Original source · versioned page text
INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM - BURGESS CREEK · Unitywater Burgess Creek REMP 2022 Annual Review (A7703347)
Burgess Creek
Monitoring Program
Annual Assessment and Review
2022
6 Unitywater Burgess Creek Monitoring Program Annual Assessment and Review 2022See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 63 pages
Page 2
Report Details
Project Number A7541556
Document Owner Unitywater
Project Manager Scott Lowe – Environmental Advisor
Author Alannah Duffy – Environmental Advisor
Report Title Burgess Creek Receiving Environment Monitoring Program Annual Assessment and Review 2022
Project Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual review of environmental monitoring undertaken in accordance with the Burgess Creek
Project Summary
Monitoring Program for Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant releases into Burgess Creek for 2021.
Document Review
Document Document Author Reviewed By Approved By
Version Status
A7541556 Final Alannah Duffy Scott Lowe Michael Robinson
Environmental Advisor Environmental Advisor Environment Team Leader
Issue Approval
Destination Object ID Completion Date
Unitywater - Objective A7541556 3 May 2023
Page 3
Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Report Structure and Contents ................................................................................. 2 3.0 Monitoring Area for the Burgess Creek Monitoring Program ................................ 3 3.1 Environmental Values Water Quality Objectives....................................................... 4 3.2 Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality ........................................................ 5 3.3 Noosa STP treated wastewater release conditions .................................................. 6 4.0 Burgess Creek Monitoring Program ........................................................................ 7 5.0 Results ..................................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Climatic Conditions ................................................................................................ 11 5.2 Summary Statistics ................................................................................................ 13 5.3 Spatial Trends ........................................................................................................ 13 5.4 Temporal Variability ............................................................................................... 23 5.5 Long term variability ............................................................................................... 33 5.6 Statistical Comparison of 2020 and 2021 Monitoring Data ..................................... 41 5.7 Compliance of 2021 data with Water Quality Objectives ........................................ 43 5.8 Comparison with Recreational Water Quality Limits ............................................... 44 5.9 Compliance of treated wastewater releases with Environmental Authority EPPR008691113 ............................................................................................................. 45 6.0 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 47 7.0 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 55 8.0 References ............................................................................................................... 56 9.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................. 58 Appendix A - Summary statistics of nutrient concentrations and microbiological indicators at each monitoring site ................................................................................... 58
Page 4
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
1.0 Executive Summary
Unitywater undertakes surface water monitoring in accordance with the conditions present
within the Environmental Authority EPPR008691113 (the EA) for Noosa Sewage Treatment
Plant (STP) in the Burgess Creek Catchment. This annual report summarises the surface
water monitoring conducted throughout the 2021 calendar year. During the 2021 review
period, 0 non-compliances were recorded for treated wastewater releases from the Noosa
STP in association with the conditions imposed by the EA.
Water quality monitoring data collected as part of this program has been presented in nine
ways to ensure that the influence of the treated wastewater discharged from the Noosa STP
is adequately represented and assessed. Results highlighted the complexity of the Burgess
Creek catchment and the potential influence of the STP along with additional land use, ocean
proximity and groundwater input drivers. Changing climatic conditions, statistically significant
differences, and temporal variability sourced from estimated flow rate defines trending results
with decreased water in the Catchment. A comparative assessment with Water Quality
Objectives (WQO) indicated a consistent trend of overall compliance with the water quality
objectives.
2.0 Scope
The Burgess Creek Monitoring Program has been developed to ensure compliance with the
EA. Its purpose is to assess the potential impacts of the Noosa STP treated wastewater outfall
within the Burgess Creek catchment. The program is designed per conditions NHW5 and
NHW6 of the EA outlined in Figure 1. It addresses physical, chemical and biological water
quality indicators in line with environmental values of lowland freshwaters in the Noosa River.
Figure 1. Condition NHW5 and NHW6 of Environmental Authority EPPR008691113 (p40).
Page 1 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 5
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
The purpose of this Burgess Creek Monitoring Program Annual Assessment and Review is to
conduct an annual evaluation, explanation or assessment of the monitoring data collected by
this Receiving Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP). This assessment report completes
the requirement in condition G13 of the EA outlined in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Condition G13 of Environmental Authority EPPR008691113 (p8).
2.1 Report Structure and Contents
The annual report has been prepared to meet the EA and REMP reporting
requirements and includes a summary of the following:
• Presentation of data collected during the 2021 calendar year;
• Comparison of 2021 data to the most appropriate water quality and biological
objectives;
• Graphical comparison of 2021 data with historical data; and
• Statistical comparison of 2021 data to historical data.
Monitoring data collected from the Burgess Creek Monitoring Program have been
presented in nine ways to ensure that the influence of the treated wastewater
discharged from the Noosa STP is adequately represented and assessed:
1. An assessment of climatic conditions contributing to the water quality of
Burgess Creek
2. A table summary of the monitoring data collected;
3. Scatter plots with standard error bars graphically presenting spatial trends
within Burgess Creek;
4. Line plots graphically presenting temporal trends (monthly) at each monitoring
site;
Page 2 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 6
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
5. Scatter plots with trend lines demonstrating long-term trends at each monitoring
site;
6. Students' t-tests provide statistical comparisons between current and previous
years' monitoring data;
7. Tabled comparison of data against water quality objectives and a line graph
demonstrating historical compliance trends.
8. A table of percentage compliance with recreational water quality limits for
microbiological indicators; and
9. A table summary of percentage compliance of treated wastewater releases with
the EA.
3.0 Monitoring Area for the Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
The Burgess Creek catchment covers an approximate area of 5.6 km2 in the Noosa Shire
Council region of Queensland. Two branches of the Creek, the East and West, join to form
the main Burgess Creek. Burgess Creek flows in a general south-easterly direction before
discharging into the Pacific Ocean at Sunrise Beach. It is a small catchment situated between:
• Coastal sand dunes created by wind and wave action to the east;
• Noosa River to the north; and
• Weyba Creek and Lake Weyba to the west and south.
While the Burgess Creek catchment is small, the complex interaction of existing and past land
uses resulted in the Catchment being considered moderately disturbed. The predominant land
use is remnant vegetation and urban. Residential dominates in the elevated parts of the
Catchment and natural vegetation within the lower regions, particularly within the floodplain
and immediately around Burgess Creek.
Burgess Creek discharges from a partly urbanised catchment through an area of
environmental value onto a beach widely used for recreation. The Creek is subject to varied
land uses, which are inclusive of but not limited to the following:
• Noosa STP;
• Two de-commissioned landfills;
• Noosa National Park and Conservation Parks
• Girraween Sporting Complex;
• Girraween State High School; and
• Recreational activities on Sunrise and Castaway Beaches.
A detailed review of the land-uses present within the Burgess Creek catchment is within the
report prepared by KBR (2004) and its implications on the Burgess Creek water quality.
Page 3 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 7
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
The water types in the Burgess Creek Catchment are based on the Australian and New
Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000) and mapping and definitional
rules contained in the Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP), 2009). It is classified as lowland freshwater,
divided into a wallum/tannin-stained freshwater subtype in southeast Queensland. The
wallum/tannin-stained freshwaters can be defined as tannin-stained, generally low gradient,
small to mid-sized streams, many with sandy substrates and low pH, tea-coloured water
draining through wallum vegetation. It is derived from work for the Ecosystem Health
Monitoring Program (Department of Environment and Science (DES), 2015).
3.1 Environmental Values Water Quality Objectives
The QWQG defines Environmental Values (EVs) for water as the qualities of water that
make it suitable for supporting aquatic ecosystems and human water uses. These EVs
need to be protected by maintaining and/or enhancing the water quality from the effects of
habitat alteration, wastewater releases, runoff, and changed flows to ensure healthy
aquatic ecosystems and waterways that meet community use and expectations. For
management purposes, waters are grouped into catchments and sub-catchments, and EVs
are provided at a catchment level to protect defined water uses.
In 2019 the Department of Environment and Science began reviewing its EVs and WQOs
throughout Queensland. As part of this process a number of changes have been made to
mapping, environmental values and water quality objectives for Burgess Creek. The new
document which prescribes new environmental values and water quality objectives for
Burgess Creek is titled “Noosa River environmental values and water quality objectives”.
The revised EVs and WQOs were published in July 2022. Upon review it has been noted
that there have been extensive changes made and new mapping that needs to be
integrated into future assessments. This review has determined that there is a disconnect
between the ecological value mapping in Burgess Creek and the prescribed environmental
values and water quality objectives. Due to the number of changes and noted discrepancy
between two key documents, it is recommended that DES is engaged to discuss the
application of WQOs within future assessments. Once resolved, it is recommended for
inclusion in the Burgess Creek Monitoring Program Annual Review for 2023.
The document titled "Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 Noosa River
Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives" has been retained and used in this,
the 2021 Review to compare the environmental values and water quality objectives for the
Page 4 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 8
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
monitoring year 2021 within Burgess Creek. The environmental values applied within this
assessment are listed in Table 1 (Department of Environment and Sciences (DES), 2010).
Table 1. Environmental values applicable to Burgess Creek.
Water Environmental Value
Other estuarine Aquatic Ecosystem
tributaries
Human consumer
Primary recreation
Secondary recreation
Visual recreation
Cultural and Spiritual value
Spiritual value
The Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) used for comparison within this assessment are
those listed under Area NF1 for "Lowland Freshwater – Aquatic Ecosystem Moderately
Disturbed". Table 2 lists the water quality objectives that have been applied to the
monitoring area of the Burgess Creek REMP for this monitoring period.
Table 2. Water quality objectives most applicable to Burgess Creek.
Water Quality Parameter Unit Limit
Suspended Solids mg/L <6
Chlorophyll a µg/L <5
Total Nitrogen µg/L <500
Ammonia N µg/L <20
Total Phosphorus µg/L <50
Filterable Reactive Phosphorus µg/L <20
Dissolved Oxygen % saturation 85-110
pH H+ 6.5-8.0
Conductivity µS/cm3 500
3.2 Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality
The Australian and New Zealand Environmental Conservation Council (ANZECC) and
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000) define
the limits for primary and secondary recreational use for microbiological indicators to
ensure public health. These guidelines provide the limits for thermotolerant coliforms and
Page 5 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 9
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
enterococci. The guidelines also discuss the primary recreational limit set in New Zealand
for E.coli, but this value has not been adopted in Australia within these guidelines nor in
other guidelines published. No secondary recreational limits for E.coli have been
prescribed or published in New Zealand. The primary and secondary limits prescribed
within the ANZECC (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine
Water Quality are in Table 3.
