Marine Infauna Study · Polygordid, dorvilleid and nereid polychaetes, as well as gammarid amphipods and nematodes were analysed separately, as these were the dominant taxa found

HUNTER WATER

Marine Infauna Study

Burwood Beach WWTW

301020-03413 – 104

August 2013

Infrastructure & Environment

3 Warabrook Boulevard

Newcastle, NSW 2304 Australia

PO Box 814 NEWCASTLE NSW 2300

Telephone: +61 2 4985 0000

Facsimile: +61 2 4985 0099

www.worleyparsons.com

ABN 61 001 279 812

© Copyright 2013 WorleyParsons

HUNTER WATER

MARINE INFAUNA STUDY

BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Document No : 104 Page ii

SYNOPSIS

The Burwood Beach Marine Infauna Study was undertaken to assess the distribution of marine

infauna along the effluent dispersion pathway, as a function of distance from the outfall. The study

aimed to characterise changes in the infaunal communities that may be related to the discharge of

treated wastewater effluent and biosolids from the Burwood Beach WWTW. The key objective of the

Burwood Beach Marine Infauna Study was to monitor changes in the distribution of marine infauna

along the effluent dispersion pathway, as a function of distance from the outfall. Changes in the

abundance, richness and diversity of infauna and in the dominance of opportunistic species were

monitored.

Infauna sampling was undertaken using a gradient sampling design with sites positioned at increasing

distances from the outfall (10 m, 20 m, 50 m, 100 m, 200 m and 2,000 m) along two radial axis

(approximately north-east and south-west). Surveys were undertaken during December 2011, April

2012, October 2012 and April 2013.

Mixed model nested analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to assess for differences between

time, distance and sites in the abundance, richness and diversity of infauna, as well as the ratio of

polychaetes to other taxa. Polygordid, dorvilleid and nereid polychaetes, as well as gammarid

amphipods and nematodes were analysed separately, as these were the dominant taxa found across

all surveys. For the majority of analyses there were inconsistent trends over the sampling events.

For the ratio of polychaetes to other taxa, while there was a significant interaction found between time

and site, there was an elevated ratio at sites close to the outfall (< 20 m) during most sampling

events. The ratio of polychaetes to other taxa was significantly higher at sites close to the outfall

(10 m or 20 m) in comparison to all other sites during December 2011, October 2012 and April 2013.

For each sampling event, multivariate analyses were also undertaken on infauna assemblages.

During all sampling events, the MDS plots showed that there was a slight gradient with distance from

the outfall. There was also a directional influence within most distances, with the northern and

southern sites clustered separately. Overall analyses were undertaken on the full dataset, to

determine if there were differences over time, distance, direction or season. Time was found to be

the most important factor influencing infaunal assemblages, with the December 2011 sampling event

clustered separately to all other sampling events.

Marine sediment sampling was also undertaken during December 2011 and October 2012. The

particle size distribution of marine sediments was analysed using principle component analysis (PCA)

and it was found that with minor exception, most sites were very similar and had a high proportion of

sand ranging from 97 - 99%. All sites were found to have similar levels of total organic carbon (TOC),

apart from elevated TOC in some samples taken within 10 m of the outfall, including two during

December 2011 and one during October 2012.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Document No : 104 Page iii

The findings of the Burwood Beach Infauna Study suggest that for measures of abundance, richness

and diversity there are no apparent trends with distance from the outfall that are consistent over the

four sampling surveys or two seasons. In addition, there are no consistent trends seen for the

dominant taxa groups. The ratio of polychaetes to other taxa was elevated at sites close to the outfall

during three of the four sampling events and there was also sediment sampled within 10 m of the

outfall (during the Burwood Beach Sediment Study) that was found to have elevated levels of TOC.

These findings may indicate an impact of higher organic loading very close to the outfall (in

comparison to all other sites) with a zone of impact < 20 m.

Similar to the findings of others, there was significant temporal and spatial variability in the abundance

and composition of infauna communities in the receiving environment surrounding the Burwood

Beach WWTW outfall. As there were no consistent trends with distance from the outfall this high level

of variability makes it difficult to determine the potential effects of increased flows on marine infauna

communities in the receiving environment with any certainty.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Document No : 104 Page iv

Disclaimer

This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Hunter Water, and is

subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement between Hunter Water and

WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of

any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

Copying this report without the permission of Hunter Water or WorleyParsons is not permitted.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Document No : 104 Page v

Internal and Client Review Record

PROJECT 301020-03413 – BURWOOD BEACH MARINE INFAUNA STUDY

REV DESCRIPTION ORIG REVIEW WORLEY- PARSONS APPROVAL

DATE CLIENT APPROVAL

DATE

A Draft issued for internal review

Dr K Newton / Dr M Priestley

H Houridis

5 March 2012 N/A

B Draft issued for client review

Dr M Priestley

Hunter Water / CEE

8 March 2012

C Draft issued for internal review

Dr M Priestley Dr K Newton

H Houridis

31 May 2012

D Draft issued for client review

Dr K Newton

Hunter Water / CEE

22 October 2012

E Draft issued for internal review


H Houridis

7 January 2013

F Draft issued for client review


Hunter Water / CEE

7 January 2013

G Draft issued for internal review

Dr M Priestley

H Houridis / Dr K Newton

17 June 2013

H Draft issued for client review

Dr K Newton

Hunter Water / CEE

25 June 2013

I FINAL DRAFT

Dr K Newton / Dr M Priestley

EPA

August 2013

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Page vi 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Burwood Beach WWTW ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Treatment Process ................................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 Environmental Protection Licence Conditions ....................................................... 1

1.1.3 Characteristics of Current Effluent and Biosolids Discharges ............................... 4

1.1.4 Effluent and Biosolids Flow Data ......................................................................... 12

1.1.5 Dilution Modelling / Dispersion Characteristics .................................................... 13

1.1.6 Biosolids Deposition ............................................................................................. 14

1.2 Burwood Beach Marine Environmental Assessment Program ......................................... 15

1.2.1 Initial Consultation ................................................................................................ 15

1.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 15

1.4 Scope of Works / Study Objectives .................................................................................. 16

1.4.1 Null Hypothesis .................................................................................................... 16

1.5 Review of Previous Studies .............................................................................................. 17

1.5.1 Impacts of Sewage Discharges on Infauna Assemblages .................................. 17

1.5.2 Infauna Assessments at Burwood Beach ............................................................ 20

2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 21

2.1 Infauna Sampling Sites ..................................................................................................... 21

2.2 Temporal Assessment ...................................................................................................... 23

2.3 Field Sampling Methods ................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Laboratory and Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 24

2.4.1 Laboratory Analysis ............................................................................................. 24

2.4.2 Taxa Abundance, Richness and Diversity ........................................................... 24

2.4.3 Polychaete Ratio .................................................................................................. 25

2.5 Sediment Characteristics .................................................................................................. 25

2.6 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 26

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Page vii 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013

3 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Univariate Analyses of Marine Infauna ............................................................................. 27

3.1.1 Abundance ........................................................................................................... 27

3.1.2 Richness .............................................................................................................. 33

3.1.3 Diversity ............................................................................................................... 35

3.1.4 Polychaete Ratio .................................................................................................. 37

3.1.5 Polychaete Families ............................................................................................. 39

3.1.6 Other Infauna Taxa .............................................................................................. 41

3.1.7 Summary of ANOVAs .......................................................................................... 43

3.1.8 Power Analysis..................................................................................................... 44

3.2 Multivariate Analyses of Infauna ....................................................................................... 45

3.2.1 December 2011.................................................................................................... 45

3.2.2 April 2012 ............................................................................................................. 48

3.2.3 October 2012 ....................................................................................................... 50

3.2.4 April 2013 ............................................................................................................. 52

3.2.5 Summary of MDS ................................................................................................. 54

3.3 Marine Sediments ............................................................................................................. 57

3.3.1 December 2011.................................................................................................... 57

3.3.2 October 2012 ....................................................................................................... 58

3.4 Multivariate Analyses of Sediments .................................................................................. 59

4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 61

5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 64

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. 65

7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 66

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Page viii 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013

Figures

Figure 1.1 Location of Burwood Beach WWTW.

Figure 1.2 Burwood Beach WWTW and outfall alignment.

Figure 1.3 Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).

Figure 2.1 Location of all infauna sampling sites.

Figure 2.2 Sampling sites near to the outfall.

Figure 2.3 Infauna sampling equipment.

Figure 3.1 Abundance of all infauna taxa surveyed.

Figure 3.2 Infauna taxa in high abundance.

Figure 3.3 Species richness (number of taxa) of all infauna taxa surveyed.

Figure 3.4 Species diversity (Shannon wiener index) of all infauna taxa surveyed.

Figure 3.5 Ratio of polychaete abundance to all other taxa abundance.

Figure 3.6 Mean abundance of polychaete families surveyed.

Figure 3.7 Mean abundance of dominant infauna (other than polychaetes) surveyed.

Figure 3.8 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of infauna

assemblages for December 2011.

Figure 3.9 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of infauna

assemblages for April 2012.

Figure 3.10 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of

infauna assemblages for October 2012.


infauna assemblages for April 2013.

Figure 3.12 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by distance.

Figure 3.13 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by sampling event.

Figure 3.14 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by direction.

Figure 3.15 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by season.

Figure 3.16 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled during

December 2011.

Figure 3.17 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled during

October 2012.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Page ix 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013

Figure 3.18 MDS analysis of particle size distribution in sediments during December 2011 and

October 2012 represented by zone.

Tables

Table 1.1 Load limits for effluent and biosolids discharges.

Table 1.2 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in effluent during 2006 -

2013.

Table 1.3 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in biosolids during 2006 -

2013.

Table 1.4 Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).

Table 1.5 Classification of zones based on prior effluent dilution modelling.

Table 1.6 Examples of infauna monitoring programs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand.

Table 2.1 GPS co-ordinates and depths of infauna sampling sites.

Table 3.1 Summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables of infauna

taxa.

Table 3.2 SIMPER analysis results for December 2011.

Table 3.3 SIMPER analysis results for April 2012.

Table 3.4 SIMPER analysis results for October 2012.

Table 3.5 SIMPER analysis results for April 2013.

Table 3.7 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for December 2011.

Table 3.8 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for October 2012.

Appendices

APPENDIX 1 - INFAUNA ABUNDANCE (SITE AVERAGES)

APPENDIX 2 - STATISTICAL OUTPUT

APPENDIX 3 - POWER ANALYSIS

Abbreviations

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

CEE Consulting Environmental Engineers

EPA Environment Protection Authority

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Page x 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013

EPL Environmental Protection License

MDS Multi-Dimensional Scaling

MEAP Marine Environmental Assessment Program

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage

PCA Principle Component Analysis

PERMANOVA Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance

PSD Particle Size Distribution

SIMPER Percentage Similarity Analysis

TOC Total Organic Carbon

WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Page 1 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Burwood Beach WWTW

The Burwood Beach Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) is located on the Hunter Central Coast of

New South Wales (NSW) approximately 2.5 km south of the city of Newcastle (Figure 1.1). The plant

treats wastewater from Newcastle and the surrounding suburbs, servicing approximately 185,000 people

and local industry and has an average daily dry weather flow of 44 million litres of wastewater (44 ML/d).

Over the next 30 years these flows are expected to increase to 55 - 60 ML/d, even with water

conservation measures in place.

1.1.1 Treatment Process

The secondary treatment process at Burwood Beach consists of physical screening to remove large and

fine particulates, biological filtration and waste activated sludge (biosolids) processing including aeration

and settling stages. Secondary treated effluent from Burwood Beach WWTW is discharged to the ocean

through a multi-port diffuser which extends 1,500 m offshore, with diffusers at a depth of approximately

22 m (Figure 1.2). Approximately 2 ML/d of biosolids, which is surplus to treatment requirements, is also

discharged to the ocean via a separate multi-port diffuser that extends slightly further offshore than the

effluent outfall. Both outfalls have been operating in their current configuration since January 1994.

1.1.2 Environmental Protection Licence Conditions

The Environment Protection Licence (EPL) for Burwood Beach WWTW specifies limit conditions for the

operation of the plant. These conditions provide an indication of the characteristics of the effluent and

biosolids discharged into the ocean. Condition L1 specifies that the operation of the outfall must not

cause or permit waters to be polluted (i.e. the licensee must comply with section 120 of the Protection of

the Environment Operations Act 1997). Condition L2 specifies limits relating to total loads discharged to

the ocean (including the effluent and biosolids). These limits are provided in Table 1.1. Condition 3

specifies limits to concentrations of suspended solids and oil / grease in the effluent discharged to the

outfall. The three day geometric mean concentration limit for suspended solids is 60 mg/L and for oil /

grease is 15 mg/L. Condition 4 sets volume and mass limits of effluent and biosolids discharged via the

outfalls. The limit for effluent flow rate is 510 ML/d (to allow for higher flows in wet weather) and for

biosolids the flow limit is 5 ML/d. Daily monitoring of flow is required.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 1.1 Location of Burwood Beach WWTW.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 1.2 Burwood Beach WWTW and outfall alignment.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Table 1.1 Load limits for effluent and biosolids discharges.

Parameter Load Limits

kg/year kg/day

Total suspended solids 4,717,189 12,924

Biochemical oxygen demand - -

Total nitrogen 778,257 2,132

Oil and grease 341,290 935

Total phosphorous - -

Zinc 3,943 11

Copper 2,080 5.7

Lead 1,472 4.0

Chromium 224 0.61

Cadmium 124 0.34

Selenium 14 0.038

Mercury 9 0.025

Pesticides and PCBs 7 0.019

1.1.3 Characteristics of Current Effluent and Biosolids Discharges

The final treated effluent and biosolids from Burwood Beach WWTW has been monitored by Hunter

Water for microbiological indicators of faecal contaminations and for a suite of metals/metalloids and

organic chemicals. A summary of this data during the period 2006 - 2013 is provided in Tables 1.2

(effluent) and 1.3 (biosolids) (data provided by Hunter Water 2013)

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Table 1.2 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in effluent during 2006 - 2013.

