Cover image of Pascoe River courtesy of C.Howley....Eastern Cape York waters – draft environmental values and water quality objectives - Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2

Cover image of Pascoe River courtesy of C.Howley.

Report prepared by: Environmental Policy and Planning, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

© State of Queensland, 2017.

The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence.

Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms.

You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication.

For more information on this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy.

If you need to access this document in a language other than English, please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on 131 450 and ask them to telephone Library Services on +61 7 3170 5470.

This publication can be made available in an alternative format (e.g. large print or audiotape) on request for people with vision impairment; phone +61 7 3170 5470 or email <[email protected]>.

Citation

EHP. 2017. Draft environmental values and water quality objectives for eastern Cape York waters: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Government.

Acknowledgements Carol Honchin (GBRMPA), Christina Howley, Andrew Moss (DSITI), Will Higham (CY NRM) March 2017

iii

Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

2 EPP Water ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.1 General ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 EPP Water schedule 1 amendments ............................................................................................................ 1

3 Policy context......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (AWQG) .................................. 2

Reef 2050 long term sustainability plan ............................................................................................................ 2

3.1 Australian water quality guidelines (AWQG)................................................................................................. 2

3.1.1 Localising guidelines to local conditions ................................................................................................... 2

3.1.2 Level of protection/management intent..................................................................................................... 2

3.2 Reef 2050 long term sustainability plan ........................................................................................................ 3

4 Proposed amendments and information sources .................................................................................................. 5

4.1 Environmental values.................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1.1 Level of protection/management intent..................................................................................................... 5

4.2 Water quality objectives ................................................................................................................................ 7

4.2.1 Aquatic ecosystem environmental value .................................................................................................. 7

4.2.2 Human use environmental values ............................................................................................................ 7

4.3 Mapping: management intent, water types ................................................................................................... 7

5 Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives .......................................................................................................... 8

5.1 Water quality objectives ................................................................................................................................ 8

5.2 Monitoring condition relative to aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives ................................................ 9

5.3 Links to planning ........................................................................................................................................... 9

6 Human use water quality objectives ...................................................................................................................... 9

7 References .......................................................................................................................................................... 10

8 Planning and management links ......................................................................................................................... 52

8.1 Riparian vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 52

8.2 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................... 52

8.3 Marine plants (including mangroves) .......................................................................................................... 52

8.4 State Planning Policy (state interest – water quality) ................................................................................. 53

Tables Table 1 Cape York fresh waters (excluding Normanby): Aquatic ecosystem physico-chemical water quality objectives including nutrient, algal and water clarity (baseflow except where noted). Basins listed from north to south. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 2 Cape York fresh waters (excluding Normanby): Aquatic ecosystem physico-chemical water quality objectives – other ions (baseflow). Basins listed from north to south. ........................................................................ 20

Table 3 Normanby Basin fresh waters: Aquatic ecosystem baseflow physico-chemical water quality objectives including nutrient, algal and water clarity .................................................................................................................... 23

Table 4 Normanby Basin fresh waters: Aquatic ecosystem physico-chemical water quality objectives – other ions (baseflow) ................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Table 5 Normanby Basin fresh waters: Aquatic ecosystem event flow physico-chemical water quality objectives

iv

including nutrient, algal and water clarity .................................................................................................................... 31

Table 6 Cape York fresh waters (including Normanby): Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives for conductivity, by flow. Basins listed from north to south ................................................................................................................... 34

Table 7 Dune lakes. Indicative water quality ranges (limited data) .......................................................................... 37

Table 8 Cape York estuarine, coastal and marine waters: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives including nutrient, algal and water clarity (listed by Endeavour, Normanby. other basins, open coastal/marine waters) ......... 38

Table 9 Water quality objectives to protect human use environmental values ......................................................... 55

Table 10 Drinking water EV: Priority water quality guidelines for drinking water supply in the vicinity of off-takes, including groundwater, before treatment .................................................................................................................... 57

Table 11 Aquaculture EV: Water quality guidelines for tropical aquaculture ............................................................ 58

Table 12 Aquaculture EV: Water quality guidelines for optimal growth of particular species in fresh water ............. 59

Table 13 Aquaculture EV: Water quality guidelines for optimal growth of particular marine species ....................... 60

Table 14 Irrigation EV: Water quality guidelines for thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms in irrigation waters used for food and non-food crops1............................................................................................................................................ 61

Table 15 Irrigation EV: Water quality guidelines for heavy metals and metalloids in agricultural irrigation water— soil cumulative contamination loading limit (CCL), long-term trigger value (LTV) and short-term trigger value (STV)1

.................................................................................................................................................................................... 62

Table 16 Stock watering EV: Water quality guidelines for tolerances of livestock to salinity, as total dissolved solids, in drinking water1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 63

Table 17 Stock watering EV: Stock watering EV: Water quality guidelines (low risk trigger values) for heavy metals and metalloids in livestock drinking water .................................................................................................................. 64

Table 18 Recreational waters: Alert levels and corresponding actions for management of cyanobacteria ............... 65

Figures Figure 1 Jacky Jacky Basin ........................................................................................................................................ 68

Figure 2 Olive-Pascoe River Basin ............................................................................................................................. 69

Figure 3 Lockhart River Basin .................................................................................................................................... 70

Figure 4 Stewart River Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 71

Figure 5 Normanby River Basin .................................................................................................................................. 72

Figure 6 Normanby River Basin sub-catchment areas ............................................................................................... 73

Figure 7 Jeannie River Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 8 Endeavour River Basin ................................................................................................................................. 75

Figure 9 Eastern Cape York coastal waters ............................................................................................................... 76

Eastern Cape York waters – draft environmental values and water quality objectives - Environmental Protection (Water) Policy

1

1 Introduction This paper outlines draft environmental values and water quality objectives for eastern Cape York fresh, estuarine and coastal surface waters, pursuant to the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (the EPP Water). The work is derived from work carried out for the Eastern Cape York water quality improvement plan and other sources. The main components are:

environmental values (shown on mapping)

water quality objectives for baseflow and, where data available, flood event (tables in this paper, based on technically derived water quality guidelines, water quality improvement plan reporting, and national guideline sources)

maps showing locations of environmental values, water types and levels of protection/management intent.

All materials are draft and open for public comment. For details on making a submission, refer to the EHP website. Currently there are no Cape York waters included in schedule 1 of the EPP Water. Following stakeholder review, and any further amendment, materials will be submitted for Government consideration and, subject to Government approval, be included in schedule 1 of the EPP Water.

Further work is being undertaken to develop basin-specific load targets for Great Barrier Reef catchments, including Cape York. When available, results of this work will be reviewed and addressed in the finalisation of EPP Water materials, including water quality objectives.

The area covered by the amendments includes Queensland waters: fresh, estuarine, coastal and marine surface waters in or adjoining the following eastern Cape York basins (refer to accompanying figures):

Endeavour Jacky Jacky Jeannie Olive-Pascoe Normanby Olive-Pascoe Stewart River Basin Coastal/marine waters

2 EPP Water

2.1 General

The quality of Queensland waters is protected under the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 – the EPP Water. The EPP Water achieves the object of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act), to protect Queensland's waters while supporting ecologically sustainable development. Queensland waters include water in rivers, creeks, wetlands, lakes, estuaries, coastal areas and ground waters.

The EPP Water provides the framework for developing environmental values (EVs), management goals and water quality objectives (WQOs) for Queensland waters.

Environmental values (EVs) and water quality objectives (WQOs) are being progressively determined for areas of Queensland. Environmental values define the qualities of water that make water suitable for supporting aquatic ecosystems and human uses (such as irrigation, aquaculture, recreation, drinking water).

Water quality objectives are long-term goals for water quality management that protect environmental values. They may include objectives for the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water (such as nitrogen content, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, macroinvertebrates). For further information on environmental values and water quality objectives under the EPP Water refer to the ‘frequently asked questions’ document (PDF, 408K)* at the EPP Water section of the EHP website [link to http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/pdf/factsheet-evs-wqos-faq.pdf).

2.2 EPP Water schedule 1 amendments

Currently there are no Cape York waters included in schedule 1 of the EPP Water. This document forms a basis for future amendments to include eastern Cape York waters in schedule 1 of the EPP Water. It is draft and open for review. Following stakeholder review and further revision, final amendments will be submitted for Government consideration and, subject to Government approval, be included in schedule 1 of the EPP Water.


2

Documents and mapping for regions scheduled under the EPP Water can be accessed from the EPP Water section of the EHP website (http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/index.html ). GIS mapping layers for scheduled EPP Water areas are available from the QSpatial website [http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/index.page ].

The information in this report includes results of water quality work conducted for the Eastern Cape York water quality improvement plan [available at http://waterquality.capeyorknrm.com.au/water-quality/eastern-cape ]. The WQIP was prepared by Cape York Regional NRM Ltd, in collaboration with stakeholders, and includes draft environmental values, mapping, and water quality guidelines/objectives for fresh, estuarine and coastal waters. with some updates/modifications following further review. Section 24 of the EPP Water provides further information on Healthy Waters Management Plans (HWMPs) as a key planning mechanism to improve the quality of Queensland waters. The content of the WQIP effectively covers the same considerations as a HWMP.

3 Policy context Two main drivers for developing local water quality objectives are outlined below:

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (AWQG)

Reef 2050 long term sustainability plan

3.1 Australian water quality guidelines (AWQG)

3.1.1 Localising guidelines to local conditions

The process of localising water quality guidelines is enshrined in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (AWQG, 2000) prepared by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ).

While the AWQG provide default aquatic ecosystem water quality guideline values for a range of broad water types and indicators, they strongly emphasise the need to develop locally relevant guidelines (which form the basis for objectives):

“It is not possible to develop a universal set of specific guidelines that apply equally to the very wide range of ecosystem types or production systems, in varying degrees of health, in Australia and New Zealand. Environmental factors can reduce or increase the effects of physical and chemical parameters at a site and these factors can vary considerably across the two countries. A framework is provided that allows the user to move beyond single-number, necessarily conservative values, to guidelines that can be refined according to local environmental conditions — that is, to developing site-specific guidelines. This is a key message of the Water Quality Guidelines….”

“This can produce values more appropriate to a particular water resource. Although tailoring guidelines to local conditions requires more work in some cases, it results in much more realistic management goals. It therefore has the potential to reduce costs for industry.” (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000, Introduction to the guidelines, 8 – 9).

The Queensland water quality guidelines (QWQG) builds on the AWQG by providing a suite of water quality guidelines that vary across different Queensland regions and water types. However, it does not include any local information for the Cape York region. The proposed amendments outlined in this paper are therefore the next step in developing more localised water quality objectives for eastern Cape York.

3.1.2 Level of protection/management intent

The AWQG, QWQG and EPP Water outline the management framework applying to different aquatic ecosystems. The framework provides threshold levels of change that are acceptable for each of the different aquatic ecosystem conditions. In summary this involves maintaining the quality of waters in good condition and seeking to sustainably manage water quality in modified waters.

High conservation/ecological value systems (HEV) are defined as:

“effectively unmodified or other highly valued systems, typically (but not always) occurring in national parks, conservation reserves or in remote and/or inaccessible locations... The ecological integrity of high


3

conservation/ecological value systems is regarded as intact.” (ANZECC 2000; 3.1-10)

According to the AWQG:

“…these (HEV) waters are afforded a high degree of protection by ensuring that there is no reduction in the existing water quality, irrespective of the water quality guidelines.”

“Where there are few biological assessment data available for the system, the management objective should be to ensure no change in the concentrations of the physical and chemical water quality variables beyond natural variation” (ANZECC 2000;3.1-11)

The ANZECC Guidelines do not specify how “no change” should be assessed but a statistical method is presented in the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (2009), available from the EHP website. This proposes that “no change” should be assessed as no change to the 20/50/80th percentiles of existing water quality. The WQIP has identified many of the eastern Cape York waters, particularly those in the northern region, as being in good condition. Hence the intent is to maintain their current water quality, using a percentile range approach (e.g. 20/50/80th).

For modified systems, the concept of ‘continual improvement’ is relevant, where management of waters should aim towards better water quality and ecological health:

“An overriding principle that should guide management should be continual improvement. This is more obvious where water or sediment quality does not match the water quality objectives. In badly polluted waters it might even be necessary to set intermediate levels of water quality to be achieved in well-defined stages, each subsequent target closer to the required water quality objective, until it is finally met.” (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000, Section 2.2.1.7, p2-16).

For slightly disturbed systems (‘waters that have the biological integrity of high ecological value waters with slightly modified physical or chemical indicators but effectively unmodified biological indicators’: EPPW), the management intent is to improve their physico-chemical water quality back towards HEV levels. For moderately disturbed systems disturbed waters (‘waters in which the biological integrity of the water is adversely affected by human activity to a relatively small but measurable degree’ EPPW), the intent is to achieve specified water quality objectives. For highly disturbed waters (‘significantly degraded by human activity and have lower ecological value than high ecological value waters or slightly or moderately disturbed waters’: EPPW), the framework recognises that progressive improvement will be required. The WQIP identified areas where improvements in water quality are recommended to support aquatic ecosystem condition under either baseflow or flood event flows. These were primarily in southern basins and are referred to in the tables.

3.2 Reef 2050 long term sustainability plan

The Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, prepared by Australian and Queensland governments, is the overarching framework for protecting and managing the Great Barrier Reef from 2015 to 2050. The Plan is a key component of the Australian Government’s response to the recommendations of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee. At the core of the Plan is an outcomes framework that will drive progress towards an overarching vision:

‘To ensure the Great Barrier Reef continues to improve on its Outstanding Universal Value every decade between now and 2050 to be a natural wonder for each successive generation to come.’

The Reef 2050 Plan and supporting information is available from http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/long-term-sustainability-plan .

The Reef 2050 long term sustainability plan outlines actions required to improve understanding and management of reef catchment water quality, including localising water quality guidelines and objectives. Among the range of recommendations, the following are relevant to the review/update process:

Localising water quality guidelines

Water quality action (WQA) 7: Finalise and implement plans (e.g. Water Quality Improvement Plans and Healthy Waters Management Plans) for Reef catchments and key coastal areas, identifying implementation priorities for protection of the Reef.


4

WQA9: Review and update water quality objectives and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Water Quality Guidelines at Reef-wide and regionally relevant scales based on scientifically verified monitoring and research.

These commitments build upon the ANZECC framework for localising guidelines as outlined above. The eastern Cape York water quality improvement plan (prepared by Cape York NRM and South Cape York Catchments Ltd) and supporting technical studies are directly relevant to these actions. Note: In response to recommendations of the Great Barrier Reef Water Science taskforce in May 2016 (http://www.gbr.qld.gov.au/taskforce/ ), further work is being undertaken to develop basin-specific load targets for the 35 basins of the Great Barrier Reef catchment. Results of this work will be reviewed and addressed in the finalisation of EPP Water materials, including water quality objectives.

Water quality condition

Water quality target (WQT) 4: Water quality in the Great Barrier Reef has a stable or positive trend.

Water quality objective (WQO) 1: Over successive decades the quality of water entering the Reef from broadscale land use has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.

WQO2: Over successive decades the quality of water in or entering the Reef from all sources including industrial, aquaculture, port (including dredging), urban waste and stormwater sources has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.

