APPENDIX W SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

Ashburton Infrastructure Project | s.38 Referral Supporting Document

Printed copies of this document are not controlled. Please ensure that this is the latest available version before use.

ISSUE DATE: 25/ 10/ 2021

APPENDIX W SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN

Independent Peer Review

Client Mineral Resources Limited

Author O2 Marine

Title Ashburton Infrastructure Project: Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan

Version Rev 0

Report Date 02/01/21

Reviewer Dr Bruce Hegge, Teal Solutions Pty Ltd

Review Date 19/08/21

Section Review Comment Response Close

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Check to ensure all entries in table shown in text as well as all acronyms/abbreviations in text included in table. Ensure all acronyms and abbreviations are defined when first used in the text

Checked abbreviations mentioned in report match table and are defined in text

1.4 Objectives Include DEC (2009) reference in Section 1.3 1.3. Regulations and Guidelines and include in Section 6 References

Added reference to DEHWA, 2009

2.1 Proposed Dredging

Please provide more details. Will disposal of the dredge material occur to one or more of PPA’s existing offshore disposal sites? How will the preferred disposal site(s) be determined? What is the status of negotiations with PPA regarding this access?

Added disposal will be at one of the designated PPA disposal locations that has not been determined or specified yet.

Figure 2 Would be good to show bathymetry on this figure to provide relevant context for the proposed dredge area

Bathymetry not available at this time

3.1 Site Identification, History and Use

How do the proposed nearshore loading facilities located to the east of the existing Port of Ashburton MOF interface with the proposed AIP Port Marine Facilities?

Expanded information in Introduction to hopefully cover this off

3.2 (Preliminary) Sediment Quality

This section needs a more comprehensive introduction. At present it only notes that it is a reproduction of material from O2M (2020). Note also that O2M (2020) is not included in the references. What is the context for this preliminary work? The discussion of sediment types and historical sediment sampling is confusing and seems to jump between descriptions of marine and onshore sediments. Figure(s) showing the location/concentration of the previous sampling would greatly assist. Not clear why the separation between previous sediment sampling results and sediment sampling undertake to support dredging activity; suggest bring together to describe sediments in the area (e.g. remove the Comments column from Table 3.2 and include a summary in the text

Changed reference to URS 2009b as is where information was actually from. Removed references to soil etc and aligned sediments Removed comments section and summarised prior to table

Section Review Comment Response Close

Table 3.2 Summary of historical sediment sampling

This is a good table but would be better retitled as it relates to previous dredging campaigns and may be better as section on its own e.g. ‘Dredging history’. Also Expand table to include details on proponent, volume of sediment dredged, reference(s) for the sediment sampling results, disposal site used, information on dredging approvals granted (e.g. permit). Include figure to show location of the dredging and disposal sites.

Added information that was available as recommended. Added figure showing locations of sites done in 2019 as example

4.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern

Rewrite this section to provide clearer justification for the selection of the contaminants of concern.

Amended section to justify selection of COPC from previous sampling

Section 4.1.1 to Section 4.1.5

Move these all to second level heading under 4 Sampling Design. Ensure clear and logical flow of information, e.g. suggest move Section “Sampling Techniques” to be above “Sampling Sites and Depths” so that pushcore and vibrocore are defined prior to first reference

Moved suggested sections

4.1.1 Sampling design and rational

This section here should be moved to the top of Section 4 Sampling Design and merged with the text there. Expand text to justify the classification of the material as ‘probably clean’

Moved and expanded on the justification

4.3.1 Comparison of Data to Screening Levels

Provide more clarity and details on the proposed method of normalisation of analytes

Taken as written in NAGD, referenced the table where normalisation method is located in document

4.3 Data Analysis and 4.4 Data Analysis

Why two headings with same title? Combine the content of these two sections for better flow and clarity (e.g. at present discussion on the calculation of the 95% UCL occurs in two places) To improve clarity please include a table showing for each analyte the: proposed Limits of Reporting; laboratory analytic method; guideline/trigger values, and source of guideline/trigger value

Combined and added table for metals showing details etc

6 References Check references to ensure all references in text include here and conversely no references here that are not in text

Checked the references

CLIENT: Mineral Resources Limited

STATUS: Rev 1 REPORT No.: R200270

ISSUE DATE: 23/09/2021

Ashburton Infrastructure Project Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan

ii Mineral Resources Limited

Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan

20WAU-0028-02/R200270

Important Note

This report and all its components (including images, audio, video, text) is copyright. Apart from fair

dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright

Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,

mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of O2 Marine.

This report has been prepared for the sole use of the Mineral Resources Limited (herein, ‘the client’),

for a specific site (herein ‘the site’), and the specific purpose specified in Section 1 of this report (herein

‘the purpose’). This report is strictly limited for use by the client, to the purpose and site and may not be

used for any other purposes.

Third parties, excluding regulatory agencies assessing an application in relation to the purpose, may

not rely on this report. O2 Marine waives all liability to any third-party loss, damage, liability or claim

arising out of or incidental to a third-party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or

subject matter contained in this report.

O2 Marine waives all responsibility for loss or damage where the accuracy and effectiveness of

information provided by the Client or other third parties was inaccurate or not up to date and was relied

upon, wholly or in part in reporting.

iii Mineral Resources Limited


20WAU-0028-02/R200270

WA Marine Pty Ltd as O2 Marine ACN 168 014 819

Originating Office – Fremantle

Level 1, 11 Mews Road, Fremantle 6160

T 1300 739 447 | [email protected]

Version Register

Version Status Author Reviewer Change from

Previous Version

Authorised for Release

(signed and dated)

A Draft S Morillo C Del Deo

B Draft G Motherwell C Del Deo Update

0 Issue for

Use

G Motherwell B. Hegge MRL comments

addressed

S Morillo - signed

1 Issue for

Use

D. Gull C Del Deo Review comments

addressed

S Morillo - signed

Transmission Register

Controlled copies of this document are issued to the persons/companies listed below. Any copy of this

report held by persons not listed in this register is deemed uncontrolled. Updated versions of this report

if issued will be released to all parties listed below via the email address listed.