Table 3. Primary and Secondary Recreational Contact Guideline Values
Microbiological Indicator Units Primary Secondary
Recreational Recreational
Guideline Limit Guideline Limit
Enterococci cfu/100mL 35 230
Thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100mL 150 1000
E.coli cfu/100mL 1260 NA
3.3 Noosa STP treated wastewater release conditions
The Noosa STP is authorised to release treated wastewater in accordance with conditions
NHW2, and NHW3 within the EA outlined in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Condition NHW2 and NHW3 of Environmental Authority EPPR008691113 (p40).
These release limits stipulate the minimum quality of the treated wastewater that can be
released from the prescribed release points. An extract of key release limits for treated
wastewater at Noosa STP from Schedule 2, Table 26 from the EA is in Table 4 and Table
5.
Table 4. Mass Load limits at the Noosa STP
Average Annual Nitrogen 50th Nitrogen Phosphorus Phosphorous
Flow (ML/year) Percentile (Kg/year) 50th Percentile
(mg/L) (mg/L) (Kg/year)
5110 5 25 550 1 5 110
Page 6 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 10
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Table 5. Contaminant release limits to waters at the Noosa STP
Quality Median
Maximum
Characteristic
Faecal Coliforms 150 cfu/100ml (for 5 consecutive Four (4) out of five (5) samples
samples collected at not less than six containing less than 600
(6) day intervals) cfu/100mL
4.0 Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
The Burgess Creek REMP consists of seven monitoring sites: Six on the western branch/main
branch and one on the eastern branch of Burgess Creek. A description of the Burgess Creek
monitoring sites is in Table 6, and a map of their corresponding locations is in Figure 4. The
parameters measured as part of this monitoring program and the limits of detection are in
Table 7. All water sampling is conducted in accordance with the Water Quality Sampling
Manual, produced by the Department of Environment and Science.
Page 7 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 11
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Table 6. Description of Burgess Creek monitoring sites
Sampling Monitoring Site Description Distance to River
Site Mouth (km)
Main Branch Castaways Beach at the creek mouth 120m
SW3 downstream from the 'B1' sampling point. 0
GPS: S26°25.492’ E153°06.529’
Main Branch David Low Way, Sunrise Beach. Downstream
of the stormwater pipe under the bridge. 120m upstream of
B1 0.2
the creek mouth.
GPS: S26°25.502’ E153°06.414’
Main Branch 150m west of the end of Dame Patti Drive,
B5 Sunrise Beach 2.0
GPS: S26°25.044’ E153°05.788’
Western Branch Wallum Lane - Rotary Way, Noosa STP,
Noosa Heads. 250m downstream of the treated wastewater
B6 2.5
discharge pipe and B3 site location.
GPS: S26°24.899’ E153°05.587’
Western branch Wallum Lane – Rotary Way, Noosa Sewage
Treatment Plant. Downstream of the treated wastewater
B3 2.8
discharge pipe.
GPS: S26°24.76602', E153°05.46402'
Eastern Branch Ben Lexcen Drive, Sunrise Beach. 150m
B2 northwest of Girraween Sports Complex. 2.9
GPS: S26°24.654’ E153°05.736’
Western branch ephemeral stream located 230m west of the
Eenie Creek/Langura Street roundabout and accessed via
B8 3.0
Eenie Ck Rd, Noosa Heads.
GPS: S26°24.690’ E153°05.430’
Western Branch historic upstream sampling point. 700m
B4* 3.5
upstream of the treated wastewater discharge pipe.
Note: Asterix (*) denotes site that is no longer monitored.
Page 8 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 12
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 4. The location of monitoring sites within the Burgess Creek REMP.
Page 9 of 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced or translated
without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
Page 13
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Table 7. List of water quality characteristics measured as part of the
Burgess Creek REMP.
Parameters Units Limits of Detection
E.coli cfu/100mL 1
Faecal Coliforms cfu/100mL 1
Enterococci cfu/100mL 1
pH pHU 0.1
Temperature ℃ 0.01
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0.1
Conductivity µS/cm 5
Ammonia mg/L 0.005
NOx mg/L 0.005
Phosphate mg/L 0.005
Total Nitrogen mg/L 0.01
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.01
Chlorophyll a µg/L 1
Chlorophyll a: Pheophytin ratio ratio Not applicable
Suspended Solids mg/L 2
Flow Rate Not Applicable Not applicable
Note: The estimated flow rate has been converted into a rating from zero to five based on the
estimated flow rate at each monitoring site, as calculated previously (Lowe, 2016).
5.0 Results
In 2021, sampling was conducted monthly as scheduled for 2021, with 12 sampling events
undertaken on the following dates:
• 20 January 2021; • 8 July 2021;
• 4 February 2021; • 5 August 2021;
• 10 March 2021; • 29 September 2021;
• 21 April 2021; • 14 October 2021;
• 19 May 2021; • 11 November 2021
• 9 June 2021; • 10 December 2021.
All samples were collected and analysed from monitoring sites B1, B2, B3, B6 and SW3
throughout the Calendar year. At monitoring site B5, samples were collected and analysed
from 11 out of 12 sampling events. Sampling was not undertaken in July due to restricted
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 10 of 64
Page 14
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
access to the site. At monitoring site B8, samples were collected and analysed from 3 of 12
sampling events. B8 is located within an ephemeral section of the Creek and only contains
surface water when it rains or immediately following rain. This prevented the collection of water
quality samples and was the reason for the absence of water quality parameter
concentrations.
5.1 Climatic Conditions
Long-term rainfall and temperature data were collected from the SILO Climate Data 1 within
the monitoring area for the Burgess Creek Water Quality Monitoring Program at the
following coordinate location:
• Latitude: -26.40 degrees south.
• Longitude: 153.10 degrees east.
SILO represents a gridded dataset based on records provided by the Bureau of
Meteorology (BoM). The data is then processed to fill gaps in data and produce a spatially
complete dataset (Queensland Government, 2021). A summary of monthly averages of the
SILO long-term data is in Figure 5 and Figure 6. The following general trends were
observed in the SILO data:
• Higher monthly rainfall averages during January, March, April, November, and
December, the "Wet Season".
• Lower mean monthly rainfall between May through to October, the "Dry Season".
• In 2021, the total rainfall record from SILO was 1613.40mm, compared to
2014.90mm of rainfall in 2020.
• Rainfall received in 2021 was below the long-term average annual rainfall of
1771.82mm recorded since 2010.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 11 of 64
Page 15
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 5. 2021 Monthly Climatic Data
350 30
300
25
Total Monthly Value (mm)
250
20
Temperature (C)
200
15
150
10
100
5
50
0 0
April
November
December
January
March
May
February
August
June
July
September
October
Month (2021)
Total Evaporation (mm) Total Rainfall (mm)
Mean Rainfall (mm) for years 1996-2022 Average Maximum Temperature (°C)
Average Minimum Temperature (°C)
Figure 6. 2021 Daily Rainfall.
100
80
Rainfall (mm)
60
40
20
0
May
March
July
April
January
November
February
June
September
December
August
October
Month (2021)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 12 of 64
Page 16
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
5.2 Summary Statistics
Summary statistics of nutrient concentrations and microbiological indicators across all
monitoring sites are in Appendix A - Summary statistics of nutrient concentrations and
microbiological indicators at each monitoring site
5.3 Spatial Trends
Figure 7 to Figure 22 shows the spatial variability of average concentrations with error
bars of water quality parameters measured within Burgess Creek against distance from the
mouth. These figures demonstrate how the Noosa STP and catchment sources affect water
quality spatially (longitudinally) within Burgess Creek.
The following trends were noted in the monitoring data:
• E.coli, enterococci and thermotolerant (faecal) coliform concentrations at B3
immediately downstream of the treated wastewater discharge pipe remain below
upstream values represented in B8 and B2. Throughout the catchment E.coli remains
below average background concentrations at B8. Whereas the average
concentrations of enterococci and thermotolerant (faecal) coliform at B1 and SW3
are highest at the mouth and decreases with increasing distance from the mouth of
the Burgess Creek Catchment (Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9)
• Ammonia concentration was highest at B3 and decreased consistently to SW3.
Ammonia returned to concentrations similar to background site B2 and B8 close to
the mouth (Figure 10).
• Nitrate & Nitrite (NOx), Total Nitrogen, Filter Reactive Phosphorous and Total
Phosphorous follow a similar trend with the highest concentrations recorded at B3
immediately downstream of the STP outfall, declining slightly (though remaining
relatively high comparative to background) downstream to the point of discharge into
the ocean. Concentrations of these nutrients were relatively low at B8 and B2
upstream of the STP outfall (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13, Figure 14).
• Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity were low upstream of the STP
outfall point, notably increasing at the outfall point (or just downstream), before
decreasing slightly (or remaining similar) with distance downstream of the STP outfall
(Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18).
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 13 of 64
Page 17
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
• Chlorophyll a was highest upstream of the STP outfall, represented in B8. Recorded
values notably decreased at B3, immediately downstream of the outfall point, before
remaining consistent at monitoring sites further downstream towards the ocean
(Figure 19)
• Chlorophyll a to pheophytin ratio and suspended solids results showed an increase
down the catchment with the highest concentration at B1 before decreasing to
background levels at SW3 (Figure 20, Figure 21).
• Estimated water flow was the highest at the point of the STP outfall and remained
relatively consistent at sites downstream (Figure 22).
Figure 7. The spatial variability of the average concentration of E.coli during 2021.
900
800
700
600
E.coli (cfu/100mL)
500
B8
SW3
400
B1
300
200 B5
B6 B2
100
B3 - STP Outfall
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 14 of 64
Page 18
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 8. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Intestinal Enterococci during
2021.
1200
1000
Intestinal Enterococci (cfu/100mL)
800
SW3 B1
600
B5
400 B8
200 B6
B2
0
B3 - STP Outfall
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
Figure 9. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Thermotolerant (faecal)
Coliforms during 2021.
1600
1400
Thermotolerant Coliforms (cfu/100mL)
1200
1000
SW3 B1
800 B8
B5
600
400
B6
B2
200
B3 - STP Outfall
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 15 of 64
Page 19
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 10. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Ammonia during 2021.
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
Ammonia (mg/L)
0.10 B3 - STP
Outfall
0.08 B6
0.06
0.04 SW3 B5 B8
0.02 B1 B2
0.00
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 16 of 64
Page 20
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 11. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Nitrate & Nitrite (NOx) during
2021.