2050 outcome: Reef water quality sustains the Outstanding Universal Value, builds resilience and improves ecosystem health over each successive decade.

These commitments identify the overall intent for water quality entering and within the reef.

Community and economic benefit

Community benefit objective (CBO) 3: Community benefits provided by the Reef, including its superlative natural beauty and the sense of place, are maintained for current and future generations.

Economic benefit objective (EBO) 4: Reef-dependent industries are productive and profitable based on a healthy Reef and are ecologically sustainable.

These recognise how a healthy reef supports reef-dependent economic and community activities such as tourism and recreation.

The current work to identify water quality objectives to support aquatic and human use values can be seen as complementary to these Reef 2050 Plan actions.


5

4 Proposed amendments and information sources

4.1 Environmental values

Environmental values are the qualities of water that support

Human water uses and values (including irrigation, recreation, stock watering, Traditional Owners) Aquatic ecosystem protection

Waterway uses and values were identified from consultations and research for the Eastern Cape York WQIP. The WQIP states that:

‘During the Eastern Cape York Water Quality Improvement Plan development process, many meetings were held with community members, grazing and agriculture land managers, Traditional Owners and ranger groups to ask what people are using water for. The information gathered was analysed to determine human use and aquatic ecosystem Environmental Values in the catchments and waterways of eastern Cape York’ (Draft WQIP; p22)

Refer to the WQIP for further details on consultations and project work undertaken: http://waterquality.capeyorknrm.com.au/water-quality/eastern-cape.

Draft environmental values (EVs) and management intent for eastern Cape York waters were included as figures 4-11 of the eastern Cape York WQIP, and have been reviewed/updated in this document. Proposed environmental values are shown in the accompanying map plans. They are draft and subject to review.

4.1.1 Level of protection/management intent

The AWQG, QWQG and EPP Water outline the management framework applying to different aquatic ecosystems. The framework provides threshold levels of change that are acceptable for each of the different aquatic ecosystem conditions. The main categories are listed below and further detail on these is provided in section 3.

High ecological value (HEV) – maintain natural condition Slightly disturbed (SD) – maintain/improve to natural condition Moderately disturbed (MD) – maintain/achieve the relevant water quality guidelines Highly disturbed (HD) – improve progressively over time

To initially identify waterway values, the following areas were mapped, based on existing mapping datasets (varying according to local information):

National parks (HEV) Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (zones A, B) High ecological significance wetlands/wetland protection areas (HEV or SD) Ramsar (HEV or SD) CYPAL (SD) Fish habitat areas (A) (SD) Dugong protection areas (A) (SD) Regional plan strategic environmental areas (SD) Conservation parks (SD) State forests (SD) Nature refuges (SD)

In coastal and marine waters all waters seaward of the GBRMPA plume line received HEV management intent. Landward of the plume line, recognised conservation areas were generally given SD management intent. These are draft and may change following feedback or further information.

Additional to the above, the WQIP identified that many of the region’s waterways were in natural or near natural condition. Details are provided in the WQIP. As much of the study area retains good water quality, the management intent is to maintain current water quality. The following extracts are provided for information:

Catchments

‘From a freshwater aquatic ecosystem standpoint, Massey Creek (between the Stewart River and Nesbit River) is the beginning of the undisturbed High Ecological Value (HEV) ecosystem zone that extends almost uninterrupted from the northern bank of Massey Creek to the tip of Cape York.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP; p 16)


6

‘Eastern Cape York is a large region with a diversity of landforms, river types, and land use intensity. While extensive freshwater and/or estuary water quality datasets exist from some eastern Cape York rivers, such as the Annan, Endeavour and Normanby Rivers, there is a paucity of data from many other river systems, particularly those in the Northern section of the region. However, it is generally accepted that water quality in the Northern section is relatively good and is considered High Ecological Value (HEV) status.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP, p32)

‘Many of the Eastern Cape York freshwaters are considered to be high ecological value (HEV). For these waters, the guidelines state that there should be no detectable change in water quality.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP; p 35)

‘For the less disturbed (HEV) catchments such as the Pascoe, the target is to maintain current water quality through management that ensures there is no increase in pollutant loads.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP; p39)

Marine waters

‘The eastern Cape York marine environment (northern GBR) is considered to be in good condition compared to other parts of the GBR or other global coral reef ecosystems (Fabricius et al., 2005, Halpern et al., 2008). In addition to healthy coral reefs this region has high-value seagrass meadows, high fisheries values and harbors significant populations of rare or threatened marine turtles, dugongs and dolphins. This is attributed to a combination of factors, including good water quality resulting from lower levels of development within the eastern Cape York catchments, and less pressure from recreational and commercial fishers, tourism and other boats.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP; 18)

‘Several studies over the past 20 years have shown that ambient marine water quality in eastern Cape York is in good condition, and is generally in better condition than other GBR regions.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP; p39)

‘An assessment of all the available marine water quality data for the Northern, Central and Southern sections of eastern Cape York indicated that ambient water quality remains in relatively good condition for the open coastal, mid-shelf and offshore zones, however, there were some exceedances of the GBR marine water quality guidelines.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP p 39)

‘Coral reefs in the Northern section are considered to be in very good condition while the reefs in the Central and Southern Sections are considered to be good. While the condition of most reefs in the Southern section is good, a decline in condition has been observed at some fringing and in-shore reefs in the Southern section over the past 20 years (Howley et al., 2007).’

The generally high coral cover and very good condition of reefs in the Northern section of eastern Cape York mirrors similarly high levels on the contiguous reefs of the Torres Strait section of the GBR…’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP p 41)

Modified systems

For modified waters the WQIP identified improvements in water quality. These were mainly in Normanby and Endeavour systems, and adjacent estuarine/coastal waters.

In summary the WQIP noted that:

‘For rivers that are slightly or moderately disturbed such as the upper Normanby river tributaries, targets have been set for reductions in suspended sediment concentrations and particulate nutrients. The targets are for a 10th percentile reduction in suspended sediments and particulate nutrients during the wet season and a 25% reduction of flood event concentrations. At the lower Normanby (end-of-catchment) targets are set for a short term (7 year) 10% reduction in event sediment and particulate nutrient concentrations. The end-of-catchment targets are lower due to the large fraction of sediment that settles out within the catchment. Targets have also been set to reduce nutrient concentrations in the Laura River across all seasons.’ (CY NRM, Draft WQIP p 35)

The tables in this paper specify where WQOs are set for maintenance or improvement.


7

4.2 Water quality objectives

4.2.1 Aquatic ecosystem environmental value

For the aquatic ecosystem environmental value, the following sources are a significant input to the development of draft surface water quality objectives, as updated following further consultation with authors and review of datasets (links provided where available):

Cape York Natural Resource Management and South Cape York Catchments, 2016. Eastern Cape York Water Quality Improvement Plan: Draft for Community Consultation. Cape York Natural Resource Management, Cooktown, Queensland, Australia: http://waterquality.capeyorknrm.com.au/water-quality/eastern-cape

GBRMPA (nd) Coastal and Marine Water Quality Guidelines: Cape York. Technical Background document to HWMP. WQIP Appendix 5, available from WQIP website above.

Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 Water quality guidelines for fresh and estuarine waters of Eastern Cape York. A technical report for the Cape York Water Quality Improvement Plan, April. Prepared for South Cape York Catchments and Cape York NRM. Update to original 2016 version, available from WQIP website above (WQIP Appendix 9).

In particular, details of water quality datasets, analyses and decision rules are provided in WQIP appendices 5 (marine) and 9 (fresh/estuarine) above. Following consultation with report authors, updates have been made to address gaps, clarify matters, or in response to further review of datasets. For some locations a staged suite of shorter and longer term objectives are provided (based on WQIP and technical reporting). The coastal/marine waters table also make reference to seagrass light studies based on recent studies (e.g. Collier et al). Additional reference sources are listed after relevant tables.

Information on macroinvertebrates and other biological indicators is being reviewed. Further work is required before these can be considered for inclusion in EPP Water documentation. Draft ground water objectives are currently under development and will be reported separately. In response to recommendations of the Great Barrier Reef Water Science taskforce in May 2016 (http://www.gbr.qld.gov.au/taskforce/ ), further work is being undertaken to develop basin-specific load targets for the 35 basins of the Great Barrier Reef catchment. When available, results of this work will be reviewed and addressed in the finalisation of EPP Water materials, including water quality objectives.

4.2.2 Human use environmental values

For human use environmental values, relevant national guideline sources (e.g. National Health and Medical Research Council – NHMRC, ANZECC) are the main basis for water quality objectives. The Eastern Cape York WQIP included a summary of main human use guideline sources. These may be complemented by other advice from recognised authorities (such as water supply managers).

4.3 Mapping: management intent, water types

Draft mapping was included in the Eastern Cape York WQIP. Maps have been reviewed and updated for draft EPP Water release. They are attached to this document are and available from the EHP website. All maps are draft for comment, and include the following updates:

update to management intent mapping to reflect new protected estate and other conservation designations (such as national park, conservation park, fish habitat area or nature refuge). Depending on the area these typically are identified in the categories of high ecological value (HEV) or slightly disturbed (SD) waterway category (intent to maintain/achieve natural condition)

updated marine water type and plume line mapping (reef waters). These form part of a mapping update across the entire Great Barrier Reef. GBRMPA water types include open coastal, midshelf and offshore waters.

Note that the WQIP identified that many of the region’s waterways were in natural or near natural condition. Details are provided in the WQIP. As much of the study area retains good water quality, the management intent is to maintain current water quality.

Pending approval, EPP Water GIS datasets from this amendment process will be made available on the QSpatial website.


8

5 Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives

5.1 Water quality objectives

Tables 1–8 summarise the proposed aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives for eastern Cape York waters. These are provided for different water quality indicators by basin, water type (freshwater, estuary, coastal, marine), flow type (baseflow1, flood event) and within each water type by management intent (e.g. maintain water quality, improve water quality). Water quality under nil flow conditions was not assessed and can vary markedly. Accordingly, only toxicant guidelines should be applied under nil flow conditions (Moss, Howley, 2017).

Where WQOs vary locally (e.g. by basin or catchment) separate rows are provided for different areas (specified in left column of tables).

Details of water quality datasets reviewed as part of this update are provided in technical reports supporting the eastern Cape York WQIP, in particular, WQIP appendices 5 (marine) and 9 (Moss, Howley, 2017, fresh/estuarine). In some locations there was insufficient data to derive objectives for particular indicators, or limited data, as shown in the tables.

Details of aquatic ecosystem tables are as follows:

Table Basin/catchment Water type/s Flows/seasons WQ indicators (indicative - varies by area)

FRESH WATERS

Table 1

All except Normanby

Jacky Jacky, Olive-Pascoe, Lockhart, Stewart, Jeannie, Endeavour

Catchment split where applicable

fresh Baseflow nutrients, algal, water clarity, pH, DO, etc.

Pascoe, Annan, Wallaby fresh Baseflow and event flow nutrients, algal, water clarity, pH, DO, etc.

Table 2 All except Normanby fresh Baseflow ionic (alkalinity, hardness, Ca, Mg, etc.)

Table 3 Normanby

Catchment split where applicable fresh

Baseflow: with dry and wet season base flow split where available

nutrients, algal, water clarity, pH, DO, etc.

Table 4 Normanby

Catchment split where applicable fresh Baseflow ionic (alkalinity, hardness, Ca, Mg etc.)

Table 5 Normanby

Catchment split where applicable fresh Event flow nutrients, water clarity, pH, DO, etc.

Table 6 All fresh Baseflow and event flow Electrical conductivity

Table 7 Where relevant Dune lakes - Available indicators – limited data

ESTUARINE , COASTAL AND MARINE WATERS

Table 8

Endeavour, Normanby Mid estuary, enclosed coastal

Baseflow nutrients, algal, water clarity, pH, DO

Annan, Normanby Mid estuary, enclosed coastal

Event flow nutrients, water clarity

All basins Open coastal, midshelf, offshore waters

Coastal/marine waters: dry/wet season/annual

nutrients, algal, water clarity, pH, DO, silicate

1 Baseflow is commonly defined as that portion of the flow that is less than the 10th %ile value of the flow duration curve for a stream. However, a more general definition is that baseflow excludes flows during and immediately following heavy rainfall, when overland flow is still having a major impact on water quality. During baseflow, stream flow is principally fed by springs, groundwater or sub-surface seepage.


9

5.2 Monitoring condition relative to aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives

The following protocols are recommended for monitoring condition (at a ‘test’ site) relative to the aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives. More details are provided in the QWQG (section 5, Appendix D) and the AWQG (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000). In general (e.g. for nutrients) the intent is for test site water quality to be less than or equal to the stated WQOs:

HEV waters (and SD waters): The management intent is no change from natural condition (HEV waters) and to achieve HEV condition (SD waters). Where a range of three values is provided for waters identified for HEV level of protection (e.g. Total N:65-100-125), the 75 percent confidence intervals around sampled 20th-50th-80th percentile distributions of the test data should meet the specified range of values. The sample number is a minimum of 24 test values over the relevant period (12 months if a continuous activity or alternatively a shorter period for activities where discharge occurs for only part of the year). For DO and pH, a range of two values typically applies, and the test sample values should fall within the specified range. Also see comments for coastal/marine waters below.

For the comparison of test site monitoring data against single value objectives with an MD level of protection, the median water quality value (e.g. concentration) of a number (preferably five or more) of independent samples at a particular monitoring ('test') site should be compared against the applicable water quality guideline/objective.

Where a range of three values is provided for waters with an MD level of protection (e.g. Total N: 165-200-225) the median water quality value of test samples is compared with the middle value of the stated range. The 20th and 80th percentiles are compared with the outside values of the range provided, which are the desired 20th – median – 80th percentile range of test values.

Where a range of two values is provided for water with an MD level of protection, as for parameters DO and pH, the median water quality values of test samples should fall within this range.

Coastal/marine waters: Some parameters in marine waters have single values specified as an annual (or seasonal) mean, rather than median. The mean water quality value of a number of independent samples at a particular monitoring ('test') site should be compared against the applicable water quality objective. The sample number is preferably five or more samples for within season comparison, and five or more [preferably 24 or more over two years] samples taken during wet and dry seasons for annual mean comparisons. While seasonal means are estimated based on biotic responses the relationship is not as strong as it is for annual mean values. They are provided here as indicative objectives to allow comparison with single season collected data sets. Wet and dry seasons can start and end at different times of the year. Seasonal dates indicated are generally applicable. Applying these values for any management action should take both of these matters into account.

For assessing monitoring data against toxicant guidelines/objectives (in waters and sediments), the QWQG refers to the AWQG protocols (e.g. AWQG vol. 1 sections 3.5.5, 7.4.4.2 and 7.4.4.4). For toxicants in water, the AWQG recommends the comparison of the 95th percentile of monitoring data against the default toxicant trigger values.

5.3 Links to planning

Text after the tables includes links to planning and other legislation, including the State Planning Policy, marine plants (e.g. mangroves), wetlands, and vegetation.

6 Human use water quality objectives Human use water quality objectives are provided in tables 9 onwards. These are, unless otherwise specified, based on relevant national water quality guidelines including AWQG and those released by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), including the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and the Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water. Reference to those national guidelines or codes is necessary to obtain comprehensive listings of all indicators and corresponding values.