Name Email Address

Sarah Osborne [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

iv Mineral Resources Limited


20WAU-0028-02/R200270

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms/Abbreviation Description

0C Degrees Celsius

ABA Acid-Base Accounting

ADAS Australian Diver Accreditation Scheme

AIP Ashburton Infrastructure Project

Ag Silver

ANC Acid Neutralisation Capacity

ANCBT Acid Neutralisation Capacity (by back titration)

Al Aluminium

As Arsenic

ASS Acid Sulphate Soils

AS/NZS Australian Standard / New Zealand Standard

BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene

Cd Cadmium

cm Centimetre

CoC Chain of Custody

COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern

Cu Copper

DBT Dibutyltin Tributyltin

DE Development Envelope

DER Department of Environmental Regulations

DGV Default Guideline Value

DSO Direct Shipping Ore

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIL Ecological Investigation Levels

EP Environmental Protection

EPP Eastern Planning Precinct

Fe Iron

FF Fineness Factor

g Grams

GPS Global Positioning System

Hg Mercury

HIL Health Investigation Levels

HSE Health, Safety and Environment

ID Identification

ISQG-Low Interim Sediment Quality Guideline Low level

ISQG-High Interim Sediment Quality Guideline High level

v Mineral Resources Limited


20WAU-0028-02/R200270


ISO International Standards Organisation

JSEA Job Safety and Environmental Analysis

km Kilometres

L Litres

LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide

m Metres

m2 Square metres

m3 Cubic metres

MBT Monobutyltin

Mg Magnesium

mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram

MOF Materials Offloading Facility

Mn Manganese

MS Ministerial Statement

Mtpa Millions of Tonnes Per Annum

NAGD National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009

OGV Ocean Going Vessel

SNAS Net Acid Soluble Sulfur

NATA National Association of Testing Authorities

Ni Nickel

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PASS Potential Acid Sulfate Soils

Pb Lead

PC Push Corer

pHF Screening Acidity

pHFOX Oxidised Screening Acidity

PPA Pilbara Ports Authority

PQL Practical Quantitative Limits

PSD Particle Size Distribution

RPD Relative Percent Difference

RSD Relative Standard Deviation

SAP Sample and Analysis Plan

SCR Reduced Inorganic Sulfur

SQG Sediment Quality Guidelines

TAAKCl Titratable Actual Acidity

TBT Tributyltin

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TRH Total Recoverable Hydrocarbons

vi Mineral Resources Limited


20WAU-0028-02/R200270


TSVs Transhipment Vessels

TTA Total Titratable Acid

UCL Upper Confidence Limit

µg/L Micrograms per Litre

V Vanadium

QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Zn Zinc

vii Mineral Resources Limited


20WAU-0028-02/R200270

Contents

1. Introduction 9

Description of the Proposed Ashburton Project 9

Marine Elements of the Proposed Project 9

Scope 12

Regulations and Guidelines 12

Objectives 12

2. Project Description 14

Proposed Dredging 14

3. Background 15

Site Identification, History and Use 15

Preliminary Sediment Quality 15

Dredging History 16

4. Sampling Design 20

Contaminants of Potential Concern 21

Sampling Techniques 22

QA/QC 26

Data Analysis 27

5. Reporting 31

6. References 32

Figures

Figure 1. Project area and development envelopes. 11

Figure 3. Spatial extent of proposed dredge area 14

Figure 4. Map of dredged area and previous sampling sites from 2019. 17

Figure 5. a) Diver operated push corer b) Vibrocorer 22

Figure 6. Proposed Sediment Sampling Locations 23

Tables

Table 3-1 Summary of results of previous dredging campaigns 18

Table 4-1 Proposed sediment sampling samples 24

Table 3. Reporting guidelines for metals. 27

Table 4-3 Reaction observations to determine appropriate rating 28

viii Mineral Resources Limited


20WAU-0028-02/R200270

9 Mineral Resources Limited


20WAU-0028-02/R200270

1. Introduction

Description of the Proposed Ashburton Project

MRL is undertaking planning for iron ore mining and export developments in the West Pilbara region of WA. The proposed Ashburton Infrastructure Project (AIP) involves a fully sealed private road, commencing at the boundary of the approved Buckland mine (Bungaroo South mine) (MS906 and MS1147), about 45 km southwest of Pannawonica, and continuing for about 150 km westward to a new port landside handling and storage facilities at the Port of Ashburton (the Port). Export is proposed from port landside and marine export facilities within the Port, including a dedicated nearshore berth facility and offshore anchorages. The AIP will initially support the export of approximately 30 million tonnes of iron ore per annum (Mtpa) through the Port over a 10-year period as a Direct Shipping Ore (DSO), with future plans to support the export of 40 Mtpa over a 30 to 40-year period from approved future mine developments.

The Port was established by Chevron for the Wheatstone Liquified Natural Gas Project (Wheatstone) about 12 km southwest of Onslow. In 2020, a change in the nominated proponent from Chevron to Pilbara Ports Authority (PPA) was approved for the shipping channel, Materials Offloading Facility (MOF), and access road. Through consultation with PPA, MRL understands that a Section 45C application under the Environmental Protection (EP) Act to amend Ministerial Statement (MS) 1131 to include the Eastern Planning Precinct and allow for final elevations to be achieved is currently under preparation. MRL are planning on entering a commercial control with PPA (via the submission of Development and Construction Applications), whereby, MRL enter into a lease agreement with PPA, allowing the AIP to be developed and for MRL to carry out activities on PPA vested lands, seabed or water areas.

The AIP will utilise proposed and existing marine facilities to load ore onto Transhipping Vessels (TSVs) that will travel along PPA’s dredged shipping channel, out to deep water (up to 40 m water depth), to five dedicated anchorage points located about 10 km from Thevenard Island. Ore will be loaded from TSV’s onto Capesize, Ocean Going Vessels (OGV) at a maximum of two of the five anchorage points at any one time.

Marine Elements of the Proposed Project

The AIP Port Marine elements will be located within the existing Port and includes three main Development Envelopes (DEs): Port Landside (Landside), Port Nearshore (Nearshore) and Port

Offshore (Offshore) (Figure 1).