Group Parameter (units) Period N Median Mean Min Max Std

Error 75%ile 90%ile

Physicochemical Suspended solids (mg/L) 2006-13

449 27 33.6 <1 390 1.6 40 60

UV254nm Transmittance (%T) 2006-13

6 59.2 58.4 43.6 68.31 3.4 62.475 65.705

pH 2006-13

224 7.6 7.6 7 8 0.01 7.7 7.8

Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 2006-13

56 440 448.5 276 734 12.9 487.5 545

Biological Oxygen Demand - total (mg/L) 2006-13

239 23 27.4 <2 144 1.3 36 50

Chemical Oxygen Demand - Flocculated (mg/L)

2006-13

19 42 41.8 32 55 1.6 46 51.4

Grease - total high range (mg/l) 2006-13

3 <5 4.7 <5 10 2.7 6 8.4

Grease - total low range (mg/l) 2006-13

444 <2 2.7 <2 60 0.2 3 5

Ammonium nitrogen (mg/L N) 2006-13

70 23.0 21.7 1 33.1 0.8 26.8 29.4

Nitrate + nitrate oxygen (mg/L N) 2006-13

236 1.0 1.6 <0.05 14 0.1 2.1 3.7

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L N) 2006-13

236 26.9 26.1 2.2 48.7 0.6 33.0 36.9

Total nitrogen (mg/L N) 2006-13

236 28.7 27.6 2.45 48.7 0.6 33.6 37.7

Total phosphorus (mg/L P) 2006-13

236 2.3 2.64 0.09 8.2 0.11 3.625 4.8

Metals / Metalloids

Silver-Ag-AAS furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

31 1 3.1 <1 18 0.9 2.5 13

Silver Ag-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13

59 0.5 0.7 <1 7 0.1 0.5 1

Arsenic As-vga (µg/L) 2006-13

90 1.7 1.8 0.05 3.9 0.1 2.1 2.51

Cadmium Cd-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

5 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW



Error 75%ile 90%ile

Cadmium Cd-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13

59 <1 0.5 <1 1 <1 <1 <1

Chromium Cr-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

31 1 1.9 <1 28 0.9 1.2 2

Chromium Cr- ICP (µg/L) 2006-13

59 <1 0.7 <1 2 0.1 0.75 1

Chromium Cr VI-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <1 0.7 <1 1 - 1 1

Copper Cu-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

31 17 21.2 4 115 3.5 21 34

Copper Cu-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13

93 0.25 0.4 0.04 1.7 - 0.47 0.728

Mercury Hg-VGA ug/L) 2006-13

90 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.6 - <0.1 0.2

Manganese Mn-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

31 70 76.0 31 173 6.6 82 105

Manganese-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13

59 61 63.8 27 119 2.0 67.5 80.2

Nickel Ni-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1

Nickel Ni-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13

59 4 5.3 <1 20 0.6 5.5 13.2

Lead Pb-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13

90 3 3.1 <1 17 0.3 4 5

Selenium Se-VGA (µg/L) 2006-13

90 0.1 0.3 <0.1 2 - 0.4 0.6

Zinc Zn (µg/L) 2006-13

31 50 49.4 10 120 4.3 55 70

Zinc Zn-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13

59 24 31.2 4 164 3.2 35 55.8

Organics

Aldrin (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01

α-BHC Bhc-a (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01

β-BHC-b (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01

α Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 0.000 <0.02 0.003 - <0.01 <0.01

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW



Error 75%ile 90%ile

Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 0.001 <0.02 0.020 - <0.01 <0.01

λ Chlordane (µg/L) 2006-13

11 <0.01 0.000 <0.02 0.001 - <0.01 <0.01

Chlorpyrifos 2006-13

90 <0.01 0.007 <0.05 0.629 0.007 <0.01 <0.01

Lindane (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 0.000 <0.01 0.005 - <0.01 <0.01

DDT (ug/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01

DDD (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01

DDE (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01

Diazinon (ug/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 0.000 <0.1 0.030 - <0.01 <0.01

Dieldrin (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 0.000 <0.01 0.012 - <0.01 <0.01

Endosulfan (µg/L) 2006-13

0 <0.01

Endosulfan-s (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Endosulfan-1 (µg/L) 2006-13

0 <0.01

Endosulfan-2 (µg/L) 2006-13

0 <0.01

Endrin (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Heptachlor (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005

HCB (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Heptachlor-epoxide (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Methoxychlor (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Parathion (ug/L) 2006-13

90 <0.1 0.000 <0.1 0.010 0.000 <0.1 <0.1

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW



Error 75%ile 90%ile

Total PCBs (µg/L) 2006-13

90 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Table 1.3 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in biosolids during 2006 - 2013.


Error 75%ile 90%ile

Physicochemical

Total solids (%w/w) 2006-13 458 0.41 0.45 0.00 2.42 0.01 0.50 0.67

Volatile solids (%w/w) 2006-13 440 69.12 66.35 20.61 96.72 0.51 72.68 74.60

Ammonium N_Total (mg/L N) 2006-13 440 24.00 25.03 0.01 85.40 0.55 30.13 39.00

Grease – total low range (mg/L) 2006-13 440 153.5 172.0 1.0 841.0 5.5 230.0 328.2

Fluoride (mg/L) 2006-13 3 0.77 0.67 0.42 0.82 0.13 0.80 0.81

Metals / Metalloids

Silver-Ag-AASurnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 22 23 4 63 1 29 40

Silver Ag-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13 279 11 12 0.5 38 0 15 18

Arsenic As-vga (µg/L) 2006-13 431 14.7 18.33 2.6 130 0.70 19.75 30.5

Cadmium Cd-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 4 5.93 0.5 128 1.04 6 8

Cadmium Cd-ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01

Chromium Cr VI-furnace (µg/L 2006-13 152 1 1.00 1 1 0.00 1 1

Chromium Cr_VIi-furnace (µg/L ) 2006-13 279 5 10 5 25 0.00 5 25

Chromium Cr-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 46.5 68.16 1 750 7.41 68.5 105

Chromium cr- ICP (µgLl) 2006-13 279 30 50 5 3200 10 40 70

Copper Cu-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 839 954 125 3930 42.8 1134 1426

Copper Cu-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13 279 830 880 5 3300 20 1000 1300

Mercury Hg- VGA ug/L) 2006-13 431 3.7 3.93 0.005 10.2 0.08 4.8 6.3

Manganese Mn-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 339 360 33 1270 13.73 446.25 512.5

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Manganese -ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 0.39 0.41 0.06 1 0.01 0.47 0.57

Nickel Ni-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 40 47.21 13 180 2.49 55 77.7

Nickel Ni-ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 0.03 0.04 0.005 0.33 0.00 0.05 0.07

Lead Pb-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 187 224 13 900 11.37 269.25 375

Lead Pb ICP µg/L) 2006-13 279 120 130 10 450 0.01 150 212

Selenium Se-VGA (µg/L)) 2006-13 431 0.1 0.91 0.05 5.9 0.06 1.7 2.7

Zinc Zn (mg/L) 2006-13 152 2.4 3.03 0.78 15.6 0.16 3.515 5.39

Zinc Zn-ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 2.2 2.46 0.13 6.9 0.06 2.8 3.7

Organics

Aldrin (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

α-BHC Bhc-a (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

β-BHC-b (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

α Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

λ Chlordane- (µg/L) 2006-13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chlorpyrifos (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0.003 0 0.239 0.003 0 0

DDT (uµ/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DDD (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DDE (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diazinon (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dieldrin (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0.006 0 0.315 0.004 0 0

Endosulfan-s (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Endrin (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HCB (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heptachlor-epoxide (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0.0001 0 0.013 0.0001 0 2.8

Heptachlor (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lindane (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Malathion (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Methoxychlor (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Parathion (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total PCBs (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


1.1.4 Effluent and Biosolids Flow Data

Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period was obtained from the Burwood Beach WWTW. A

summary of flow data for the period July 2011 to May 2013 is provided in Table 1.4 and Figure 1.3.

Table 1.4 Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).

Date

Rainfall (mm)

Secondary Flow (ML)

1

By-Pass Flow (ML)

2

Total Flow (ML)

WAS (ML)

3

July 2011 238.2 2068.14 777.24 2845.38 71.66

Aug 2011 47.8 1775.64 0 1775.64 87.73

Sep 2011 136.0 1731.62 205.9 1937.52 82.86

Oct 2011 161.4 1966.85 301.27 2268.12 94.93

Nov 2011 184.5 2004.51 465.58 2470.09 86.71

Dec 2011 110.8 1825.98 6.37 1832.35 92.83

Jan 2012 53.6 1481.64 22.32 1503.96 93.38

Feb 2012 336.7 2296.60 485.42 2782.02 89.47

Mar 2012 188.0 2083.66 403.74 2487.40 96.36

Apr 2012 174.0 1889.04 306.14 2195.18 88.98

May 2012 26.2 1470.51 0 1470.51 94.01

Jun 2012 188.0 2255.16 373.09 2628.25 95.01

Jul 2012 83.5 1839.45 24.17 1863.62 86.77

Aug 2012 71.0 1704.78 62.22 1767.00 93.44

Sep 2012 16.7 1305.15 0 1305.15 87.82

Oct 2012 13.5 1257.72 0 1257.72 76.17

Nov 2012 44.6 1201.80 0 1201.80 86.92

Dec 2012 114.2 1375.59 52.98 1428.57 98.06

Jan 2013 229.0 1488.58 322.25 1810.83 99.86

Feb 2013 175.0 1855.55 397.11 2252.66 87.39

Mar 2013 241.0 1954.00 629.58 2583.58 112.08

Apr 2013 94.5 1702.77 116.92 1819.69 102.98

May 2013 60.0 1538.14 55.7 1593.84 95.64

Note 1. Secondary Flow is total secondary treated flow through the plant (i.e. total volume of screened and degritted sewage into

secondary plant over a 24 hour period from 12 midnight and discharged to ocean).

Note 2. By-Pass Flow is total volume of screened and degritted sewage which bypasses the secondary plant over a 24 hour period

from 12 midnight and is discharged to ocean.

Note 3. WAS is the Volume of Waste Activated Sludge (biosolids) pumped from the clarifier underflow over a 24 hour period from 12

midnight and is discharged to ocean.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 1.3 Effluent and biosolids (WAS) flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).

1.1.5 Dilution Modelling / Dispersion Characteristics

Consulting Environmental Engineers (CEE 2007) calculated a predicted initial dilution for the Burwood

effluent outfall, assuming a discharge rate of 43 ML/d and all duckbill valves in operation. The model

predicted a typical dilution of 219:1 for the effluent field. Allowing for the reduction in dilution due to the

orientation of the diffuser ports parallel to the currents, initial dilution is expected to be in the range of

180:1 to 220:1. The Water Research Lab (WRL 2007) also carried out field tests of effluent dilution using

rhodamine dye. The dilution of the surface field showed a typical dilution of 185:1. WRL (2007) reported

that the average near-field dilution was 207:1 and the 95th percentile minimum dilution was 78:1. CEE

(2010) therefore considers it reasonable to base the environmental risk assessment of the effects of

effluent discharge on an effluent plume near the ocean surface with an initial dilution in the range of 100:1

to 200:1.

The dilution of a combined biosolids and effluent discharge through the biosolids diffuser was also

calculated (CEE 2007). The CEE model predicted a typical dilution of 475:1 for discharged biosolids if

they rose to the ocean surface, or about 250:1 if trapped by stratification at mid-depth (CEE 2007). The

WRL hydrodynamic computer model showed a median dilution of 300:1, with a minimum dilution of 100:1

when strong stratification decreases the rise and dilution of the small biosolids plumes, and a maximum

dilution at times of strong currents exceeding 1,000:1 (WRL 2007). The WRL model also showed the

biosolids plume is often trapped well below the surface by the natural stratification of the ocean water

column. WRL field tests of the biosolids plume, with dilution measured using rhodamine dye, showed a

typical dilution of 841:1. WRL reported that the average near-field dilution of the biosolids plume was

268:1 and the 95th percentile minimum dilution was 205:1, for a submerged plume (WRL 2007). Based

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


on these results, it is considered reasonable to base the assessment of the effects of biosolids discharge

on two conditions; surface plume with an initial dilution of 300:1 and submerged plume with an initial

dilution of 200:1 (CEE 2010). WRL (1999) modelled the biosolids plume at 10 m depth and showed that

the centre of the plume, at about 10 m depth, the dilution achieved is between 200:1 and 1,000:1. At a

distance of 200 m from the diffuser, the dilution exceeds 1,000:1 and increases further with distance

travelled. The diluted biosolids extends to the south of the diffuser, but would be indistinguishable except

by the sensitive techniques used in the field studies. Based on the field tests and dilution modelling

undertaken by WRL (1999, 2007) and CEE (2007), the following mixing zones (Table 1.5) were

determined for reporting purposes only.

Table 1.5 Classification of zones based on prior effluent dilution modelling.

Distance from Diffuser Zones

< 50 m outfall impact zone outfall impact

> 50 - 100 m

mixing zone

nearfield mixing zone

> 100 - 200 m midfield mixing zone

> 200 - 2,000 m farfield mixing zone

> 2,000 m reference zone reference

1.1.6 Biosolids Deposition

Previous diver inspections undertaken at the Burwood Beach outfall (i.e. by commercial divers inspecting

the outfall infrastructure) reported that biosolids deposits at the seabed can vary significantly. In-situ

diver observations have reported a biosolids thickness of 0 to 125 mm, with variation likely a result of

weather conditions. Divers have noted biosolids being washed away after storms with no long-term

accumulation on the seabed evident. More protected areas such as small caves have a greater depth of

biosolids and a peak of 750 mm was recorded in 1994/96 (note that at this time effluent was not mixed

with biosolids before discharge). ANSTO (1998) undertook a study of the movement of seabed

sediments 1,100 m south east of the outfall using iridium-radiated glass beads. The beads were found to

disperse over 100 m to the east and west and over 150 m to the north, providing an indication of the likely

expected movement of sandy sediments on the seabed. It is expected that smaller biosolids particles

would disperse at a greater rate and further than sand particles.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


1.2 Burwood Beach Marine Environmental Assessment Program

A number of monitoring programs and studies have previously been undertaken to assess the impact

of treated effluent and biosolids discharge on the marine environment at Burwood Beach (e.g. NSW

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 1994, 1996; The Ecology Lab 1996, 1998; Australian Water

Technologies (AWT) 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003; Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) 1999, 2000; Ecotox

Services Australasia (ESA) 2001, 2005; BioAnalysis 2006; Andrew-Priestley 2011; Andrew-Priestley

et al. 2012). While providing a wealth of data on the marine environment here, it is considered that

these previous studies have not effectively assessed the spatial extent and ecological significance of

the outfalls impact (CEE 2010).

The aim of the Burwood Beach Marine Environmental Assessment Program (MEAP) was to establish

the impact footprint of the existing outfall, establish the gradient of impact with distance to the edge of

the outfall and predict the potential footprint of future impacts. The current Burwood Beach Marine

Infauna Study aimed to address some of the knowledge gaps. This incorporated assessing both the

spatial and temporal impact of the effluent and biosolids discharges on benthic marine infauna

assemblages along the effluent dispersion pathway.

1.2.1 Initial Consultation

Prior to commencement of the Burwood Beach MEAP, details of the proposed sampling program and

survey methodology were discussed with Hunter Water, CEE and the NSW EPA (then the Office of

Environment and Heritage (OEH) on 10 October 2011. This initial consultation was undertaken to ensure

that the proposed MEAP was adequate in addressing the requirements of both the Client (Hunter Water)

and the Regulator (NSW EPA). During this meeting, concerns with the proposed survey / sampling

program were raised and where required the methodology was subsequently altered accordingly.

1.3 Study Area

Burwood Beach is located in Newcastle, on the Hunter Coast of NSW. It lies to the south of Merewether

Beach and to the north of Dudley Beach (refer to Figure 1.1). The seabed in the vicinity of the outfall

consists of small areas of low profile patchy rocky reef, which is subject to strong wave action and

periodic sand movement, interspersed between large areas of soft sediment (sandy) habitat. These low

profile reefs are emergent approximately 1 m above the sand. Water depth is approximately 22 m at the

outfall diffuser (refer to Figure 1.2). Fine mobile sandy sediments occur in the gutters and low-lying

seabed between reef patches. Extensive sandy beaches with intertidal rocky reef habitats occur along

the shoreline adjacent to the outfall. Merewether Beach lies to the north and Dudley Beach to the south

of Burwood Beach

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


1.4 Scope of Works / Study Objectives

While several studies have examined the macrobenthic sessile marine fauna living on the rocky reefs at

Burwood Beach (e.g. The Ecology Lab 1996, 1997, 1998; AWT 2000, 2003; BioAnalysis 2006; Roberts

and Murray 2006), there have been no studies undertaken to date that have assessed infauna within the

marine sediments. An assessment of infauna assemblages, abundance and species richness at

Burwood Beach, which incorporates spatial and temporal replication, was proposed to assist in

determining potential impacts from the discharge of treated effluent and biosolids into the marine

environment.