10

7 References (Additional references are provided after tables.)

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council; Agriculture and Resources Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (AWQG)

Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Australian Government: Food Standards Australia New Zealand)

Cape York Natural Resource Management and South Cape York Catchments, 2016. Eastern Cape York Water Quality Improvement Plan: Draft for Community Consultation. Cape York Natural Resource Management, Cooktown, Queensland, Australia. Available at http://waterquality.capeyorknrm.com.au/water-quality/eastern-cape

Collier, C.J., Chartrand, K., Honchin, C., Fletcher, A. Rasheed, M. 2016. Light thresholds for seagrasses of the GBR: a synthesis and guiding document. Including knowledge gaps and future priorities. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns (41pp.)

Commonwealth of Australia (2015) Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2009) Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, Version 3, ISBN 978-0-9806986-0-2. Re-published July 2013

Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (Queensland)

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2010). Water quality guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Available from www.gbrmpa.gov.au

GBRMPA (nd) Coastal and Marine Water Quality Guidelines: Cape York. Technical Background document to HWMP. WQIP Appendix 5, available from WQIP website above

McKenzie, L.J., Collier, C.J, Langlois, L.A, Yoshida, R.L, Smith, N. and Waycott, M. (2016) Marine Monitoring Program. Annual Report for inshore seagrass monitoring: 2014 to 2015. Report for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. TropWATER, James Cook University, Cairns. 236pp.

Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 Water quality guidelines for fresh and estuarine waters of Eastern Cape York. A technical report for the Cape York Water Quality Improvement Plan, April. Prepared for South Cape York Catchments and Cape York NRM. WQIP. Update to original 2016 version, available from WQIP website above (WQIP Appendix 9)

Negus, P, Blessing, J & Clifford, S 2016, Cape York riverine ecosystems: threats and condition, Q–catchments Program, Draft report. Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane

Negus, P, Steward, A, Blessing, J & Clifford, S 2015, Threats to Cape York rivers: Q–catchments risk assessment and threat prioritisation, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane

NHMRC (2011, as updated 2013) Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

NHMRC (2008) Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water


11

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Table 1: Fresh waters (excluding Normanby) – baseflow: physico-chemical indicators

Table 2: Freshwaters (excluding Normanby) – baseflow: ionic indicators

Table 3: Normanby fresh waters – baseflow: physico-chemical indicators

Table 4: Normanby freshwaters – baseflow: ionic indicators

Table 5: Normanby freshwaters – event flow: physico-chemical indicators

Table 6: All waters – electrical conductivity: by flow

Table 7: Dune lakes – indicative water quality ranges (limited data)

Table 8: Estuarine, coastal and marine waters: Endeavour, Normanby, other basins, coastal waters


12

Table 1 Cape York fresh waters (excluding Normanby): Aquatic ecosystem physico-chemical water quality objectives including nutrient, algal and water clarity (baseflow except where noted). Basins listed from north to south.

Water area/type (Source: s1–s4)

Management intent /Level of

protection

TABLE 1 ‐ CAPE YORK FRESH WATERS (EXCLUDING NORMANBY) ‐ LISTED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

Aquatic Ecosystem water quality objectives (baseflow except where noted) Note: WQOs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources

Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH

Conductivity (µS/cm)

Sulfate (mg/L)

Note: Information on lakes, wetlands, toxicants, temperature, State Planning Policy (water quality state interest) provided at end of table. Information on additional ionic indicators provided in separate table.

JACKY JACKY BASIN: baseflow (Single figure = 50th percentile)

Jacky Jacky Basin waters

(all catchments) (s1)

All – maintain current condition

6 (s1)

2 (s1)

200 (s1)

2 (s1)

20 (s1)

id 87 (s1)

2.0–2.9–3.6(s1)

32 (s1)

4.0 (s1)

5.8–6.4 (s1)

See Table 6 <0.8 (s1)


13



protection



Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH


Sulfate (mg/L)

OLIVE‐PASCOE BASIN: baseflow, event (Single figure = 50th percentile)

Olive catchment waters (s1)

All ‐ maintain current condition

6 (s1)

2 (s1)

200 (s1)

2 (s1)

20 (s1)

id 56–89 (s1)

3.0–4.4–7.0(s1)

31 (s1)

5.0 (s1)

6.1–6.5 (s1)

See Table 6 <0.5 (s1)

Pascoe catchment waters (s1)


BASEFLOW <13m3/s (cumecs) at gauge 102102A – Pascoe River at Garraway gauge

6 (s1)

2 (s1)

95 (s1)

2 (s1)

10 (s1)

id 83–100 (s1)

1.0–2.0–3.0(s1)

7–11–21 (s1)

2.0–5.0–10.0 (s1)

6.8–7.2 (s1)

See Table 6 1.0–1.4–2.0

(s1)

EVENT FLOW >13m3/s (cumecs) at gauge 102102A ‐ Pascoe River at Garraway gauge (note: thresholds for event conditions can vary. Event flows can include any flows during/immediately following heavy rainfall when overland flow has a major impact on water quality)

6–7–9 (s1)

28–39–54(s1)

Partic N1: 12–185–248

(s1)

310–395–530(s1)

1–1–1(s1)

Partic P1: <20–<20–30

(s1)

20–20–40 (s1)

‐ ‐ ‐ 28–43–65

(s1) ‐ ‐ ‐


14



protection



Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH


Sulfate (mg/L)

LOCKHART BASIN: baseflow (Single figure = 50th percentile)

Claudie catchment waters (s1)


40 (s1)

50 (s1)

220 (s1)

20 (s1)

40 (s1)

id id

3.0(s1)

17.5 (s1)

3.5 (s1)

7.4 (s1)

See Table 6 ‐

Lockhart catchment waters (s1)


6 (s1)

2 (s1)

200 (s1)

2 (s1)

20 (s1)

id 90 (s1)

3.0(s1)

13.0 (s1)

5.0 (s1)

7.1 (s1)

See Table 6 1.3 (s1)

STEWART BASIN: baseflow (Single figure = 50th percentile)

Stewart catchment waters (s1)


6 (s1)

2 (s1)

200 (s1)

2 (s1)

20 (s1)

id 71–117 (s1)

2.0–3.0–5.0(s1)

5.0–7.0–14.0 (s1)

3.0–6.0–10.0 (s1)

6.9–7.9 (s1)

See Table 6 ‐

Massie catchment waters (s1)


2 (s1)

2 (s1)

100 (s1)

20 (s1)

40 (s1)

id id id id id id id


15



protection



Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH


Sulfate (mg/L)

JEANNIE BASIN: baseflow (Single figure = 50th percentile)

McIvor catchment waters (s1)


6–14–50 (s1)

3–15–29 (s1)

340 (s1)

2–5–24 (s1)

25–41–74 (s1)

id 72 (s1)

2.0–5.0–6.0(s1)

5.0–10.0–11.0(s1)

5.0–10.0–11.0(s1)

7.4–7.8 (s1)

See Table 6 1.0–2.0–3.6

(s1)

Jeannie catchment waters (s1)


4 (s1)

4 (s1)

220 (s1)

3 (s1)

20 (s1)

id 72 (s1)

5.3–11.4–24.0(s1)

60 (s1)

5.0–10.0–11.0(s1)

7.0–7.3 (s1)


Starke catchment waters (s1)


6 (s1)

2 (s1)

200 (s1)

2 (s1)

20 (s1)

id id

2.0–3.4–5.9(s1)

5.0–10.0–10.0(s1)

5.0–7.0–10.0 (s1)

7.0–7.6 (s1)

See Table 6 1.0–2.4–8.0

(s1)


16



protection



Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH


Sulfate (mg/L)

ENDEAVOUR BASIN: baseflow, event (Annan)

Endeavour catchment waters

(s1)


2–4–8 (s1)

2–3–5 (s1)

124–210–306(s1)

2–3–4 (s1)

10–16–21 (s1)

id 61–96

3.0–4.8–7.3(s1)

5.0–15.0–36.8(s1)

5.0–8.5–10.0 (s1)

6.7–7.4 (s1)

96–111–134 (s1)

0.6–2.0–3.0 (s1)

Annan catchment waters (s1)


BASEFLOW <34m3/s (cumecs) at Beesbike gauge 107003A

2–3–6 (s1)

1–2–7 (s1)

78–113–198 (s1)

1–2–3 (s1)

5–8–14 (s1)

0.1–0.2–1.2 (s1)

81–97 (s1)

1.5–3.0–4.0(s1)

5.0–12.0–18.0(s1)

3.0–5.0–10.0 (s1)

6.5–7.1 (s1)

See Table 6 1.0–1.5–2.1

(s1)

All – maintain and improve

(imp: WQO is a

25% improvement in

suspended sediments and partic nutrients)

EVENT FLOW >34m3/s (cumecs) at Beesbike gauge 107003A(note: thresholds for event conditions can vary. Event flows can include any flows during/immediately following heavy rainfall when overland flow has a major impact on water quality)

6–7–8 (current) (s1)

98–130–190 (current) (s1)

Partic N1:

100–135–384Imp (s1)

370–550–740(current) (s1)

2–3–4 (current) (s1)

Partic P1: 29–45–88 Imp (s1)

30–60–120 (current) (s1)

‐ ‐ ‐

32–56–118 Imp (s1)

‐ ‐ ‐

Wallaby Creek catchment waters

(s1)


1–2–4 (s1)

2–3–5 (s1)

50–70–110 (s1)

1–1–2 (s1)

6–7–10 (s1)

0.1–0.2–0.3 (s1)

87–96 (s1)

1.7–3.0–5.9 (s1) id

id 6.3–6.9 (s1)

See Table 6 id


17



protection



Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH


Sulfate (mg/L)

Dune lakes All – maintain current condition

Refer table 7. There are around 200 dune lakes on the east coast of Cape York Peninsula. They occur in four main areas (from north to south): Somerset to Ussher Point, adjacent to Shelburne Bay, around Cape Grenville (which contains about half the lakes), and in the Cape Flattery‐Cape Bedford area north of Cooktown (Timms, 1986). Their water quality characteristics are typical of dune lakes, with low ionic concentrations and low pH, although there is variation between lakes. Table 7 provides indicative water quality ranges. Management intent for these HEV lakes is to retain current (natural) condition.

Other lakes, reservoirs


Note: there is insufficient information available to establish local WQOs for other lakes, reservoirs. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish a minimum water quality data set for deriving local 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles.


18



protection



Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH


Sulfate (mg/L)

TOXICANTS, PESTICIDES

All basins: HEV, SD fresh waters:

Toxicants (s3)

HEV

Toxicants WQGs for all toxicants and pesticides in these waters as per ANZECC AWQG, to protect species at the HEV level of protection.

Toxicants in water: refer to AWQG volume 1 section 3.4—‘water quality guidelines for toxicants’ (including tables 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and Figure 3.4.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8). AWQG values for the HEV level of protection typically correspond to protection of 99% of species. It is recommended that the 99% species protection guideline is applied to all waters in these basins outside of developed reaches, as the level of disturbance is low.

Toxicants in sediments: refer to AWQG volume 1 section 3.5—‘sediment quality guidelines’ (including Table 3.5.1, Figure 3.5.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8)

All basins: fresh waters:

Toxicants (s3) MD

WQGs for all toxicants and pesticides in these waters as per AWQG, to protect species at the MD level of protection (except where noted).

Toxicants in water: refer to AWQG volume 1 section 3.4—‘water quality guidelines for toxicants’ (including tables 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and Figure 3.4.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8). AWQG

values for the MD level of protection typically correspond to protection of 95% of species (in a small number of cases where bioaccumulation may occur, the AWQG recommends 99%

species protection level). It is recommended that the 99% species protection guideline is applied to all waters in these basins outside of developed reaches, as the level of disturbance is

low.


TEMPERATURE

All basins: fresh waters

All Temperature varies daily and seasonally, is depth‐dependent and highly site specific. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish a range (20th – 80th %iles) of temperature. From an ecological effects perspective, daily maximum temperature and daily variation in temperature are key indicators, and seasonal variations also need to be identified.


19



protection



Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat) (mg/L)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH


Sulfate (mg/L)

STATE PLANNING POLICY, RIPARIAN, WETLANDS, GROUNDWATERS State Planning

Policy all Refer to section 8

Riparian all Refer to section 8

Wetlands, mangroves

all

Refer to section 8

Mangroves: No loss of mangrove area (refer section 8).

Note: there is insufficient information available to establish local WQOs for wetlands. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish a minimum water quality data set for deriving local 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles.

Groundwaters

(s2) HEV

Groundwaters to be addressed in detail in a separate report. The AWQG recommends that the highest level of protection should be provided to underground aquatic ecosystems, given their high conservation value. Where groundwaters are in good condition the management intent is to maintain existing water quality. Where groundwaters interact with surface waters, groundwater quality should not compromise identified EVs and WQGs for those waters.

Abbreviations: id: insufficient data; na: not applicable. *: limited data. To be used as interim value until further data is available. –: WQG for indicator not available. Will be updated if guidelines become available

Indicators: FRP: filterable reactive phosphorus; DO: dissolved oxygen; Chl-a: chlorophyll-a; SS: total suspended solids.

Units % saturation: percent saturation, μg/L: micrograms per litre, NTU: nephelometric turbidity units, m: metres, mg/L: milligrams per litre

Source:

Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 - Tables 8(a), 8(b), 9; ANZECC, ARMCANZ (2000); Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2009); Cape York Natural Resource Management and South Cape York Catchments. For information on data sources, monitoring sites etc., refer to Moss and Howley (2017)

Notes:

1. PN, PP for Pascoe and Annan event are based primarily on one wet season. Will be updated when further data is available.