3.50
3.00
B6
2.50
B3 - STP Outfall
Nitrate & Nitrite (mg/L)
2.00 SW3
B5
B1
1.50
1.00
0.50
B2 B8
0.00
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
Figure 12. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Total Nitrogen during 2021.
5.00
B3 - STP Outfall
4.50
B6
4.00
3.50
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
3.00 B1
B5
2.50
SW3
2.00
1.50
B8
1.00
B2
0.50
0.00
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 17 of 64
Page 21
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 13. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Filter Reactive Phosphorus
during 2021.
0.16
0.14
Filter Reactive Phosphorus (mg/L)
B3 - STP
0.12 B6
B5 Outfall
0.10 SW3
0.08 B1
0.06
0.04
0.02
B2
B8
0.00
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
Figure 14. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Total Phosphorus during 2021.
0.25
0.20 B3 -
B6
STP
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Outfall
B5
0.15
SW3
B1
0.10
0.05
B8
B2
0.00
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 18 of 64
Page 22
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 15. The spatial variability of average temperature during 2021
29
27
B3 - STP
25 B6 Outfall
Temperature (⁰C)
B5
23 SW3
B1
21
B8
B2
19
17
15
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
Figure 16. The spatial variability of the average concentration of dissolved oxygen during 2021
9
8
B3 - STP
7 B6 Outfall
Dissovled Oxygen (mg/L)
6
B5
5
SW3
B2
4
B1
3
B8
2
1
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 19 of 64
Page 23
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 17. The spatial variability of average pH during 2021
9
8
B6 B3 - STP
SW3 B5
Outfall
7 B1
pH
6
B2
5
B8
4
3
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
Figure 18. The spatial variability of average Conductivity during 2021.
2000
B3 -
1800
B6 STP
Outfall
1600
1400 B5
Condcutivity (µS/cm3)
1200
SW3
B1
1000
800
600
400
200 B2
B8
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 20 of 64
Page 24
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 19. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Chlorophyll a during 2021.
3
3
2
Chlorophyll a (µg/L)
B8
2
B3 - STP Outfall
SW3 B6
1 B1 B5
B2
1
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
Figure 20. The spatial variability of the average Chlorophyll a: Pheophytin Ratio during 2021.
1.31
1.26
Chlorophyll a: Pheophytin Ratio
1.21
1.16 B1
1.11
B3 - STP
B5 Outfall
1.06
B6
B2
SW3
1.01
B8
0.96
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 21 of 64
Page 25
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 21. The spatial variability of the average concentration of Total Suspended Solids during
2021.
10
9
8
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
7
B1
6
B3 - STP
B5 Outfall
B6
5
4
SW3 B8
3
2 B2
1
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
Figure 22. The spatial variability of the average estimated water flow during 2021.
4
B3 - STP
3 Outfall
B1 B5 B6
Estimated Water Flow
SW3 B2
2 B8
1
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2
Distance from the Mouth (km)
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 22 of 64
Page 26
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
5.4 Temporal Variability
.
Figure 23 to Figure 38 shows the variability of water quality parameters measured at each
monitoring site in the 2021 calendar year. Where no samples were collected, no value is
shown. It should be noted that:
• Monitoring site B8 has no data for March, April, June, July, August, September,
October, November, and December 2021.
• Monitoring Site B5 has no data for July 2021.
The following trends were noted in the concentration of the following water quality
parameters:
• Higher microbiological indicator (E.coli, enterococci and faecal coliforms) levels at
several sites (particularly B1, B2, B5, B6, B8 and SW3) following periods of high
intensity rainfall events.
• Ammonia at B8 remained low throughout the year with the exception of a spike in
December for all monitoring sites apart from B2.
• Nitrate & Nitrite (NOx), was highly variable throughout the year (except for B2 and B8
remaining low throughout).
• A peak in total nitrogen occurred at B1 in March prior to a decrease in concentration
below B3, B6 and B5 for the remainder of the year. The other sites were consistent
throughout the year.
• Filter reactive phosphorus and total phosphorus had a spike in concentration at most
sites in February (except for B2 and B8).
• Dissolved Oxygen remained relatively consistent with only slight variability at all
monitoring sites, except for B5 which spiked in June.
• pH remained constant throughout the year with all sites remaining between 6.5 and 8
pH units, except for B2 and B8 which remained below 6 pH units.
• Conductivity for most monitoring sites (except for B2 and B8) fell in May and spiked in
November.
• Chlorophyll a varied throughout the year with a notable spike at B8 in May.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 23 of 64
Page 27
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
• Chloropyll a pheophytin ratio spiked at all sites in August and December.
• High variability in suspended solids with notable spikes across all sites in February,
May and November with an additional outlying spike occurring at B1 in September.
• Water flow remained between 2 and 4 throughout the year across most sites with the
exception on B8 that only experienced water flow in May and B2 having a reduction in
flow in September.
Figure 23. The temporal variability of the concentration of E.coli during 2021.
4500
4000
3500
E.coli (cfu/100mL)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 24 of 64
Page 28
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 24. The temporal variability of the concentration of intestinal enterococci during 2021.
5000
4500
Intestinal Enterococci (cfu/100mL)
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
Figure 25. The temporal variability of the concentration of thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms
during 2021.
6000
Thermotolerant Coliforms (cfu/100mL)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 25 of 64
Page 29
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 26. The temporal variability of the concentration of ammonia during 2021.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Ammonia (mg/L)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
Figure 27. The temporal variability of the concentration of nitrate and nitrite (NOx) during 2021.
4.5
4
3.5
3
Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 26 of 64
Page 30
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 28. The temporal variability of the concentration of total nitrogen during 2021.
8
7
6
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
Figure 29. The temporal variability of the concentration of filter reactive phosphorus during
2021.
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Phosphate (mg/L)
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 27 of 64
Page 31
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 30. The temporal variability of the concentration of total phosphorus during 2021.
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 28 of 64
Page 32
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 31. The temporal variability of temperature during 2021.
30
28
26
Temperatture (°C)
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
Figure 32. The temporal variability of the concentration of dissolved oxygen during 2021.
10
9
8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 29 of 64
Page 33
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 33. The temporal variability of pH during 2021.
8
7.5
7
pH
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
Figure 34.The temporal variability of electrical conductivity during 2021.
2500
2000
Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm3)
1500
1000
500
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 30 of 64
Page 34
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 35. The temporal variability of the concentration of chlorophyll a during 2021.
3.5
3
2.5
Chlorophyll a (µg/L)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
Figure 36. The temporal variability of the concentration of chlorophyll a: Pheophytin ratio during
2021.
2.6
2.4
2.2
Chlorophyll a:phenophytin ratio
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 31 of 64
Page 35
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 37. The temporal variability of the concentration of total suspended solids during 2021.
35
30
25
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
20
15
10
5
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
Figure 38. The temporal variability of the concentration of estimated water flow during 2021.
4
3
Estimated Water Flow
2
1
0
Month Sampled
Site SW3 Site B1 Site B5 Site B6 Site B3 Site B8 Site B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 32 of 64
Page 36
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
5.5 Long term variability
Figure 39 to Figure 52 shows the long-term variability of microbiological and nutrient
indicators measured at each monitoring site from 2015 to 2021. Where no samples were
collected, no value is shown. As per recommendations in the 2017 and 2020 Annual
Monitoring Report, longer-term assessment using historical monitoring data has been
included to depict any apparent temporal or spatial trends in the data sets and potential
influences of the treated wastewater release. These figures present the long-term
measurements collected for microbiological indicators (E.coli, Enterococci and
Thermotolerant Coliform) and key nutrient indicators (Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen and
Chlorophyll a) across all monitoring sites.
The following trends were noted in the monitoring data:
• E.coli has no clear long-term trend within the data collected from any of the
monitoring sites with the exception of B8 which shows increasing concentration with
time.
• Thermotolerant coliforms have a decreasing long-term trend at monitoring site
SW3. Monitoring site B3, B8, B5 and B6 have an increasing trend and monitoring
site B1 and B2 showed no clear long-term trend within the data collected from 2015
to 2021.
• Enterococci had an increasing long-term trend at monitoring sites B8. Monitoring
site B2, B5, B6 and SW3 have a decreasing trend and monitoring site B3 and B1
and showed no clear long-term trend within the data collected from 2015 to 2021.
• Total phosphorus and ammonia have no clear long-term trend within the data
collected from any of the monitoring sites.