The key objective of the Burwood Beach Marine Infauna Study was to monitor changes in the distribution

of marine infauna along the effluent and biosolids dispersion pathway, as a function of distance from the

outfall. Changes in the abundance, richness and diversity of infauna and in the dominance of

opportunistic species were monitored.

The study also aimed to detect and characterise the following:

Impacts on community structure of infauna communities.

The extent or zone of impact.

The gradient of any impact on biological indicators (species or groups) depending on distance

from the outfall.

1.4.1 Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis of this study was:

There is no significant difference between infauna diversity, abundance and richness at sampling

sites close to the outfall compared to equivalent habitats with increasing distance from the outfall.

There is no significant difference between the ratio of polychaetes to other taxa at sampling sites

close to the outfall compared to equivalent habitats with increasing distance from the outfall.

There is no significant difference between dominant infauna groups or between infauna

assemblages close to the outfall compared to equivalent habitats with increasing distance from

the outfall.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


1.5 Review of Previous Studies

1.5.1 Impacts of Sewage Discharges on Infauna Assemblages

The release of sewage into the marine environment has been demonstrated to impact on marine biota at

the cellular, individual and community levels (Underwood and Peterson 1988). The type and extent of

impact varies and depends on the quantity and composition of sewage effluent. Impacts on marine biota

have been reported as localised, in the immediate vicinity of the WWTW (Fairweather 1990) or wide

ranging, such as kilometres from the WWTW source (Fry and Butman 1991; Zmarzly et al. 1994).

Temporally, impacts may be pulse events or sustained press events (Underwood 1992, 1993).

Soft sediments provide habitat for a range of macroinvertebrate infauna (i.e. fauna living within the

sediments) including crustaceans (amphipods, isopods and cumaceans), worms (polychaetes,

nemerteans) and molluscs (bivalves and gastropods). Infauna may feed using filter feeding mechanisms

(e.g. molluscs), active predation, or by gathering detritus from the sediments. Marine infauna

assemblages have been used extensively to monitor the level of anthropogenic impacts on the marine

environment. Infauna assemblages are useful as indicators due to their relatively sedentary lifestyle and

as they live within the sediments. They are also relatively easy to quantitatively sample. Infauna

communities have been established to respond to anthropogenic disturbance (Warwick 1993; Otway et

al. 1996). Environmental changes, resulting from the discharge of treated sewage effluent into the

marine environment, can include increased algal growth as a result of increased availability of nutrients

(e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen), release of and potential exposure to organic and / or inorganic

contaminants and pathogens (bacteria or fungi) from wastewater (Defeo et al. 2009). In turn, impacts on

infauna communities can include changes in species abundance, species richness, the dominance of

opportunistic species or the dominance of deposit feeders (Dauvin and Ruellet 2006; Dean 2008).

Changes in infauna communities around the point of WWTW discharge may result from organic

enrichment of bottom sediments (Pearson and Rosenberg 1976, 1978). Organic and inorganic

contaminants in sewage can also bioaccumulate in soft-bottom organisms (Phillips 1977, 1978) causing

alterations to infauna communities (Reish et al. 1987).

One of the difficulties in using infauna assemblages to monitor impacts of WWTWs is their inherent

spatial and temporal variability, making it difficult to attribute change to an impact rather than natural

variation. Infauna communities are composed of a mosaic of successional patches, resulting from

numerous interacting processes; also attributing to the significant spatial and temporal variation observed

(Peterson 1977; Dayton and Oliver 1980). Infauna monitoring programs have been used to assess

impacts from WWTWs in Australia and New Zealand, both shoreline (where wastewater is discharged

into the intertidal zone) and deep water (where outfall diffuser is extended out to sea and wastewater

discharged into deeper waters). Some examples of infauna monitoring programs are provided in Table

1.6. Summaries of some of these studies are also provided.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Table 1.6 Examples of infauna monitoring programs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand.

Outfall Monitoring period

Hobart outfall 1990 - present

Blackmans Bay outfall 2007, 2010, 2013

Anglesea outfall 2005, 2009

Altona outfall 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013

Geelong outfall 1978 - 2004

Latrobe Valley outfall 1987 - 2003

Port Kembla outfall 1974 - 1989

Sydney outfalls 1976, 1995

Coffs Harbour outfall 2000, 2008

Kawana outfall 1990, 1996

Perth outfalls 2000, 2004

Werribee outfall 1982

Gisbourne outfall 2002

Marine infauna assemblages were assessed as part of the Sydney Water NSW Environmental Monitoring

Programme (EMP) which was undertaken during 1989 - 1993 to assess impacts of Sydney‟s deepwater

outfalls, North Head, Malabar and Bondi, on the marine environment (Otway et al. 1995, 1996). The

EMP was required by the NSW EPA to assess impacts of the WWTWs on the receiving marine

environments and also included studies on fish communities. The experimental design consisted of a

before-after-control-impact (BACI) design with sampling undertaken before and after commissioning of

the deepwater outfalls. In the receiving environment of each outfall, six sites (which consisted of three

outfall sites and three reference sites) were sampled using a grab method, with three random sediment

grabs per site. All sites were located in 60 - 80 m of water. Sediment was sieved through a 1 mm sieve

to capture infauna. Polychaetes, crustaceans and molluscs were identified to family level while other taxa

were identified to Phylum and Class. They found that the infauna communities were comprised of 54%

polychaetes, 39% crustaceans, 3% molluscs and 4% miscellaneous taxa. They found that the

abundance of infauna varied through time and there were significantly less individuals collected during

winter. Overall, the abundance of organisms comprising these three communities fluctuated in time and

space and no obvious patterns were evident. Analysis of polychaete families indicated that their

populations fluctuated at varying spatial and temporal scales. Despite the variability reported by Otway et

al. (1995, 1996) they were able to demonstrate impacts on infauna assemblages due to the

commissioning of the three deepwater outfalls.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Following commissioning of the Malabar outfall, they found that the combined number of Anthurid and

Paranthurid isopods increased where the mean number of polychaete families decreased. At North Head

and Malabar, they reported that nereid polychaetes and crustaceans increased. They also found that the

percentage of impacts were related to the flow data of effluent and suspended solids load; as the flow

rate or suspended solid load increased, the impact on increased abundance of infauna around the

WWTWs decreased (Otway et al. 1995, 1996). This may suggest a hormesis type impact, i.e. whereby at

low concentrations the infauna abundance is stimulated by WWTW releases but at higher concentrations

abundance is negatively impacted. Such a scenario would have negative implications on infauna

abundance if flow rates or suspended solid loads increased in the future. Results of the Sydney

deepwater outfalls EMP were consistent with previous studies indicating spatial and temporal fluctuations

in the abundance of soft-bottom infauna communities (e.g. Gray 1974; Pearson and Rosenberg 1978).

The variability between results from the three outfalls was thought to relate to variable patterns in

abundance and / or sediment grain size and structure (Otway 1995).

Marine infauna assemblages were assessed as part of the replacement of Blackmans Bay Outfall from

shoreline discharge to offshore (Kingsborough Council 2008). They analysed infauna communities north

and south of the existing outfall at 200 m and 1000 m, as well as at the site of the proposed new outfall.

There were no differences between the 200 m and 1000 m sites in the abundance or diversity of the

infauna assemblages. However they found that the abundance and diversity of infauna was higher at the

proposed site for the new outfall. It was speculated that impacts from the proposed outfall would be

changes to the infauna composition and abundance of certain species. It was also noted that the spatial

arrangement of sampling sites was not sufficient to quantify the variability of infauna assemblages.

In the receiving environment of Black Rock outfall in Geelong, Victoria, marine infauna assemblages were

monitored before and after the replacement of an outfall in 1989. The old outfall discharged into the

intertidal zone and was replaced by an outfall which discharges into the subtidal zone, 1.2 km offshore at

an average depth of 15 m. Analysis of the infauna assemblages around the subtidal zone of the new

outfall showed that there were no outfall related impacts or changes following. The study found evidence

that the polychaete population in the intertidal zone (where the old outfall had discharged) had

decreased, but it was suggested that further monitoring was needed to confirm this.

There is also other evidence of increased abundance and richness of marine infauna at sewage affected

locations compared with control locations. Dauer and Conner (1980) reported that the total abundance,

biomass and richness of polychaete populations were significantly greater at a location receiving sewage

effluent (Tamba Bay, Mexico) in comparison to a control location. However, it should be noted that this

particular study did not replicate at the location level and differences seen may be due to natural

variability. In 2002, an assessment of the ecological effects of primary treated effluent, discharged into

water depths of 18 m from the Gisborne wastewater outfall in New Zealand was undertaken (Keeley et al.

2002). Soft bottom benthic infauna samples were taken along two transects radiating away from the

outfall in two directions (of the most likely effluent flow). Analysis of abundance and richness suggest an

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


environmental gradient of enrichment which radiates away from the outfall including four approximate

zones: tending towards abiotic at the outfall (i.e. 0 m), highly enriched 50 m from the outfall, a transitional

area of detectable but diffuse enrichment out to 1,200 m and background levels beyond 1,200 m (Keeley

et al. 2002). The species most responsible for the overall trend in abundance was the surface deposit

feeding bristle worm (Prionospio sp.) which accounted for over half of all individuals collected. The

majority of species found had surface-oriented feeding behaviours (e.g. scavenging, filter feeding,

predation and omnivorous deposit feeding) (Keeley et al. 2002). Again, these situations are not

comparable to Burwood Beach but do demonstrate that an increased infauna abundance or richness can

be a potential response from sewage effluent release.

In terms of infauna assessment, richness, abundance and diversity of infauna communities are the main

variables used in the monitoring of environmental impacts. Polychaetes have been useful as monitors of

environmental pollution and are known to respond to organic enrichment (Pearson and Rosenberg 1976;

Gray and Pearson 1982), particularly in studies of monitoring of sewage outfalls (Reish 1957; Tsutsumi

1990; Weston 1990). Polycheates can respond to organic enrichment by the dominance of opportunistic

polychaete species. In particular, polycheates from the Capitellidae family have been established as

opportunistic (Dorsey 1982; Roper et al. 1989; Ward and Hutchings 1996). It is also known that there are

opportunistic infauna species within the families of Spionidae and Nereidae (Dauvin and Ruellet 2006;

Dean 2008). Some polychaete families can be sensitive and a lack of their presence, in ecosystems

where they are known to occur, can also be an indication of an impact. An impact can also be shown

through the overall dominance of polychaetes in comparison to other taxa. Intertidal infauna were

assessed in sandy sediments adjacent to drains from the Werribee, a large outfall that discharges on the

shoreline in Victoria and found that species diversity was low, abundance was high and the infauna

assemblages were characterised by opportunistic species such as spionids, capitellids, nereid

polychaetes and corophiid amphipods (Dorsey 1982). In summary, these studies indicate that richness,

abundance and diversity are all important parameters in the assessment of potential anthropogenic

impacts on marine infauna assemblages, with potential positive and negative impacts from the discharge

of sewage effluent into marine environments.

1.5.2 Infauna Assessments at Burwood Beach

No previous assessments of marine infauna have been undertaken at Burwood Beach.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


2 METHODS

2.1 Infauna Sampling Sites

Infauna sampling for the Burwood Beach outfall was undertaken using a gradient sampling design. Sites

were positioned at increasing distances from the outfall at 10 m, 20 m, 50 m, 100 m, 200 m and

2,000 m (reference sites), along two radial axis (approximately north-east and south-west) (Figures 2.1

and 2.2) (N = 6 distances and 12 sites). GPS co-ordinates and depths of each of the sampling sites are

provided in Table 2.1. All sampling sites were located in areas of soft seabed and samples were taken

along the same depth contour (~ 22 m), or as close to this depth as possible.

Figure 2.1 Location of all infauna sampling sites.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 2.2 Sampling sites near to the outfall.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Table 2.1 GPS co-ordinates and depths of infauna sampling sites.

Location Distance Site Latitude (S) / Longitude (E) Depth (m)

Outfall Impact Zone 10 m 10m S 32°58.239' / 151°45.129' 23

10m N 32°58.231' / 151°45.137' 23

20 m 20m S 32°58.244' / 151°45.126' 22

20m N 32°58.226' / 151°45.140' 24

Nearfield Mixing Zone 50 m 50m S 32°58.272' / 151°45.119' 21

50m N 32°58.208' / 151°45.156' 24

Midfield Mixing Zone 100 m 100m S 32°58.284' / 151°45.087' 22

100m N 32°58.159' / 151°45.182' 25

Farfield Mixing Zone 200 m 200m S 32°58.347' / 151°45.037' 24

200m N 32°58.114' / 151°45.237' 25

Reference 2,000 m 2,000m S 32°59.115' / 151°44.370' 22

2,000m N 32°57.232' / 151°45.878' 22

2.2 Temporal Assessment

Four marine infauna surveys were undertaken over a two period. This included two cool water surveys

during December 2011 and October 2012 and two warm water surveys during April 2012 and April 2013.

2.3 Field Sampling Methods

Benthic infauna was collected using a diver operated core which was 22 cm deep and 16 cm in diameter.

Three replicate cores were taken at each site and immediately transferred into individual sieve bags of

size 1 mm (see Figure 2.3) (N = 3 replicates per site).

At each site, the replicate cores were taken approximately 1 - 2 m apart. The sediment was sieved in-situ

by the diver, tied off and all sample bags returned to the surface. On the boat, each sieve bag was

transferred into a separate snap lock bag into which a 10% formalin solution was placed to cover the

entire sample.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 2.3 Infauna sampling equipment.

2.4 Laboratory and Data Analysis

2.4.1 Laboratory Analysis

Samples were sent to Aquen© (Aquatic Environmental Consulting) for sorting and identification of

infauna. Samples were identified at least to family level and to species level where possible.

Identification to family level has been established as adequate for the detection of impacts on infauna

communities (Warwick 1988).

2.4.2 Taxa Abundance, Richness and Diversity

Taxa abundance, richness and diversity were calculated for the infauna data. A brief definition of each of

these is provided below:

Abundance: Relates to how common or rare taxa are relative to other taxa in a defined

location or community.

Richness: A measure related to the total number of different taxa present within a sample.

Diversity: Taxa diversity accounts for the number of taxa and the evenness of taxa, giving a

measure of the biodiversity and complexity of a population. Taxa diversity consists of two

components, taxa richness and taxa evenness. Taxa richness is a simple count of taxa,

whereas taxa evenness quantifies how equal the abundances of the taxa are.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Taxa diversity was calculated using the Shannon Weiner diversity index as follows;

H = Σ - (Pi * ln Pi)

i = 1

Where:

H = the Shannon diversity index

Pi = fraction of the entire population made up of taxa i

Σ = sum from taxa 1 to taxa S (number of taxa encountered)

Abundance was calculated as the mean proportion of total fauna and for individual phyla that were

dominant in the dataset.

2.4.3 Polychaete Ratio

Benthic indices have often been used to explore relationships between the relative abundance of

sensitive taxa versus opportunistic taxa that may be indicators of organic enrichment (Dauvin and Ruellet

2006; Dean 2008). As polychaetes are well established indicators of environmental health their

abundance was examined in relation to other taxa present using a polychaete ratio.

The polychaete ratio was calculated by the division of combined polychaete abundance by the combined

abundance of all other taxa.

Σ Polychaete Abundance

Σ Other Taxa Abundance (all taxa other than polychaetes)

2.5 Sediment Characteristics

It is evident that some factors are more important than others in determining the distribution of particular

species. Particle size is perhaps the single most important ecological factor influencing the distribution of

infaunal taxa such as polychaetes (Gray and Elliott 2010).