20

Table 2 Cape York fresh waters (excluding Normanby): Aquatic ecosystem physico-chemical water quality objectives – other ions (baseflow). Basins listed from north to south.



protection

TABLE 2 ‐ CAPE YORK FRESH WATERS (EXCLUDING NORMANBY) – LISTED FROM NORTH TO SOUTH

Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives (baseflow) Note: WQOs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources

Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)

Hardness (mg/L CaCO3)

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)

Ca (mg/L)

Mg (mg/L)

K (mg/L)

Na (mg/L)

Cl (mg/L)

JACKY JACKY BASIN: baseflow (Single figure = 50th percentile) All Jacky Jacky

Basin catchments (s1)


4.7 (s1)

3.2 (s1)

1.7 (s1)

0.1 (s1)

0.7 (s1)

0.3 (s1)

7 (s1)

11 (s1)

OLIVE‐PASCOE BASIN: baseflow (Single figure = 50th percentile) Olive catchment

waters (s1)


6.0 (s1)

5.1 (s1)

1.6 (s1)

0.1 (s1)

0.8 (s1)

0.4 (s1)

7.6 (s1)

11 (s1)

Pascoe catchment waters (s1)


10.0–12.0–15.4 (s1)

9.3–10.0–12.0 (s1)

1.6–1.8–2.2 (s1)

1.3–1.5–2.0 (s1)

1.48–1.7–1.9 (s1)

1.2–1.4–2.0 (s1)

12–13–17 (s1)

17–20–26 (s1)

LOCKHART BASIN: baseflow (Single figure = 50th percentile) Claudie catchment

waters (s1)

All ‐ maintain current condition 80.0 82.5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


All ‐ maintain current condition 31 31 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


21



protection






Ca (mg/L)

Mg (mg/L)

K (mg/L)

Na (mg/L)

Cl (mg/L)

STEWART BASIN: baseflow Stewart catchment

waters (s1)


21.2–27.5–39.2 (s1)

13.0–20.5–24.8 (s1)

1.5–1.7–1.9 (s1)

2.82–4.05–5.32 (s1)

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Massie catchment waters (s1)

All ‐ maintain current condition id id id id id id id id

JEANNIE BASIN: baseflow McIvor catchment

waters (s1)


32.6–51.0–71.2 (s1)

29.6–45.0–62.0 (s1)

0.9–0.9–1.1 (s1)

4.4–6.7–10.0 (s1)

3.7–6.4–9.0 (s1)

0.7–1.0–1.8 (s1)

11.0–14.0–16.4 (s1)

17–18–22 (s1)

Jeannie catchment waters (s1)


10.0–16.0–36.0 (s1)

11.0–13.0–27.0 (s1)

1.2–1.8–1.9 (s1)

1–1.1–2.5 (s1)

2–2.6–4.3 (s1)

0.9–1.2–1.6 (s1)

10.5–14–16.5 (s1)

16–26–30 (s1)

Starke catchment waters (s1)


11.7–14.0–19.2 (s1)

12.0–17.0–24.4 (s1)

1.4–1.6–1.8 (s1)

1.38–1.8–3.0 (s1)

2.26–2.8–4.64 (s1)

0.5–0.6–1.4 (s1)

12.9–13.6–18.8 (s1)

20–25–34 (s1)


22



protection






Ca (mg/L)

Mg (mg/L)

K (mg/L)

Na (mg/L)

Cl (mg/L)

ENDEAVOUR BASIN: baseflow Endeavour

catchment waters (s1)


13.2–20.0–29.0 (s1)

15.0–20.0–30.4 (s1)

1.2–1.3–1.4 (s1)

1.9–2.6–4.1 (s1)

2.5–3.25–5 (s1)

0.5–0.7–1.1 (s1)

11–13.05–15.5 (s1)

18–22–25 (s1)

Annan catchment waters (s1)


6.4–8.2–11.0 (s1)

6.0–7.5–9.9 (s1)

1.3–1.4–1.5 (s1)

0.8–0.9–1.3 (s1)

1.0–1.3–1.6 (s1)

0.9–1.0–1.2 (s1)

8–9–10 (s1)

12–14 –16 (s1)


Source: Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 - Table 8(a); Cape York Natural Resource Management and South Cape York Catchments. For information on data sources, monitoring sites etc., refer to Moss and Howley (2017)


23

Table 3 Normanby Basin fresh waters: Aquatic ecosystem baseflow physico-chemical water quality objectives including nutrient, algal and water clarity



protection

TABLE 3 ‐ NORMANBY BASIN FRESH WATERS: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives ‐ baseflow 1, 2 Note: WQOs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources

Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4


NORMANBY BASIN: baseflow by season 1 (Single figure = 50th percentile) Deighton catchment waters: wet and dry season baseflow

(s1)

All ‐ maintain current condition ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7–17–26

(s1) 9–35–70

(s1) 10–15–20

(s1) 7.0–7.6 (s1) See Table 6

2.0–2.3–3.0 (s1)

Jungle Creek catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)

All ‐ maintain current condition ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

1–2–4 (s1)

5–10–30 (s1)

5–5–10 (s1)

4–7.4 (s1)

See Table 6 2 (s1)

Hann River catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


3–5–11 (s1)

6–20–40 (s1)

5–8–11 (s1)

6.2–7.1 (s1)

See Table 6 0.3–0.6–1.6

(s1)

Kennedy River catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


2–5–17 (s1)

5–10–27 (s1)

5–6–10 (s1)

7.5–7.9 (s1)


Lower Laura River dry season baseflow

(s1)


1–2–4 (s1)

1–3–5 (s1)

id 160–240–

380 (s1)

1–3–4 (s1)

id 10–15–18

(s1) 0.8–1.5–2.0

(s1) 51–88 (s1)

2–4–7 (s1)

5–15–24(s1)

(current: combined dry and wet

2–5–10 (s1)

7.8–8.5 (s1)

See Table 6

1.0–2.1–4.0 (s1)



24



protection


Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4

season,lower and

upper Laura)

season, lower and

upper Laura)

Lower Laura River wet season baseflow

(s1)


(imp: WQO is a 10th %ile

improvement on current)

1–4–8 Imp (s1)

2–6–43 Imp (s1)

43–100–138Imp (s1)

206–300–352

Imp (s1)

<1–2–4 Imp (s1)

<10–<10–<10

Imp (s1)

<10–<10–20 Imp (s1)

2.0 Imp (s1)

69–87 (current)

(s1)

5–14–33 Imp (s1)

5–15–24(s1)

(current: combined dry and wet season,

lower and upper Laura)

4–12–25 Imp (s1)

7.2–7.9 (current)

(s1) See Table 6

1.0–2.1–4.0 (s1)

(current: combined dry and wet season, lower and

upper Laura)

Upper Laura River dry season baseflow

(s1)




1–4–9 Imp (s1)

1–2–5 Imp (s1)

id 210–280–

600 Imp (s1)

3–5–9 Imp (s1)

id 13–22–36 Imp (s1)

0.8–1.5–2.5Imp (s1)

58–97 (current)

(s1)

1–2–3 (current)

(s1)

5–15–24(s1)


season lower and

upper Laura)

6 (current)

(s1)

8.0–8.6 (current)

(s1) See Table 6

1.0–2.1–4.0 (s1)

(current: combined dry and wet season, lower and upper Laura

Upper Laura River wet season baseflow

(s1)




1–4–7 Imp (s1)

1–4–53 Imp (s1)

42 Imp (s1)

244–326–444

Imp (s1)

2–6–16 Imp (s1)

<10 Imp (s1)

<10–26–45 Imp (s1)

1.9–2.7–4.0Imp (s1)

74–93 (current)

(s1)

2–4–8 Imp (s1)

5–15–24(s1)


season lower and

upper Laura)

7–9–12 Imp (s1)

7.9–8.6 (current)

(s1) See Table 6

1.0–2.1–4.0 (s1)

(current: combined dry and wet season, lower and

upper Laura)


25



protection


Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4

East Normanby dry season baseflow

(s1)


3–4–6 (s1)

1–1–2 (s1)

id 109–150–

240 (s1)

4–5–6 (s1)

id 15–22–29

(s1) 0.5–1.3–2.4

(s1) 67–78 (s1)

3–4–6 (s1)

10–20–40(s1)

(current: combined dry and wet season)

2–5–10 (s1)

6.9–7.5 (s1)

See Table 6

0.5–1.0–1.5 (s1)


East Normanby wet season baseflow

(s1)




3–4–9 (current)

(s1)

3–5–16 (current)

(s1)

80 Imp (s1)

102–144–350

Imp (s1)

1–5–6 (current)

(s1)

20 Imp (s1)

16–22–32 Imp (s1)

id 84

(current) (s1)

4–6–15 Imp (s1)

10–20–40(s1)


3–17–28 Imp (s1)

6.9–7.4 (current)

(s1) See Table 6

0.5–1.0–1.5 (s1)


West Normanby dry season baseflow (*apply East Normanby dry season WQ)

(s1)


3–4–6* (s1)

1–1–2* (s1)

id 109–150–

240* (s1)

4–5–6* (s1)

id 15–22–29*

(s1)

0.5–1.3–2.4* (s1)

id 2–4–5 (s1)

5–9.5–34(s1)


3–5–10 (s1)

7.2–8.0 (s1)

See Table 6

1.7–3.0–5.0 (s1)


West Normanby wet season baseflow

(s1)




7 Imp (s1)

18 Imp (s1)

100 Imp (s1)

260–350–450

Imp (s1)

9 Imp (s1)

38 Imp (s1)

30–50–73 Imp (s1)

id 87

(current) (s1)

11–13–21 Imp (s1)

5–9.5–34(s1)


10–20–33 Imp (s1)

7.1–7.8 (current)

(s1) See Table 6

1.7–3.0–5.0 (s1)


Normanby ‐ Battlecamp: dry season baseflow

(s1)


2–5–7 (s1)

3–5–6 (s1)

id 110–133–

190 (s1)

4–5–6 (s1)

id 21–27–29

(s1) 1.0–1.7–2.4

(s1) 62–91 (s1)

6–8–12 (s1)

5–15.0–24.0(s1)


5–9–12 (s1)

7.1–7.5 (s1)

See Table 6

0.4–1.0–2.1 (s1)



26



protection


Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4

Normanby ‐ Battlecamp: wet season baseflow (*apply East

Normanby current wet season WQ as

WQO) (s1)




4* Imp (s1)

5* Imp (s1)

100* Imp (s1)

210* Imp (s1)

5* Imp (s1)

25* Imp (s1)

28* Imp (s1)

id ‐ 5–14–41 Imp (s1)

5–15.0–24.0(s1)


5–22–40 Imp (s1)

7.0–7.4 (current)

(s1) See Table 6

0.4–1.0–2.1 (s1)


Normanby – Rinyirru NP: dry season baseflow

(s1)


1–5–12 (s1)

1–5–15 (s1)

15–70–210(s1)

140–170–340 (s1)

2–4–6 (s1)

5–17–50 (s1)

10–14–22 (s1)

1.1–1.4–2.4(s1)

60–86 (s1)

3–4–8 (s1)

9.6–22.0–40.4 (s1)


2–5–11 (s1)

7.1–7.6 (s1)

See Table 6

0.5–0.5–1.0 (s1)


Normanby – Rinyirru NP: wet season baseflow

(s1)




7–11–16 Imp (s1)

8–17–26 Imp (s1)

15–74–123Imp (s1)

234–330–387

Imp (s1)

2–4–6 Imp (s1)

10–19–30 Imp (s1)

20–30–37 Imp (s1)

id id (s1)

32–43–74 Imp (s1)

9.6–22.0–40.4 (s1)


6–19–34 Imp (s1)

7.0 (current 50th

%ile) (s1) (limited data)

id

0.5–0.5–1.0 (s1)


Lakes, reservoirs All Note: there is insufficient information available to establish local WQOs for lakes, reservoirs. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish a minimum water quality data set for deriving local 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles.


27



protection


Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4

TOXICANTS, PESTICIDES

All basins: HEV, SD fresh waters:

Toxicants (s3)

HEV

Toxicants WQGs for all toxicants and pesticides in these waters as per ANZECC AWQG, to protect species at the HEV level of protection.

Toxicants in water: refer to AWQG volume 1 section 3.4—‘water quality guidelines for toxicants’ (including tables 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and Figure 3.4.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8). AWQG values for the HEV level of protection typically correspond to protection of 99% of species.


All basins: fresh waters:

Toxicants (s3) MD

WQGs for all toxicants and pesticides in these waters as per AWQG, to protect species at the MD level of protection (except where noted).

Toxicants in water: refer to AWQG volume 1 section 3.4—‘water quality guidelines for toxicants’ (including tables 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and Figure 3.4.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8). AWQG values for the

MD level of protection typically correspond to protection of 95% of species (in a small number of cases where bioaccumulation may occur, the AWQG recommends 99% species protection level).


TEMPERATURE

All basins: fresh waters All Temperature varies daily and seasonally, is depth‐dependent and highly site specific. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish a range (20th – 80th %iles) of temperature. From an ecological effects

perspective, daily maximum temperature and daily variation in temperature are key indicators, and seasonal variations also need to be identified.


28



protection


Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4

STATE PLANNING POLICY, RIPARIAN, WETLANDS, GROUNDWATERS

State Planning Policy all Refer to section 8


Wetlands, mangroves all

Refer to section 8

Note: there is insufficient information available to establish local WQOs for wetlands. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish a minimum water quality data set for deriving local 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles. In the absence of local information, the AWQG provides default values for wetlands.

Groundwaters (s2) HEV





Source: Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 - Tables 11(a), 11(b), 11(c); ANZECC, ARMCANZ (2000); Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2009); Cape York Natural Resource Management and South Cape York Catchments. For information on data sources, monitoring sites etc., refer to Moss and Howley (2017) Notes: 1. Dry season is generally between May to November, however will vary annually and should be assessed based on rainfall and discharge. Wet season is generally December to April, however will vary annually and should be assessed based on discharge and antecedent rainfall. 2. Refer accompanying maps for boundaries for Upper Laura and Lower Laura regions, as well as other Normanby River guideline boundaries

* for specified indicators, East Normanby current condition values have been used for West Normanby and Normanby-Battlecamp where indicated.


29

Table 4 Normanby Basin fresh waters: Aquatic ecosystem physico-chemical water quality objectives – other ions (baseflow)



protection

TABLE 4 ‐ NORMANBY FRESH WATERS: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives ‐ baseflow

Note: WQOs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources




Ca (mg/L)

Mg (mg/L)

K (mg/L)

Na (mg/L)

Cl (mg/L)

Deighton

catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


12.8–31.5–48.4 (s1)

11.0–25.0–35.4 (s1)

1.3–1.4–1.7 (s1)

1.8–3.0–5.8 (s1)

1.7–3.7–5.1 (s1)

1.4–1.8–2.2 (s1)

10–16–23 (s1)

13–22–32 (s1)

Jungle Creek catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


3–5–6 (s1)

1.1–3–4 (s1)

1.4–1.6–2.1 (s1)

0.1–0.2–0.5 (s1)

0.2–0.6–0.8 (s1)

0.2–0.3–0.5 (s1)

5.6–6.4–7.6 (s1)

9–11–14 (s1)

Hann River catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


4–6–9 (s1)

3–3–5 (s1)

1.4–1.5–1.9 (s1)

0.2–0.4–0.5 (s1)

0.5–0.7–0.8 (s1)

0.3–0.5–0.7 (s1)

5.9–6.5–7.6 (s1)

8.1–9.0–11.0 (s1)

Kennedy River catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


33–52–79 (s1)

26–40–61 (s1)

0.7–0.8–1.2 (s1)

4.7–7.3–11.4 (s1)

3.3–4.9–8.0 (s1)

1.2–1.5–2.3 (s1)

8.1–12–17 (s1)

9.2–11.5–16.4 (s1)

Laura River catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


36–66–263 (s1)

31–58–226 (s1)

0.9–1.2–1.8 (s1)

4.8–9.0–24.0 (s1)

4.8–9.2–38.6 (s1) 1.9–2.7–3.8

(s1) 11.5–24.0–66.6

(s1) 14.9–31.0–98.4

(s1)


30



protection

TABLE 4 ‐ NORMANBY FRESH WATERS: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives ‐ baseflow

Note: WQOs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources




Ca (mg/L)

Mg (mg/L)

K (mg/L)

Na (mg/L)

Cl (mg/L)

East Normanby catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


13–20–26 (s1)

11–15–23 (s1)

1.2–1.3–1.4 (s1)

1.5–2.1–3.1 (s1)

1.8–2.7–3.4 (s1)

1.1–1.3–1.7 (s1)

10.0–11.0–15.0 (s1)

13.9–16.0–21.2 (s1)

West Normanby catchment waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


29–43–62 (s1)

22–34–50 (s1)

1–1–2 (s1)

3.9–5.4–8.8 (s1)