• Total Nitrogen has a decreasing long-term trend at monitoring site SW3. Monitoring
site B1, B3, B5, B6 and B8 have an increasing trend and monitoring site B2 showed
no clear long-term trend within the long term data collected.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 33 of 64
Page 37
mg/L Colony forming units
0
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
1200
1800
2400
3000
3600
4200
4800
5400
6000
6600
7200
0
600
01/2015
03/2015 01/2015
05/2015 03/2015
08/2015 05/2015
10/2015 08/2015
01/2016 10/2015
03/2016 01/2016
Ammonia as N
06/2016 03/2016
08/2016 06/2016
E. coli
11/2016 08/2016
01/2017 11/2016
04/2017 01/2017
04/2017
06/2017
06/2017
09/2017
09/2017
11/2017 11/2017
01/2018 01/2018
04/2018
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
04/2018
06/2018 06/2018
Date
Date
Total Nitrogen as N
09/2018 09/2018
11/2018
Thermotolerant coliforms
11/2018
02/2019 02/2019
04/2019 04/2019
Figure 40. Long term variability of key nutrient indicators at B1
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
07/2019 07/2019
Figure 39. Long term variability of microbiological indicators at B1
09/2019 09/2019
12/2019 12/2019
02/2020 02/2020
05/2020 05/2020
07/2020 07/2020
10/2020 10/2020
Intestinal enterococci
12/2020 12/2020
02/2021 02/2021
Total Phosphorus as P
05/2021 05/2021
07/2021 07/2021
Page 34 of 64
10/2021 10/2021
12/2021 12/2021
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Page 38
mg/L Colony forming units
2
3
0
1
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
4000
4500
5000
3500
0
500
01/2015 01/2015
03/2015 03/2015
05/2015 05/2015
08/2015 08/2015
10/2015 10/2015
01/2016 01/2016
03/2016
Ammonia as N
03/2016
06/2016 06/2016
08/2016
E. coli
08/2016
11/2016 11/2016
01/2017 01/2017
04/2017 04/2017
06/2017 06/2017
09/2017 09/2017
11/2017 11/2017
01/2018 01/2018
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
04/2018 04/2018
06/2018 06/2018
Date
Date
Total Nitrogen as N
09/2018 09/2018
11/2018
Thermotolerant coliforms
11/2018
02/2019 02/2019
04/2019 04/2019
Figure 42. Long term variability of key nutrient indicators at B2
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
07/2019 07/2019
Figure 41. Long term variability of microbiological indicators at B2
09/2019 09/2019
12/2019 12/2019
02/2020 02/2020
05/2020 05/2020
07/2020 07/2020
10/2020 10/2020
Intestinal enterococci
12/2020 12/2020
02/2021 02/2021
Total Phosphorus as P
05/2021 05/2021
07/2021 07/2021
Page 35 of 64
10/2021 10/2021
12/2021 12/2021
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Page 39
mg/L Colony forming units
10
0
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
01/2015
01/2015 900
03/2015
03/2015
05/2015
05/2015
08/2015 08/2015
10/2015 10/2015
01/2016 01/2016
03/2016
Ammonia as N
03/2016
06/2016 06/2016
08/2016
E. coli
08/2016
11/2016 11/2016
01/2017 01/2017
04/2017 04/2017
06/2017 06/2017
09/2017 09/2017
11/2017 11/2017
01/2018 01/2018
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
04/2018 04/2018
06/2018 06/2018
Date
Date
Total Nitrogen as N
09/2018 09/2018
11/2018
Thermotolerant coliforms
11/2018
02/2019 02/2019
04/2019 04/2019
Figure 44. Long term variability of key nutrient indicators at B3
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
07/2019 07/2019
Figure 43.Long term variability of microbiological indicators at B3
09/2019 09/2019
12/2019 12/2019
02/2020 02/2020
05/2020 05/2020
07/2020 07/2020
10/2020 10/2020
Intestinal enterococci
12/2020 12/2020
02/2021 02/2021
Total Phosphorus as P
05/2021 05/2021
07/2021 07/2021
Page 36 of 64
10/2021 10/2021
12/2021 12/2021
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Page 40
Colony forming units
mg/L
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
01/2015 01/2015
03/2015 03/2015
05/2015 05/2015
08/2015 08/2015
10/2015 10/2015
01/2016 01/2016
Ammonia as N
03/2016 03/2016
06/2016 06/2016
E. coli
08/2016 08/2016
11/2016 11/2016
01/2017 01/2017
04/2017 04/2017
06/2017 06/2017
09/2017 09/2017
11/2017 11/2017
01/2018 01/2018
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
04/2018 04/2018
06/2018 06/2018
Date
Date
Total Nitrogen as N
09/2018 09/2018
Thermotolerant coliforms
11/2018 11/2018
02/2019 02/2019
04/2019 04/2019
Figure 46. Long term variability of key nutrient indicators at B5
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
07/2019 07/2019
Figure 45. Long term variability of microbiological indicators at B5
09/2019 09/2019
12/2019 12/2019
02/2020 02/2020
05/2020 05/2020
07/2020 07/2020
10/2020 10/2020
Intestinal enterococci
12/2020 12/2020
02/2021 02/2021
Total Phosphorus as P
05/2021 05/2021
07/2021 07/2021
Page 37 of 64
10/2021 10/2021
12/2021 12/2021
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Page 41
Colony forming units
mg/L
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
8
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
4000
4500
5000
5500
3500
0
500
01/2015 01/2015
03/2015 03/2015
05/2015 05/2015
08/2015 08/2015
10/2015 10/2015
01/2016 01/2016
03/2016
Ammonia as N
03/2016
06/2016 06/2016
08/2016
E. coli
08/2016
11/2016 11/2016
01/2017 01/2017
04/2017 04/2017
06/2017 06/2017
09/2017 09/2017
11/2017 11/2017
01/2018 01/2018
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
04/2018 04/2018
06/2018 06/2018
Date
Date
Total Nitrogen as N
09/2018 09/2018
11/2018
Thermotolerant coliforms
11/2018
02/2019 02/2019
04/2019
Figure 48.Long term variability of key nutrient indicators at B6
04/2019
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
07/2019 07/2019
Figure 47. Long term variability of microbiological indicators at B6
09/2019 09/2019
12/2019 12/2019
02/2020 02/2020
05/2020 05/2020
07/2020 07/2020
10/2020 10/2020
Intestinal enterococci
12/2020 12/2020
02/2021 02/2021
Total Phosphorus as P
05/2021 05/2021
07/2021 07/2021
Page 38 of 64
10/2021 10/2021
12/2021 12/2021
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Page 42
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 49. Long term variability of microbiological indicators at B8
1600
1400
Colony forming units
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
10/2015
05/2017
01/2019
09/2020
12/2015
02/2016
05/2016
07/2016
10/2016
12/2016
03/2017
08/2017
10/2017
01/2018
03/2018
06/2018
08/2018
10/2018
03/2019
06/2019
08/2019
11/2019
01/2020
04/2020
06/2020
11/2020
02/2021
04/2021
Date
E. coli Thermotolerant coliforms Intestinal enterococci
Figure 50. Long term variability of key nutrient indicators at B8
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
mg/L
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
02/2016
10/2016
05/2017
01/2018
10/2015
12/2015
05/2016
07/2016
12/2016
03/2017
08/2017
10/2017
03/2018
06/2018
08/2018
10/2018
01/2019
03/2019
06/2019
08/2019
11/2019
01/2020
04/2020
06/2020
09/2020
11/2020
02/2021
04/2021
Date
Ammonia as N Total Nitrogen as N Total Phosphorus as P
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 39 of 64
Page 43
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 51. Long term variability of microbiological indicators at SW3
12000
10500
9000
Colony forming units
7500
6000
4500
3000
1500
0
01/2015
11/2016
09/2018
07/2020
03/2015
05/2015
08/2015
10/2015
01/2016
03/2016
06/2016
08/2016
01/2017
04/2017
06/2017
09/2017
11/2017
01/2018
04/2018
06/2018
11/2018
02/2019
04/2019
07/2019
09/2019
12/2019
02/2020
05/2020
10/2020
12/2020
02/2021
05/2021
07/2021
10/2021
12/2021
Date
E. coli Thermotolerant coliforms Intestinal enterococci
Figure 52. Long term variability of key nutrient indicators at SW3
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
mg/L
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
07/2017
09/2017
11/2017
02/2018
04/2018
07/2018
09/2018
12/2018
02/2019
05/2019
07/2019
10/2019
12/2019
03/2020
05/2020
07/2020
10/2020
12/2020
03/2021
05/2021
08/2021
10/2021
Date
Ammonia as N Total Nitrogen as N Total Phosphorus as P
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 40 of 64
Page 44
Burgess Creek Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
5.6 Statistical Comparison of 2020 and 2021 Monitoring Data
Students' t-tests with unequal variances assumed were used to test whether 2021
monitoring data collected at each site were statistically similar or different from the
monitoring data collected in 2020.
Mean water quality data used for statistical analysis amongst 2021 and 2020 calendar
years are in Table 8. This data summarises the results provided within Appendix A -
Summary statistics of nutrient concentrations and microbiological indicators at each
monitoring site and allows easier comparison of the mean values between years.
The p-values generated by the statistical analysis conducted between the 2021 and 2020
data are in Table 8 and Table 9.
Most of the water quality parameters across all monitoring sites demonstrated no
statistically significant difference between 2020 and 2021. Of the 105 statistical tests
conducted, three statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found. Of those, two
were a reported increase in concentration from the most recent year's monitoring program.
A summary of the statistically significant differences includes:
• Monitoring Site B2
o Decrease in the concentration of Total Nitrogen as N;
o Increase in pH.
• Monitoring Site B5
o Increase in Dissolved Oxygen.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 41 of 64
Page 45
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Table 8. The mean water quality data used for statistical analysis amongst 2021 and 2020 calendar years.
Nitrate Total Total Chloro-a
Monitoring Thermotolerant Intestinal Ammonia Phosphate Dissolved Chlorophyll Suspended Water
Year E.coli + Nitrite Nitrogen Phosphorus pH Conductivity Phenophytin
Site coliforms enterococci as N as P Oxygen a Solids Flow
as N as N as P ratio
cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pHU uS/cm ug/L ratio mg/L
B1 2021 12 376.92 916.08 646.67 0.024 1.65 0.08 3.07 0.114 3.82 7.01 1057.08 1.08 1.03 6.83 2.83
2020 12 100.42 576.08 370.50 0.025 1.67 0.07 2.90 0.097 4.19 7.14 1122.58 1.08 0.98 3.67 2.92
B2 2021 12 170.00 289.67 97.33 0.022 0.009 0.005 0.706 0.013 4.34 5.31 179.00 1.18 1.00 2.92 2.58
2020 12 89.92 249.50 120.42 0.025 0.008 0.007 0.878 0.022 3.88 5.10 168.58 2.61 1.03 7.92 2.75
B3 2021 12 12.00 43.83 7.50 0.096 2.89 0.12 4.25 0.185 7.49 7.32 1757.50 1.15 0.99 4.00 3.08
2020 10 26.25 54.33 97.33 0.020 2.37 3.96 0.08 0.154 6.93 7.56 1811.33 1.16 1.00 5.42 3.08
B5 2021 11 214.27 735.45 458.45 0.041 1.79 0.11 2.92 0.162 5.25 7.33 1378.09 1.06 1.00 5.73 2.82
2020 12 150.25 201.17 657.33 0.017 1.40 2.77 0.09 0.128 4.63 7.30 1302.42 1.10 0.99 7.42 2.75
B6 2021 11 156.92 363.50 211.00 0.082 2.84 0.12 4.18 0.192 7.01 7.55 1730.83 1.14 1.00 5.33 2.83
2020 12 73.73 133.36 280.18 0.020 2.24 3.67 0.08 0.153 6.32 7.63 1855.45 1.12 1.00 7.55 2.91
B8 2021 3 487.67 815.00 379.67 0.04 0.03 0.01 1.287 0.017 2.70 4.40 115.33 1.73 1.00 3.67 2.00
2020 10 54.33 115.61 213.89 0.05 0.02 1.73 0.010 0.034 2.01 4.40 159.22 13.33 1.08 6.78 1.20
SW3 2021 12 437.67 943.33 642.42 0.026 1.71 0.08 2.77 0.118 3.88 7.18 1165.58 1.23 1.00 3.83 2.50
2020 12 131.27 298.73 589.73 0.027 1.53 2.81 0.06 0.094 4.89 7.19 1266.25 1.47 1.03 4.33 2.67
Table 9. Results of the Students' t-test comparing 2021 and 2020 water quality data.