The Burwood Beach Sediment Study, another component of the MEAP, was undertaken twice; during

December 2011 and October 2012. Marine sediment sampling was undertaken at the same sites as the

infauna study and sediments were analysed for metals, total organic carbon (TOC) and particle size

distribution. It should be noted that sediment analyses were based on sediment samples of 2 cm depth

(this was as per NSW EPA requirements to take just the top 2 cm of sediments for the Burwood Beach

Sediment Study) compared to the 22 cm depth sediment cores used for infauna sampling.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


2.6 Statistical Analysis

Univariate statistical analyses were performed using Statistica Version 7. Diversity, abundance and

richness measures were examined for normality, using a normality plot and Levenes test for homogeneity

of variance. Where p <0.05, the data was transformed via a log transformation ln (x +1) and the

parameters transformed are indicated in the statistics results in Section 3.1.7.

Significant differences (p < 0.05) between time, distance (fixed factors) and site (nested within distance)

(random factor) along with significant interactions between time and distance were examined using a

mixed model nested analyses of variance (ANOVAs) under the General Linear Model (GLM) of Statistica.

Note that the design was unbalanced due to missing sites during the December 2011 sampling event.

Pairwise Tukey‟s post hoc tests were used to determine where differences occurred.

Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and cluster plots were generated in PRIMER 6, using infauna family

abundance, to identify whether differences in infauna communities were evident between sites.

Ordination of infauna family abundance was performed using MDS scaling in PRIMER 6, based on

ranked matrices of dissimilarities between samples, employing the square root transformation with Bray

Curtis similarity. Goodness of fit (stress) was assessed using Kruskal‟s stress formula and compared to

maximum values recommended by Sturrock and Rocha (2000). To identify which taxa had the highest

contribution to the average similarity within each site, SIMPER analysis was performed. Significant

differences in overall results of infauna assemblages between time and distance were analysed using a

factorial nested Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA).

Power analysis was undertaken on the first round of sampling data (refer to Section 3.1.8), and in

combination with the statistical analysis, was intended to help design and modify, where applicable, future

infauna studies. A Type I error rate of 5% (0.05) was adopted and a Type II error rate of 20% (0.2, power

80%) and an effect size of 50% was used.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3 RESULTS

3.1 Univariate Analyses of Marine Infauna

Average taxa abundance, richness and diversity of infauna are presented in Figures 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.

Images of infauna taxa which were in high abundance are provided in Figure 3.2. The ratio of

polychaetes to all other taxa is presented in Figure 3.5. Abundance of polychaete taxa is presented in

Figure 3.6 and abundance of all other taxa is presented in Figure 3.7. A summary of the raw data (i.e.

infauna abundance at each site) for each sampling period is provided in Appendix 1.

Mixed model nested ANOVAs were undertaken for the measures of abundance, richness and diversity for

all infauna and the ratio of polychaetes to all other taxa, which are all discussed separately in the

following sections. A summary of all key statistical output is provided in Table 3.1. Differences in infauna

measures were analysed to assess if there were significant differences for the main factors of time,

distance and site (nested within distance) and for interactions between time by distance and time by site

(distance). As some sites were missing (due to a lack of soft sediments to sample in predominately rocky

reef areas) during December 2011 (i.e. 10m N, 10m S, 50m N and 100m S) and October 2012 (i.e. 10m

N), the model bases estimated effects on the distances or sites that were available. This means that the

statistical analyses are comprised in terms of calculating temporal effects, between sampling events and

seasons.

During the first sampling round there were a number of sites that could not be sampled due to insufficient

sediment available for sampling in areas where were dominated by reef habitat. These included 10m N,

10m S, 50m N and 100m S. During subsequent sampling events in April 2012, October 2012 and April

2013 there were sufficient sediment at all sites, with the exception of 10m N during October 2012. The

fact that there is mobile sand offshore at Burwood Beach is an important factor that may influence the

results of this study. Intermittent sand movement may influence the abundance, diversity and

composition of the infauna communities.

3.1.1 Abundance

The average abundance of various infauna taxa and total infauna taxa for each sampling period is

detailed in the sections below. Figure 3.1 provides a graphical representation of the average total

infauna abundance at each site (i.e. average of three sediment cores) for each survey event. Images of

some abundant infauna taxa are provided in Figure 3.2.

Overall, infauna abundance was higher during December 2011 and October 2012 due to high populations

at several sites. The findings of the mixed model nested ANOVA for abundance found a significant

interaction between time and site (distance) (Table 3.1). A significant interaction demonstrates that the

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


trends among sites are inconsistent over the four sampling events. Tukey‟s post hoc tests showed that

this was due to higher total infauna abundance at the 20m S, 50m S and 200m s sites during December

2011 compared to April 2012, October 2012 and April 2013. Total infauna abundance was also higher at

10m S during October 2012 compared to April 2012 and April 2013.

DECEMBER 2011

During this sampling event a very low abundance of infauna was recorded at both of the reference sites

(2,000m N and 2,000m S) and at the 100m N site, whereas other sites (e.g. 20m S, 50m S and 200m S)

were all characterised by a high abundance of a single family.

The most abundant taxon at reference site 2,000m N were the gammarid amphipods, but mean

abundance was very low with just one individual per sample. At the reference site 2,000m S, Trochidae

were most abundant, with a mean abundance of 18 individuals per sample. At the site 100m N, the most

abundant taxa were nematodes, with a mean abundance of six individuals per sample.

Polygordiid polychaetes were present in highest abundance at the 200m N and 20m S sites, with

respective site means of 66 and 209 individuals per sample. Nematodes were also present in high

abundance, particularly at sites 50m S and 200m S, with respective means of 225 and 69 individuals per

sample. The most abundant taxa at 20m N were spionid polychaetes, with a mean abundance of 30

individuals per sample.

Importantly, across all sites the composition of families varied and no taxonomic group was consistently

abundant.

APRIL 2012

During the April 2012 sampling event infauna abundance was generally lower compared to the December

2011 sampling event, but for some sites it was similar (e.g. at sites 200m N and 100m N). Overall, there

was very low abundance across all distances and sites in April 2012.

Gammarid amphipods were the most abundant taxon at the sites 10m S, 50m N, 100m N, 200m N and

200m S (with respective site means of 12, nine, 16, 28 and 31 individuals per sample). Nereid

polychaetes were the most abundant taxon at 50m S and 100m S with respective means of 24 and 34

individuals per sample. Finally, Corophiidae (amphipods) were the most abundant family at sites 20m N,

20m S, 2,000m N and 2,000m S, with respective means of four, 16, four and 11 individuals per sample.

Sites closest to the outfall (the 10 m and 20 m distances) had total means of between 23 to 53 individuals

per sample. Mean total abundance at the 50 m and 100 m distances were much higher and ranged from

49 to 120 individuals per sample. The 200 m distance also had high abundances of infauna in

comparison to other distances, with mean total abundances of 91 and 135 individuals per sample for

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


these sites. The 2,000 m reference sites had low abundances, with just 22 and 34 individuals per sample

respectively.

OCTOBER 2012

During the October 2012 survey event, with the exception of site 10m S, infauna abundance was low at

all sites. Abundance at 10m S was at least four times that of other sites.

For the 10m S outfall site, Dorvilleidae, Nereididae and Gammarid spp. were the most abundant taxa with

respective means of 209, 86 and 77.

For all other sites, gammarid amphipods were the most abundant taxon. Mean total abundance of

Gammaridae was highest at 20m N, 20m S, 50m S, 100m S and > 2,000m S with respective mean

abundances of 20, 25, 22, 13 and 17. The sites 50m N, 100m N, 200m N, 200m S and > 2,000m N all

had average mean abundances which were less than 10.

Ostracods (seed shrimps) were the second most abundant taxon for the 20m N, 20m S, 50m S and

200m S sites with respective means of five, 18, 16 and two. At the 2,000m N and 2,000m S reference

sites, Oligochaeta spp. and Gastropoda were the second most abundant taxa with means of 10 and four

respectively.

All other taxa had low abundances with an average mean of three or less.

APRIL 2013

During April 2013, infauna abundance was similar at most sites with the exception of 10m S and 50m S

which had elevated abundance levels in comparison to the other sites.

Gammarid spp. were the most abundant taxon at sites 10m N, 50m N, and 100m S, with respective mean

abundances of 15, nine and six. Dorvilleidae was the most abundant family at 10m S and 50m S with

respective mean abundances of 43 and 88. Spionidae was the most abundant family at sites 20m N and

100m N with respective mean abundances of 11 and 12. Nematodes were the most abundant at 20m S,

Paraonidae the most abundant at 200m N and Polygordiidae at 200m S, with respective mean

abundances of 67, 12 and 30. At the > 2,000m N and > 2,000m S reference sites, Corophiidae was the

most abundant family with respective mean abundances of 13 and seven.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 3.1 Abundance (mean ± SE) of all infauna taxa surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to insufficient

sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance from the WWTW outfall.

December 2011 April 2012

October 2012 April 2013

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Phylum: Annelida, Class: Polychaeta, Suborder:

incertae sedis, Family: Polygordiidae, Species:

Polygordius kiarama

Phylum: Annelida, Class: Polychaeta, Suborder:

incertae sedis, Family: Polygordiidae, Species:

Polygordius kiarama

Phylum: Annelida, Class: Oligochaeta, Family:

undifferentiated, Species: sp. a

Figure 3.2 Infauna taxa in high abundance.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Phylum: Annelida, Class: Oligochaeta, Family:

undifferentiated, Species: sp. b

Phylum: Nematoda, Class: undifferentiated, Family:

undifferentiated, Species: undifferentiated

Phylum: Annelida, Class: Polychaeta, Family:

Spionidae

Figure 3.2 (continued) Infauna taxa in high abundance.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.1.2 Richness

Results for richness of infauna taxa are presented in Figure 3.3. Overall, there were no consistent trends

in richness among sites or distances.

During December 2011, there was little difference in richness between the available sites. In April 2012,

there was a slight trend of increasing richness with distance from the outfall, out to about 200 m, followed

by a decline at the reference distance. In October 2012, richness was similar among sites with the

exception of at > 2,000 m, which was higher than all other sites. During April 2013, richness was similar

among all sites.

The findings of the mixed model nested ANOVA for richness showed a significant interaction between

time and site (distance) (Table 3.1). This was due to significantly higher taxa richness during October

2012 at site 2000m S in comparison to other sites, but not during December 2011, April 2012 and April

2013, determined through the Tukey‟s post hoc analysis. There was a slight trend of increasing richness

with distance up to 200 m during April 2012 and April 2013. During December 2011 and October 2011,

this was not consistent and there was higher richness at the 10 m and / or 20 m distances in comparison

to 50 m, 100 m and 200 m.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 3.3 Richness (number of taxa; mean ± SE) of all infauna taxa surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to

insufficient sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance from the WWTW outfall.



HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.1.3 Diversity

Results for infauna taxa diversity at each sampling site are presented in Figure 3.4. Within each survey

event there were variations in diversity among sites, however there was no consistent pattern across all

four surveys.

In December 2011, taxa diversity was higher at the 20m N site while the other sites had similar levels.

There was large variability at the > 2,000m N, > 2,000m S and 100m N sites. In April 2012, there was

similar diversity among sites but diversity was slightly elevated at the 100m N and 50m N sites. In

October 2012 richness was lowest at the >2,000m N site and highest at the > 2,000m S site, and similar

among all other sites. During April 2013, diversity was similar among the 10 m, 20 m, 50 m and 200 m

distances and the > 2,000m S site. The 100 m distance and the > 2,000 m sites had higher taxa diversity

in comparison.

The mixed model nested ANOVA found that there was a significant interaction between time and site

(distance) (Table 3.1). This was due to significantly lower diversity at > 2,000 m sites in comparison to

other sites during December 2011 only, determined through Tukey‟s post hoc analyses. There was also

lower diversity at the > 2,000m N site during October 2012.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 3.4 Diversity (Shannon wiener index) (mean ± SE) of all infauna taxa surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A

due to insufficient sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance from the WWTW outfall.



HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.1.4 Polychaete Ratio

The ratio of polychaete families to all other taxa is presented in Figure 3.5. The polychaete ratio was

consistently elevated at 10 m or 20 m sites. In December 2011, there was a significantly higher ratio of

polychaetes to all other taxa at site 20m S. In April 2012, the polychaete ratio was much lower compared

to December 2011 and was similar among sites. In October 2012, the polychaete ratio was higher at

100m N and 10m S compared to all other sites.

The mixed model nested ANOVA found that there was a significant interaction between time and site

(distance). Although this indicates that there are inconsistent trends among the sampling events, the

Tukey‟s post hoc analyses demonstrate that during December 2011, October 2012 and April 2013, this

result was due to an elevated ratio at sites close to the outfall (i.e. < 20 m), compared to those at greater

distances. For example, there was a significantly higher polychaete ratio during December 2011 at the

site 20m S, but not during other sampling events. There was also an elevated polychaete ratio at 10m S

during October 2012 and April 2013 only. During April 2012, there was a similar polychaete ratio among

all distances.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 3.5 Ratio of polychaete abundance to all other taxa abundance (mean ± SE). Note: there is a different scale for the December

2011 graph. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to insufficient sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance

from the WWTW outfall.



HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.1.5 Polychaete Families

The abundance of polychaete families is presented in Figure 3.6. As well as accounting for

approximately half of all taxa surveyed in this study, some polychaete families are potential indicators of

high organic loadings.

Differences between the compositions of polychaete families occurred between the four surveys. During

December 2011, the polychaete families were comprised of mainly Polygordiidae and Spionidae.

Polygordiidae had high abundance at 20m S and 200m N and Spionidae had high abundance at 50m S.

In comparison, polychaetes in the April 2012 survey were mostly comprised of Nereididae, Capitellidae

and Dorvilleidae. These families occurred in higher abundances at the sites within 100 m of the outfall

compared to the reference sites. Polychaete families at the reference sites were largely made up less

abundant species that have been categorised as “other”. The group “other” was generally similar across

all other sites. Polygordiidae were again present in the April 2012 survey, and with higher abundance

when compared to December 2011. However, no Polygordiidae were detected at 20m S during April

2012, where they had been previously abundant in December 2011.

During October 2012 and April 2013, the composition of polychaete families was quite different from

December 2011 and April 2012 in terms of the taxa present and also in terms of distribution between

sites. In general, Dorvilleidae, Nereididae and Spionidae were the families that occurred in the highest

abundances. Spionidae was also found to be among the most abundant polychaete families in

December 2011 and April 2012, while Dorvilleidae were most abundant in April 2012. During October

2012, the 10m S site had much higher abundance in comparison to all other sites and this was largely

characterised by the Dorvilleidae family. During April 2013, the 50m S site had the highest abundance

which was also dominated by the Dorvilleidae family.

The Polygordiidae and Dorvilleidae families were analysed by mixed model nested ANOVAs (Table 3.1).

For both families it was found that there was a significant interaction between time and site (distance),

indicating that the patterns in their abundance were different across the four surveys. For Polygordiidae,

there was significantly higher abundance at 20m S and 200m N in comparison to other sites, but during

December 2011 only. Dorvilleidae were significantly higher at 10m S during October 2012 and at 10m S

and 50m S during April 2013.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 3.6 Mean abundance of polychaete families surveyed. Families with low abundance (i.e. < 10 individuals across all sites) were

grouped as “other”. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to insufficient sediment depth to sample.

December 2011

April 2012

October 2012

April 2013

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.1.6 Other Infauna Taxa

Abundance of dominant infauna families other than polychaetes is presented in Figure 3.7. During

December 2011, there was a high abundance of Nematoda at the 50m S and 200m S sites. At 200m S

there was a high abundance of Oligochaeta.