2.9–4.8–6.8 (s1)

1.1–1.4–2.3 (s1)

11.0–15.8–26.2 (s1)

13.6–19.0–31.1 (s1)

Normanby – Battlecamp waters: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


24–37–62 (s1)

20–34–52 (s1)

1.1–1.2–1.5 (s1)

3.2–5.5–10.0 (s1)

3.0–5.0–6.4 (s1)

1.2–1.4–2.1 (s1)

12.9–16.2–23.0 (s1)

18.0–24.0–34.0 (s1)

Normanby – Rinyirru NP: wet and dry season

baseflow (s1)


24–28–37 (s1)

22–25–33 (s1)

1.4–1.4–1.6 (s1)

2.5–3.4–5.0 (s1)

3.5–4.3–5.1 (s1)

1.0–1.2–1.5 (s1)

15.6–17.4–20.6 (s1)

24.3–26.0–32.4 (s1)

Units mg/L: milligrams per litre

Source: Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 - Table 11(a). For information on data sources, monitoring sites etc., refer to Moss and Howley (2017)


31

Table 5 Normanby Basin fresh waters: Aquatic ecosystem event flow physico-chemical water quality objectives including nutrient, algal and water clarity



protection

TABLE 5 ‐ NORMANBY BASIN FRESH WATERS: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives – event flow 1‐4 Note: WQOs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources

Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4


NORMANBY BASIN: event flow (Single figure = 50th percentile)

Lower Laura River flood event 2, 3

(s1)


(imp: WQO is a 25% reduction in

suspended sediments and partic nutrients)


(s1)

17–51–127 (current)

(s1)

224–334–635

Imp (s1)

582–810–1198

(current) (s1)


(s1)

45–86–122 Imp (s1)

59–130–204 (current)

(s1) ‐

85 (current)

(s1)

40–106–216Imp (s1)

‐ 74–157–352Imp (s1)

7.2 (current)

(s1) See Table 6 ‐

Upper Laura River flood event 2, 4

(s1)


(imp: WQO is a 25% reduction in sus sediments, DIN and partic nutrients)


(s1)

24–81–187 Imp (s1)

110–210–441

Imp (s1)

490–690–940

(current) (s1)

12–21–30 Imp (s1)

30–68–107Imp (s1)

71–110–170 (current)

(s1) ‐

82–93 (current)

(s1)

42–67–152Imp (s1)

‐ 31–76–179Imp (s1)

7.6–7.8 (current)


East Normanby flood event 2, 3

(s1)


(imp: WQO is a 25% reduction in sus sediments and partic nutrients)


(s1)

32–70–203 (current)

(s1)

123–225–900

Imp (s1)

440–650–1280

(current) (s1)

3–5–8 (current)

(s1)

30–38–261Imp (s1)

47–60–230 (current)

(s1) ‐

88 (current)

(s1)

47–99–151Imp (s1)

‐ 70–157–330Imp (s1)

6.4–7.2 (current)



32



protection

TABLE 5 ‐ NORMANBY BASIN FRESH WATERS: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives – event flow 1‐4 Note: WQOs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources

Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Colour (hazen)

SS (mg/L)

pH EC SO4

West Normanby flood event 2, 3

(s1)




(s1)

24–61–175 (current)

(s1)

285–315–665

Imp (s1)

660–870–1150

(current) (s1)

12–20–26 (current)

(s1)

83–113–218Imp (s1)

120–180–320

(current) (s1)

‐

81 (current)

(s1)

140 Imp (s1)

‐ 91–199–414Imp (s1)

7.2 (current)


Normanby – Battlecamp: flood event 2, 3

(s1)




(s1)

16–52–159 (current)

(s1)

380–585–1302

Imp (s1)

612–900–1982

(current) (s1)


(s1)

101–180–582

Imp (s1)

92–205–588 (current)

(s1) ‐

id (s1)

54–63–139Imp (s1)

‐ 99–237–516Imp (s1)

6.9 (s1)

See Table 6 ‐

Normanby – Kalpowar:

flood event 2, 3 (s1)

Short term: All – maintain and

improve (imp: WQO is a 10% reduction in sus sediments and partic nutrients)


(s1)

11–18–31 (current)

(s1)

83–144–225Imp (s1)

387–468–573

(current) (s1)


(s1)

18–36–54 Imp (s1)

40–50–90 (current)

(s1) ‐

id (s1)

51–82–142Imp (s1)

‐ 22–40–72 Imp (s1)

6.2–6.4 (current)


Normanby – Kalpowar:

flood event 2, 3 (s1)

Long term:All – maintain and



(s1)

11–18–31 (current)

(s1)

74–128–200Imp (s1)

387–468–573

(current) (s1)


(s1)

16–32–48 Imp (s1)

40–50–90 (current)

(s1) ‐

id (s1)

46–73–126Imp (s1)

‐ 19–35–64 Imp (s1)

6.2–6.4 (current)

(s1) See Table 6


33




Source: Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 - Table 11(d); For information on data sources, monitoring sites etc., refer to Moss and Howley (2017) Note: 1. Event flow can include any flows during and immediately following heavy rainfall, when overland flow is having a major impact on water quality.

2. Refer accompanying maps for boundaries for Upper Laura and Lower Laura regions, as well as other Normanby River guideline boundaries

3. Reduction (improvement) goal applies to suspended sediments and particulate nutrients due to erosion in the sub‐catchment.

4. Reduction (improvement) goal applies to both suspended sediments, dissolved inorganic nitrogen and particulate nutrients due to sediment erosion and fertiliser run‐off in the sub‐catchment.


34

Table 6 Cape York fresh waters (including Normanby): Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives for conductivity, by flow. Basins listed from north to south

Water area/type 1 (Source: s1–s4)


protection

TABLE 6 ‐ CAPE YORK FRESH WATERS: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives – electrical conductivity, by flow

Note: Any test data should be within the specified range relative to the specified flow (where stated). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S4: other sources

High to moderate flow Low flow

Flow range (cumecs) EC(µS/cm) Flow range (cumecs) EC

(µS/cm)

JACKY JACKY BASIN Jacky Jacky

(all catchments) (s1) Maintain current EC condition <75 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil

OLIVE‐PASCOE BASIN Olive catchment

waters(s1) Maintain current EC condition <90 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil

Pascoe catchment waters @ Fall Creek

(s1)

Maintain current EC condition >0.5 <120 <0.5 120–200

Pascoe catchment waters @ Garraway

Ck (s1)

Maintain current EC condition <100 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil

LOCKHART BASIN Claudie catchment

waters (s1) Maintain current EC condition <320 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil (low reliability)


Maintain current EC condition <250 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil (low reliability)

STEWART BASIN Stewart catchment waters @ Telegraph

Rd (s1)


Massie catchment waters

Maintain current EC condition <100 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil (low reliability)


35



protection





(µS/cm)

NORMANBY BASIN Laura River @ Coalseam gauge


East Normanby Maintain current EC condition <305 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil

West Normanby Maintain current EC condition <250 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil

Normanby River @ Battlecamp

Maintain current EC condition <410 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil

Normanby @ Kalpowar

Maintain current EC condition >20 <100 <20 100–220

Kennedy River Maintain current EC condition <270 µS/cm for all flow ranges

Hann River Maintain current EC condition <115 µS/cm for all flow ranges

Deighton River Maintain current EC condition <225 µS/cm for all flow ranges

Jungle Creek Maintain current EC condition <70 µS/cm for all flow ranges


36



protection





(µS/cm)

JEANNIE BASIN (Single figure = 50th percentile) McIvor @ Elderslie Maintain current

EC condition >1 <175 <1 175–250

Jeannie Maintain current EC condition <230 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil (low reliability)

Starke Maintain current EC condition <200 µS/cm for all flow ranges >nil

ENDEAVOUR BASIN (Single figure = 50th percentile) Endeavour @ Flaggy Maintain current

EC condition >3 <100 <3 <300

Annan @ Beesbike Maintain current EC condition >10 <60 <10 <130

Annan @ Mt Simon Maintain current EC condition >10 <80 <10 <140

Indicators: EC: electrical conductivity

Units µS/cm: microsiemens/centimetre.

Source: Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 - Table 10. For information on data sources, monitoring sites etc., refer to Moss and Howley (2017) Note: 1. Based on locations at which monitoring data was available and analysed (refer Moss and Howley, 2017). Accuracy of these figures may be reduced with increasing distance from monitoring site and with influences from tributaries joining main stream.


37

Table 7 Dune lakes. Indicative water quality ranges (limited data)

There are around 200 dune lakes on the east coast of Cape York Peninsula. They occur in four main areas (from north to south): Somerset to Ussher Point, adjacent to Shelburne Bay, around Cape Grenville (which contains about half the lakes), and in the Cape Flattery-Cape Bedford area north of Cooktown (Timms, 1986). Their water quality characteristics are typical of dune lakes, with low ionic concentrations and low pH, although there is variation between lakes. Nutrient data is very limited but like other dune lakes, soluble P levels appear to be extremely low everywhere while inorganic N levels are somewhat higher, and more variable. Table 7 shows indicative ranges of some indicators in dune lakes, based on limited data from Timms (1986) and Howley (2007, unpublished). The data is insufficient to derive specific local objectives for these lakes but if test data from an individual dune lake was found to be well outside these ranges, this would be a trigger for further investigation. Management intent for these HEV lakes is to retain current (natural) condition.

Table 7: Ranges of indicator values recorded in Cape York dune lakes 1,2

Na K Ca Mg Cl SO4 Salinity pH

mg/L

7‐30 0.2‐1.2 1.3‐4.6 0.5‐3.4 9‐50 1‐10 30‐100 4.0‐6.0

Total P FRP NH3 Oxidised N Total N

µg/L N or P

<5 <2 10‐20 <5‐120 400‐1000

1: Ions and pH - Timms (1986)

2: Nutrients - Howley (unpublished 2007)


Units μg/L: micrograms per litre, mg/L: milligrams per litre

References Timms, B.V. (1986). Reconnaissance Limnology of Some Coastal Dune Lakes of Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res., 1986, 37, 167-76


38

Table 8 Cape York estuarine, coastal and marine waters: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives including nutrient, algal and water clarity (listed by Endeavour, Normanby. other basins, open coastal/marine waters)



protection

TABLE 8 ‐ CAPE YORK ESTUARINE, COASTAL AND MARINE WATERS: Aquatic ecosystem water quality objectives

ENDEAVOUR, NORMANBY, OTHER BASINS, COASTAL/MARINE WATERS 1–5

Note: WQGs for indicators are shown as a range of 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles to be achieved (e.g. 3–4–5), lower and upper limits (e.g. pH: 7.2–8.2), or as a single value (e.g. <15). For single value WQOs, medians (or means where specified) of test data are compared against the draft WQO (refer text for more details). HEV: high ecological value; SD: slightly disturbed; MD: moderately disturbed – refer accompanying maps for details Sources: S1: Local datasets (e.g. Moss/Howley, DSITI, key stakeholder); S2: QWQG guidelines and /or data; S3: GBRMPA (2010) WQG; S4: GBRMPA analysis of Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program and/or Long Term Monitoring Program datasets; S5: ANZECC (2000) AWQG; S6: CSIRO aluminium studies (Golding et al., 2015)

Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)

Total Diss N (μg/L)

Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)

Total Diss P (μg/L)

Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

Note: Information on lakes, wetlands, toxicants, temperature, State Planning Policy (water quality state interest) provided at end of table.

ENDEAVOUR BASIN ‐ MID ESTUARY (upstream of 7km AMTD) – baseflow [Based on Endeavour River data. May also be applied to Annan River in absence of local Annan data] HEV and SD mid estuary waters

(s1, s2) HEV 7–15–20 11–27–40 ‐ ‐ 180–230 –300 1–2–4 ‐ ‐ 8–11–20 1–2–4 ‐ 70–100 10 ‐ ‐ 6.5–8.0

MD mid estuary waters (s1, s2)

MD 20 40 ‐ ‐ 300 4 ‐ ‐ 20 4 ‐ 70–100 10 ‐ ‐ 6.5–8.0

ENDEAVOUR BASIN ‐ ENCLOSED COASTAL / LOWER ESTUARY (downstream of 7km AMTD) – base and event flows

HEV and SD enclosed coastal /lower estuary

waters (s1, s2)

HEV

Baseflow [Based on Endeavour River data. Further specification for Annan ECLE waters may occur pending review of local data]

1–4–10 1–2–10 ‐ ‐ 110–125–200 1–1–3 ‐ ‐ 6–8–12 0.5–1.0–1.5 ‐ 75–105 10 ‐ ‐ 6.5–8.4


39



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

MD enclosed coastal /lower estuary waters

(s1, s2)

MD 10 10 ‐ ‐ 200 3 ‐ ‐ 12 1.5 ‐ 75–105 10 ‐ ‐ 6.5–8.4

Event flow [Based on Annan River data. Apply to Annan River only]

Annan River enclosed coastal /lower estuary

waters (s1)

Short term:All – maintain and



(s1)

48–89–152

(current) (s1)

119–189–475Imp (s1)

‐ 370–495–840(current) (s1)

3–4–5(current) (s1)

36–72–97 Imp (s1)

‐

40–63.5–110

(current) (s1)

‐ ‐ ‐

83 Imp 50th %ile (s1) (limited data)

‐ 38–110–164

Imp (s1)

Annan River enclosed coastal /lower estuary

waters (s1)




(s1)

48–89–152

(current) (s1)

106–168–422Imp (s1)

‐ 370–495–840(current) (s1)


32–64–86 Imp (s1)

‐

40–63.5–110

(current) (s1)

‐ ‐

73 Imp 50th %ile (s1) (limited data)

‐ 34–97–146

Imp (s1) ‐


40



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

NORMANBY BASIN ‐ MID ESTUARY ‐ base and event flows Baseflow (combined wet and dry )[Based on Normanby River monitoring data]

Normanby HEV and SD mid estuary

waters (s1)

HEVMaintain and

improve (imp: WQO is a

10th %ile improvement on

current)

1–9–18 (imp)

38–50–89 (imp)

‐ ‐ 254–294–360

(imp) 2–4–10(imp)

‐ ‐ 18–32–43(imp)

id ‐ 61–75

(current)12–33–46 ‐ ‐

7.6–8.0 (current)

Normanby mid estuary waters

(s1) ‐

MDMaintain and



current)

18 89 ‐ ‐ 360 10 ‐ ‐ 43 id ‐ 61–75

(current)

46 ‐ ‐ 7.6–8.0 (current)


41



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

Event flow

Normanby mid estuary

Short term: All – maintain and


15 (current 50th %ile)

(s1) (limited data)


(s1) (limited data)

id (s1)

‐ 520 (current 50th %ile) (s1)(limited data)

10(current 50th %ile) (s1)

(limited data)

id (s1)

‐


(s1) (limited data)

‐ ‐ ‐

59 Imp (s1) (limited data)

‐ id (s1)

‐

Normanby mid estuary




(s1) (limited data)


(s1) (limited data

id (s1)

‐ 520 (current 50th %ile) (s1)(limited data)

10 (current 50th %ile) (s1)

(limited data)

id (s1)

‐


(s1) (limited data)

‐ ‐ ‐

53 Imp (s1) (limited data)

‐ id (s1)

‐


42



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

NORMANBY BASIN ‐ ENCLOSED COASTAL / LOWER ESTUARY – base and event flows Normanby HEV and

SD Enclosed coastal /lower estuary

waters (s1)

HEV Maintain and



current)

Baseflow (combined wet and dry) [Based on Normanby River monitoring data]Note: there is not enough understanding of these complex waters to quantify the contribution from catchment vs coastal (re‐suspension) sources during ambient conditions. Improvements proposed in recognition of receiving water values (e.g. Princess Charlotte Bay).

