (N=9) (N=10) (N=10) (N=437) 




122

Appendix D: Results of Regression Analysis of Long Term Trends 

Although for most sites studies data has been collected only for a few recent years, a regression analysis of 

long-term trends was undertaken. Table 31 summarises sites and indicators for which statistically significant 

linear trends were detected using Regression Analysis. Conductivity was used as a covariate in the analysis 

to approximately normalise the results for rainfall events. The p value indicates the probability of the trend 

not being real. The R 2 value indicates how much of the variation in the data is explained by the linear trend. 

The coefficient of change indicates the amount of annual change, and is represented as a percentage for 

those indicators that were log transformed prior to analysis. 

Table 31. Significant linear trends for each site and indicator combination. The source of the data (PRCMP or EPA) and the years that 

the data span are indicated. Trends of improving water quality are shaded green, trends of deteriorating water quality are shaded red. 

Waterway Site Variable Sample size Source Years p R 2 Annual change 

Bells Creek 

BE-a PH 44 PRCMP 1997-2001 0.023 2.79 0.1001 

BE-a SECCHI 44 PRCMP 1997-2001 0.015 2.15 9.3% 

Cab-1.6 AMMN 85 EPA 1994-2001

Appendix E: Results of Depth Profile Analysis 

Regression analyses were used to determine whether depth stratification of physico-chemical 

indicators was evident at the canal sites on Bribie Island. When data collected on different dates for 

each site was grouped, stratification was not evident, indicating that stratification was obvious on only 

some days. The following graphs show sites, dates indicators for which some stratification was 

evident. 

Figure 20: Depth stratification of pH at BRI-1. DEPTH (m) 

Figure 19. Results of Regression Analysis for pH at site BRI-1 to test for stratification with depth. 

124

Figure 21: Depth stratification of dissolved oxygen at BRI-5 

Figure 22: Depth stratification of dissolved oxygen at BRI-6 

125

Appendix F: Map of Fish Community Assessment 

Figure 23: Overall fish habitat ratings in the Caboolture region (Langdon, 2001) 

126

Appendix G: Map of Riparian Vegetation Assessment 

Figure 24. Riparian vegetation size index (ANA, 1998) 

Figure 25. Riparian vegetation integrity (ANA, 1998) 

127

Appendix H: Map of Land Use Zones 

Figure 26. GIS-based land use mapping (Caboolture Shire Council) 

128

Caboolture Region Water Quality Study - Moreton Bay Regional ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?