The pattern of dominant families was different between the April 2012 and December 2011 surveys. Few

nematodes were detected in April 2012. There was also a general pattern of increasing Gammarids and

to a lesser extent of Ostracods, within 10 m to 200 m from the outfall. This pattern was not consistent for

the reference sites and there was very low abundance of infauna families here compared to all other

sites.

During October 2012, the dominant families were similar to April 2012 (but different to December 2011).

Gammarids and Ostracods were the most abundant taxa. However, in contrast to April 2012 there was a

trend for decreasing abundance of Gammarids with distance from the outfall.

During April 2013, the abundance of other dominant taxa was highest at sites 10m N, 20m S and 50m S.

The 20m S site was dominated by nematodes and the 50m S site was dominated by Gammarids.

Nematodes and Gammarids were analysed by mixed model nested ANOVAs, as these were taxa that

had the highest abundance across the two surveys or demonstrated trends with distance from the outfall

(Table 3.1). For Gammarids and nematodes, there was a significant interaction found between time and

site (distance) indicating that their patterns of abundance were inconsistent across the four surveys.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Figure 3.7 Mean abundance of dominant infauna (other than polychaetes) surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A

due to insufficient sediment depth to sample.



HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.1.7 Summary of ANOVAs

Table 3.1 provides a summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables of

infauna taxa during all infauna surveys.

Table 3.1 Summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables of infauna

taxa. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site.

Source Effect DF MS F p MS F p

Infauna Abundance Infauna Richness

Time Fixed 3 5.24 1.63 0.22 4.49 5.04 0.01*

Distance Fixed 5 7.98 0.86 0.55 0.74 0.56 0.73

Distance*Time Fixed 14 5.97 1.85 0.12 1.17 1.31 0.31

Site(Distance) Random 7 8.79 2.73 0.04* 1.28 1.44 0.26

Site(Distance)*Time Random 15 3.22 4.98 0.00** 0.89 3.66 0.00**

Error

90 0.65

0.24

Infauna Diversity Polychaete Ratio

Time Fixed 3 1.14 9.18 0.001** 0.97 1.34 0.29

Distance Fixed 5 0.06 0.45 0.802 1.02 1.04 0.47


Site(Distance) Random 7 0.13 1.08 0.423 0.96 1.32 0.31


Error

90 0.04

0.20

Polygordiidae Dorvilleidae

Time Fixed 3 5.63 1.59 0.04* 0.05 0.74 0.54

Distance Fixed 5 7.91 5.92 0.23 0.04 0.44 0.81




Error

90 0.21

0.02

Gammarid Amphipods Nereid Worms

Time Fixed 3 8.86 10.29 0.00** 3.94 2.27 0.13

Distance Fixed 5 2.51 1.15 0.42 11.13 3.56 0.07

Distance*Time Fixed 14 3.72 4.31 0.00** 3.01 1.73 0.15


Site(Distance)*Time Random 15 0.86 1.67 0.07 1.74 8.32 0.00**

Error

90 0.51

0.21

** = significant, p < 0.01, * = significant, p < 0.05. Note: all data was log transformed (ln x+ 1) to treat unequal

variances.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Table 3.1 (continued) Summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables

of infauna taxa.

Source Effect DF MS F p

Nematodes

Time Fixed 3 4.55 1.48 0.26

Distance Fixed 5 3.98 1.15 0.43

Distance*Time Fixed 14 3.29 1.07 0.45

Site(Distance) Random 7 4.32 1.11 0.41

Site (distance)*Time Random 15 3.07 5.38 0.00**

Error

90 0.57

** = significant, p < 0.01, * = significant, p < 0.05, ns = not significant.

Where Levenes test indicated unequal variances (p < 0.05), data was log transformed.

3.1.8 Power Analysis

Power analyses were carried out on the December 2011 survey data (i.e. data from first sampling round).

The first analysis was done to determine what replication would be required to detect significant

differences among sites. A Type I error rate of 5% (0.05) was used, a Type II error rate of 20% (0.2,

power 80%) was considered acceptable and a 50% effect size was used. The power analysis estimated

the amount of replication required to detect a significant difference (p < 0.05) with a 50% effect size

(Appendix 3). The amounts of estimated replicates per site were 115 for abundance, 12 for richness and

four for diversity. The analysis indicates that the sampling size of three sediment cores per site and six

sediment cores per distance was not sufficient replication to detect differences for abundance and

richness.

The second analysis was done to determine what power was achieved using the sample size used in the

current study (i.e. n = 3 per site). A Type I error rate of 5% (0.05) was used, a 50% effect size was used

and a sample size of 3 was used. The amount of power achieved was low with 5.2% for abundance,

12.3% for richness and 13.5% for diversity.

It should be noted:

The post hoc power analyses undertaken during the first sampling round suggested that much

more replication would be required for abundance and richness, however, this is likely to also be

due to the fact that low abundance was found at the 2,000 m distance during December 2011,

which is used as the basis for the effect size. The very large estimate for replicates required to

detect significant differences in abundance is due to the very low results for these measures at

the reference sites and the high variability at all sites. Alternative reference sites with a more

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


similar particle size distribution were found for the third and fourth sampling event (although

similar infauna assemblages were still found at the new sites).

Following the first and second sampling events, it was recommended that the replication should

be increased. However, it was considered that the costs and logistics (i.e. diving and sampling

days required) were too large.

ANOVAs undertaken on the first and second sampling events were able to detect differences

between sites and distances (this is generally considered to be sufficient evidence that enough

replication has been used). However, after incorporating the data from all four sampling events

differences could not be detected. At the site level, results were also inconsistent among the four

surveys and this is reflected in the analysis with significant interactions between time and site

(distance).

3.2 Multivariate Analyses of Infauna

3.2.1 December 2011

Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were used to compare patterns in the similarities of

infauna assemblages surveyed during the December 2011 survey (Figure 3.8; full analysis in Appendix

2). Visual examination of the MDS plot for the December 2011 survey indicates some grouping of sites

(e.g. 50m S, 100m N, 200m N and S) and distances (e.g. 100 m and 2,000 m). There is also some

directional separation evident between southern and northern sites at specific distances from the outfall

(e.g. 20 m N and S, 200 m N and S and 2,000 m N and S). While all sites within 200 m of the outfall tend

to lie on the right hand side of the plot, the reference sites all lie in the center and on the left, showing a

degree of dissimilarity between them.

Two-way global analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) indicated that there was a significant difference in

infauna assemblages. For December 2011 (R = 0.412, p < 0.05), this was due to significant pairwise

comparisons whereby the 20 m distance was different to 50 m and 2,000 m, the 50 m distance was

different to 100 m and 2,000 m and the 200 m distance was different to 2,000 m.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW



infauna assemblages for December 2011.

The SIMPER analysis in Table 3.2 identifies and ranks families which are contributing the most to the

average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily accounted for the

observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique) in December 2011. Note: SIMPER

ranking does not necessarily correspond to the most abundant taxa. Abundant taxa for each survey

period are discussed in Section 3.1.

There was high variability in the structure of infauna assemblages among distances. In particular, the

>2,000 m distance had some distinctly ranked families such as Sipunculidae, Lumbrineridae and

Ophiuroidea spp. during December 2011.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Table 3.2 SIMPER analysis results for December 2011. Taxa are ranked in order of highest

contribution (using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets

within each location (distance).

Family / Taxa Common Name Phylum 10 m * 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m

Polygordiidae Polygordiid

worms Annelida - 1 (108) 1 (33)

Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida - 2 (19) 2 (64) 1 (12) 2 (1)

Gammarid spp. Gammarid Amphipods

Arthropoda - 3 (5) 4 (1) 4 (6) 1 (1)

Paraonidae Paranoid worms Annelida - 5 (7) 5 (1)

Hoplonemertea spp.

Ribbon worms Nemertea - 4 (3)

Nematoda spp. Nematodes Nematoda - 1 (113) 2 (79)

Capitellidae Capitellid worms Annelida -

Oligochaeta spp.

Oligochaeta Annelida - 2 (2) 3 (88)

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms Annelida - 3 (1)

Sipunculidae Peanut worms Sipuncula - 3 (1)

Lumbrineridae Lumbrinereid

worms Annelida - 4 (1)

Ophiuroidea spp.

Brittle stars Echinodermata - 5 (1)

* N.B. 10 m sites could not be sampled during December 2011 due to a lack of sediment depth.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.2.2 April 2012


infauna assemblages surveyed during the April 2012 survey (Figure 3.9; full analysis in Appendix 2).

For the April 2012 survey, clear grouping of the > 2,000 m distance was seen. While the site replicates

for many of the other distances are overlapping, some clustering within the 10 m, 20 m and 50 m

distances are evident. These three distances are also clustered quite closely to each other in the bottom

central area of the plot, while the 100 m and 200 m distances are clustered together in the top right of the

plot. Site replicates from the northern and southern directions did not show much distinction from each

other, with the exception of 200 m. However this plot should be interpreted with caution due to the high

stress value of 0.2, however still below the maximum stress value of 0.3 recommended by Sturrock and

Rocha (2000) for two-dimensional MDS plots. During April 2012, there was a significant difference

between distances (R = 0.39, p < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons indicated that 50 m was significantly

different to the 10 m, 20 m and 100 m distances. The 10 m distance was also different to 20 m.



Transform: Square root

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)

Distance10m

20m

50m

100m

200m

> 2000m

10m N

10m N10m N

10m S

10m S

10m S

20m N

20m N

20m N

20m S

20m S

20m S

50m N50m N

50m N

50m S

50m S

50m S

100m N

100m N

100m N

100m S

100m S

100m S

200m N200m N

200m N

200m S

200m S

200m S

> 2000m N

> 2000m N

> 2000m N

> 2000 m S> 2000 m S

> 2000 m S

2D Stress: 0.2

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


The SIMPER analysis in Table 3.3 identifies and ranks families which are contributing the most to the

average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily accounted for the

observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique) in April 2012. Abundant taxa for each

survey period are discussed in Section 3.1.

Table 3.3 SIMPER analysis results for April 2012. Taxa are ranked in order of highest contribution

(using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets within each

location (distance).

Family / Taxa Common Name Phylum 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m

Nereididae Nereid worms Annelida 1 (7) 2 (5) 2 (13) 2 (18)

Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps

Arthropoda 2 (7) 3 (2) 4 (11) 2 (12)

Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida 4 (2) 5 (3)

Gammarid spp.

Gammarid amphipods

Arthropoda 3 (5) 1 (4) 1 (15) 1 (15) 1 (30) 1 (2)

Capitellidae Capitellids Annelida 5 (2) 5 (5)

Corophiidae Corophiid

amphipods Arthropoda 4 (6) 3 (6) 3 (6) 2 (3)

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms Annelida 4 (5) 5 (10)

Cumacea Cumaceans Arthropoda 4 (3)


worms Annelida 3 (22)

Nephtyidae Nephtyid worms Annelida 3 (1)

Loveniidae Heart urchins Echinodermata 4 (1)

Lumbrineridae Lumbrinereid


HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.2.3 October 2012


infauna assemblages surveyed during the October 2012 survey (Figure 3.10; full analysis in Appendix

2). For the October 2012 survey grouping of site replicates for distances was apparent. There also

appears to be a slight gradient across the MDS. The 10 m site replicates are clustered together. This is

followed by 20 m, 50 m and 100 m, which still follow the gradient but with some overlapping. The

> 2,000m S sites are separately clustered together. There is directional separation evident within the

10 m, 50 m and > 2,000 m distances, with the northern and southern sites separately clustered.

There was a significant difference between distances during October 2012 (R = 0.31, p < 0.05). Pairwise

comparisons indicated that 100 m was significantly different to the 50 m, 200 m and > 2,000 m distances.

The 10 m distance was also different to 20 m. The > 2,000 m distance was also different to 50 m and

200 m and the 20 m distance was different to 50 m.



Distance10 m

20 m

50 m

100 m

200 m

> 2000 m

10m S10m S

10m S

20m N

20m N

20m N20m S

20m S

20m S

50m N

50m N

50m N

50m S50m S

50m S

100m N

100m N

100m N

100m S

100m S

100m S

200m N

200m N

200m N

200m S

200m S

200m S

> 2000m N> 2000m N

> 2000m N

> 2000 m S> 2000 m S

> 2000 m S2D Stress: 0.18


infauna assemblages for October 2012.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


The SIMPER analysis for October 2012 in Table 3.4 identifies and ranks families which are contributing

the most to the average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily

accounted for the observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique). Abundant taxa for

each survey period are discussed in Section 3.1. The SIMPER analysis showed that the 10 m distance

had different infauna composition compared to the other distances, although there was variation between

all distances. Dorvilleidae (dorvilleid worms) were the most important ranked taxa at 10 m. In comparison

to the other distances, Gammarid spp. (gammarid amphipods) was the most important ranked family.

Table 3.4 SIMPER analysis results for October 2012. Taxa are ranked in order of highest

contribution (using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets

within each location (distance).

Family / Taxa Common Name Phylum 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms Annelida 1 (209)

Nereididae Nereid worms Annelida 2 (86) 4 (2)

Gammarid spp.

Gammarid amphipods

Arthropoda 3 (77) 1 (23) 1 (15) 1 (8) 1 (7) 1 (11)

Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps

Arthropoda 2 (12) 3 (8) 3 (2)

Corophiidae Corophiid

amphipods Arthropoda 3 (3) 3 (2) 2 (3)

Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida 4 (9) 2 (3) 2 (2)

Oligochaeta spp. Oligochaete sp.

Annelida 5 (4) 2 (5)

Cumacea Cumaceans Arthropoda 4 (1)

Paraonidae Paranoid worms Annelida 5 (1)

Nematoda spp. Nematodes

Nematoda 4 (1) 3 (3)

Terebellidae Terebellid


Syllidae Syllid worms Annelida 5 (2)

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.2.4 April 2013


infauna assemblages surveyed during the April 2013 survey (Figure 3.11; full analysis in Appendix 2).

During April 2013, there was some grouping of sites and a slight gradient with distance from the outfall.

Within most distances, there is strong directional separation with the southern and northern sites

separately clustered (i.e. 20 m, 50 m, 200 m and > 2,000 m). However this plot should be interpreted

with caution due to the high stress value of 0.23, however still below the maximum stress value of 0.3

recommended by Sturrock and Rocha (2000) for two-dimensional MDS plots. During April 2012, there

was a significant difference between distances (R = 0.39, p < 0.05).

There was a significant difference between distances during April 2013 (R = 0.20, p < 0.05). Pairwise

comparisons indicated that 200 m was different to all other distances. The 10 m and 20 m distances were

also different to 100 m and > 2,000 m.



Distance10 m

20 m

50 m

100 m

200 m

> 2000 m

10m N10m N

10m N

10 m S

10 m S

10 m S

20m N

20m N

20m N 20m S

20m S

20m S

50m N50m N50m N

50m S

50m S

50m S

100 m N

100 m N

100 m N

100 m S

100 m S100 m S

200 m N

200 m N

200 m N

200 m S

200 m S200 m S

> 2000 m S

> 2000 m S

> 2000 m S

> 2000 m N

> 2000 m N

> 2000 m N

2D Stress: 0.23



HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


The SIMPER analysis for April 2013 in Table 3.5 identifies and ranks families which are contributing the

most to the average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily

accounted for the observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique). Abundant taxa for

each survey period are discussed in Section 3.1. The SIMPER analysis showed that Gammarid spp.

were the most important ranked taxa at all distances from the outfall. Polychaetes were the second

ranked taxa at all distances except for > 2,000 m. Nereididae was ranked second at 10 m. Spionidiae

were ranked as the second most important taxa at 20 m, 100 m and 200 m. The > 2,000 m distance had

ostracods ranked as the second most important taxa.