Nitrate + Total Total Chloro-a
Monitoring Intestinal Thermotolerant Ammonia as Phosphate Dissolved Chlorophyll Suspended Water
E.coli Nitrite as Nitrogen as Phosphorus pH Conductivity Phenophytin
Site enterococci coliforms N as P Oxygen a Solids Flow
N N as P ratio
B1 0.409 0.436 0.464 0.927 0.921 0.662 0.751 0.233 0.343 0.120 0.632 0.842 0.170 0.332 0.754
B2 0.194 0.524 0.829 0.217 0.421 0.015* 0.083 0.168 0.488 0.026* 0.382 0.243 0.170 0.107 0.504
B3 0.5402 0.4604 0.3497 0.2926 0.1984 0.1834 0.5003 0.3517 0.1631 0.1565 0.7858 0.9598 0.3506 0.4740 1.000
B5 0.418 0.770 0.183 0.415 0.063 0.228 0.542 0.234 0.315 0.759 0.642 0.634 0.351 0.604 1.000
B6 0.5555 0.7974 0.6582 0.2111 0.1570 0.2024 0.3139 0.3134 0.0455* 0.3562 0.4632 0.8777 #DIV/0! 0.4681 0.6761
B8 0.343 0.334 0.420 0.549 0.667 0.516 0.670 0.598 0.423 0.506 0.547 0.362 0.423 0.423 1.000
SW3 0.4144 0.4839 0.3292 0.8567 0.6973 0.2752 0.8908 0.0715 0.1537 0.8619 0.5299 0.3639 0.1705 0.7806 0.1661
Note: Asterix (*) denotes significant difference between 2021 and 2020
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 42 of 64
_ ( — ( “~™ Burgess Creek CY C) ~ Receiving Environment Monitoring Program ~ on ® Unit water rving you today, investing in tomorrow. Annual Review 2022 Ox ° © Table 8. The mean water quality data used for statistical analysis amongst 2021 and 2020 calendar years. » OFo e e OTO Od OS) » OS) D e e e Orop eje e ged e OCO e elite cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL ratio mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L pHU uS/cm ug/L mg/L Bi 2021 12 376.92 916.08 646.67 0.024 1.65 0.08 3.07 0.114 3.82 7.01 1057.08 1.08 1.03 6.83 2.83 2020 12 100.42 576.08 370.50 0.025 1.67 0.07 2.90 0.097 4.19 7.14 1122.58 1.08 0.98 3.67 2.92 B2 2021 12 170.00 289.67 97.33 0.022 0.009 0.005 0.706 0.013 4.34 5.31 179.00 1.18 1.00 2.92 2.58 2020 12 89.92 249.50 120.42 0.025 0.008 0.007 0.878 0.022 3.88 5.10 168.58 2.61 1.03 7.92 2.75 B3 2021 12 12.00 43.83 7.50 0.096 2.89 0.12 4.25 0.185 7.49 7.32 1757.50 1.15 0.99 4.00 3.08 2020 10 26.25 54.33 97.33 0.020 2.37 3.96 0.08 0.154 6.93 7.96 1811.33 1.16 1.00 5.42 3.08 BS 2021 11 214.27 735.45 458.45 0.041 1.79 0.11 2.92 0.162 5.25 7.33 1378.09 1.06 1.00 5.73 2.82 2020 12 150.25 201.17 657.33 0.017 1.40 2.77 0.09 0.128 4.63 7.30 1302.42 1.10 0.99 7.42 2.75 B6 2021 11 156.92 363.50 211.00 0.082 2.84 0.12 4.18 0.192 7.01 7.95 1730.83 1.14 1.00 5.33 2.83 2020 12 73.73 133.36 280.18 0.020 2.24 3.67 0.08 0.153 6.32 7.63 1855.45 1.12 1.00 7.55 2.91 B8 2021 3 487.67 815.00 379.67 0.04 0.03 0.01 1.287 0.017 2.70 4.40 115.33 1.73 1.00 3.67 2.00 2020 10 54.33 115.61 213.89 0.05 0.02 1.73 0.010 0.034 2.01 4.40 159.22 13.33 1.08 6.78 1.20 SW3 2021 12 437.67 943.33 642.42 0.026 1.71 0.08 2.77 0.118 3.88 7.18 1165.58 1.23 1.00 3.83 2.50 2020 12 131.27 298.73 589.73 0.027 1.53 2.81 0.06 0.094 4.89 7.19 1266.25 1.47 1.03 4.33 2.67 Table 9. Results of the Students’ t-test comparing 2021 and 2020 water quality data. Titec cme Total Total Chloro-a Monitoring E.coli Intestinal Thermotolerant Ammonia as Nitrite as Phosphate Dissolved Chlorophyll Suspended Water STI (=) enterococci coliforms N Nitrogen as as P ed aes) laley gutsy Oxygen pH Conductivity ce Phenophytin Solids Flow N N as P ratio Bi 0.409 0.436 0.464 0.927 0.921 0.662 0.751 0.233 0.343 0.120 0.632 0.842 0.170 0.332 0.754 B2 0.194 0.524 0.829 0.217 0.421 0.015* 0.083 0.168 0.488 0.026* 0.382 0.243 0.170 0.107 0.504 B3 0.5402 0.4604 0.3497 0.2926 0.1984 0.1834 0.5003 0.3517 0.1631 0.1565 0.7858 0.9598 0.3506 0.4740 1.000 BS 0.418 0.770 0.183 0.415 0.063 0.228 0.542 0.234 0.315 0.759 0.642 0.634 0.351 0.604 1.000 0.5555 0.7974 0.6582 0.2111 0.1570 0.2024 0.3139 0.3134 0.0455* 0.3562 0.4632 0.8777 #DIV/0! 0.4681 0.6761 B6 B8 0.343 0.334 0.420 0.549 0.667 0.516 0.670 0.598 0.423 0.506 0.547 0.362 0.423 0.423 1.000 SW3 0.4144 0.4839 0.3292 0.8567 0.6973 0.2752 0.8908 0.0715 0.1537 0.8619 0.5299 0.3639 0.1705 0.7806 0.1661 Note: Asterix (*) denotes significant difference between 2021 and 2020 This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced, or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 42 of 64Page 46
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
5.7 Compliance of 2021 data with Water Quality Objectives
The 2021 water quality data measured for each parameter, during each sampling event
(month) and at each monitoring site was compared with the applicable water quality
objectives for a moderately disturbed Lowland Freshwater Creek. These limits are in Table
2. The percentage compliance of water quality parameters measured in 2021 with Burgess
Creek Water Quality Objectives are in Table 10.
Table 10. Percentage (%) compliance of water quality parameters measured in 2021 within
Burgess Creek water quality objectives.
Water Quality
B1 B2 B3 B5 B6 B8 SW3
Parameter
pH 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Conductivity 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
Ammonia 58 42 42 91 58 0 17
NOx 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
Phosphate 0 100 0 0 0 100 0
Total Nitrogen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
0 100 0 0 0 100 0
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll a 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Suspended
75 92 83 73 75 100 92
Solids
Overall 37 81 36 40 37 78 34
Overall, the water quality within Burgess Creek was 49% compliant with the prescribed
water quality objectives. This represents a slight increasing trend in overall water quality
compared to previous assessments. Consistent with previous years, no monitoring site was
100% compliant with the water quality objectives for Burgess Creek. The historical
percentage compliance at each monitoring site and overall compliance of Burgess Creek
with prescribed water objectives is provided in Figure 53.
Monitoring site SW3 was the site with the lowest percentage compliance of 34% with the
water quality objectives for Burgess Creek, similarly to 2018, 2019 and 2020 results.
Monitoring site B2 had the highest percentage compliance with the water quality objectives
for Burgess Creek (81% compliance). It should be noted low compliance of Conductivity
represents site proximity to the ocean, compared to typically fresh WQOs, and influences
overall compliance percentage.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 43 of 64
Page 47
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Figure 53. The historical percentage compliance of each monitoring site and overall
percentage compliance with Water Quality Objectives.
90
Overall Percentage Compliance with Water Quality Objectives
80
70
60
50
(%)
40
30
20
10
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Year Sampled
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B8 SW3 Overall
5.8 Comparison with Recreational Water Quality Limits
Table 11 provides the comparison of the percentage compliance of enterococci,
thermotolerant coliforms and E.coli against peer-reviewed primary and secondary
recreational water quality guideline limits set within the Australian and New Zealand
guidelines for fresh and marine water quality (ANZECC, 2000). The data indicates non-
compliance with enterococci across all monitoring sites, the exception is B3.
Thermotolerant coliforms achieved 100% compliance at B2 and B3 with the remaining sites
(B1, B5, B6, B8 and SW3) non-compliant. Most monitoring sites were 100% compliant with
E.coli with the exception of B1 and SW3.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 44 of 64
Page 48
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Table 11. Percentage compliance in 2021 with Recreational Water Quality Limits (ANZECC,
2000) for Burgess Creek.
Biological Indicators % Compliance at Monitoring Site
Water Quality
Guideline (ANZECC,
Parameter B1 B2 B3 B5 B6 B8 SW3
2000)
150
Primary cfu/100mL 0 92 92 0 25 33 0
Enterococci 1000
Secondary cfu/100mL 50 92 100 27 75 67 42
35
Thermotolerant Primary cfu/100mL 17 33 100 0 67 33 17
Coliforms 230
Secondary cfu/100mL 75 100 100 82 92 67 92
1260
E coli Secondary cfu/100mL 92 100 100 100 100 100 92
5.9 Compliance of treated wastewater releases with Environmental
Authority EPPR008691113
A review of the compliance monitoring data for Noosa STP (Table 12, Figure 54 and
Figure 55) shows that there were 0 reported non-compliances with the water quality
characteristic release limits.
Table 12. Mass Load limits at the Noosa STP for 2021
Nutrient Average Nitrogen Nitrogen Phosphorus Phosphorus
Parameter Annual 50th 50th Percentile
Flow Percentile
Units ML/year mg/L Kg/year mg/L Kg/year
Limit 5 110 5 25 550 1 5 110
Mass Load 3763 4.72 16 658 0.14 510
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 45 of 64
Page 49
Cocnentration (mg/L) released from Kg per day released from Noosa STP
Noosa STP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
6/01/2021 2/01/2020
20/01/2021 15/01/2020
TN limit
3/02/2021 29/01/2020
17/02/2021 12/02/2020
3/03/2021 26/02/2020
17/03/2021 11/03/2020
TN Limit
31/03/2021 25/03/2020
14/04/2021 8/04/2020
TP limit
28/04/2021 22/04/2020
12/05/2021 6/05/2020
26/05/2021 20/05/2020
TP Limit
9/06/2021 3/06/2020
Figure 54. Mass Loads Released from Noosa STP
Figure 55. Concentration released from Noosa STP
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater.