2–8–14 (imp)

5–13–23 (imp)

‐ ‐ 160–224–257

(imp) 1–1–3(imp)

‐ ‐ 11–17–26(imp)

1.9 (imp)

‐ 72–92

(current)8–11–16(imp)

‐ ‐ 8.0–8.2 (current)

Normanby MD enclosed coastal /lower estuary

waters (s1)

MDMaintain and



current)

14 (imp)

23 (imp)

‐ ‐ 257 (imp)

3 (imp)

‐ ‐ 26

(imp) 1.9 (imp)

‐ 72–92

(current)16

(imp) ‐ ‐

8.0–8.2 (current)

Normanby enclosed coastal /lower estuary waters

(s1)

all Event flow [Based on Normanby EC/LE monitoring site, and where indicated include a 10‐20% reduction in concentrations from current 20‐50‐80 %ile values (or from 50th %ile values where single figure)]


(s1)

Short term:All – maintain and

improve (imp: WQO is a 10% reduction in sus sediments

13–23–50 (current)

(s1)

18–22–40 (current)

(s1)

122 Imp (s1)

(limited data) ‐

362–427–518(current) (s1)


13 Imp (s1)

(limited data)

‐

24–42–70(current)

(s1)

‐ ‐ ‐ 26–38–64Imp (s1)

‐ 12–50–76 Imp (s1)


43



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

and partic nutrients)


(s1)



13–23–50 (current)

(s1)

18–22–40 (current)

(s1)

109 Imp (s1) (50th %ile)

(limited data)

‐ 362–427–518(current) (s1)


11 Imp (s1) (50th %ile)

(limited data)

‐ 24–42–70(current)

(s1)

‐

‐ ‐ 23–34–57Imp (s1)

‐ 10‐44‐67 Imp (s1)

‐


44



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

JACKY JACKY, OLIVE‐PASCOE, LOCKHART, STEWART, JEANNIE BASINS ‐ MID ESTUARY WATERS ‐ baseflows

mid estuary waters (s1, s2) All

Baseflow Insufficient data to derive local WQOs. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish local WQOs. ‘Limited or no data exists for estuaries in northeastern Cape York…Endeavour estuary guidelines should be used with caution as interim guidelines for other eastern Cape York estuaries (with the exception of Normanby). Further sampling is required to establish estuarine guidelines for the remaining estuaries’ (Moss, Howley, 2017; 8‐9) [Endeavour values are included earlier in this table]

JACKY JACKY, OLIVE‐PASCOE, LOCKHART, STEWART, JEANNIE BASINS ‐ ENCLOSED COASTAL WATERS ‐ baseflows

HEV and SD enclosed coastal /lower estuary

waters (s1, s2)

HEV

Baseflow Insufficient data to derive local WQOs. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish local WQOs. Values below are based on Endeavour EC/LE monitoring site percentile ranges, to be used in absence of local data. ‘Limited or no data exists for estuaries in northeastern Cape York…Endeavour estuary guidelines should be used with caution as interim guidelines for other eastern Cape York estuaries (with the exception of Normanby). Further sampling is required to establish estuarine guidelines for the remaining estuaries’ (Moss, Howley, 2017; 8‐9)

1–4–10 1–2–10 ‐ ‐ 110–125–200 1–1–3 ‐ ‐ 6–8–12 0.5–1.0–1.5 ‐ 75–105 10 ‐ ‐ 6.5–8.4

MD enclosed coastal /lower estuary waters

(s1, s2)

MD 10 10 nd na 200 3 nd na 12 1.5 na 75–105 10 ‐ nd 6.5–8.4


45



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

OPEN COASTAL WATERS – ALL BASINS

HEV and SD Open coastal waters

(s2, s3, s4) HEV

Dry season (May‐Oct) except where stated

0–1–3 (annual) (s4)

0–0–1 (s4)

≤16 (mean) (s3, s4)

50–80–100 (s4)

70–100–120(s4)

0–2–3(s4)

≤ 2.3 (mean) (s3, s4)

3–7–13 (s4)

8–10–16(s4)

0.16–0.25–0.46 (s4)

60–115–190 (s4)

95–105 (s2)

0.6–0.9–1.8 (s4)

≥10 (annual mean) (s3)

≤ 1.6 (mean) (s3, s4)

8.1–8.4 (s2)

HEV and SD Open coastal waters

(s2, s3, s4) HEV

Wet season (Nov – Apr) except where stated

0–1–3 (annual) (s4)

0–0–1 (s4)

14–20–26 (s4)

55–80–105 (s4)

75–105–130(s4)

0–1–2(s4)

2.2–3.0–3.9 (s4)

2–5–12 (s4)

5–10–20(s4)

0.30–0.46–0.78 (s4)

50–90–180 (s4)

95–105 (s2)

0.5–0.8–1.5 (s4)


1.1–1.7–2.2 (s4)

8.1–8.4 (s2)


46



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

MIDSHELF WATERS

HEV Midshelf waters

(s2, s3, s4) HEV 0–1–3

(s4) 0–0–1 (s4)

14–18–22 (s4)

60–80–110 (s4)

75–100–130(s4)

0–1–2(s4)

1.5–2.0–2.8 (s4)

3–7–10 (s4)

6–9–15 (s4)

0.18–0.27–0.45 (s4)

40–80–135 (s4)

95–105 (s2)

0.3–0.5–1.5

(s3, s4)


0.9–1.5–2.3 (s4)

8.1–8.4 (s2)

OFFSHORE WATERS

HEV Offshore waters

(s2, s3, s4) HEV 0–0–1

(s4) 0–0–1 (s4)

10–16–25 (s4)

50–70–90 (s4)

90–100–120(s4)

0–0–1(s4)

1.1–1.9–2.8 (s4)

2–4–7 (s4)

5–8–10 (s4)

0.17–0.26–0.39 (s4)

25–45–70(s4)

95–105 (s2)

0.3–0.5–1.5

(s3, s4)


0.3–0.5–1.0 (s4)

8.1–8.4 (s2)


47



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

ESTUARINE, COASTAL AND MARINE WATERS – all eastern Cape York ‐ TOXICANTS, PESTICIDES Estuaries: toxicants

all

Toxicants in water and sediment as per AWQG:

Toxicants in water: refer to AWQG volume 1 section 3.4—‘water quality guidelines for toxicants’ (including tables 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and Figure 3.4.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8, including section 8.3.4.4 on application in estuarine waters)


Coastal waters outside ports, marinas, spoil

grounds: toxicants (s3, s5, s6)

all

Toxicants

WQGs for all toxicants in these waters (except aluminium – specified below) as per GBRMPA (2010) and ANZECC (2000) water quality guidelines, to protect marine species at the HEV (99% species protection) level of protection. Where pesticide values are specified in both the GBRMPA and ANZECC guidelines, the lower value will be adopted.

Pesticides/biocides

WQGs for pesticides/biocides specified in GBRMPA water quality guidelines (99% species protection) include (but not limited to):

Ametryn: <0.5 µg/L; Atrazine: <0.6 µg/L; Diuron: <0.9 µg/L; Hexazinone: <1.2 µg/L; Simazine: <0.2 µg/L; Tebuthiuron: <0.02 µg/L

Other toxicants

For other toxicants not listed in GBRMPA guidelines, refer to ANZECC water quality guidelines and other sources below:

Aluminium: <2.1 μg/L (applies to the measured concentration in seawater that passes through a 0.45 μm filter) [Source: Golding et al. (2015)]

Other toxicants in water: refer to ANZECC AWQG section 3.4—‘water quality guidelines for toxicants’ (including tables 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and Figure 3.4.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8). Values

correspond to protection of 99% of species

Toxicants in sediments: refer to ANZECC AWQG section 3.5—‘sediment quality guidelines’ (including Table 3.5.1, Figure 3.5.1), and ANZECC AWQG volume 2 (section 8)

Sewage: Release of sewage from vessels to be controlled in accordance with requirements of the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 and Regulations. (Refer to Maritime Services Queensland website for further information.)

Anti‐fouling: Comply with Anti‐fouling and in‐water cleaning guidelines (June 2013) Australian Government, Canberra


48



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

Coastal waters in ports, marinas, spoil grounds: toxicants

(s3, s5, s6)

all

Toxicants

WQGs for all toxicants in these waters (except aluminium – specified below) as per GBRMPA (2010) and ANZECC (2000) water quality guidelines, to protect marine species at the HEV (99% species protection) level of protection. Where pesticide values are specified in both the GBRMPA and ANZECC guidelines, the lower value will be adopted.

Pesticides/biocides

WQGs for pesticides/biocides specified in GBRMPA water quality guidelines (99% species protection) include (but not limited to):

Ametryn: <0.5 µg/L; Atrazine: <0.6 µg/L; Diuron: <0.9 µg/L; Hexazinone: <1.2 µg/L; Simazine: <0.2 µg/L; Tebuthiuron: <0.02 µg/L

Other toxicants

For other toxicants not listed in GBRMPA guidelines, refer to ANZECC water quality guidelines and other sources below:

Aluminium: <24 μg/L (applies to the measured concentration in seawater that passes through a 0.45 μm filter) [Source: Golding et al. (2015)]

Other toxicants in water: refer to ANZECC AWQG section 3.4—‘water quality guidelines for toxicants’ (including tables 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and Figure 3.4.1), and AWQG volume 2 (section 8). Values

correspond to protection of 95% of species

Toxicants in sediments: refer to ANZECC AWQG section 3.5—‘sediment quality guidelines’ (including Table 3.5.1, Figure 3.5.1), and ANZECC AWQG volume 2 (section 8)

Sewage: Release of sewage from vessels to be controlled in accordance with requirements of the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 and Regulations. (Refer to Maritime Services Queensland website for further information.)

Anti‐fouling: Comply with Anti‐fouling and in‐water cleaning guidelines (June 2013) Australian Government, Canberra

Coastal and marine waters all Temperature (s3): Increases of no more than 1°C above long‐term (20 year) average maximum. (GBRMPA, 2010)

Coastal waters: biological

(s1)

All (where applicable)

Seagrass

Light requirements are specified as a photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) moving average, depending on seagrass species. Levels specified here are derived to support the health of all species present either as the dominant species or as one of a suite of species that are known to occur in the region. It does not reflect requirements for macroalgae or other organisms.


49



protection




Amm N (μg/L)

Oxid N (μg/L)

Partic N (μg/L)


Total N (μg/L)

FRP (μg/L)

Partic P (μg/L)


Total P (μg/L)

Chl‐a (μg/L)

Silicate (μg/L)

DO (% sat)

Turb (NTU)

Secchi (m)

SS (mg/L)

pH

Deep water areas (>10m) 2.5 mol m‐2 day‐1 over a rolling 7 day average # (Collier et al 2016; Chartrand et al 2014; Rasheed et al 2014; York et al 2015)

Shallow inshore areas (<10m): 6 mol m‐2 day‐1 over a rolling 14 day average # (Collier et al 2016; Chartrand et al, 2012)

Note: # Absolute light requirements for seagrass may vary between sites. Values described here provide a conservative guide to the levels of light likely to support seagrass growth. Locally derived absolute thresholds ideally should be obtained for management of specific activities likely to impact on the light environment.

STATE PLANNING POLICY, RIPARIAN, WETLANDS, GROUNDWATERS

State Planning Policy all Refer to section 8


Wetlands, mangroves all

Refer to section 8

Mangroves: No loss of mangrove area (refer section 8).

Note: there is insufficient information available to establish local WQOs for wetlands. Refer to QWQG for details on how to establish a minimum water quality data set for deriving local 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles. In the absence of local information, the AWQG provides default values for wetlands.

Groundwaters (s2) HEV



50




Source:

GBRMPA (nd) Coastal and Marine Water Quality Guidelines: Cape York. Technical Background document to HWMP. WQIP Appendix 5, available from WQIP website

Moss, A, and Howley, C 2017 - Table 12, 13. For information on data sources, monitoring sites etc., refer to the above sources.

Notes to Table (where applicable):

1. Nutrients: Oxidised N = NO2 + NO3. Dissolved inorganic N (DIN) = Amm N + oxidised N. Except where specified for event conditions, nutrient guidelines do not apply during high flow events in fresh and estuarine waters. During periods of low flow and particularly in smaller creeks, build-up of organic matter derived from natural sources (e.g. leaf litter) can result in increased organic N levels (generally in the range of 400 to 800µg/L). This may lead to total N values exceeding the WQGs. Provided that levels of inorganic N (i.e. NH3 + oxidised N) remain low, then the elevated levels of organic N should not be seen as a breach of the WQGs, provided this is due to natural causes. See QWQG (section 5 and Appendix D) for more information on applying guidelines under high flow conditions.

2. Suspended solids: Suspended solids (and hence turbidity and Secchi depth) levels in coastal waters are naturally highly variable depending on wind speed/wave height and in some cases on tidal cycles. The values in this table provide guidance on what the long term values of turbidity, Secchi depth or TSS should comply with. However, these values will often be naturally exceeded in the short term during windy weather or spring tides. They therefore should not be used for comparison with short term data sets. Where assessable coastal developments are proposed, proponents should carry out site specific intensive monitoring of these indicators (or equivalent light penetration indicators) and use these as a baseline for deriving local guidelines and for comparison with post development conditions.

3. Dissolved oxygen (DO): Dissolved Oxygen (DO) guidelines apply to daytime conditions. Lower values will occur at night in most waters. In estuaries, reductions should only be in the region of 10–15 per cent saturation below daytime values. In freshwaters, night-time reductions are more variable. Following significant rainfall events, reduced DO values may occur due to the influx of organic material. In estuaries post-event values as low as 40 per cent saturation may occur naturally for short periods but values well below this would indicate some anthropogenic effect. In freshwaters, post-event DO reductions are again more variable. In general, DO values consistently less than 50 per cent are likely to impact on the ongoing ability of fish to persist in a water body while short term DO values less than 30 per cent saturation are toxic to some fish species. Very high DO (supersaturation) values can be toxic to some fish as they cause gas bubble disease. DO values for fresh waters should only be applied to flowing waters. Stagnant pools in intermittent streams naturally experience values of DO below 50 per cent saturation.

4. Open coastal/marine waters – GBR plume line: The GBR plume discharge area is derived from a smoothed version of the ‘high’ and ‘very high’ risk classes of modelled outputs from the risk assessment element of the Reef Plan Scientific Consensus Statement 2013 (Waterhouse et al. 2013).

5. Open coastal/marine waters - seasonal splits: While seasonal means are estimated based on biotic responses the relationship is not as strong as it is for annual mean values. They are provided here as indicative objectives to allow comparison with single season collected data sets. Wet and dry seasons can start and end at different times of the year. Seasonal dates indicated are generally applicable. Applying these values for any management action should take both of these matters into account.

References:

ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (AWQG).