Table 3.5 SIMPER analysis results for April 2013. Taxa are ranked in order of highest contribution

(using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets within each

location (distance).

Family / Taxa Common

Name Phylum 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m

Gammarid spp. Gammarid amphipods

Arthropoda 1 (13) 1 (8) 1 (32) 1 (8) 4 (2) 1 (3)

Nereididae Nereid worms Annelida 2 (4) 4 (24)

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid

worms Annelida 3 (22) 2 (44)

Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps Arthropoda 4 (6) 4 (2) 2 (2)

Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida 5 (3) 2 (8) 3 (5) 2 (5) 2 (2) 4 (1)

Nematoda spp. Nematodes Nematoda 3 (2) 5 (2)

Corophiidae Corophid

amphipods Arthropoda 3 (3) 3 (4)

Oligochaeta spp. Oligochaete sp.

Annelida 4 (7)

Capitellidae Capitellid




Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms

Nemertia 3 (1)

Syllidae Sylid worms Annelida 5 (1)

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.2.5 Summary of MDS

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were used to identify overall patterns in infauna assemblages at

Burwood Beach by distance, survey event, direction and season (Figures 3.12 - 3.15 respectively).

The MDS plot of infauna assemblages by sampling event (Figure 3.13) shows the strongest

groupings, suggesting that sampling event was the strongest factor driving differences in infauna

assemblages over the study period. Overall analysis by sampling event shows that there is separate

grouping of the April 2013 sampling event. The main infauna taxa responsible for these differences

were Amphinomidae, Gammarid spp., Polycladida spp. The MDS plot of infauna assemblages by

season also shows quite strong grouping between the cool water versus warm water seasons (Figure

3.15). Figures 3.12 and 3.14 which show infauna assemblages by distance and direction

respectively do not show strong grouping between the variables. The overall analysis of distances

(Figures 3.12) indicates that while there are similarities between the distances, much overlap

between replicates occurs. No overall grouping by direction is evident (Figure 3.14).

A nested Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA), with time and distance as

the main factors, was undertaken and significant differences were found at all levels of the analysis

(Table 3.6). Pairwise comparisons between sampling events found that April 2013 was significantly

different to October 2012 and April 2012. However, a significant interaction with distance indicates

that this pattern was not consistent across all distances. A significant interaction between time and

distance was due to a significant difference between sampling events for distances of 100 m and 200

m. Pairwise comparisons found that infauna assemblages were significantly different for

100 m in December 2011 in comparison to April 2012 and October 2012, and for 200 m in October

2012 in comparison to April 2012 and April 2013.

Table 3.6 Overall PERMANOVA analysis of infauna assemblages across all survey events.

Factor Source DF MS Pseudo F Ratio

p-value Permutations

Time Fixed 5 5028.1 1.52 0.048* 997

Distance Fixed 3 19613.0 5.57 0.001** 999

Site(Distance) Random 6 3357.9 2.81 0.001** 999

Time*Distance Fixed 13 5084.1 1.44 0.019* 997

Time*Site(Distance) Random 14 3520.9 2.95 0.001* 994

Error 84 1193.5

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW




Distance10 m

20 m

50 m

100 m

200 m

> 2000 m

Amphinomidae

Gammaridea spp

Polycladida sp.

2D Stress: 0.19

Figure 3.12 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by distance.



Survey EventDecember 2011

April 2012

October 2012

April 2013

Amphinomidae

Gammaridea spp

Polycladida sp.

2D Stress: 0.19

Figure 3.13 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by sampling event.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW




DirectionNorth

South

Amphinomidae

Gammaridea spp

Polycladida sp.

2D Stress: 0.19

Figure 3.14 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by direction.



Seasoncool water

warm water

Amphinomidae

Gammaridea spp

Polycladida sp.

2D Stress: 0.19

Figure 3.15 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by season.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.3 Marine Sediments

3.3.1 December 2011

During December 2011, TOC concentrations were consistently elevated at the 10 m S site. Sediment

samples collected from most sites were found to have similar levels of TOC which ranged from 0.02 -

0.07%, with the exception of sites 10m S and 20m N. The 10m S site was found to have TOC levels

of 0.76 and 0.53% while 20m N had one sample with 0.13% TOC.

Table 3.7 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for December 2011.

Site Total Organic Carbon (TOC %)

Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

10m N 0.07, 0.07

Majority comprised of sand (99%, 98%) with very low levels of silt (<1%,

2%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).

10m S 0.76, 0.53

Majority comprised of sand at one site (88%), gravel (8%), silt (4%) with low levels of clay and cobbles. Majority comprised of sand in other sample (73%), clay (22%), gravel (4%) with low levels of silt and cobbles

(<1%).

20m N 0.03, 0.13

Majority comprised of sand (98%, 95%), low silt (1%, 3%), low gravel

(<1%, 2%) and very low clay and cobbles (<1%).

20m S 0.07, 0.12

Majority comprised of sand (99%, 97%), low silt (1%, 2%) with very low

levels of clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).

50m N 0.1, <0.2

Majority comprised of sand (both 98%) with very low levels of silt (2%,

<1%), clay, gravel and cobbles (<1%).

50m S <0.02, <0.02

Majority comprised of sand (98%, 98%) with very low levels of silt (<1%,

2%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).

100m N 0.07, 0.03

Majority comprised of sand (99%, 98%) with very low levels of silt, clay,

gravel and cobbles (all <1%).

100m S 0.07, 0.06

Majority comprised of sand (97%, 99%) with very low levels of silt (3%,

<1%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).

200m N 0.02, 0.03

Majority comprised of sand (both 97%), followed by silt (both 3%), with

very low levels of clay, gravel and cobbles (<1%).

200m S 0.03, 0.07


<1%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).

500m N 0.04, 0.06

Majority comprised of sand (both 99%) with very low levels of silt, clay,


500m S 0.03, 0.03

Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%) with very low levels of silt, clay,


2,000m N 0.03, 0.04

Majority comprised of sand (both 99%) with very low levels of silt, clay,


2,000m S 0.03, 0.05


3%), gravel (9%,1%), clay (2%, 1%), cobbles (<1%).

Note: Analyses of total organic carbon and particle size distribution were based on sediment samples of

2 cm depth compared to 22 cm sediment cores for infauna sampling. N.B. there were two sediment

sampling sites in the vicinity of each infauna site.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.3.2 October 2012

During October 2012 it was found that most sites had low levels of TOC (0.05% or less) with the

exception of sites 10m S, 10m N, 50m S and 100m S. The 10m S site had the highest TOC with

2.16%. The 50m S site had 0.25%, followed by 10m N which had one sample with 0.14% and

100m S with one sample of 0.11%. At the 10m S and the 50m S sites there was a lack of sediments

that were deep enough to sample. Most sites had similar particle size distribution with the majority

comprised of over 90% sand. The exceptions to this were 10m S, 50m S and 200m S.

Table 3.8 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for October 2012.

Site Total Organic

Carbon (TOC %) Particle Size Distribution (PSD)

10m N 0.05, 0.14 Majority comprised of sand (95%, 96%), low clay (4%, 3%) with very

low levels of silt (1%, <1%), gravel (<1 %, 1%) and cobbles (<1%).

10m S 2.16 Mostly comprised of sand (73%), followed by gravel (19%) with low

levels of clay (6%), silt (2%) and cobbles (<1%).

20m N <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (92%, 98%), low silt (4%, <1%), low clay

(3%, 1%) with very low levels of gravel (1%) and cobbles (<1%).

20m S 0.04, 0.03 Majority comprised of sand (99%, 96%), low silt (1%, 2%) with very

low levels of clay (<1%, 1%), gravel (<1 %, 1%) and cobbles (<1%).

50m N 0.03, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%), with very low levels of clay

(1%, <1%), silt (1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).

50m S 0.25 Mostly comprised of sand (80%), followed by gravel (11%) with low

levels of clay (7%), silt (2%) and cobbles (<1%).

100m N <0.02, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%), with very low levels of clay


100m S 0.02, 0.11 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%), with very low levels of clay


200m N <0.02, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 97%), with very low levels of clay

(2%), silt (<1%, 1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).

200m S 0.03, 0.03 Majority comprised of sand (88%, 97%) followed by clay (5%, <1%),

gravel (6%, <1%), with low levels of silt (1 %) and cobbles (<1%).

500m N < 0.02, 0.02 Majority comprised of sand (99%, 100%), with very low levels of clay

(<1%), silt (1%, <1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).

500m S < 0.02, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (99%, 100%), with very low levels of clay

(<1%), silt (1%, <1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).

2,000m N <0.02, 0.03 Majority comprised of sand (94%, 98%), followed by gravel (6%, 1%)

with very low levels of clay, silt and cobbles.

2,000m S <0.02, 0.02 Majority comprised of sand (99%), with very low levels of clay (<1%),

silt (1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).

Note: Analyses of total organic carbon and particle size distribution were based on sediment samples of

2 cm depth compared to 22 cm sediment cores for infauna sampling. N.B. there were two sediment

sampling sites in the vicinity of each infauna site.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


3.4 Multivariate Analyses of Sediments

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ordinates samples based on their dissimilarities between

parameters. Differences in sediment size can contribute to the variability observed in infauna

assemblages. The particle size distribution (PSD) data from sediments sampled at Burwood Beach in

December 2011 were analysed to examine for potential variability between distances. It should be

noted that while taken at the same sites, these sediment samples were only taken from the top 2 cm

of sediment while infauna sediment cores were collected to 22 cm deep.

The PSD of sediments from the December 2011 survey is presented in Figure 3.16. Overall, PSD for

this sampling period was very similar among distances with the majority of samples comprised of 97%

- 99% sand, with the exception of several site replicates. Two site replicates at the 10 m distance had

73% and 88% sand, respectively, and one site replicate at the > 2,000 m distance had 89% sand.

Consequently, these replicates are clustered separately on the PCA plot.

Figure 3.17 presents the PSD results for October 2012. During October 2012, with the exception of

some site replicates, the PSD for most distances was similar with the majority comprised of at least

94% sand. The exceptions were the 10m S, 50m S and 200m S sites. These sites had lower

proportions of sand compared to the other sites which ranged from 73% - 88%. Consequently, these

replicates are clustered separately on the PCA plot.

The sediment samples were also classified into smaller PSD categories and a MDS plot of particle

size for samples collected during both years presented by zone (i.e. outfall impact, midfield mixing

and reference zones) is presented in Figure 3.18. This MDS plot indicates that most sites share a

similar particle size distribution. Four outfall samples (10SE and 10SW from 2011 and 10SE and

50SE from 2012) were also found to have disparate particle size distribution, which was partly due to

having a high proportion of particles in the 75 - 150 µm size class.

-10 0 10 20 30 40

PC1

-10

0

10

PC

2

Distance

10 m

20 m

50 m

100 m

200 m

500 m

> 2000 m

Clay (<2 µm)

Silt (2-60 µm)

Sand

Gravel (>2mm)

Cobbles (>6cm)

Figure 3.16 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled

during December 2011 (n = 4 per distance). Points are coloured by distance.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


-10 0 10 20 30

PC1

-10

0

10

PC

2

Distance10 m

20 m

50 m

100 m

200 m

500 m

> 2000 m

Clay (<2 µm)

Silt (2-60 µm)

Sand (0.06-2.00 mm)

Gravel (>2mm)

Cobbles (>6cm)

Figure 3.17 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled

during October 2012 (n = 4 per distance). Points are coloured by distance.

Figure 3.18 MDS analysis of particle size distribution in sediments during December 2011 and

October 2012 represented by zone (n = 4 per distance / survey). Each point represents a

single sample and points are coloured by zone.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


4 DISCUSSION

Burwood Beach WWTW is located in a high energy coastal environment where large movements of

sand occur intermittently offshore. This issue has been identified by previous consultants monitoring

the marine receiving environment of Burwood Beach WWTW. During the first sampling event, many

sites could not be sampled due to a lack of sufficient depth for sampling of sediment (i.e. at least 22

cm deep). However, there was sufficient sediment available to sample at all sites during subsequent

sampling events. Infauna assemblages are likely to be influenced by the lack of a stable sandy

environment which may result in fluctuating infauna abundance, richness and diversity and a bias

toward opportunistic species that have rapid reproductive turnover that allow them to recover once

the sand returns. The rate of recovery will be dependent on a range of factors including the species

present prior to sand covering, the environmental characteristics of the sites (depth and exposure),

the amount of mobile sand and the period of sand cover.

During this study it was found that there was large spatial and temporal variability in the infauna

assemblages. This has been identified by others as a common issue in using infauna communities to

monitor environmental impacts (Gray 1974; Pearson and Rosenberg 1978; Otway et al. 1996).

Infaunal communities are composed of a mosaic of successional patches, resulting from numerous

interacting processes; often attributing to the significant spatial and temporal variation observed in

infaunal monitoring programs (Peterson 1977; Dayton and Oliver 1980). As there were no consistent

spatial or temporal patterns seen between the abundance, richness or diversity of infauna with

distance away from the outfall, it was not possible to detect a gradient of impact from the Burwood

Beach WWTW discharge. In contrast, despite high spatial and temporal variability, the key findings of

Otway et al. (1996) were that infauna abundance generally increased around the Sydney outfalls

(Malabar, North Head and Bondi) in comparison to the reference sites. However, it was also found

that the percentage of impacts of increased infauna abundance decreased with an increase in the

flow rate and suspended solids loads (i.e. with higher flow rates the impact of increased infauna

abundance was not observed as often). This may be an important consideration and highlights one

example of how WWTW processing can also impact on variability of infauna communities, another

factor that may have potentially contributed to the variability found in the present study.

The degree of inherent spatial and temporal variability can have a large influence on the experimental

design and the replication that is required to detect significant differences (Underwood 1998). As a

result of the large variability found in infaunal communities, the post hoc power analyses also

estimated that much higher replication (i.e. than what was used) was required to detect significant

differences between distances. The power of the statistical tests affects the ability to detect

significant differences (i.e. making a type II error) and this has been identified in past studies on

infaunal communities (Peterman 1990; Otway et al. 1995). The lack of sufficient replication may have

been at least partially responsible for the finding of no significant differences in infauna abundance,

richness and diversity between time and distance.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


One indicator of high organic loading in a marine environment can be the dominance of polychaetes

in comparison to other infauna species. The ratio of polychaetes to all other taxa was assessed and

there was an elevated ratio close to the outfall (in comparison to all other sites) during April 2012,

October 2012 and April 2013. This finding suggests that there may be an occasional effect of

polychaete dominance < 20 m from outfall. This finding of an elevated polychaete ratio close to the

outfall is likely to be related to higher levels of organic loading close to the WWTW as higher TOC

levels and lower proportions of sand were also found at 10m S (compared to other sites) during

December 2011 and October 2012 in the Burwood Beach Sediment Study. As outlined in the

sediment study, these results may suggest that a very small (temporary) area of organic enrichment

may exist around the outfall. This is consistent with the results from a previous assessment of the

Burwood Beach WWTW by Roberts et al. (2007). Roberts et al. (2007) found that there were

significant differences in TOC levels between sites located near (< 50 m) and far (> 200 m) from the

outfall. The findings of the Burwood Beach Infauna Study suggest that there may be a localised area

of impact around the Burwood WWTW discharge.