Landside DE: located within the Eastern Planning Precinct (EPP), of the PPA’s landside planning area. No new disturbance is proposed within this DE. Landside facilities include a storage of bulk handling of iron ore, a seawater desalination plant, power station bulk storage of fuel, administration building, a sewerage treatment facility and a seawater desalination plant at the Port.

Nearshore DE: The Marine Nearshore infrastructure, includes a dedicated berthing pocket, a modular jetty wharf and ship loader and will be constructed in Port Waters managed by the PPA east of the existing MOF. The modular wharf has been designed to be a fixed-point loading wharf, with roadway access and lifting areas for up to 130 t cranes. The jetty and wharf structure includes provision for seawater intake and outfall pipelines.



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

A temporary causeway (rock structure) is required for the construction of the approach jetty and will be removed once jetty construction has been completed. Construction from a temporary causeway versus overhand construction will reduce the number of piles required and also, also reducing the duration of proposed piling. This will reduce the impacts to sensitive marine fauna. Piling for the temporary causeway will involve the installation of twenty 1,000 mm drive piles.

The new berth and jetty will require a dredging programme and offshore disposal of dredge material at PPA’s existing Spoil Ground C (see Figure 1). Capital dredging of approximately 150,000 m3 to modify the existing access channel for the MOF to allow safe access and berthing of TSVs at the nearshore wharf facility. Capital dredging will be undertaken to achieve a depth of -4 m lowest astronomical tide (LAT), with the proposed dredge footprint extending approximately 30,000 m2. The location of the jetty has been selected to enable transhipment barges to sail into port under ballast draft (3.5 m maximum draft) without any tidal constraints and moor at the berth.

Offshore DE: Includes the offshore anchorage points for transfer of ore from TSVs to Cape size Ocean

Going Vessels (OGV). The TSV navigation route traverses between the Offshore and Nearshore DEs.

This report focusses on the following construction components of the Nearshore and Offshore DE

shown in Figure 1:

capital dredging of a berth pocket and the construction of a dedicated wharf for loading of

Transhipment Vessels (TSVs) located immediately east of the existing Port of Ashburton

Materials Offloading Facility (MOF),

marine disposal locations for dredge material removed from the berthing pocket

the transhipment area in ~30-50 m water depth approximately 10 km to the west/north-west of

Thevenard Island for anchorage of Cape Size vessels.



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

Figure 1. Project area and development envelopes.



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

Scope

MRL engaged O2 Marine (O2M) to undertake a quality assessment of the contamination status of the

sediments located within the AIP’s capital dredging footprint and to identify the source of potential

contamination, should it exist.

This document outlines the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for baseline assessment and

characterisation of sediments associated with the proposed dredging. The outcome of this SAP will

enable a determination of the contaminant status of the material and suitability for offshore disposal as

well as provide input on sediment characteristics for dredge plume modelling.

Regulations and Guidelines

This document has been prepared with consideration of the following guidelines:

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEHWA): National Assessment

Guidelines for Dredging, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra 2009, (DEHWA, 2009).

The Department of Environment Regulation (DER): Identification and Investigation of Acid

Sulfate Soils and Acidic Landscapes, June 2015 (DER 2015).

The National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD), 2009 (NAGD 2009); and

ANZG 2018. 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. Available at www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

Objectives

Sediment investigations are required to adequately characterise the level of contamination and potential

acid sulfate soils (PASS) in the proposed dredge sediments to ensure potential impacts of dredged

material loading and disposal are adequately assessed and managed responsibly and effectively.

The regulatory framework for assessment of sediments to be dredged and proposed for ocean disposal

is outlined in NAGD (2009). The methodology for assessment of PASS is outlined in the Identification

and Investigation of Acid Sulfate Soil and Acidic Landscape (DEC 2015). The findings of this

investigation will support preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and regulatory

environmental approvals for the AIP.

Specific objectives of the sediment sampling program are:

To determine the suitability of the dredged sediment for offshore disposal1;

To identify the risk to marine environmental quality resulting from disturbance and mobilisation

of the sediments; and

1 The project is proposing to place the dredging material at Spoil Ground C (Figure 1) which is an

existing designated offshore disposal site managed by Pilbara Port Authority (PPA).

https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

To adopt an analytical program for sediment characterisation in accordance with relevant

guidelines applicable to the management and assessment of dredged sediments.



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

2. Project Description

Proposed Dredging

Dredging will be undertaken over approximately 30,000 m2 located immediately to the East of the

existing Port of Ashburton MOF (Figure 2). Capital dredging of approximately 150,000 m3 will be

required at the nearshore wharf site to a depth of -4 m LAT to allow safe access and berthing of TSVs.

Dredge material is proposed to be disposed at the existing designated offshore disposal site C,

managed by PPA, pending relevant environmental approvals (Figure 1).

Figure 2. Spatial extent of proposed dredge area



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

3. Background

Site Identification, History and Use

The Port of Ashburton is located to the east of the Ashburton River mouth and approximately 12 km

south-west of the town of Onslow in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, within the Shire of

Ashburton. Onslow is located approximately 1,400 km north of Perth and 360 km south of Karratha.

The Port of Ashburton was originally constructed to support the development of the Wheatstone LNG

and domestic gas project. Chevron Australia Pty Ltd (Chevron), on behalf of the Wheatstone Joint

Venture partners, is the sole operator of the Wheatstone Marine Terminal at the Port of Ashburton and

enables the export of LNG and other hydrocarbon-based products. Since it commenced operations in

December 2011, management and operation of the Port and a portion of the multi-user infrastructure

corridor has been vested to the PPA. In 2017, PPA was granted a 5-year Sea Dumping Permit

(SD2016/3282) to allow for maintenance dredging of the Port of Ashburton. PPA have implemented

annual sediment sampling in accordance with an approved sampling and analysis plan to monitor and

manage the potential environmental impacts from the maintenance dredging campaigns.

The future development of the Port reflects the State Governments intention on making Ashburton a

hub for hydrocarbon related trade by enabling the export capacity of LNG to approximately 50 million

tonnes per annum. To support this outcome nearshore loading facilities are proposed East of the

existing Port of Ashburton MOF.