Australian Government (2013) Anti-fouling and in-water cleaning guidelines (June 2013), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.


51

Chartrand KM, Ralph PJ, Petrou K and Rasheed MA. (2012) Development of a Light-Based Seagrass Management Approach for the Gladstone Western Basin Dredging Program. DAFF Publication. Fisheries Queensland, Cairns 126 pp.

Chartrand K, Sinutok S, Szabo M, Norman L, Rasheed MA, Ralph PJ, (2014), ‘Final Report: Deepwater Seagrass Dynamics - Laboratory-Based Assessments of Light and Temperature Thresholds for Halophila spp.’, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication, James Cook University, Cairns, 26 pp.

Collier, C.J., Chartrand, K., Honchin, C., Fletcher, A. Rasheed, M. (2016) Light thresholds for seagrasses of the GBR: a synthesis and guiding document. Including knowledge gaps and future priorities. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns (35 pp.).

De’ath G, Fabricius KE (2008) Water quality of the Great Barrier Reef: distributions, effects on reef biota and trigger values for the protection of ecosystem health. Final Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville. (104 pp.).

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2009) Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, Version 3, ISBN 978-0-9806986-0-2. Queensland Government. Re-published July 2013. (Refer to section 5 and Appendix D of the QWQG for more detail on compliance assessment protocols.)

Golding, LA, Angel, BM, Batley, GE, Apte, SC, Krassoi, R and Doyle, CJ (2015) Derivation of a water quality guideline for aluminium in marine waters, Environ Toxicol Chem., 34: 141-151.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2010) Water quality guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park 2010, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, available on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's website.

McKenna, SA, Chartrand, KM, Jarvis, JC, Carter, AB, Davies, JN, and Rasheed MA 2015. Initial light thresholds for modelling impacts to seagrass from the Abbot Point growth gateway project. James Cook University, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Report No 15/23.

McKenna, SA & Rasheed, MA 2014, ‘Port of Abbot Point Long-Term Seagrass Monitoring: Annual Report 2012-2013’, JCU Publication, Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, Cairns, 45 pp.

McKenna, SA, Rasheed, MA, Unsworth, RKF, & Chartrand, KM (2008) Port of Abbot Point seagrass baseline surveys – wet & dry season 2008. DPI&F Publication PR08-4140 (DPI&F, Cairns), 51pp

Rasheed, M. A., McKenna, S. A., Carter, A. B. & Coles, R. G.(2014) Contrasting recovery of shallow and deep water seagrass communities following climate associated losses in tropical north Queensland, Australia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 83, 491–499.

Schaffelke B, Carleton J, Doyle J, Furnas M, Gunn K, Skuza M, Wright M, Zagorskis I (2011) Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program. Final Report of AIMS Activities 2010/11– Inshore Water Quality Monitoring. Report for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville. (83 p.). Additional years also published accessible for download from GBRMPA.

Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 and Regulations 2008, available on the Office of Queensland Parliamentary Counsel website.

Waterhouse, J., Maynard, J., Brodie, J., Randall, L., Zeh, D., Devlin, M., Lewis, S., Furnas, M., Schaffelke, B., Fabricius, K., Collier, C., Brando, V., McKenzie, L., Warne, M.St.J., Smith, R., Negri, A., Henry, N., Petus, C., da Silva, E., Waters, D., Yorkston, H., Tracey, D., 2013. Section 2: Assessment of the risk of pollutants to ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef including differential risk between sediments, nutrients and pesticides, and among NRM regions. In: Brodie et al. Assessment of the relative risk of water quality to ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef. A report to the Department of the Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Government, Brisbane. TropWATER Report 13/28, Townsville, Australia.

York, P. H. et al. Dynamics of a deep-water seagrass population on the Great Barrier Reef: annual occurrence and response to a major dredging program. Sci. Rep. 5, 13167; doi: 10.1038/srep13167 (2015).


52

8 Planning and management links

8.1 Riparian vegetation

The clearing of native vegetation in Queensland is regulated by the Vegetation Management Act 1999, the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 and associated policies and codes. This includes the regulation of clearing in water and drainage lines.

For vegetation management relating to waterways, reference should be made to:

State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) Module 8: Native vegetation clearing. This module includes performance requirements relating to clearing of native vegetation and a table relating to watercourse buffer areas and stream order. To review the SDAP Modules, refer to the Department of Infrastructure Local Government and Planning website http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning/development-assessment/state-development-assessment-provisions.html .

SDAP Module 11: Wetland protection area relevant self-assessable codes under the Vegetation Management Act 1999. These codes

are activity based, some applying to different regions, and include performance requirements relating to watercourses and wetlands, aimed at maintaining water quality, bank stability, aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Codes include vegetation clearing controls that vary according to stream order. To review the latest applicable self-assessable code (and other explanatory information), view the Department of Natural Resources and Mines website. https://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/

To review the current vegetation management laws refer to the Queensland Government website or Department of Natural Resources and Mines website.

Local Government Planning schemes under the Sustainable Planning Act may also specify riparian buffers (for example under catchment protection or waterway codes). Refer to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning website and relevant local government websites for further information about planning schemes.

8.2 Wetlands

The Environmental Protection Regulation section 81A defines environmental values for wetlands.

The State assesses impacts from earth works that may have impacts on freshwater wetlands of High Ecological Significance in Great Barrier Reef Catchments against State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) Module 11: Wetland protection area.

This module includes performance requirements to ensure:

adverse effects on hydrology, water quality and ecological processes of a wetland are avoided or minimised

any significant adverse impacts on matters of state environmental significance and on riparian areas or wildlife corridors in strategic environmental areas are avoided.

8.3 Marine plants (including mangroves)

Marine plants grow on or adjacent to tidal lands. They include mangroves, seagrass, saltcouch, algae, samphire (succulent) vegetation and adjacent plants, such as melaleuca (paper barks) and casuarina (coastal she-oaks).

Marine plants support local fish populations, fish catches and general aquatic health, and for this reason they are protected under the Fisheries Act 1994. The destruction, damage or disturbance of marine plants without prior approval from Fisheries Queensland is prohibited.

Activities that disturb fish habitats may require fisheries development approval under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). A resource allocation authority (a form of resource entitlement) may also be


53

required under the Fisheries Act 1994. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries website contains further information on approvals, self-assessable codes and other aspects relating to marine plants. Refer to link below for more details. https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/habitats/fisheries-development/approvals-required

8.4 State Planning Policy (state interest – water quality)

Note: As part of Queensland’s planning reform process, the new Planning Act 2016 is planned to commence in July 2017. The State Planning Policy (SPP) and State Development Assessment Procedures (SDAP) modules are currently being updated. Please refer to the DILGP website for the most current information http://dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning-reform.html

The State Planning Policy (SPP) defines the Queensland Government’s policies about matters of state interest in land use planning and development (a state interest is defined under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009).

Water quality is a state interest. The SPP (state interest – water quality) seeks to ensure that ‘the environmental values and quality of Queensland waters are protected and enhanced’. It includes provisions relating to receiving waters, acid sulfate soils and water supply buffer areas.

The provisions of the SPP are operationalised through their ‘integration’ into local government planning schemes. Planning schemes adopt measures prescribed in the SPP including the SPP code – water quality (Appendix 3 of the SPP) or alternative measures considered more locally appropriate. The purpose of the code is to ‘ensure development is planned, designed, constructed and operated to manage stormwater and wastewater in ways that support the protection of environmental values identified in the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009’.

The code contains detailed performance objectives for planning schemes, development and land use activities to implement the code’s purpose. These include stormwater management design objectives for the construction phase (Table A of the code) and the post-construction phase of development (Table B). The stormwater quality design objectives for the post-construction phase include minimum percentage pollution load reductions (compared with unmitigated development) for key pollutants by climatic region.

The SPP (state interest – water quality) is supported by the State Planning Policy—state interest guideline – water quality. The SPP (including SPP code) and supporting guideline are available from the Department of Infrastructure Local Government and Planning website http://www.dilgp.qld.gov.au/planning/state-planning-instruments/state-planning-policy.html


54

HUMAN USE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES (BASED ON RELEVANT GUIDELINES)

NB: Proposed human use water quality objectives are based on national guidelines or other information sources, as specified in the following tables.

Table 9: Human use overview

Table 10: Drinking water

Table 11: Aquaculture – tropical

Table 12: Aquaculture – fresh water

Table 13: Aquaculture – marine

Table 14: Irrigation – thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms

Table 15: Irrigation – heavy metals and metalloids

Table 16: Stock watering – salinity

Table 17: Stock watering – heavy metals and metalloids

Table 18: Recreation – cyanobacteria alert levels and corresponding actions for management


55

Table 9 Water quality objectives to protect human use environmental values

Environmental value

Water type/area

Water quality guideline to protect EV (refer to specified codes and guidelines for full details)

Suitability for drinking water supply

All fresh waters including groundwaters

Quality of raw water (prior to treatment) to meet requirements of water supply operators. Also refer to Table 10.

Note: For water quality after treatment or at point of use refer to legislation and guidelines, including:

Public Health Act 2005 and Regulation

Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008, including any approved drinking water quality management plan under the Act

Water Fluoridation Act 2008 and Regulation

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) 2011, updated 2016.

Protection of the human consumer for oystering

Estuarine and coastal waters

As per AWQG and Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code2, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, as amended.

Protection of the human consumer

Fresh waters, estuarine and coastal waters

As per AWQG and Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, as amended.

Protection of cultural and spiritual values

Fresh waters (including groundwaters), estuarine and coastal waters

Protect or restore indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage consistent with relevant policies and plans.

Suitability for industrial use


None provided. Water quality requirements for industry vary within and between industries. The AWQG do not provide guidelines to protect industries, and indicate that industrial water quality requirements need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. This EV is usually protected by other values, such as the aquatic ecosystem EV.

Suitability for aquaculture


As per:

Tables 11–13

AWQG and Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2007 and updates.

Suitability for irrigation


AWQG values for pathogens and metals are provided in Tables 14 and 15. For other indicators, such as salinity, sodicity and herbicides, see AWQG.

Suitability for stock watering


As per AWQG, including median faecal coliforms <100 organisms per 100 mL.

For total dissolved solids and metals, refer Tables 16 and 17, based on AWQG.

For other indicators, such as cyanobacteria and pathogens, see AWQG.

Suitability for farm supply/use


As per AWQG.

Suitability for primary contact recreation


As per NHMRC (2008)3, including:

water free of physical (floating and submerged) hazards

temperature range: 16–34°C

pH range: 6.5–8.5

DO: >80%

2 Information on the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is available on the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand website.

3 Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water are available on the NHMRC website.


56

Environmental value

Water type/area

Water quality guideline to protect EV (refer to specified codes and guidelines for full details)

faecal contamination: designated recreational waters are protected against direct contamination with fresh faecal material, particularly of human or domesticated animal origin. Two principal components are required for assessing faecal contamination:

- assessment of evidence for the likely influence of faecal material

- counts of suitable faecal indicator bacteria (usually enterococci)

These two components are combined to produce an overall microbial classification of the recreational water body.

direct contact with venomous or dangerous aquatic organisms should be avoided. Recreational water bodies should be reasonably free of, or protected from, venomous organisms (e.g. box jellyfish and bluebottles)

waters contaminated with chemicals that are either toxic or irritating to the skin or mucous membranes are unsuitable for recreational purposes.

Suitability for primary contact recreation

Fresh waters cyanobacteria/algae: Recreational water bodies should not contain:

- level 11: ≥ 10 μg/L total microcystins; or ≥ 50 000 cells/mL toxic Microcystis aeruginosa; or biovolume equivalent of ≥ 4 mm3/L for the combined total of all cyanobacteria where a known toxin producer is dominant in the total biovolume or

- level 21: ≥ 10 mm3/L for total biovolume of all cyanobacterial material where known toxins are not present

or

- cyanobacterial scums consistently present. Further details are contained in NHMRC (2008) and Table 18.

Estuarine, coastal waters

cyanobacteria/algae: Recreational water bodies should not contain ≥ 10 cells/mL Karenia brevis and/or have Lyngbya majuscula and/or Pfiesteria present in high numbers2. Further details are contained in NHMRC (2008) and Table 18.

Suitability for secondary contact recreation


As per NHMRC (2008), including:

intestinal enterococci: refer primary recreation above

cyanobacteria/algae—refer primary recreation, NHMRC (2008) and Table 18.

Suitability for visual recreation


As per NHMRC (2008), including:

recreational water bodies should be aesthetically acceptable to recreational users. The water should be free from visible materials that may settle to form objectionable deposits; floating debris, oil, scum and other matter; substances producing objectionable colour, odour, taste or turbidity; and substances and conditions that produce undesirable aquatic life.

cyanobacteria/algae—see, NHMRC (2008) and Table 18.

Notes:

1. Level 1 recognises the probability of adverse health effects from ingestion of known toxins, in this case based on the toxicity of microcystins. Level 2 covers circumstances in which there are very high cell densities of cyanobacterial material, irrespective of the presence of toxicity or known toxins. Increased cyanobacterial densities increase the likelihood of non-specific adverse health outcomes, principally respiratory, irritation and allergy symptoms. (NHMRC, 2008; 8).

2. The NHMRC states that its guidelines are concerned ‘only with risks that may be associated with recreational activities in or near coastal and estuarine waters. This includes exposure through dermal contact, inhalation of sea-spray aerosols and possible ingestion of water or algal scums, but does not include dietary exposure to marine algal toxins.’ (NHMRC, 2008; 121).

Sources:

The WQOs were determined from a combination of documents, including:

Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC, 2011 as updated 2016).

Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Australian Government: Food Standards Australia New Zealand).

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000).

Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (NHMRC, 2008)


57

Table 10 Drinking water EV: Priority water quality guidelines for drinking water supply in the vicinity of off-takes, including groundwater, before treatment

Indicator Water quality guideline

Giardia 0 cysts (Queensland Water Supply Regulator)

No guideline value set (ADWG)

If Giardia is detected in drinking water then the health authorities should be notified immediately and an investigation of the likely source of contamination undertaken (ADWG).

Cryptosporidium 0 cysts (Queensland Water Supply Regulator)

No guideline value set (ADWG)

If Cryptosporidium is detected in drinking water then the health authorities should be notified immediately and an investigation of the likely source of contamination undertaken (ADWG).

E. coli Well designed treatment plants with effective barriers and disinfection are designed to address faecal contamination. E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms should not be present in any 100 mL sample of (treated) drinking water (ADWG).

Algal toxin <1.3 µg/L Microcystin (ADWG)

pH 6.5–8.5 (ADWG)

Total dissolved solids (TDS) <600mg/L

The concentration of total dissolved solids in treated drinking water should not exceed 600 mg/L (ADWG, based on taste considerations).

Sodium General 1: The concentration of sodium in reticulated drinking water supplies should not exceed 180 mg/L (ADWG, based on threshold at which taste becomes appreciable).

At-risk groups (medical) 1: The concentration of sodium in water supplies for at-risk groups should not exceed 20 mg/L (ADWG).

Sulfate The concentration of sulfate in drinking water should not exceed 250 mg/L (ADWG 2011, based on taste/aesthetic considerations).

ADWG 2011 health guideline: <500mg/L

Dissolved oxygen >85% saturation (ADWG)

Pesticides Raw supplies: Below detectable limits.