Some polychaetes can also respond to high levels of organic loading and the abundance of

polychaete families may be useful to assess impacts from WWTWs. Polychaete taxa that are

opportunistic, such as species within the families of Capitellidae, Nereidae and Syllidae, are

commonly used as indicators of sources of organic pollution (such as WWTWs) (Dean 2009).

Polychaete families that were highest in abundance were individually assessed to identify if any

families showed a trend with distance from the outfall. There was occasional high abundance of

some polychaete families close to the outfall (i.e. ≤ 50 m) in comparison to other sites. This included

higher abundance of Polygordiidae and Spionidae during December 2011, Dorvilleidae during

October 2012 and Dorvilleidae and Nereididae during April 2013. Within these polychaete groups,

there are taxa that have been identified to exhibit subsurface or surface deposit feeding methods and

a higher abundance of deposit feeders can be a reflection of an environment with high organic

loading (Dean 2009). This may indicate a potential impact in terms of elevated abundance of infauna

that are (potentially) deposit feeders, close to the outfall.

The biology of abundant infauna families may provide further insight into the findings of the Burwood

Beach Infauna study. The most abundant infauna taxa in this study included Dorvilleidae,

Gammarids and Polygordiidae. Dorvilleidae is a family of polychaetes that are known to reside in

both the intertidal and deep marine environments and depending on the species, can occur in algae

debris or in coarse or fine sandy sediments. The dorvilleid species, Ophryotrocha adherens, has also

been shown to be a positive indicator of polluted environments (Bailey-Brock et al. 2000; Dean 2008).

Higher abundance of Dorvillieids were found close to the outfall during October 2012 and April 2013

and this could be a result of an outfall influence, depending on the composition of species within

Dorveilleidae and whether they are opportunistic or not.

Gammarid amphipods accounted for approximately one quarter of total infauna sampled during the

April 2012, October 2012 and April 2013 sampling events. Gammarid amphipods are crustaceans

that are sometimes referred to as sand fleas. They are known to be one of the most common aquatic

marine taxa and are frequently found to be the most abundant and diverse crustaceans in studies of

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


shallow marine ecosystems such as Boulder Bay (Chapman 1988; Jones and Morgan 1994). The

pattern of abundance of gammarid amphipods found in this study does not suggest any relationship

with distance from the outfall.

The presence of Polygordiidae at a number of sampling sites was of taxonomic interest as this family

has only one other published occurrence in Australian waters (Avery et al. 2009). The Polygordiid

collected in this study was confirmed by the Australian Museum as P. kiarama (Anna Murray, pers.

comm).

In monitoring infauna assemblages, seasonality is an important factor to consider in the experimental

design and interpretation of findings. As with all ecological communities, seasonality can play a major

role in the distribution and abundance of infauna assemblages with variations in temperature, nutrient

availability and light (Gray and Elliot 2009). There was higher overall abundance of infauna during

the spring / summer months (i.e. cool water surveys; December 2011 and October 2012) in

comparison to the autumn months (i.e. warm water surveys; April 2012 and April 2013). The April

2013 sampling event was also clustered separately in the MDS analysis by sampling event. The

main infauna taxa responsible for the observed difference were Amphinomidae, Gammarid spp. and

Polycladida spp. The higher abundance during the cool water surveys is likely related to seasonality,

and potentially differences in recruitment of these taxa. Not surprisingly, others have found that there

are differences in infaunal assemblages, in terms of abundance and composition, between different

seasons. During summer months, there can be large numbers of juveniles which can inflate

abundance and can mask trends in the data. Others have reported that there has been higher

abundance of infauna during the summer months in comparison to winter. For example, Buchanan et

al. (1978) demonstrated that abundance of infauna measured in the UK off the coast of

Northumberland over three years displayed a clear annual pattern of fluctuating abundance which

was dependent on the season, with high increases during the warm waters in summer and low

abundance during winter. This may provide an explanation for the high abundance at several sites

during December 2011 and October 2012 as often abundance at these sites was characterised by a

large number of one particular taxon (for example, during December 2011 with Polygordiidae). The

study by Otway et al. (1996) of infauna communities around the Sydney deepwater outfalls, also

found significantly higher infauna abundance during summer, in comparison to winter. Thus, it is

likely that the higher overall abundance found during December 2011, and to a lesser extent during

October 2012, may be linked to seasonality.

There have been no previous studies of infaunal communities undertaken in the receiving

environment of Burwood Beach WWTW to use as a comparison for the results in this study.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


5 CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there were no detectable impacts on infauna abundance, richness and diversity.

The only apparent trend that could be related to discharge was the high polychaete ratio

observed at sites closest to the outfall, where a potential zone of effect is within 20 m of the

outfall.

A high level of variability was found in infauna assemblages which likely contributed to the

difficulty in detecting significant differences between sites that could be attributed to the discharge

from the outfall. Significant differences may not have been detected due to insufficient power to

detect differences.

Burwood Beach WWTW is located in a high energy coastal environment where large movements

of sand occur intermittently offshore. High variability is also common in studies of infauna

assemblages. Although significant differences were found between sites, these differences were

confined within sampling events and the patterns were not consistent at the distance level or

between sampling events.

The high spatial and temporal variability detected in infauna communities here makes it difficult to

determine the potential effects of increased WWTW flows on infauna in the receiving environment

with any degree of certainty.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank those that assisted with the design and implementation of this study.

Consulting Environmental Engineers, NSW EPA, NSW Marine Parks and NSW DPI Fisheries

assisted with the design of the sampling program and methodology. Sandy Bottom Boat Charters, a

commercial fishing charter, provided a boat for sampling. Divers from WorleyParsons undertook all

the sampling with Judith Phillips acting as an ADAS Commercial Diving Supervisor. Aquen undertook

the infauna identification and Anna Murray from the Australian Museum confirmed the species

identification of a recently described Polygordiidae family. Operators from Burwood Beach WWTW

assisted with the sampling by turning off the biosolids diffuser for the divers. All surveys / sampling

for the Boulder Bay MEAP were undertaken under NSW Fisheries Permit #P110051-1.2 and NSW

Marine Parks Permit #2011/046.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


7 REFERENCES

Ashton, P. H. and Richardson, B. (1995) Biological Monitoring of the Marine Ocean Outfall at Black

Rock, Victoria Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 31, 334-340.

Avery, L., Ramey, P. and Wilson, R. (2009). New Polygordiidae (Polychaeta) from the Australian

region. Zootaxa 2068, 59-68.

AWT (2000). Benthos survey at Boulder Bay and Burwood Beach wastewater treatment works ocean

outfalls. Australian Water Technologies. October 2000.

BioAnalysis (2006). Patterns in assemblages of macrobenthos associated with the ocean outfalls at

Boulder Bay, Burwood Beach and Belmont Beach – ocean outfall benthos study. Editors: Roberts,

D.E. and Murray, S.R. August 2006.

Buchanan, J., Warwick, Sheader, M. and Kingston, P. (1978). Sources of variability in the benthic

macrofauna of the south Northumberland coast. 197106, Journal of the Marine Association of the UK

54, 191-210.

Chapman, M. G. (1998). Relationships between spatial patterns of benthic assemblages in a

mangrove forest using different levels of taxonomic resolution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 162,

71-78.

Dauer, D. and Conner (1980). Effects of moderate sewage input on benthic polychaete populations.

Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 10 (3), 1-12.335-346.

Dauvin, J. and Ruellet, T. (2006). Polychaete/Amphipod Ratio Revisited. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55

(1-6), 215-224.

Dayton, P.K. and Oliver, J.S. (1980). An evaluation of experimental analysis of population and

community patterns in benthic marine environments. In: Marine benthic Dynamics, K.R. Tenore and

B.C. Coull eds. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp 93-120.

Dean, H. (2008). The use of polychaetes (Annelida) as indicator species of marine pollution: a review.

Revista de Biologia Tropical 56, 11-38.

Defeo, O., McLachlan, A., Schoeman, D., Schlacher, T.,Dugan, J., Jones, A., Lastra, M. and Scapini,

F. (2009). Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 81, 1-

12.

Del-Pilar-Ruso, Y., de-la-Ossa-Carretero, J., Giménez-Casalduero, F. and Sánchez-Lizaso, J. (2010).

Sewage treatment level and flow rates affect polychaete assemblages. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60,

1930–1938.

Dorsey, J. (1982). Intertidal community offshore from the Werribee sewage-treatment farm: an

opportunistic infaunal assemblage. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33(1), 45 –

54.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Fairweather, P.G. (1990). Sewage and the biota on seashores: assessment of impact in relation to

natural variability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 14, 197-210.

Fry, V.A. and Butman, B. (1991). Estimates of the seafloor area impacted by sludge dumped at the

106-mile site in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Marine Environmental Research 31, 145-60.

Gray and Elliott. (2009). Ecology of Marine Sediments, from science to management. 2nd

Eds.

Published by Oxford University Press. New York.

Gray, J. and Pearson, T. (1982). Objective selection of sensitive species indicative of pollution-

induced changes in benthic communities. I Comparative methodology. Marine Ecology Progress

Series 66, 285-299.

Gray, J.S. (1974). Animal-sediment relationships. Oceanography and Marine Biology: Annual

Review 12, 223-261.

Keeley, N., Barter, P. and Robertson, B. (2002). Assessment of ecological effects on the seabed

surrounding the Gisborne wastewater outfall: winter 2002. Cawthron Report No. 735. Prepared for

Gisborne District Council. 40 p. + Appendices.

Kingsborough Council (2008) Environmental Assessment Report Replacement of Blackmans Bay

Outfall. A report produced by Kingsborough Council for submission of EPA Tasmania.

Morris, L. and Keough, M. (2002). Organic pollution and its effects: a short-term transplant experiment

to assess the ability of biological endpoints to detect change in a soft sediment environment. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 225, 109-221.

Otway, N.M., Gray, C.A., Craig, J.R., McVea, T.A. and Ling, J.E. (1996). Assessing the impacts of

deepwater sewage outfalls on spatially and temporally variable marine communities. Marine

Environmental Research 41, 45-71.

Pearson, T.H. and Rosenberg, R. (1976). A comparative study of the effects on the marine

environment of wastes from cellulose industries in Scotland and Sweden. Ambio 5, 77-79.

Pearson, T.H. and Rosenberg, R. (1978). Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment

and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 16, 229-

311.

Peterson, C.H. (1977). Competitive organisation of the soft-bottom macrobenthic communities of

southern California lagoons. Marine Biology 43, 343-359.

Phillips, D.J.H. (1977). The use of biological indicator organisms to monitor trace metal pollution in

marine and estuarine environments – a review. Environmental Pollution 13, 281-317.

Phillips, D.J.H. (1978). The use of biological indicator organisms to quantitate organochlorine

pollutants in aquatic environments – a review. Environmental Pollution 16, 167-229.

Reish, D.J. (1980). Effects of domestic wastes on the benthic marine communities of southern

California. Helgol. Meeresunters., 33, 377-383.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Reish, D.J., Oshida, P.S., Mears, A.J., and Ginn, T.C. (1987). Effects on saltwater organisms.

Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 59, 572-586.

Roberts, D.E. and Murray, S.R. (2006). Patterns in assemblages of macrobenthos associated with

the ocean outfalls at Boulder Bay, Burwood Beach and Belmont Beach. Report to Hunter water

Corporation by BioAnalysis Pty Ltd.

Roberts, D.E., Smith, A., Ajani, P. and Davis, A.R. (1998). Rapid changes in encrusting marine

assemblages exposed to anthropogenic point-source pollution: a „Beyond BACI‟ approach. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 163, 213-224

Roper, D., Smith, D. and Read, G. (1989). Benthos associated with two New Zealand coastal outfalls.

New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 23, 295-309.

Tsutumi, H. (1990). Population persistence of Capitella sp. (Polychaeta; Capitellidae) on a mud flat

subject to environmental disturbance by organic enrichment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 63,

147-156.

Underwood, A. J. (1998). Experiments in Ecology. Their logical design and interpretation using

analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press.

Underwood, A.J., Chapman, M.G. and Roberts, D.E. (2003). A practical protocol to assess impacts of

unplanned disturbance: a case study in Tuggerah Lakes estuary, NSW. Ecological Management and

Restoration 4, 4-11.

Underwood, A.J. (1992). Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on populations in the

real, but variable, world. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 161, 145-178.

Underwood, A.J. (1993). The mechanics of spatially replicated sampling programmes to detect

environmental impacts in a variable world. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 99-116.

Underwood, A.J. and Peterson, C.H. (1988). Towards an ecological framework for investigating

pollution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46, 227-234.

Ward, T. and Hutchings, P. (1996). Effects of trace metals on infaunal species composition in polluted

intertidal and subtidal marine sediments near a lead smelter, Spencer Gulf, South Australia. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 135, 123-135.

Warwick, R.M. (1993). Environmental impact studies on marine communities: pragmatical

considerations. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 63-80.

Weston, D. (1990). Quantitative examination of macrobenthic community changes along an organic

enrichment gradient. Marine Ecology Progress Series 61, 233-244.

WorleyParsons (2013). Burwood Beach Sediment Study. A report prepared for Hunter Water by

WorleyParsons.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Appendix 1 – Infauna Abundance (site averages)

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


December 2011

Family Common Name >2000m

N 200m

N 100m

N 50m

N 20m

N 10m

N 10m

S 20m

S 50m

S 100m

S 200m

S >2000m

S

undifferentiated Anemones 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00

Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Arrow worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Glyceridae Bloodworms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ophurida sp Brittle stars 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67

Haminoeidae Bubble shell 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Capitellidae Capitellid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.33 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Chaetopteridae Chaetopterid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Corallanidae Corallanid pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Copepods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.33 0.33

Cossuridae Cossuridae worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Crab megalopas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cumacea sp. a Cumaceans (small telson) 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33

undifferentiated Decapod shrimp sp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


December 2011


N 200m

N 100m

N 50m

N 20m

N 10m

N 10m

S 20m

S 50m

S 100m

S 200m

S >2000m

S

Nassariidae Dog Whelks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 0.00 2.67 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 5.33 0.33 0.00 1.33 0.00

Sabalidae Feather-duster worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gammaridea spp. Gammarid amphipods 1.33 4.33 2.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 0.00 4.33 10.00 0.00 6.67 2.67

Callianassidae Ghost shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Loveniidae Heart urchins 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Diogenidae Hermit crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0.00 4.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Holothuriidae Holothurians 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Phoronida Horse shoe worms 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Lace animals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tellinoidea Little brown tellin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Luciferidae Lucifer shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67

Mactridae Mactrid shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Serolidae Marine isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Halacaridae Marine Mite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Marine slugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gastrapoda sp.a Marine snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


December 2011


N 200m

N 100m

N 50m

N 20m

N 10m

N 10m

S 20m

S 50m

S 100m

S 200m

S >2000m

S

undifferentiated Marine sponges 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annelida sp. Marine worms 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Megalonidae Megalonid worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Naticidae Moon snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Mytilidae Mussels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Mysidae Mysids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

undifferentiated Nematodes 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 3.00 0.00 10.00 225.33 0.00 8.00 0.00

Nephtyidae Nephtyid worms 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33

Nereididae Nereid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00

Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oligochaeta ? sp.a Oligochaeta ? sp.b 0.00 0.00 3.67 0.00 0.67 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.50 1.00

Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oweniidae Oweniid worms 0.00 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paraonidae Paraonid worms 0.33 8.67 2.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 13.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Polycladida sp. Pointed rostrum-small chaetae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.67 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