Preliminary Sediment Quality

The following sediment quality summary is reproduced from URS, 2009b.

The marine sediments in the region mainly consist of silt and sand sheets of varying thickness overlying

Pleistocene limestone. Near the Ashburton Delta (approximately 9 km East of Port of Ashburton),

sediments are generally fine silts and clays with high silica content (URS, 2009b).

Two broad types of marine sediments occur within the nearshore area: sands intermixed with variable

fractions of clays, silts and or gravels, and rock (siltstone, claystone and sandstone) that is generally

weathered and weak (URS, 2009a). The proportion of the two sediment types changes with increasing

distance from the shore. In the MOF and Product Loading Facility (PLF) basin the assumed material to

be dredged consists of 75% sand and 25% weak rock (URS, 2009a). In the PLF approach channel the

material will be 60% sand and 40% weak rock (URS, 2009a). In both cases, sand is assumed to overlay

the rock. Sediments become increasingly coarse and increase in calcium carbonate content with

distance offshore, due to decreasing input of terrigenous silts and clays from river runoff and coastal

erosion (Coffey, 2009).

The chemical characteristics of marine sediments in the vicinity of the Ashburton North Site has been

assessed on two previous occasions, once in 2005 by the DEC (2006) and by URS in the Wheatstone

dredging area (URS 2009a).



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

The DEC (2006) study recorded no discernible anthropogenic enrichment of contaminants (e.g.,

organotins, hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls) in sediments

offshore of the Ashburton River mouth. The study also measured natural background concentrations of

trace metals in the marine sediments, noting that with the exception of arsenic, natural background

concentrations of all metals were below the relevant Australia and New Zealand Environment and

Conservation Council/Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

(superseded by ANZG 2018) screening levels (DEC 2006).

During the URS (2009a) survey, marine surface sediments and deep cores were sampled within and

near the proposed dredging area and grab samples from the proposed nearshore disposal grounds.

Analytes tested for were as below:

Metals (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,

nickel, silver, vanadium, zinc).

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons,

Xylene (BTEX)

Tributyl tin (TBT)

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

Particle Size Analysis (PSD).

The study recorded concentrations of all contaminants and trace metals as being below the laboratory

limit-of reporting (LOR) or below the relevant National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD)

(Commonwealth of Australia 2009d) screening levels, with the exception of arsenic and nickel which

are naturally occurring (URS 2009a).

The current major pressure on sediment quality in the vicinity of the Project area is from shipping

activity, wastewater discharges from (i.e., Wheatstone and Onslow Salt) and mobilisation of

contaminated sediments through maintenance dredging.

Dredging History

The recent history of dredging (Figure 3) and associated sediment sampling surrounding the Port of

Ashburton demonstrates that the sediments are largely uncontaminated, apart from a small number of

locations inside the MOF that have detected elevated concentrations of nickel and other metals

(Table 3-1). Based on results from previous sampling, sediments from the shipping channel and MOF

have been considered clean and suitable for unconfined ocean disposal.



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

Figure 3. Map of dredged area and previous sampling sites from 2019.



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

Throughout all the surveys there have been consistent findings in relation to the tested parameters

where there were generally no exceedances of the relevant guidelines for metals, organic hydrocarbons

or nutrients. Nickel was shown to exceed the NAGD screening levels during all the surveys conducted,

however when the bioavailable concentration of nickel was quantified and retrospectively compared,

these concentrations were shown to meet screening guidelines (PPA, 2020). Additionally, manganese

was detected in elevated concentrations for all surveys, however no fixed screening levels have been

attributed to the metal’s toxicity in marine sediment (ANZG, 2018).

Table 3-1 Summary of results of previous dredging campaigns

Proponent, Year

Study Location of Sediment Dredging volume (m3)

Permit

Chevron, 2009 URS (URS, 2009a) Capital dredging channel, turning basin and MOF at the Port of Ashburton.

48,000,000

Pilbara Ports Authority, 2016

MScience (MScience, 2016)

Capital dredging channel, turning basin, MOF and proposed spoil grounds at the Port of Ashburton.

Up to 300, 000




Up to 300, 000 SD2016/3282




Up to 300, 000 SD2016/3282


Advisian (Advisian, 2019)


Up to 300, 000 SD2016/3282


MScience (MScience 2020)


Up to 300, 000 SD2016/3282


O2 Marine (O2M, 2021)

Berth Pocket for Transhipment vessels

Up to 150, 000

Acid Sulfate Soils

A geochemical assessment of the sediment was undertaken for the Wheatstone Project to determine

whether the potential for acid sulfate soils (PASS) to develop exists (URS, 2009b). The investigation

involved 72 samples collected from 15 deep core borehole locations at varying depths. Analytical

methods used to determine the presence of PASS included the Acid Sulfate Soils Screening test (based

on pHF and pHFOX values and reaction ratings), the Chromium Suite (Scr) for Acid Sulfate Soils test

(based on levels of Scr, pHKCL, total titratable acid (TTA) and acid neutralising capacity (ANC)) and a

targeted Carbonate Buffering assessment (URS, 2009b).



20WAU-0028-02/R200270

The pHF values ranged from 7.2 in silty/clayey sands to 8.5 in clayey sandy gravel. Subsequent pHFOX

values ranged from 6.4 to 7.4, indicating the likelihood of encountering PASS is low. Reaction types

ranged from slight to strong throughout the sediment profile with strongest reactions observed in

claystone (URS, 2009b). The Scr results showed only eight (8) of 91 nearshore sampling locations

recorded elevated acid levels slightly above the action criteria trigger value of 0.03% Sulfur. However,

the ANC of sediments generally indicated a potential buffering of low pH sediments (URS 2009b).

Further testing was performed on the carbonate buffering properties of sediments to re-evaluate the

availability of carbonate material for acid neutralisation. The ANC values ranged from 17-

620 kg H2SO4/tonne, with the low ANC levels 17-26 kg H2SO4/tonne only slightly calcareous. However,

the rates of availability for circum-neutral buffering were found to be “chemically non-limiting” and

sediments had sufficient available carbonate buffering capacity to negate any potential acidity in the

event of PASS oxidation (URS (2009b).