23/06/2021 17/06/2020
7/07/2021 1/07/2020
Date
Date
21/07/2021 15/07/2020
Total Nitrogen
4/08/2021 29/07/2020
TN mg/L
18/08/2021 12/08/2020
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
30/08/2021 26/08/2020
8/09/2021 9/09/2020
22/09/2021 23/09/2020
6/10/2021 7/10/2020
TP mg/L
20/10/2021 21/10/2020
3/11/2021 4/11/2020
17/11/2021 18/11/2020
26/11/2021 2/12/2020
Total Phosphorus
8/12/2021 16/12/2020
Page 46 of 64
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Burgess Creek
Page 50
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
6.0 Discussion
This review presents the results of the Burgess Creek REMP for the 2021 calendar year and
provides an assessment of the influence of Noosa STP discharge on the receiving
environment. Specifically, this annual review ensures that the compliance obligations with the
requirements of condition G13 of the EA. Observations and comments remain consistent with
previous assessments and continuous improvement is being made to better identify trends
and provide recommendations for the Burgess Creek Receiving Environment Monitoring
Program.
During the 2021 review period, 0 non-compliances were recorded for treated wastewater
releases from the Noosa STP in association with the conditions imposed by the EA. This is
the third year in which this review is tracking non-compliance with water quality characteristic
release limits. Future reviews will track, identify trends and comment on compliance of the
Noosa STP releases with water quality characteristic release limits.
The State of the Climate 2022 Report from the Bureau of Meteorology (2022) presents a
coherent depiction of persistent, gradual climate change intertwined with inherent natural
fluctuations, established through observations, reconstructions, and climate modelling. This
interaction has resulted in alterations in extreme weather and climate conditions, including
extreme heat, heavy rainfall, coastal inundation, fire, and drought, which have had a significant
impact on the health and prosperity of both human communities and ecosystems. These
observations align with previous assessments of the Burgess Creek Catchment, which
identified precipitation and related water flows as the primary determinant of water quality
conditions in the area.
In 2021, the total rainfall was significantly lower than the previous year by 401mm and lower
than the average of the past 10 years by 158mm. This decrease in rainfall has been observed
throughout the south-east region of Australia since the late 1990s, where a reduction of around
10 per cent in April to October rainfall has been noticed. Although, it has also been noted that
there has been an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events in Australia, which occur
in less than a day. These events have increased by 10 per cent or more in some regions,
particularly in the northern part of the country (Bureau of Meteorology, 2022).
Furthermore, around 60 per cent of hydrologic reference stations across Australia have
reported a decreasing trend in streamflow (Bureau of Meteorology, 2022). This was also the
case at monitoring site B8, where only 3 out of 12 sampling events could be conducted,
marking the least number of samples collected since its establishment in 2015. This site is
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 47 of 64
Page 51
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
situated in an ephemeral section of the Creek, which only contains surface water during and
immediately following rainfall, leading to an absence of water for most of the year, making it
difficult to collect water quality samples. Ongoing surface water monitoring above B3 poses
a significant challenge that may prove difficult to address. The impact of decreased surface
water flows, resulting from climatic variability, will be more pronounced in the West branch
above B3. This is because historical activities, such as residential and waste disposal
practices, have disrupted the creek's natural hydrology and soil composition. In contrast, the
hydrology and natural state of the East branch within the Noosa National Park have been
preserved, resulting in surface water remaining present throughout the year.
In 2021, the western section of Burgess Creek was primarily composed of treated wastewater
releases from the Noosa STP, as almost all the flow within this section was attributed to this
source. The Sampling Officers currently use subjective estimation methods to determine the
water flow within Burgess Creek, although this approach does not provide a quantitative
measurement, it is known from historical data that monitoring site B8 does not complete all 12
sampling events. In 2021, flow was observed during only 3 of the 12 sampling events,
indicating that the western branch of Burgess Creek would have experienced few flow events
without the presence of Noosa STP treated wastewater releases. Unlike discontinued
monitoring site B4, monitoring site B8 is not affected by siltation and overgrown nature of the
channel. B8 is situated on a significant waterway that originates from the Melaleuca Forest
community, and experiences occasional waterlogging, which can impact the flow and quality
of water within the channel.
The results indicate that water stagnation may have occurred at B8 due to the low or no water
flow for a significant portion of the year. This is evidenced by the higher ammonia
concentrations observed at B8 compared to the other sites within the Catchment, where
ammonia concentrations remained consistent. The observed increase in ammonia
concentrations at B8 can be attributed to the lack of turbulence, which reduces volatilization
and increases the accumulation of metabolic waste and decomposition products, as per the
findings of Suter et al. (2021).
It is found that the B8 monitoring site above the Noosa STP Outfall continues to be the most
suitable location. However, the present parameters employed for estimating or measuring
water flow within the western branch are insufficient. The transient nature of the western
branch is a hindrance in obtaining accurate flow measurements. The absence of accurate flow
monitoring in this area is posing difficulties in ensuring consistency with the strategy
implemented two decades ago and coping with natural climate drivers and changes in rainfall
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 48 of 64
Page 52
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
patterns. Further research is necessary to establish dependable approaches to assess water
flow within this region.
The last detailed assessment of the impacts of the Noosa STP on Burgess Creek remains
consistent with the previous year's Burgess Creek Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Assessment and Review (2021) and was conducted in 2004. This modelling used the
only known measured flow rate within Burgess Creek and used flow data collected at the
nearby Teewah Creek. The principal issues of existing and historical land use remain largely
unchanged, but the increasingly variable rainfall events and intensity of these events may
have different consequences than originally assessed. Coupled with the Noosa STP
approaching the designed capacity and design life of the asset, reassessment of the current
disposal strategy into Burgess is recommended. Particular attention is recommended around
natural and sewage treatment flows within the western branch of Burgess Creek with the
changing climatic patterns to ensure the strategy of minimisation and disposal remains
unchanged from the original decisions.
A review of spatial variability of average concentrations of water quality parameters within
Burgess Creek showed that the Noosa STP outfall was not the sole influence on water quality
parameters, most notably microbiological indicators (E.coli, faecal coliforms and enterococci).
Microbiological indicators at Site B3, immediately downstream of the treated wastewater
discharge pipe, remain below upstream values represented in B8 and B2. Conversely, the
highest concentrations are represented at B1 and SW3, furthest from the outfall. Typically,
with good quality treated wastewater and the creek having a high flow rate and good mixing,
the microbiological indicators should decrease with distance downstream due to dilution and
natural degradation processes. Burgess Creek data does not follow this trend as
microbiological indicators increase with distance from the outfall after microbiological
indicators released within treated wastewater from the Noosa STP being compliant with
release limits within the EA and primary recreational water guideline limits. . This suggests
other contributing factors dominate microbiological quality in the Catchment.
The analysis of long-term trends in Burgess Creek has revealed an increase in enterococci
upstream at B8, where low flow rates and poor mixing prevail. Meanwhile, thermotolerant
coliforms have displayed a decreasing long-term trend at monitoring site SW3, with slight
increases observed at monitoring sites B3, B8, B5, and B6, while no clear trend was evident
at monitoring sites B1 and B2 from 2015 to 2021. Concentrations of microbiological indicators
were generally higher downstream at B1 and SW3, which resulted in the catchment's highest
concentrations of enterococci and thermotolerant coliforms. Notably, the highest average
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 49 of 64
Page 53
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
levels of E.coli were observed upstream at B8, alongside elevated levels of E.coli and faecal
coliforms upstream of the STP outfall. In general, if the treated wastewater is of good quality
and the creek has a high flow rate and good mixing, the microbiological indicators shouldn’t
add to the natural load downstream due to natural degradation processes and ultraviolet (UV)
disinfection. The presence of dense fringing riparian vegetation and longitudinal distance
indicates that natural UV disinfection is limited and suggests that a local point source may be
responsible for driving the higher microbiological concentrations downstream of B3. Thus,
continued monitoring and investigation of potential sources of microbiological contamination
in the catchment are necessary. Moreover, temporal plots have revealed higher
microbiological indicator concentrations at all sites, except for B3, which remained consistent
during peak periods of rainfall. Enterococci concentrations at B3 and thermotolerant coliform
concentrations at B2 and B3 were the only sites to meet 100% compliance with the biological
indicator guidelines set out by ANZECC. Many factors, including water temperature, rainfall,
natural UV irradiation and flow rate, can affect the growth and survival of enterococci bacteria
in waterways, and the relative contribution of different sources can vary depending on these
factors. Some notable potential factors that could contribute to poor water quality in Burgess
Creek include stormwater runoff, agricultural runoff, local wildlife and septic systems.
Nutrient concentrations were elevated in the vicinity of the STP outfall where water flow was
highest. The greatest concentrations of ammonia, NOx, total nitrogen, filter reactive
phosphorous and total phosphorous follow a similar trend with the highest concentrations
recorded at either B3 or B6 immediately downstream of the STP outfall. The concentration of
chlorophyll a at B8 suggests that this location has either had higher availability of nutrients to
sustain high levels of algae growth than measured during the sampling events or upstream of
there is more surface water into which higher concentrations of nutrients and algae growth
has occurred. The consistent low chlorophyll a: pheophytin ration tends to support the later
reason for the higher algae growth: that there is another source of nutrients upstream and by
the time the water reaches monitoring site B8 the nutrients have been exhausted and the
algae is unable to sustain the growth and more pheophytin is present within algae. Pheophytin
is a breakdown product formed when chlorophyll a within the algae ages and is unable to
support growth. The other supporting evidence is that monitoring during 2019 occurred with
gaps of 3, 4, 5 & 6 weeks between sampling events. These differing gaps should have been
able to detect change in nutrients concentrations present at monitoring site B8 to support the
algae growth if it was occurring at monitoring site B8. This supports the interpretation that
there is a source of nutrients from either stormwater or groundwater expression into Burgess
Creek.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 50 of 64
Page 54
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
The highest ration of chlorophyll a to pheophytin was measured at B1, indicating that algae is
growing and taking up nutrients. Chlorophyll a is the primary photosynthetic pigment in algae
and other aquatic plants, and its concentration is often used as an indicator of the overall algal
biomass in a water body. This is the first point within the Burgess Creek that evidence of
significant nutrient uptake is occurring within Burgess Creek. At this monitoring site there is
more chlorophyll a than pheophytin indicating that conditions are better for the uptake of
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, which are essential for the growth of algae. It is
possible that the presence of the culvert under David Low Way has acted as a dam, slowing
the flow sufficiently for growth and uptake to occur, or that the damming effect of the Pacific
Ocean has prevented releases, except during low tide. Sufficient nutrients have been
measured between monitoring site B3 and B1 to sustain high algae growth but concentrations
of chlorophyll a are only measured at B1 resembling an algae growth phase or bloom. The
chlorophyll a and chlorophyll a:pheophytin ratio show that the treatment strategy reduces the
residence time of nutrients in Burgess Creek, limiting the ability of algae to use nutrients
released from the Noosa STP. Without these nutrient flows, the western branch and lower
Burgess Creek would be more like monitoring site B8 than B3 to SW3, highlighting the
complexity of the relationship between nutrient levels and algal growth.