December 2011


N 200m

N 100m

N 50m

N 20m

N 10m

N 10m

S 20m

S 50m

S 100m

S 200m

S >2000m

S

Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama) Polyclad flatworms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

Orbiniidae Polygordiid worms 0.00 65.67 0.00 0.00 7.33 0.00 0.00 208.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Orbiniidae Rag worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 0.00 2.67 2.67 0.00 2.67 0.67 0.00 3.33 0.67 0.00 2.00 0.00

undifferentiated Sea Squirts (stalked) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Seapens 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Seed shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 2.00 0.00

Sigalionidae? Sigalionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00

Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Majidae Spider crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Spionidae Spionid worms 0.33 2.67 19.33 0.00 30.00 8.00 0.00 7.00 128.67 0.00 1.67 0.67

Portunidae Swimming crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.67 2.33 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.67

Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 1.00 0.67

undifferentiated Tanaids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


December 2011


N 200m

N 100m

N 50m

N 20m

N 10m

N 10m

S 20m

S 50m

S 100m

S 200m

S >2000m

S

Tellinidae Tellins 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Terrebellidae Terebellid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated tunicata larvaceans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Veneridae Venus shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Volutidae Volutes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trichobranchidae Trichobranchid worms 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trochiodae Trochiod shells 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.67

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2012

Family Common Name 10m

N 10m

S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000m

S

undifferentiated Anemones 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Arrow worms 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Glyceridae Bloodworms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ophurida sp Brittle stars 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Haminoeidae Bubble shell 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Capitellidae Capitellid worms 4.00 0.33 0.33 9.00 1.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Chaetopteridae Chaetopterid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Corallanidae Corallanid pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Copepods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67

Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 1.00 1.00 2.33 10.33 1.00 11.33 6.00 5.33 1.67 0.00 2.67 3.67

Cossuridae Cossuridae worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Crab megalopas 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cumacea sp. a Cumaceans (small telson) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.67 2.67 0.33 5.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2012


N 10m

S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000m

S

undifferentiated Decapod shrimp sp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nassariidae Dog Whelks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 2.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 4.33 5.33 1.00 18.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Sabalidae Feather-duster worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Gammarid spp Gammarid amphipods 1.67 7.67 2.67 5.67 9.33 21.33 15.67 14.00 27.67 31.33 1.33 2.00

Callianassidae Ghost shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Loveniidae Heart urchins 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67

Diogenidae Hermit crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.00

Holothuriidae Holothurians 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Phoronida Horse shoe worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Lace animals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tellinoidea Little brown tellin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Luciferidae Lucifer shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00

Mactridae Mactrid shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Serolidae Marine isopods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67

Halacaridae Marine Mite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2012


N 10m

S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000m

S

undifferentiated Marine slugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00

Gastrapoda sp.a Marine snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Marine sponges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00

Annelida sp. Marine worms 1.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Megalonidae Megalonid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Naticidae Moon snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mytilidae Mussels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00

Mysidae Mysids 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Nematodes 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 3.00 1.00 1.67 1.00 3.00 3.67 0.33 0.00

Nephtyidae Nephtyid worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

Nereididae Nereid worms 9.67 4.00 2.33 7.67 2.00 24.00 2.00 33.67 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00

Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67

Oligochaeta ? sp.a Oligochaeta ? sp.b 0.33 2.33 0.33 2.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.00 0.00

Oweniidae Oweniid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Paraonidae Paraonid worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.33 1.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Polycladida sp. Pointed rostrum-small chaetae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2012


N 10m

S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000m

S

Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama)

Polyclad flatworms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Orbiniidae Polygordiid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 44.00 0.67 0.00 0.00

Orbiniidae Rag worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 5.67 4.33 0.00 2.67 2.00 0.33 0.33

undifferentiated Sea Squirts (stalked) 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Seapens 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Seed shrimps 11.33 2.00 2.67 0.67 1.67 1.67 3.00 19.67 0.33 24.00 0.00 0.00

Sigalionidae? Sigalionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 1.33 2.00 0.33 0.00

Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.67 0.67 1.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Majidae Spider crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Spionidae Spionid worms 2.00 1.33 0.33 1.33 1.00 4.33 4.00 2.67 4.33 1.00 0.00 0.67

Portunidae Swimming crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Syllid worms 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 2.67 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00

Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.33 2.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated Tanaids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2012


N 10m

S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000m

S

Tellinidae Tellins 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Terrebellidae Terebellid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

undifferentiated tunicata larvaceans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Veneridae Venus shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Volutidae Volutes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trichobranchidae Trichobranchid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Trochiodae Trochiod shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


October 2012

Family / Other Taxa Common Name 10m

S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000 m

S

Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 209.33 0.00 12.67 0.00 0.33 1.67 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.67

Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 4.00

Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33

Nereididae Nereid worms 86.33 0.33 4.00 0.33 4.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Goniadidae Goniadid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Glyceridae Glycerid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67

Aciculata sp. Aciculatid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67

Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67

Sabalidae Feather-duster worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.33

Amphinomidae Amphinomid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.67

Sigalionidae Sigalionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33

Pisionidae Pisionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67

Chrysopetalidae Chrysopetalid worms 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Exogonin Syllid worms 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 2.67

Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67

Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama) Polygordiid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00

Spionidae Spionid worms 17.33 1.00 16.00 0.33 6.33 1.00 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


October 2012


S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000 m

S

Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Terrebellidae Terebellid worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 7.33

Capitellidae Capitellid worms 3.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 2.00

Orbiniidae Rag worms 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paraonidae Paraonid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.33

Annelida sp. Marine worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Oligochaeta spp. Oligochaete spp. 0.00 1.67 6.67 1.33 0.33 1.33 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 9.67

Halacaridae Marine Mite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 1.00 1.00 2.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 0.00 3.00 3.67 1.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 3.33 2.00 0.00 0.00

Gammaridea spp Gammarid amphipods 77.33 19.67 25.33 7.33 22.33 3.00 13.33 10.00 4.00 5.67 16.67

Cumacea sp. a Cumaceans (small telson) 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00

Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00

Serolidae Marine isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Mysidae Mysids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nebaliidae Nebaliaceans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tanaidacea spp. Tanaids 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


October 2012


S 20m

N 20m

S 50m

N 50m

S 100m

N 100m

S 200m

N 200m

S >2000m

N >2000 m

S

Copepoda spp. Copepods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 1.00

Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps 18.33 5.33 18.33 0.00 16.33 0.67 2.33 0.67 2.33 0.00 1.00

Bryazoa spp. Lace animals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00

Ascidacea spp. Sea Squirts (other) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ophurida spp. Brittle stars 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.67

Bivalvia spp undiferentiated bivalve 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

Carditidae Clams 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mactridae Mactrid shells 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mytilidae Mussels 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Veneridae Venus shells 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Olividae Olive Shells 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Volutidae Volutes 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Neogastrapoda spp. Marine snails 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.33 0.00

Opisthobranchia spp. Marine slugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.33 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33

Nematoda spp. Nematodes 0.33 0.33 6.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.33 6.33

Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.00 1.67

Polycladida spp. Polyclad flatworms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 3.00

Demospongiae spp. Marine sponges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00

Sipuncula spp Peanut worms (other) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2013

Family / Other Taxa Common Name

10m N

10m S

20m N

20m S

50m N

50m S

100m N

100m S

200m N

200m S

>2000m N

>2000m S

Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 2.5

Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 0 43 1 9 1 88 1 1 1 2 1 4.5

Eunicidae Eunicid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 0 1

Chrysopetalidae Chrysoptalid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Nereididae Nereidid worms 5 3 1 1.5 0 47 3 0 0 0 0 2

Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Sigalionidae? Sigalionid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Syllid worms 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 4 0 0 4

Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2.33

Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama) Polygordiid worms

3 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 30.33 0 0

Oweniidae Oweniid worms 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sabellidae Feather-duster worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Serpuliidae Serpulid tube worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Chaetopteridae Chaetopterid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2013


10m N

10m S

20m N

20m S

50m N

50m S

100m N

100m S

200m N

200m S

>2000m N

>2000m S

Spionidae Spionid worms 6 4.67 11.33 4.33 5.67 5 11.5 2.67 4.33 0 1.67 1

Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

Capitellidae Capitellid worms 0 0 0 0 1 1 4.33 2 0 1 0 1

Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Opheliidae Opheliid worms 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orbiniidae Rag worms 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Paraonidae Paraonid worms 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 12 1 0 0

Oligochaeta spp. Marine Oligochaetes 0 5 4 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 2.5 1 7 1 0 2.5 8.5 1 0 0 13 6.5

Gammaridea spp Gammarid amphipods 15.33 15 9.33 7.33 9.33 55 9.67 6 2 9 5.33 1.33

Cumacea spp Cumaceans (small telson)

0 1 0 1 1 1 2 3.67 0 1 3 1

Alpheidae Snapping shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Peneidae Peneid shrimps 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dendrobranchiata sp. Other shrimps 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Diogenidae Hermit crabs 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1.5

Palaemonidae Cleaner shrimps 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Portunidae Swimming crabs 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2013


10m N

10m S

20m N

20m S

50m N

50m S

100m N

100m S

200m N

200m S

>2000m N

>2000m S

Raninidae Frog crabs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Brachyura sp. Crab megalopas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Cirolanidae Cirolanid isopods 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Serolidae Serolid isopods 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 1

Mysidae Mysids 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Nebaliacea sp. Nebaliaceans 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

undifferentiated Tanaids 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

undifferentiated Copepods 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

undifferentiated Seed shrimps 9.7 2.5 2 1.5 0 9 3.7 1.5 0 2 1 3.3

undifferentiated tunicata larvaceans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

undifferentiated Anemones 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Hydroida sp. Hydroids 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Loveniidae Heart urchins 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ophurida sp Brittle stars 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Tellinidae Tellins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Mytilidae Mussels 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2013


10m N

10m S

20m N

20m S

50m N

50m S

100m N

100m S

200m N

200m S

>2000m N

>2000m S

Veneridae Venus shells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Opisthobranchia sp. Marine slugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0

undifferentiated Nematodes 11.5 3 0 67 1 0 1.7 2 0 4 0 1

Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1.5 2 0 2

Phoronida Horse shoe worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Polycladida sp. Polyclad flatworms 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 2

undifferentiated Marine sponges 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW

Page 87 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013

Appendix 2 – Statistical Output: ANOSIM Analyses

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


ANOSIM:

Multivariate analysis of the similarities among sites in the abundance of infauna assemblages.

December 2011

Global ANOSIM Test

Between distances

Sample statistic (Global R): 0.272

Significance level of sample statistic: 0.2%

Number of permutations: 999 (Random sample from a large number)

Number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Global R: 1

Groups R

Statistic Significance

Level % Possible

Permutations Actual

Permutations Number >= Observed

>2000 m, 200 m 0.626 0.2 462 462 1

>2000 m, 100 m -0.076 58.9 462 462 272

>2000 m, 50 m -0.028 54.5 462 462 252

>2000 m, 20 m 0.65 0.2 462 462 1

>2000 m, 10 m 0.008 42.4 462 462 196

200 m, 100 m 0.581 0.4 462 462 2

200 m, 50 m 0.241 8.4 462 462 39

200 m, 20 m 0.252 6.5 462 462 30

200 m, 10 m 0.669 1.1 462 462 5

100 m, 50 m -0.068 54.5 462 462 252

100 m, 20 m 0.504 1.5 462 462 7

100 m, 10 m -0.032 54.5 462 462 252

50 m, 20 m 0.281 6.5 462 462 30

50 m, 10 m 0.051 30.3 462 462 140

20 m, 10 m 0.622 1.5 462 462 7

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2012

Global ANOSIM Test

Between distances





Groups R


Level % Possible

Permutations Actual


10 m, 20 m -0.069 76 462 462 351

10 m, 50 m 0.167 6.5 462 462 30

10 m, 100 m 0.331 0.9 462 462 4

10 m, 200 m 0.735 0.2 462 462 1

10 m, > 2000 m 0.739 0.2 462 462 1

20 m, 50 m -0.007 51.9 462 462 240

20 m, 100 m 0.315 1.1 462 462 5

20 m, 200 m 0.741 0.2 462 462 1

20 m, > 2000 m 0.45 0.6 462 462 3

50 m, 100 m -0.13 85.3 462 462 394

50 m, 200 m 0.444 0.2 462 462 1

50 m, > 2000 m 0.517 0.2 462 462 1

100 m, 200 m 0.233 3.9 462 462 18

100 m, > 2000 m 0.633 0.2 462 462 1

200 m, > 2000 m 0.846 0.2 462 462 1

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


October 2012

Global ANOSIM Test

Between distances





Groups R


Level % Possible

Permutations Actual


10 m, 20 m 0.574 2.4 84 84 2

10 m, 50 m 0.463 3.6 84 84 3

10 m, 100 m 0.648 1.2 84 84 1

10 m, 200 m 0.988 1.2 84 84 1

10 m, > 2000 m 0.648 2.4 84 84 2

20 m, 50 m 0.07 22.3 462 462 103

20 m, 100 m 0.213 3.2 462 462 15

20 m, 200 m 0.32 0.9 462 462 4

20 m, > 2000 m 0.372 1.3 462 462 6

50 m, 100 m 0.031 38.7 462 462 179

50 m, 200 m 0.246 2.2 462 462 10

50 m, > 2000 m 0.104 22.1 462 462 102

100 m, 200 m 0.109 15.2 462 462 70

100 m, > 2000 m 0.137 11.3 462 462 52

200 m, > 2000 m 0.246 6.3 462 462 29

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


April 2013

Global ANOSIM Test

Between distances





Groups R


Level % Possible

Permutations Actual


10 m, 20 m 0.059 28.8 462 462 133

10 m, 50 m 0.026 33.5 462 462 155

10 m, 100 m 0.319 0.6 462 462 3

10 m, 200 m 0.381 0.9 462 462 4

10 m, > 2000 m 0.263 4.3 462 462 20

20 m, 50 m 0.085 23.6 462 462 109

20 m, 100 m 0.311 1.7 462 462 8

20 m, 200 m 0.274 3.2 462 462 15

20 m, > 2000 m 0.091 24 462 462 111

50 m, 100 m 0.228 8.2 462 462 38

50 m, 200 m 0.369 0.9 462 462 4

50 m, > 2000 m 0.156 12.8 462 462 59

100 m, 200 m 0.359 0.6 462 462 3

100 m, > 2000 m 0.13 18.6 462 462 86

200 m, > 2000 m 0.261 2.8 462 462 13

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Appendix 3 – Power Analyses Based on the First

Sampling Round

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Power analyses to determine the suitability of the sample size used in

sampling period 1:

Species Abundance

121086420

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Maximum Difference

Po

we

r

A lpha 0.05

StDev 21.49

# Lev els 2

A ssumptions

115

Size

Sample

Power Curve for One-way ANOVA

Power Analysis determined that a sample size of 115 should be sufficient to detect a significant

difference in species abundance among distances.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Species Richness

43210

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Maximum Difference

Po

we

r

A lpha 0.05

StDev 2.19

# Lev els 2

A ssumptions

12

Size

Sample



difference in species richness among distances.

HUNTER WATER


BURWOOD BEACH WWTW


Species Diversity

1.00.80.60.40.20.0

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Maximum Difference

Po

we

r

A lpha 0.05

StDev 0.32

# Lev els 2

A ssumptions

4

Size

Sample



difference in species diversity among sites.

Documents

Marine Infauna Study · Polygordid, dorvilleid and nereid polychaetes, as well as gammarid amphipods and nematodes were analysed separately, as these were the dominant taxa found