20 Project Name: Ashburton Project Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan

Project 20WAU-0028-02 / Doc R200270

4. Sampling Design

The estimated volume to be dredged for the project is approximately 150,000 m3 over an area of

30,000 m2 (Figure 2). The dredging area have not previously been dredged and may therefore be

classified as a capital dredging campaign. However, the north boundary of the dredging footprint

coincides with the MOF shipping channel boundary which has been previously dredged.

The proposed sampling design was based on the following assumptions:

The proposed capital dredging area has not previously been disturbed and can be classified

as ‘probably clean’ as described in Appendix D of the National Assessment Guideline for

Dredging (NAGD 2009).

Capital dredging campaigns require sampling to the full depth of potentially contaminated

sediment, which for the purpose of this SAP involves at least the top one metre of sediment

(Appendix D, NAGD 2009). As such the number of sample locations was based on the total

area of 30,000 m2 to a depth of one metre equating to a total dredge volume of 30,000 m3.

As described for capital dredging in Appendix D of the National Assessment Guideline for Dredging

(NAGD 2009), the number of sample locations is based on the volume of the layer of recent sediments

which could be contaminated (top 1 m of sediment) but does not include the volume of underlying

natural geological materials which are, except for a thin boundary layer, expected to be

uncontaminated. The number of sample locations, therefore, is based on the volume of contaminated

and potentially contaminated dredged material which is separated into three (3) categories (NAGD,

2009):

Probably contaminated – areas such as inner harbour or berth areas

Suspect – areas such as outer harbours

Probably clean – areas such as shipping channels

Previous sampling results in the area have shown that there were no exceedances of the relevant

guidelines for metals, organic hydrocarbons or nutrients. Therefore, the proposed dredging area for this

capital dredging campaign should be classified as ‘probably clean’ (as described in NAGD 2009).

Utilising these previous results and as this is a capital dredging campaign, the sampling should focus

on the top one metre of sediment (over the area of 30,000 m2) which may be possibly contaminated. In

accordance with NAGD (2009), the number of sampling locations for this volume of ‘probably clean’

sediments is nine (Table 4-1).

For capital dredging projects, where contamination is not suspected, NAGD (2009) does not require

sediment sampling deeper than 1 m below the existing seabed. However, it is proposed to attempt

coring to the full depth of proposed dredging at two (2) locations within the dredge footprint to

characterise the underlying sediments, particularly for presence of PASS.

Sampling to 1 m will be undertaken at seven (7) sampling locations via manual push corer. At each

location, subsamples will be collected from the core at two horizons (top horizon: 0 m to 0.5 m and

bottom horizon: 0.5 m to 1 m). Laboratory analysis will be undertaken from the top horizon for all

locations, whilst samples collected from the bottom horizon will be held by the laboratory, to be analysed



only if the laboratory results indicate an exceedance of the NAGD (2009) screening levels within the

top horizon.

Sampling to proposed full dredging depth (i.e., -4 m LAT), or refusal will be undertaken at two (2)

random sampling locations within the dredging footprint (Site 8 and 9, Figure 5) to assess the presence

of contaminants of potential concern (COPC) in the deeper sediment layers.

At these locations subsamples will be collected and analysed from the following horizons, or until

refusal:

• 0 m to 0.5 m;

• 0.5 m to 1 m;

• 1 m to 2 m;

• 2 m to 3 m; and

• 3 m to 4 m.

Contaminants of Potential Concern

Based on the history of sediment sampling and existing data within the Port of Ashburton area, the

COPC include the following:

Metals (aluminium, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,

mercury, nickel, silver, zinc).

Hydrocarbons, including total recoverable hydrocarbon (TRH), benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, xylenes and naphthalene (BTEXN) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH).

Organotins: tributyl tin (TBT), dibutyl tin (DBT) and monobutyl tin (MBT).

Acid Sulphate Soil2: including both the screening test and chromium suite analysis.

Since 2015, previous sampling campaigns have shown concentrations of nickel and manganese (which

is currently compared to a low reliability guideline) to be above NAGD screening levels, however the

bioavailable concentrations have met screening levels. Therefore, bioavailability testing is

recommended for nickel and manganese to determine whether the bioavailable concentration of these

metals meet the recommended screening guidelines.

TOC has been analysed historically for normalisation of organic constituent results to 1 percent TOC

for comparison to screening levels. PSD is also assessed for normalising metal concentrations to a

reference element (if required) where the grain size and TOC of a compatible reference area for ambient

baseline levels cannot be located.

2 Field PASS testing shall be completed on all samples and chromium suite analysis will only be

undertaken in the event field screening testing indicates PASS.



Sampling Techniques

Sediment sampling will be undertaken using either vibrocorer or push corer fitted with stainless steel

core catchers to maximise the recovery of the core.

Push Coring

A push corer (Figure 4a) will be used at seven (7) sites to recover cores to a depth of 1 m (or refusal).

The push corer consists of a 70 mm stainless steel core with polycarbonate inner tube that is advanced

manually into the seabed or, if required, using a sleeve hammer. A bung will be inserted in the top of

the corer before extraction from the seabed. Once extracted a cap will be placed on the base and

transported to the surface by the diver in an upright position to avoid disturbance or loss of fine particles.

On return of the cores to the surface the water will be carefully removed, a photographic and observation

record of the core will be taken. For each core, two sub-samples will be collected from each horizon

(i.e. 0 m to 0.5 m and 0.5 m to 1 m) homogenised (with exception of samples collected for volatile

analysis3) and placed into laboratory containers.

a)

Figure 4. a) Diver operated push corer b) Vibrocorer

b)

Vibrocoring

A vibrocorer (Figure 4b) will be used to recover sediments to the refusal depth below the seabed from

two (2) sites. This method allows the bottom conditions to be observed by the diver which can aid in

sample recovery. The vibrocorer is deployed over the side of the vessel and positioned vertically over

3 Samples for volatile analysis, i.e. will be collected from the undisturbed core before homogenizing



the seabed by the diver. Once in position the diver communicates to topside to activate the unit.