Treated drinking water: Refer to ADWG.

Other indicators (including physico-chemical indicators)

Refer to ADWG.

Source: Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC, 2011 as updated 2016).

Notes:

1. The ADWG notes that 50 mg/L is a ‘typical value' in reticulated supplies. The ADWG value for sodium is 180 mg/L (based on level at which taste become appreciable) however ‘sodium salts cannot be easily removed from drinking water’ and ‘any steps to reduce sodium concentrations are encouraged’. It further notes that ‘medical practitioners treating people with severe hypertension or congestive heart failure should be aware if the sodium concentration in the patient’s drinking water exceeds 20 mg/L’ (ADWG; sodium factsheet).


58

Table 11 Aquaculture EV: Water quality guidelines for tropical aquaculture

Source: Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries: Water Quality in Aquaculture—DPI Notes April 2004

Water parameter Recommended range

Water parameter Recommended range

Fresh water Marine General aquatic

Dissolved oxygen >4 mg/L >4 mg/L Arsenic <0.05 mg/L

Temperature ˚C 21–32 24–33 Cadmium <0.003 mg/L

pH 6.8–9.5 7–9.0 Calcium/Magnesium 10–160 mg/L

Ammonia (TAN, total ammonia-nitrogen)

<1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L Chromium <0.1 mg/L

Ammonia (NH3, un-ionised form)

<0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L Copper <0.006 mg/L in soft water

Nitrate (NO3) 1–100 mg/L 1–100 mg/L Cyanide <0.005 mg/L

Nitrite (NO2) <0.1 mg/L <1.0 mg/L Iron <0.5 mg/L

Salinity 0–5 ppt 15–35 ppt Lead <0.03 mg/L

Hardness 20–450 mg/L Manganese <0.01 mg/L

Alkalinity 20–400 mg/L >100mg/L Mercury <0.00005 mg/L

Turbidity <80 NTU Nickel <0.01 mg/L in soft water <0.04 mg/L in hard water

Chlorine <0.003 mg/L Tin <0.001 mg/L

Hydrogen sulphide <0.002 mg/L Zinc

0.03–0.06 mg/L in soft water

1–2 mg/L in hard water


59

Table 12 Aquaculture EV: Water quality guidelines for optimal growth of particular species in fresh water

Water parameter Barramundi Eel Silver perch Jade perch Sleepy cod Redclaw

Dissolved oxygen 4–9 mg/L >3 mg/L >4 mg/L >3 mg/L >4.0 mg/L >4.0 mg/L

Temperature ˚C 26–32 23–28 23–28 23–28 22–31 23–31

pH 7.5–8.5 7.0–8.5 6.5–9 6.5–9 7.0–8.5 7.0–8.5

Ammonia (TAN, Total ammonia-nitrogen)

<1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L

Ammonia (NH3, un-ionised form)*pH dependent.

<0.46 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L

Nitrate (NO3) <100 mg/L

Nitrite (NO2) <1.5 mg/L <1.0 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L

Salinity (extended periods)

0–35 ppt <5 ppt <5 ppt <4 ppt

Salinity bath 0–35 ppt 5–10 ppt for 1 hour

max. 20 ppt for one hour

Hardness (CaCO3) >50 mg/L >50 mg/L >40 mg/L >40 mg/L

Alkalinity >20 mg/L 100–400 ppm 100–400 ppm >40 mg/L >40 mg/L

Chlorine <0.04 mg/L <0.04 mg/L

Hydrogen sulphide 0–0.3 mg/L 0–0.3 mg/L

Iron <0.1 mg/L <0.5 mg/L <0.5 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L

Spawning temperature ˚C

Marine 23–28 23–28 >24 for more than three

days

Source: Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries: Water Quality in Aquaculture—DPI Notes April 2004.


60

Table 13 Aquaculture EV: Water quality guidelines for optimal growth of particular marine species

Water parameter Barramundi Tiger prawn Kuruma prawn

Hatchery Grow out Hatchery Grow out Grow out

Dissolved oxygen Saturation >4 mg/L >4 mg/L >3.5 mg/L >4 mg/L

Temperature ˚C 28–30 optimum

25–31 range

28–30 optimum 26–32 24

pH ~8 ~8 ~8 7.5–8.5 7.5–8.5

Ammonia (TAN, total ammonia-nitrogen)

0.1–0.5 mg/L

Ammonia (NH3, un-ionised form)

<0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L <0.1 mg/L

Nitrate (NO3) <1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L <1.0 mg/L

Nitrite (NO2) <0.2 mg/L <1.0 mg/L <0.2 mg/L <0.2 mg/L <0.2 mg/L

Salinity 28–31 ppt 0–35 ppt 10–25 ppt optimum

30–35 ppt optimum

Alkalinity 105–125 mg/L CaCO3

Clarity 30–40 cm Secchi disk

30–40 cm Secchi disk

Hydrogen sulphide <0.3 mg/L

Iron <0.02 mg/L <1.0 mg/L

Spawning temperature ˚C

28–32 27–32

Source: Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries—Water Quality in Aquaculture—DPI Notes April 2004 (as amended).


61

Table 14 Irrigation EV: Water quality guidelines for thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms in irrigation waters used for food and non-food crops1

Intended use Median values of thermotolerant coliforms

(colony forming units—cfu)2

Raw human food crops in direct contact with irrigation water (e.g. via sprays, irrigation of salad vegetables)

<10 cfu/100 mL

Raw human food crops not in direct contact with irrigation water (edible product separated from contact with water, e.g. by peel, use of trickle irrigation); or crops sold to consumers cooked or processed

<1000 cfu/100 mL

Pasture and fodder for dairy animals (without withholding period) <100 cfu/100 mL

Pasture and fodder for dairy animals (with withholding period of five days)

<1000 cfu/100 mL

Pasture and fodder (for grazing animals except pigs and dairy animals, i.e. cattle, sheep and goats)

<1000 cfu/100 mL

Silviculture, turf, cotton, etc. (restricted public access) <10 000 cfu/100 mL

Notes:

1. Adapted from ARMCANZ, ANZECC and NHMRC (1999).

2. Refer to AWQG, Volume 1, Section 4.2.3.3 for advice on testing protocols.

Source: AWQG, Volume 1, Section 4.2.3.3, Table 4.2.2.


62

Table 15 Irrigation EV: Water quality guidelines for heavy metals and metalloids in agricultural irrigation water— soil cumulative contamination loading limit (CCL), long-term trigger value (LTV) and short-term trigger value (STV)1

Element Soil cumulative contaminant loading limit (CCL)2 (kg/ha)

Long-term trigger value (LTV) in irrigation water (up to 100

years) (mg/L)

Short-term trigger value (STV) in irrigation water (up to 20

years) (mg/L)

Aluminium ND2 5 20

Arsenic 20 0.1 2.0

Beryllium ND 0.1 0.5

Boron ND 0.5 Refer to AWQG,

Vol 3, Table 9.2.18

Cadmium 2 0.01 0.05

Chromium ND 0.1 1

Cobalt ND 0.05 0.1

Copper 140 0.2 5

Fluoride ND 1 2

Iron ND 0.2 10

Lead 260 2 5

Lithium ND 2.5

(0.075 for citrus crops) 2.5

(0.075 for citrus crops)

Manganese ND 0.2 10

Mercury 2 0.002 0.002

Molybdenum ND 0.01 0.05

Nickel 85 0.2 2

Selenium 10 0.02 0.05

Uranium ND 0.01 0.1

Vanadium ND 0.1 0.5

Zinc 300 2 5

Notes:

1. Concentrations in irrigation water should be less than the trigger values. Trigger values should only be used in conjunction with information on each individual element and the potential for off-site transport of contaminants (refer AWQG, Volume 3, Section 9.2.5).

2. ND = Not determined; insufficient background data to calculate CCL.

Source: AWQG, Volume 1, Section 4.2.6, Table 4.2.10.


63

Table 16 Stock watering EV: Water quality guidelines for tolerances of livestock to salinity, as total dissolved solids, in drinking water1

Livestock Total dissolved solids (TDS) (mg/L)

No adverse effects on animals expected.

Animals may have initial reluctance to drink or there may be some scouring, but stock should adapt without loss of production

Loss of production and decline in animal condition and health would be expected. Stock may tolerate these levels for short periods if introduced gradually

Beef cattle 0–4000 4000–5000 5000–10 000

Dairy cattle 0–2500 2500–4000 4000–7000

Sheep 0–5000 5000–10 000 10 000–13 0002

Horses 0–4000 4000–6000 6000–7000

Pigs 0–4000 4000–6000 6000–8000

Poultry 0–2000 2000–3000 3000–4000

Notes:

1. From ANZECC (1992), adapted to incorporate more recent information.

2. Sheep on lush green feed may tolerate up to 13 000 mg/L TDS without loss of condition or production.

Source: AWQG, Volume 1, Section 4.3.3.5, Table 4.3.1.


64

Table 17 Stock watering EV: Stock watering EV: Water quality guidelines (low risk trigger values) for heavy metals and metalloids in livestock drinking water

Metal or metalloid Trigger value (low risk)1,2 (mg/L)

Aluminium 5

Arsenic 0.5 (up to 53)

Beryllium ND

Boron 5

Cadmium 0.01

Chromium 1

Cobalt 1

Copper 0.4 (sheep), 1 (cattle), 5 (pigs), 5 (poultry)

Fluoride 2

Iron not sufficiently toxic

Lead 0.1

Manganese not sufficiently toxic

Mercury 0.002

Molybdenum 0.15

Nickel 1

Selenium 0.02

Uranium 0.2

Vanadium ND

Zinc 20

Notes:

1. Higher concentrations may be tolerated in some situations (further details provided in AWQG, Volume 3, Section 9.3.5).

2. ND = not determined, insufficient background data to calculate.

3. May be tolerated if not provided as a food additive and natural levels in the diet are low.

Source: AWQG, Volume 1, Section 4.3.4, Table 4.3.2.


65

Table 18 Recreational waters: Alert levels and corresponding actions for management of cyanobacteria

When cyanobacteria are present in large numbers they can present a significant hazard, particularly to primary contact users of waters. Water quality guidelines for cyanobacteria in recreational waters are provided in Table 9. Monitoring and action requirements relative to cyanobacteria ‘alert’ levels are summarised below, and are explained more fully in the Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (NHMRC, 2008). Further details on the process to determine suitability of waters for recreation, relative to historical cyanobacterial levels and susceptibility to cyanobacterial contamination, are contained in sections 6 and 7 of the NHMRC guidelines.

Green level surveillance mode1 Amber level alert mode1 Red level action mode1

Fresh waters

≥ 500 to <5000 cells/mL M. aeruginosa or biovolume equivalent of >0.04 to <0.4 mm3/L for the combined total of all cyanobacteria.

≥ 5000 to <50 000 cells/mL M. aeruginosa or biovolume equivalent of ≥ 0.4 to <4 mm3/L for the combined total of all cyanobacteria where a known toxin producer is dominant in the total biovolume2.

or3

≥ 0.4 to <10 mm3/L for the combined total of all cyanobacteria where known toxin producers are not present.

Level 1 guideline4:

≥ 10 μg/L total microcystins

or

≥ 50 000 cells/mL toxic M. aeruginosa or biovolume equivalent of ≥ 4 mm3/L for the combined total of all cyanobacteria where a known toxin producer is dominant in the total biovolume.

or3

Level 2 guideline4:

≥ 10 mm3/L for total biovolume of all cyanobacterial material where known toxins are not present.

or

cyanobacterial scums are consistently present5.

Coastal and estuarine waters

Karenia brevis

≤ 1 cell/mL > 1– < 10 cells/mL ≥ 10 cells/mL

Lyngbya majuscula, Pfiesteria spp.

History but no current presence of organism

Present in low numbers Present in high numbers. (For Lyngbya majuscula this involves the relatively widespread visible presence of dislodged algal filaments in the water and washed up onto the beach)

Nodularia spumigena: See NHMRC, Chapter 6 (Cyanobacteria and algae in fresh water) for details.

Notes:

1. Recommended actions at different alert levels are outlined below (based on NHMRC, 2008, Table 6.6—fresh waters. Similar actions are outlined for coastal/estuarine waters in NHMRC Table 7.6):

a. Green: Regular monitoring. Weekly sampling and cell counts at representative locations in the water body where known toxigenic species are present (i.e. Microcystis aeruginosa, Anabaena circinalis, Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii, Aphanizomenon ovalisporum, Nodularia spumigena); or fortnightly for other types including regular visual inspection of water surface for scums.

b. Amber: Notify agencies as appropriate. Increase sampling frequency to twice weekly at representative locations in the water body where toxigenic species (above) are dominant within the alert level definition (i.e. total biovolume) to establish population growth and spatial variability in the water body. Monitor weekly or fortnightly where other types are dominant. Make regular visual inspections of water surface for scums. Decide on requirement for toxicity assessment or toxin monitoring.

c. Red: Continue monitoring as for (amber) alert mode. Immediately notify health authorities for advice on health risk. (‘In action mode the local authority and health authorities warn the public of the existence of potential health risks; for example, through the media and the erection of signs by the local authority.’ NHMRC, 2008; 114). Make toxicity assessment or toxin measurement of water if this has not already been done. Health authorities warn of risk to public health (i.e. the authorities make a health risk assessment considering toxin monitoring data, sample type and variability).

2. The definition of 'dominant' is where the known toxin producer comprises 75 per cent or more of the total biovolume of cyanobacteria in a representative sample.


66

3. This applies where high cell densities or scums of 'non toxic' cyanobacteria are present i.e. where the cyanobacterial population has been tested and shown not to contain known toxins (mycrocystins, nodularian, cylindrospermopsin or saxitoxin).

4. Health risks and levels: Level 1 is developed to protect against short-term health effects of exposure to cyanobacterial toxins ingested during recreational activity, whereas the Level 2 applies to the circumstance where there is a probability of increased likelihood of non-specific adverse health outcomes, principally respiratory, irritation and allergy symptoms, from exposure to very high cell densities of cyanobacterial material irrespective of the presence of toxicity or known toxins (NHMRC, 2008;114).

5. This refers to the situation where scums occur at the recreation site each day when conditions are calm, particularly in the morning. Note that it is not likely that scums are always present and visible when there is a high population as the cells may mix down with wind and turbulence and then reform later when conditions become stable.

Source: Based on NHMRC (2008) Guideline for Managing Risks in Recreational Water (tables 6.2, 6.6, 7.3).


67

MAPS

Figure 1: Jacky Jacky Basin

Figure 2: Olive-Pascoe River Basin

Figure 3: Lockhart River Basin

Figure 4: Stewart River Basin

Figure 5: Normanby River Basin

Figure 6: Normanby River Basin sub-catchment areas

Figure 7: Jeannie River Basin

Figure 8: Endeavour River Basin

Figure 9: Eastern Cape York coastal waters


68

Figure 1 Jacky Jacky Basin


69

Figure 2 Olive-Pascoe River Basin


70

Figure 3 Lockhart River Basin


71

Figure 4 Stewart River Basin


72

Figure 5 Normanby River Basin


73

Figure 6 Normanby River Basin sub-catchment areas


74

Figure 7 Jeannie River Basin


75

Figure 8 Endeavour River Basin


76

Figure 9 Eastern Cape York coastal waters


77