Long term trends are indicative of a catchment wide increase in total nitrogen since 2015, with
the exception of B2 and SW3 whilst total phosphorus and ammonia have no clear long-term
trend within the data collected from any of the monitoring sites. Despite the increased nutrient
concentrations, no significant lasting ecological impact was observed in the receiving
environment. The concentrations of these nutrients were found to decline downstream
towards the point of discharge into the ocean, which is consistent with the typical impact of an
STP outfall on water quality within a freshwater waterway. The highest concentrations of
nutrients are typically observed immediately downstream of the outfall, with nutrient levels
decreasing as the distance from the outfall increases. There could be several factors
contributing to the catchment-wide increase in total nitrogen over the last 7 years. One key
factor that could potentially impact Burgess Creek is the increasing urbanisation and
densification of residential areas. This could have a twofold effect on the creek. Firstly, it could
introduce more nitrogen-rich runoff into the creek, which could alter the natural catchment and
waterway processes. Secondly, it could increase the volume of stormwater runoff, which could
further exacerbate the impacts of nutrient-rich runoff. Another possibility for the changes in the
Burgess Creek catchment is that La Nina weather patterns in recent years may have raised
groundwater levels. The composition of the Burgess Creek catchment, which is entirely
composed of sand, makes it behave differently than other nearby creeks and waterways with
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 51 of 64
Page 55
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
sedimentary geology, such as Weyba Creek and Noosa River. The Burgess Creek catchment
is more similar to the barrier islands in Moreton Bay and Hervey Bay, where extensive
monitoring has shown that groundwater levels respond rapidly to climate changes and
vegetation disturbances such as logging and bushfires (Armstrong and Cox, 2002). Although
there are no records of groundwater monitoring in the Burgess Creek catchment, extensive
monitoring of Bribie Island has shown that nitrogen, particularly ammonia concentrations, are
at least an order of magnitude higher than the background levels considered in the Burgess
Creek.
Wet weather, particularly La Nina conditions and intensified rainfall, has a substantial impact
on the treatment and transport of sewage in the Noosa Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and
associated sewer catchment. The primary mechanisms for increased sewage flows that
require transportation and treatment are inflow directly into the sewer network and infiltration
through the soil into the sewerage infrastructure. Numerous pump stations are located
throughout the Noosa and northern Sunshine Coast Regional Council areas, including some
within the Burgess Creek Catchment, which could be a potential source of elevated total
nitrogen concentrations during wet weather events when sewage flows exceed pump station
capacity. A critical review of pump stations that may affect water quality within the catchment
should be identified and considered in future assessments of water quality data within Burgess
Creek. Although releases from the Noosa STP have remained stable over the past few years,
with total nitrogen mass load calculations prescribing flow by median total nitrogen
concentration, minor fluctuations around the 15,000 kg of nitrogen released per year are
calculated weekly. Total nitrogen concentrations have decreased in 2021 after reaching a
peak in 2019. However, the increasing trend within Burgess Creek is not supported by
compliance data measured at the Noosa STP. To increase monitoring transparency, future
assessments should include the monitoring of flows of treated wastewater released from the
Noosa STP. The observed increase in total nitrogen levels could be due to a combination of
these factors or other factors, and further investigation and analysis are necessary to identify
the underlying causes of the trend.
The discharge of treated wastewater from the STP outfall is a dominant impact on key water
quality parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. These parameters show
an increase at or just downstream of the outfall point, followed by a slight decrease or stable
levels further downstream. The low pH and dissolved oxygen levels at monitoring site B8
represents conditions that are experienced within the ephemeral catchment above the Noosa
STP. The primary cause is the presence of dominant health lands and acidic soils. which
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 52 of 64
Page 56
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
result in the accumulation of detrital matter, algae (as evidenced by high chlorophyll-a levels),
and anaerobic processes. Groundwater also contributes to Burgess Creek, which receives
substantial input from various sources such as large sand masses and undulating landscapes
(Department of Environment and Science, 2018).
Statistical testing of individual parameters showed minimal change in water quality at most
monitoring sites between 2020 and 2021, with only three significant differences detected from
a total of 105 Students' t-tests performed. Of these three differences, two were statistically
significant increases, DO at B5 and pH at B2. The statistically significant decrease was total
nitrogen at B2 an upstream site not influenced by treated wastewater. Typically, improved
treated wastewater is more likely to lead to increased pH and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in
water bodies. This is because improved treatment processes remove more organic matter
from wastewater, which reduces the amount of oxygen that is used up by bacteria during
decomposition and lowers the concentration of organic and inorganic acids. The design of the
Noosa STP includes an inverted bell mouth, which facilitates the release of treated wastewater
into the receiving environment with high concentrations of dissolved oxygen. This helps to
compensate for any oxygen demand created by the presence of nutrients in the wastewater,
reducing the risk of oxygen depletion and negative impacts on aquatic life. As a result, more
oxygen is available for aquatic organisms, which can lead to increased DO levels. On the other
hand, poor treated wastewater, which contains higher levels of organic matter, can lead to
lower DO levels as the organic matter decomposes and depletes oxygen levels in the water,
which has not been observed within this dataset.
In 2021, the Burgess Creek water quality objectives had the best overall compliance
percentage recorded to date. The monitoring sites not influenced by Noosa STP inputs, such
as upstream reference site B8 and east branch site B2, maintained the highest overall
compliance with the prescribed objectives. While some downstream monitoring sites
experienced a slight increase in compliance compared to 2020, one site, B3 at the outfall, had
an overall decrease of 4%. Nevertheless, the catchment as a whole improved, with the
percentage compliance increasing from 46% in 2020 to 49% in 2021.
A comparative assessment against biological indicators with Australian and New Zealand
guidelines for fresh and marine water quality demonstrated 100% compliance of E.coli for all
sites except for B1 and SW3. Monitoring site B3 demonstrated 100% compliance with
thermotolerant coliforms and enterococci and B2 was also found to be 100% compliant for
faecal coliforms. Elevated microbiological concentrations at the mouth of Burgess Creek is not
considered attributable to Noosa STP given concentrations in the Catchment upstream are
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 53 of 64
Page 57
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
higher than the concentrations at site B3, which is indicative of the STP outfall diluting and
improving microbiological water quality. Although unknown, there is the possibility that an
unidentified local point source or catchment land-use may be driving the higher microbiological
levels as reflected in peaks of microbiological indicators at monitoring site B5, which is located
at the confluence of the east and west branch of Burgess Creek.
The Noosa STP holds a mass load license that allows for variations in the releases from the
STP. The monitoring data reveals that the results are consistent throughout the year, with
some variations observed mainly during short-duration extreme rainfall events that took place
in 2021. The monitoring results showed a reduction in conductivity due to an increased input
of fresh water and an increase in microbiological indicators, with the exception of site B3,
which remained constant. These results provide additional evidence of the likelihood of an
unidentified local point source.
The results of water quality monitoring conducted on both branches of the creek suggest that
the nutrient concentrations in the soil are lower than the background nutrient concentrations.
This is particularly true for phosphorus, a nutrient that can promote the growth of external
weeds in the creek. The presence of weeds has been a recurring topic of discussion among
Noosa Shire Council, Unitywater, and the Department of Environment and Sciences. Changes
to the prescribed burning regime within the Noosa National Park and Conservation Parks in
the Burgess Creek Catchment have made weed presence more noticeable. However, there
is no recent information or studies to determine the extent of weed establishment within the
catchment, despite past reports recommending the establishment of a weed monitoring
program to monitor changes along the Creek banks. This recommendation has not been
implemented, despite increasing concerns and collaboration with stakeholders within the
catchment. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a weed monitoring program to gather valuable
information on weed distribution and determine whether control strategies need to be put in
place.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 54 of 64
Page 58
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
7.0 Recommendations
Based on the results obtained over the 2021 monitoring period, the following key
recommendations were formed.
1. Ongoing monitoring in accordance with the Burgess Creek Receiving Environment
Monitoring Program
2. Reassessment of the natural and sewage treatment flows within the western branch
of Burgess Creek to ensure the strategy of minimisation and disposal remains
unchanged from the original decisions.
3. Expand the Burgess Creek Monitoring Program to include monitoring of the weeds
within the creek and creek banks of Burgess Creek.
4. Review which sewage pumping stations may potentially impact water quality should
they overflow.
5. Consider incorporating Noosa STP flow monitoring data into future assessments.
6. Investigate a quantitative method for flow reading for the Receiving Environment
Monitoring Program.
7. Engage DES to discuss the application of WQOs within Burgess Creek and clarify the
disconnect between the Environmental Protection (Water and Wetland Biodiversity)
Policy 2019 Noosa River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives and
WQ1401 – Noosa River mapping.
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 55 of 64
Page 59
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
8.0 References
ANZG (2020). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.
Australian and New Zealand Governments and Australian state and territory
governments, Canberra ACT, Australia. Retrieved from: www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-
guidelines
Armstrong, T.J. and Cox, M.E. (2002) The relationship between groundwater and surface
water character and wetland habitats, Bribie Island, Queensland. Retrieved from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228455469_The_relationship_between_groun
dwater_and_surface_water_character_and_wetland_habitats_Bribie_Island_Queenslan
d?enrichId=rgreqceb57efbcc4b35cc2cb0ea0f74ad7fa1-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyODQ1NTQ2OTtBUzoxMTUzMzgwNjY3OTY1
NDRAMTQwNDUxMDE0NjgwNQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf. On 2
February 2022.
Bureau of Meteorology (2022). State of the Climate 2022, Australian Government, Retrieved
from: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2009). Queensland Water Quality
Guidelines, Version 3. ISBN 978-0-9806986-0-2.