Vibrations are transferred across the stainless-steel barrel which cause a liquefaction of the surrounding

sediment and allow the barrel to penetrate the seabed. The vibrocorer contains a core catcher to further

minimise sample disturbance during collection and retrieval. This sampling method is approved in the

NAGD (2009) and provides rapid and flexible mobilisation to site and efficient collection of samples. If

corer refusal occurs above the proposed sampling depth the core will be sampled to the maximum

possible depth. Once the sample has been taken the corer will be filled with water, capped at the top

and then extracted from the seabed back to the surface. Once the vibrocorer has been retrieved back

to the surface and onto the vessel, the samples will be split into the following horizons before being

homogenised and collected into laboratory specific containers:

• 0 to 0.5 m;

• 0.5 m to 1 m; and

• at 1 m interval for any horizon below 1 m

4.2.1. Sampling sites and depths

Sampling locations were randomly distributed across the dredging footprint as recommended in

NAGD (2009).

Figure 5. Proposed Sediment Sampling Locations



Table 4-1 Proposed sediment sampling samples

Site Method Sample ID Horizon

1 PC MR-01-TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR-TRIP-01 0 m-0.5 m

MR-TRIP-02 0 m-0.5 m

MR01-BOT 0.5 m-1 m

2 PC MR02-TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR02-SPLIT 0.5 m-1 m

MR02-BOT 0.5 m-1 m

3 PC MR03-TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR03-BOT 0.5 m-1 m

4 VC MR04-TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR04-0.5-1m 0.5 m-1 m

(and subsequent 1 m intervals to refusal)

5 PC MR05-TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR05-BOT 0.5 m-1 m

6 PC MR06 TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR-DUP 0 m-0.5 m

MR06-BOT 0.5 m-1 m

7 PC MR-07-TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR-07-BOT 0.5 m-1 m

8 VC MR-08 0-0.5m 0 m-0.5 m

MR08 0.5-1m 0.5 m-1 m

(and subsequent 1 m intervals to refusal)

9 PC MR09-TOP 0 m-0.5 m

MR09-BOT 0.5 m -1 m

VC – Vibrocore

PC – Push Core

4.2.2. Field equipment

The following sampling equipment shall be used:

Suitable Vessel;

Tape measure

Dive gear according to ADAS standard

2299.2;

Pony bottles;

Tethers for the divers;

Core trays;

Rinsed sample containers provided by

the laboratory;

Eskies and ice;

Nitrile gloves;

Pyrex glass bowls;



Oxy-viva and first aid kit;

Vessel dive flag;

Vessel GPS system;

Handheld GPS (back-up);

Vibrocorer (76 mm Ø);

5 x stainless steel core catchers;

Polycarbonate core tubes (50mm x 1.8m

length)

Piston Corer;

Catch bags;

Internal rubber bung and rod to extrude

samples;

Plastic Spoons and bowls;

Decon 90 (or equivalent cleaning agent);

Plastic tubs and brushes for washing;

Waterproof marker pens;

Camera;

Ice blocks for sample transport to the

laboratory;

Chain of Custody forms; and

Field logs

4.2.3. Sampling Procedure

The general sampling procedure will include the following:

The vessel to be used for sampling will be decontaminated before commencement of sampling.

A GPS unit (WGS84) with a minimum five metres of horizontal accuracy will be used to navigate

and record the sampling location. If environmental and safety conditions do not allow site

access, the site will be revisited (where possible) later or the sample site repositioned as close

as possible to the original location, but within a safe distance for operations. GPS locations of

all sampled sites will be recorded.

Prior to obtaining each sample, the sampling equipment, processing equipment and workspace

shall be decontaminated by scrubbing initially with seawater collected on site, second scrub

using Deacon 90, and final rinse with freshwater.

Each sample will be photographed prior to homogenization in the mixing bowl and again

following homogenization. Photographs shall be taken on a white background so both sample

and core sheet plate are captured in the image with information such as sample ID, date, time,

location. Site observations will be recorded including but not limited to benthic/terrestrial habitat,

surface features, observed fauna, etc.

A visual description of each sample will be recorded on the log sheet.

All sample handling shall be undertaken using fresh pair of nitrile gloves and samples will be

homogenised in a glass bowl, except for the samples to be collected for the hydrocarbon

analysis which will be extracted from the middle of the cores and not mixed in accordance with

procedures described in the NAGD (2009). The samples will then be placed directly into labelled

clean containers supplied by the laboratory. For hydrocarbons analyses, sediment will be placed

into the jars with zero headspace to minimise volatilisation.

Samples will be placed in eskies at <4ºC immediately after collection. Chain of Custody (CoC)

documentation shall be completed at the completion of each survey day.

Sampling, handling, transportation, storage, preservation and labelling techniques will be

conducted in accordance with the NAGD (2009), and samples shall be delivered for analysis

sealed, within the recommended holding time and with a temperature recoded at the time of

delivery to the laboratory.



QA/QC

4.3.1. Field QA/QC

The following QA/QC procedures shall be undertaken during field work in accordance with ANZG (2018)

and NAGD (2009) guidelines, including:

Using suitably qualified environmental staff experienced in sediment sampling, field

supervision and sediment logging;

Survey vessel shall be thoroughly inspected and washed down prior to the survey;

All sampling equipment, including mixing bowls etc. shall be decontaminated between

sampling locations via a decontamination procedure involving a wash with ambient seawater

and a laboratory grade detergent, and successive rinsing with freshwater;

Samples shall be handled using gloved hands (nitrile gloves). New gloves shall be used for

each sample to avoid potential cross-contamination;

Samples shall be contained in appropriately cleaned, pre-treated and labelled sample

containers;

Logs shall be completed for each sample collected including time, location, initials of sampler,

duplicate type, chemical analyses to be performed and site observations;

Chain-of-custody (CoC) forms identifying (for each sample) the sampler, nature of the sample,

collection date and time, analyses to be performed, sample preservation method and

departure time from the site;

Samples shall be kept cool (4°C) after sampling and during transport, stored in eskies with

pre-frozen ice bricks;

Transportation of samples under CoC documentation (Appendix A); and

Additional QC field samples collected in accordance with the NAGD (2009).

4.3.2. Field Quality Control Samples

Field quality control samples included the following sampling design in accordance with Appendix F of

the NAGD (2009):

One (1) trip blank filled with inert chromographic sand. This container will be kept closed for

the whole duration of the survey and transport to the lab and will be analysed for the

contaminants of concern to assess contamination that may occur due to transport procedures.

One (1) field blank filled with inert chromographic sand; This container will be open and kept

on site in proximity of sample processing procedures and will be analysed to assess

contamination that may occur due to environmental conditions and/or processing procedures.

Two (2) rinsate blanks filled with deionised water; at the end of each survey day all equipment

will be decontaminated as per decontamination procedure described in section 4.2.1. After the

decontaminant is completed, the equipment is rinsed with deionised water which will be

collected and analysed to assess the effectiveness of the decontamination procedure.

Two (2) field triplicates (three separate samples taken at the same location) to determine the

variability of the sampling method; and

One (1) field split (samples thoroughly mixed then split into two sub-samples with one of the

samples sent to a secondary laboratory) to assess variability between laboratories methods.



4.3.3. Laboratory QA/QC

Both the primary and secondary laboratories will be National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)-

accredited for the relevant analytes and have comprehensive best practice QA/QC programs in

accordance with NEPC (1999), ANZG (2018) and NAGD (2009) guidelines. Laboratory QA/QC includes

Laboratory Control Samples (LCS), Method Blanks (MB), Matrix Spikes (MS), Laboratory Duplicates

(Dups) and Surrogates (where applicable), at frequencies at or above the NEPM guidelines – revised

2013.

Data Analysis

4.4.1. Comparison of Data to Screening Levels

The results shall be compared to the recommended interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQG)

screening levels in the NAGD (2009), and Default Guideline Values (DGVs) as defined in ANZG (2018),

while PASS will be compared against the action criteria in DER (2015). The recommended sediment

quality guidelines (SQGs) for the Pilbara coastal waters shall also be applied for parameters in which

no DGVs are available. Estimated natural background data for manganese is not available in DEC

(2006) and therefore a low reliability guideline value (used as an indicative interim working level) from

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (Persaud et al. 1990) presented in ANZG (2018) shall be

applied.

In accordance with Table 2 in NAGD (2009), the raw laboratory results for organic analytical parameters

such as hydrocarbons and organotins will be normalised to 1% TOC where TOC values are within the

range 0.2-10%. If TOC is outside this range the end value is used as default (e.g., <0.2% = 0.2% and

>10% =10%).

Based on NAGD (2009), the 95% upper confidence limit (95% UCL) is compared to the ISQG and

DGVs for metal concentrations (Table 2). The USEPA’s ProUCL software is used to calculate and

recommend the most appropriate 95% UCL test to apply based on the data size, data distribution and

skewness. If the 95% UCL does not exceed the screening level, this means there is a 95% probability

that the mean concentration of that contaminant will not exceed the screening level. If the 95% UCL of

a contaminant exceeds the specified screening level, there is risk sediments to be dredged may pose

an ecological risk and further investigation shall proceed through the decision-tree described in NAGD

(2009).

In accordance with the decision-tree in NAGD (2009), in the event the upper 95 per cent confidence

limit of the mean for a contaminant exceeds the ISQG or DGV, comparison to ambient baseline levels

is then required. This can be achieved through comparing the upper 95% UCL against nearshore

sediment sampling results from URS (2009) undertaken prior to development of the Ashburton Port.

The sites will be targeted for comparable grainsize and TOC content, since these parameters are the

dominant influences on contaminant levels in sediment.

Table 2. Reporting guidelines for metals.

Analyte LoR Laboratory

Method

ISQG-low NAGD PQL Trigger Value



4.4.2. PASS Field Screening Test

The results obtained from three (3) PASS field screening tests described below will be used to identify

sediments likely to contain sulphides:

‘A ‘High’ or greater reaction rating with hydrogen peroxide as classified in Table 4-3

Actual value of pHFOX <6; and

Difference in pHFOX and pHF value of > 2 units.

The field screening tests provide a rapid assessment of the likelihood of PASS although cannot give a

quantitative measure of the amount of PASS in the sediment, or how much will be produced through

oxidation. However, a precautionary approach will be adopted for interpreting the combination of these

three factors to arrive at a positive identification of sulfides or PASS for deciding which samples warrant

further analysis using the Chromium Reducible Sulfur Suite method. This may include further testing of

samples which record a high-risk result of PASS from only a single test, or a moderate risk result of

PASS in more than one test result.

Table 4-3 Reaction observations to determine appropriate rating

Reaction Rating Key Observations

Low L Little to no reaction, languid bubble formation

Medium M Languid bubble formation two or more layers

High H Active bubble formation inside test tube, mild effervescence

Aluminium 50 mg/kg ICP-AES 6300 mg/kg 200 mg/kg 95% UCL

Iron 50 mg/kg ICP-AES 16200 mg/kg 100 mg/kg 95% UCL

Antimony 0.5 mg/kg ICPMS 2 mg/kg 0.5 mg/kg 95% UCL

Arsenic 1 mg/kg ICPMS 20 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 95% UCL

Cadmium 0.1 mg/kg ICPMS 2.5 mg/kg 0.2 mg/kg 95% UCL

Copper 1.0 mg/kg ICPMS 65 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 95% UCL

Cobalt 0.5 mg/kg ICPMS N/A 0.5 mg/kg 95% UCL

Lead 1.0 mg/kg ICPMS 50 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 95% UCL

Manganese 10 mg/kg ICPMS N/A 10 mg/kg 95% UCL

Nickel 1.0 mg/kg ICPMS 21 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 95% UCL

Silver 0.1 mg/kg ICPMS 2 mg/kg 0.1 mg/kg 95% UCL

Zinc 1.0 mg/kg ICPMS 200 mg/kg 1 mg/kg 95% UCL

Mercury 0.01 mg/kg FIMS0.15 0.15 mg/kg 0.01 mg/kg 95% UCL



Reaction Rating Key Observations

Extreme X Foaming inside test tube, moderate effervescence, faint sulfuric odour

Volcanic V Vigorous foaming & overflow/ eruption, strong effervescence, strong

sulfuric odour

4.4.3. Chromium Reducible Sulfur Suite

This analysis will only be required if a sample fails the ASS Field Screening Test.