Department of Environment and Sciences (2010). Environmental Protection (Water and
Wetland Biodiversity) Policy 2020 Noosa River environmental values and water quality
objectives. Brisbane, Queensland, July 2010
Department of Environment and Science (2015) Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program –
Freshwater, WetlandInfo website, accessed 21 September 2021. Available at:
https://wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/wetlands/assessment/monitoring/current-and-future-
monitoring/ecosystem-health-monitoring-freshwater.html
Department of Environment and Science (2018). Walking the Landscape – Noosa
Catchment Map Journal v1.0 presentation, Queensland. Retrieved from:
https://wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ecology/processes-
systems/water/catchment-stories/transcript-noosa.html
KBR (2004). Burgess Creek Receiving Water Quality Modelling – Final Report. Toowong,
QLD, 2004.
Lowe, S.A. (2015) Burgess Creek Receiving Environment Monitoring Program 2015 Review.
Morayfield, Queensland
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 56 of 64
Page 60
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Lowe, S.A. (2016) Burgess Creek Receiving Environment Monitoring Program Annual
Assessment and Review. Morayfield, Queensland
Lowe S.A. (2016). Unitywater Sewage Treatment Plant Annual Monitoring Report 2016,
Morayfield, Queensland.
Lowe, S.A. (2019) Burgess Creek Receiving Environment Monitoring Program Annual
Assessment and Review. Morayfield, Queensland
Duffy, A.M & Lowe, S.A. (2020) Burgess Creek Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Assessment and Review. Morayfield, Queensland
Queensland Government (2021). SILO – Australian climate data from 1889 to yesterday.
Retrieved from: https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/point-data/
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 57 of 64
Page 61
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
9.0 Appendices
Appendix A - Summary statistics of nutrient concentrations and microbiological indicators at each monitoring site
Estimated E. coli Thermotolerant Intestinal Dissolved pH Conductivity Ammonia Nitrate + Phosphate Total Total Chlorophyll Chloro-a Suspended
Water coliforms enterococci Oxygen as N Nitrite as as P Nitrogen as Phosphorus a Phenophytin Solids
Flow N N as P ratio
Units c cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L pHU uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ratio mg/L
Monitoring Site
Minimum 2.00 20.00 45.00 52.00 0.10 6.70 549.00 0.01 0.92 0.05 1.88 0.08 1.00 1.00 2.00
B1
Maximum 4.00 3900.00 5300.00 4500.00 7.80 7.60 1380.00 0.07 2.81 0.17 7.60 0.20 1.30 2.40 30.00
Mean 2.83 376.92 916.08 646.67 3.82 7.01 1057.08 0.02 1.65 0.08 3.07 0.11 1.05 1.16 6.83
Median 3.00 50.50 355.00 275.00 3.20 6.90 1070.00 0.02 1.46 0.07 2.48 0.11 1.00 1.00 2.00
Standard 0.55 1062.70 1394.85 1181.86 1.93 0.24 217.40 0.01 0.66 0.03 1.54 0.03 0.11 0.38 8.81
Deviation
Count 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Estimated E. coli Thermotolerant Intestinal Dissolved pH Conductivity Ammonia Nitrate + Phosphate Total Total Chlorophyll Chloro-a Suspended
Water coliforms enterococci Oxygen as N Nitrite as as P Nitrogen as Phosphorus a Phenophytin Solids
Flow N N as P ratio
Units cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L pHU uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ratio mg/L
Monitoring Site
Minimum 1.00 38.00 53.00 2.00 0.10 5.00 158.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.58 0.01 1.00 1.00 2.00
B2
Maximum 3.00 840.00 1000.00 1000.00 6.50 5.80 216.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.84 0.02 2.10 1.20 7.00
Mean 2.50 170.00 289.67 97.33 4.34 5.31 179.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.71 0.01 1.12 1.04 2.92
Median 3.00 95.50 235.00 12.50 4.40 5.25 171.50 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.73 0.01 1.00 1.00 2.00
Standard 0.65 219.28 244.67 272.38 1.72 0.27 20.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.31 0.06 1.55
Deviation
Count 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Estimated E. coli Thermotolerant Intestinal Dissolved pH Conductivity Ammonia Nitrate + Phosphate Total Total Chlorophyll Chloro-a Suspended
Water coliforms enterococci Oxygen as N Nitrite as as P Nitrogen as Phosphorus a Phenophytin Solids
Flow N N as P ratio
Units cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L pHU uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ratio mg/L
Monitoring Site
Minimum 3.00 1.00 11.00 1.00 6.20 7.10 1600.00 0.01 1.31 0.06 2.80 0.12 1.00 0.90 2.00
B3
Maximum 4.00 53.00 120.00 47.00 8.90 7.60 2040.00 0.85 4.36 0.38 5.46 0.46 2.10 1.40 17.00
Mean 3.08 12.00 43.83 7.50 7.49 7.32 1757.50 0.10 2.89 0.12 4.25 0.19 1.10 1.08 4.00
Median 3.00 4.50 39.00 4.00 7.40 7.35 1740.00 0.02 2.93 0.09 4.49 0.17 1.00 1.00 2.00
Standard 0.28 14.31 30.27 12.11 0.95 0.15 123.70 0.23 0.81 0.08 0.85 0.09 0.30 0.15 4.26
Deviation
Count 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 58 of 64
Page 62
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Estimated E. coli Thermotolerant Intestinal Dissolved pH Conductivity Ammonia Nitrate + Phosphate Total Total Chlorophyll Chloro-a Suspended
Water coliforms enterococci Oxygen as N Nitrite as as P Nitrogen as Phosphorus a Phenophytin Solids
Flow N N as P ratio
Units cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L pHU uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ratio mg/L
Monitoring Site
Minimum 2.00 57.00 180.00 51.00 2.00 7.10 689.00 0.01 0.88 0.07 2.01 0.11 1.00 0.96 2.00
B5
Maximum 3.00 1000.00 1600.00 2100.00 9.10 7.60 1770.00 0.31 2.74 0.29 4.10 0.33 1.30 1.80 17.00
Mean 2.82 214.27 735.45 458.45 5.25 7.33 1378.09 0.04 1.79 0.11 2.92 0.16 1.05 1.08 5.73
Median 3.00 150.00 710.00 300.00 5.00 7.30 1370.00 0.01 1.84 0.10 3.13 0.15 1.00 1.00 4.00
Standard 0.39 254.27 386.44 556.20 2.16 0.17 277.15 0.09 0.70 0.06 0.81 0.06 0.09 0.23 4.92
Deviation
Count 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00
Estimated E. coli Thermotolerant Intestinal Dissolved pH Conductivity Ammonia Nitrate + Phosphate Total Total Chlorophyll Chloro-a Suspended
Water coliforms enterococci Oxygen as N Nitrite as as P Nitrogen as Phosphorus a Phenophytin Solids
Flow N N as P ratio
Units cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L pHU uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ratio mg/L
Monitoring Site
Minimum 2.00 11.00 29.00 20.00 5.80 7.30 1470.00 0.02 1.27 0.06 2.70 0.13 1.00 1.00 2.00
B6
Maximum 3.00 1100.00 1800.00 1100.00 8.00 7.80 2030.00 0.72 4.34 0.41 5.53 0.50 1.30 1.29 22.00
Mean 2.83 156.92 363.50 211.00 7.01 7.55 1730.83 0.08 2.84 0.12 4.18 0.19 1.09 1.05 5.33
Median 3.00 27.50 87.50 67.50 6.95 7.55 1725.00 0.02 2.93 0.09 4.31 0.17 1.10 1.00 2.00
Standard 0.37 304.01 508.34 298.91 0.64 0.14 146.20 0.19 0.81 0.09 0.89 0.10 0.10 0.09 5.81
Deviation
Count 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Estimated E. coli Thermotolerant Intestinal Dissolved pH Conductivity Ammonia Nitrate + Phosphate Total Total Chlorophyll Chloro-a Suspended
Water coliforms enterococci Oxygen as N Nitrite as as P Nitrogen as Phosphorus a Phenophytin Solids
Flow N N as P ratio
Units cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L pHU uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ratio mg/L
Monitoring Site
Minimum 2.00 23.00 45.00 9.00 1.30 4.40 111.00 0.03 0.01 0.01 1.11 0.01 1.00 1.00 2.00
B8
Maximum 2.00 1200.00 2100.00 950.00 5.00 4.40 118.00 0.05 0.05 0.01 1.47 0.02 3.20 1.00 6.00
Mean 2.00 487.67 815.00 379.67 2.70 4.40 115.33 0.04 0.03 0.01 1.29 0.02 1.73 1.00 3.67
Median 2.00 240.00 300.00 180.00 1.80 4.40 117.00 0.05 0.03 0.01 1.28 0.02 1.00 1.00 3.00
Standard 0.00 511.43 914.58 409.28 1.64 0.00 3.09 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.00 1.04 0.00 1.70
Deviation
Count 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 59 of 64
Page 63
Burgess Creek
Receiving Environment Monitoring Program
Annual Review 2022
Estimated E. coli Thermotolerant Intestinal Dissolved pH Conductivity Ammonia Nitrate + Phosphate Total Total Chlorophyll Chloro-a Suspended
Water coliforms enterococci Oxygen as N Nitrite as as P Nitrogen as Phosphorus a Phenophytin Solids
Flow N N as P ratio
Units cfu/100mL cfu/100mL cfu/100mL mg/L pHU uS/cm mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L ug/L ratio mg/L
Monitoring Site
Minimum 2.00 2.00 33.00 100.00 53.00 0.10 6.60 509.00 0.02 0.79 0.05 1.61 0.08 1.00 1.00
SW3
Maximum 2.00 3.00 4300.00 5500.00 4300.00 6.70 7.60 1560.00 0.07 3.23 0.16 4.67 0.19 2.10 1.40
Mean 2.00 2.50 437.67 943.33 642.42 3.88 7.18 1165.58 0.03 1.71 0.08 2.77 0.12 1.15 1.07
Median 2.00 2.50 76.00 530.00 285.00 3.85 7.30 1175.00 0.02 1.55 0.07 2.69 0.12 1.00 1.00
Standard 0.00 0.50 1165.21 1395.49 1130.66 1.72 0.33 263.58 0.01 0.77 0.03 0.85 0.03 0.31 0.13
Deviation
Count 3.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced,
or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 60 of 64
Page 64
This document may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced, or translated without prior consent from the CEO, Unitywater. Page 61 of 64