The chromium reducible sulfur suite method involves a series of steps that yield an estimate of the

actual and potential acidity, the acid neutralising capacity (ANC) and the total net acidity of a sediment

sample. The soil pH, in potassium chloride suspension (pHKCl), gives an estimate of the actual acidity

of the sediment. The reduced inorganic sulfur content (SCr) provides an estimate of the potential sulfidic

acidity of the sediment, which is assessed against an Action Criteria (DER 2015). Titratable Actual

Acidity (TAAKCl) and/or Net Acid Soluble Sulfur (SNAS) are analysed if pHKCl is <6.5. The ANC provides

an estimate of the ability of the sediment to naturally neutralise any acid produced (e.g., due to the

presence of carbonate material).

The total net acidity is calculated via Acid-Base Accounting (ABA), using the following equation (Ahern

et al. 2004):

Net Acidity = Potential Sulfidic Acidity + Existing Acidity – (ANC ÷ FF)

Where:

Potential Sulfidic Acidity is represented by SCr

(converted from %S to mol H+/tonne by multiplying by 623.7).

If there is no existing acidity, i.e., the sample has a pHKCl greater than 6.5, the TAAKCl is assumed to be

zero and the Existing Acidity term is neglected. If the pHKCl is less than 6.5, the TAAKCl is measured and

used for the Existing Acidity term in mol H+/tonne.

ANC is represented by ANCBT

(converted from %CaCO3 to mol H+/tonne by multiplying by 199.8).

• FF is the fineness factor and

• ANCBT is the Acid-neutralising capacity by back titration. Acid-neutralising capacity measured

by acid digest followed by back titration of the acid that has not been consumed.

As the samples are finely ground in the laboratory, the actual ANC in the field could be overestimated

and therefore the net acid risk, underestimated. To allow for this, the measurements of ANC are divided

by a fineness factor (FF) during ABA. A fineness factor of 1.5 was selected for this study to ensure a

conservative calculation of the neutralising capacity for the fine shell and carbonate silts.



4.4.4. QA/QC Assessment

The precision of the sediment analyses shall be determined by quantifying the differences between the

concentrations of analytes in the QA/QC samples, using the method outlined in NAGD (2009).

The relative percent difference (RPD) shall be calculated for analyte concentrations in the sample splits

(both inter-laboratory and intra-laboratory splits) and field replicates as follows:

RPD (%) = (𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑠) 𝑋 100

(𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑠)

The RPD of sample splits should be less than ±35% for field splits and ±50% for field replicates,

although the guidelines note that this may not always be the case where the sediments are very

heterogeneous or greatly differing in grain size and/or in very low concentration (NAGD 2009). Where

three (3) or more samples were collected from the one location (e.g., triplicate) the relative standard

deviation (RSD) shall be calculated for analyte concentrations in the sample splits. If the RPD for a

measured analyte fell outside of these limits, the value of the measured analyte shall be flagged as an

estimate rather than a precise value (NAGD 2009).

The RSD shall be calculated as follows:

(𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠)

(𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠)



5. Reporting

A sediment sampling and analysis implementation report shall be prepared and shall include the

following content:

• Introduction

• Methods

o Sampling and Analysis Procedures

o Figures and accompanying table showing the sampling locations and coordinates

respectively.

• Results

o Colour graphical representations of results with the ANZG (2018) (a) DGV and DGV-

High (where available) superimposed on the graph.

o Tabulated analytical results highlighting exceedances of (a) Screening and (b)

Maximum Levels.

o Data Validation – comparison of analytical data against the Data Quality Criteria

identified for the SAP and confirming compliance with QA/QC procedures and

confirmation that the data is suitable for the purpose for which it has been collected.

• QA/QC

o Field QA/QC Procedures

o Laboratory QA/QC Procedures

• Conclusion

o Provide discussion and explanation of results if exceedances occur

• References

• Appendices:

o Site and sample photographs

o Laboratory reports including QA/QC

o Chain of Custody



6. References

Advisian (2019). Port of Ashburton Maintenance Dredging ASAP Implementation Report (Year 3 – 2019). Report for PPA. ANZG (2018). 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. Available at www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines Coffey (2009). Nearshore Geotechnical Investigation – Downstream. Unpublished report for Chevron Australia Pty. Ltd.

Department of Environment and Conservation (2006). Background quality of the marine sediments of the Pilbara coast. Department of Environment and Conservation, Marine Technical Report Series, No. MTR 1 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEHWA): National Assessment

Guidelines for Dredging, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra 2009, (DEHWA, 2009)

Department of Environment Regulation (2015). Identification and investigation of acid sulfate soils and acidic landscapes. DER2015001427 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2009). National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging, Canberra MScience (2016). Port of Ashburton Dredging Program: Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report. Report to PPA. MScience (2017). Port of Ashburton Maintenance Dredging: Annual Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, 2017. Report to PPA. MScience (2018). Port of Ashburton Maintenance Program: Annual Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, 2018. Report to PPA. MScience (2020). Port of Ashburton Dredging Program: Annual Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, 2020. Report to PPA. National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC), (1999). Schedule B of the National Environmental Protection Measures. URS (2009a). Sediment Quality Assessment-Wheatstone Dredging Program, 2009. Report #42907466/00090/01. Technical Appendix Q5 of Environmental Impact Statement Chevron (2010): https://australia.chevron.com/-/media/australia/our-businesses/documents/wheatstone-draft-eis-ermp-technical-appendices-q2-to-q5-web.pdf URS (2009b). Wheatstone Project: Nearshore Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation (Turning Basin & Dredge Channel). Report #42907466/01. Technical Appendix Q4 of Environmental Impact Statement Chevron (2010): https://australia.chevron.com/-/media/australia/our-businesses/documents/wheatstone-draft-eis-ermp-technical-appendices-q2-to-q5-web.pdf

https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines

Ashburton Infrastructure Project | s.38 Referral Supporting Document

Printed copies of this document are not controlled. Please ensure that this is the latest available version before use.

ISSUE DATE: 25/ 10/ 2021

This page is intentionally blank

Documents

APPENDIX W SEDIMENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN