Nicholas Hills Final Paper - HWCA

PO Box 66, Shortland NSW 2307 | 1 Wetlands Place Sandgate Rd, SHORTLAND NSW 2307 Phone 02 4951 6466 | Fax 02 4950 1875 | Email [email protected]

www.wetlands.org.au

PROPOSAL FOR

REMEDIATION AND

REVEGETATION OF THE

FORMER ASTRA STREET

DUMP; SHORTLAND, NSW

Nicholas Hills

Hartwick College

Bachelor of Arts; Double Major

Geology and Biology

Environmental Science and

Policy minor

Nicholas Hills – Hartwick College

1 PROPOSAL FOR REMEDIATION AND REVEGETATION OF THE FORMER ASTRA STREET DUMP; SHORTLAND, NSW

Contents

i Abbreviations 2

ii List of Tables 4

iii List of Figures 4

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Background 5

1.2 Objectives 6

1.3 Scope of Works 6

2 Site Importance – Hunter Wetlands 6

2.1 Introduction 6

2.2 Site Description 6

2.2.1 Physical features 7

2.3 Ecological significance 7

3 Current Proceedings – Former Astra Street Landfill 8

3.1 Statutory Obligations 8

3.1 Scenarios 8

4 Remediation Options – Phytocapping 9

4.1 Introduction 9

4.2 Overview 9

5 Site Summary – Former Astra Street Landfill 12

5.1 Introduction 12

5.2 Location, identification 12

5.3 Site History 14

5.4 Site Description 15

5.5 Previous Environmental Investigation 16

5.6 Identified issues 16

5.7 Climate 18

5.7.1 Climate – Water Balance 18

5.8 Topography 20

5.9 Soil 22

5.9.1 Soil Profile 22

5.9.2 Soil Sources 24

5.9.3 Soil Ameliorants 25

5.10 Vegetation 25



5.11 Hydrology 32

6 Sediment Quality Testing – Canoe Channel 32

6.1 Overview 32

6.2 Sampling Parameters – Sediment Quality 33

6.3 Sampling Sites 33

6.4 Laboratory Methods and Analysis 35

6.5 Sampling Method 35

6.6 Sampling Results 36

6.7 Discussion of Sampling Results 40

6.7.1 Metals 41

6.7.1.1 Lead 41

6.7.1.2 Chromium 41

6.7.1.3 Cadmium 41

6.7.1.4 Nickel 41

6.7.1.4 Zinc 42

6.7.2 Biogeochemical Processes 42

6.7.3. Further Recommendations 43

7 Summary of Report and Recommendations 44

References 46

Appendices 50

Appendix A – Internship Letter of Acceptance 50

Appendix B – Geological Map of Newcastle: HW Quaternary estuarine/lacustrine sediments 52

Appendix C – Government Information (Public Access) Application Submission 53

Appendix D – GIPA Notice of Decision 57

Appendix E – Voluntary Investigation Proposal 61

Appendix F – Voluntary Management Proposal 72

Appendix H – Plant Master List 81

Appendix H – Complete Sediment Sampling Results 83

i Abbreviations

A-ACAP – Australian Alternate Cover Assessment Program

AHD – Australian Height Datum

ANZEEC – Australian New Zealand Guidelines for



Zn – Zinc

CAMBA – China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

Cd – Cadmium

CEC - Cation Exchange Capacity

Cr – Chromium

EIL – Ecological Investigation Levels

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

FC – Field Capacity

GIPA - Government Information (Public Access)

HW – Hunter Wetlands

HWCA – Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia

JAMBA – Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

mg/kg – milligrams per kilogram

NCC – Newcastle City Council

NEPC – National Environment Protection Council

NEPM – National Environment Protection Measure

Ni – Nickel

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NSW EPA – New South Wales Environment of Protection Authority

PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Pb – Lead

PVC – Polyvinyl Chlorine

RCA – Robert Carr & Associates

ROKAMBA – Republic of Korea - Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

SEPP – State Environmental Planning Policy

TFI – Tom Farrell Institute

TPH – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons

UoN – University of Newcastle

VIP – Voluntary Investigation Proposal

VMP – Voluntary Management Proposal

WMAA – Waste Management Association of Australia

WP – Wilting Point



ii List of Tables

Table 1: Vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological

communities at the Hunter Wetlands. 7

Table 2: Comparison of Phytocaps, Compacted Clay caps and Geosynthetic Caps 11

Table 3: Contaminated Land Record of Notices issued for the Former Astra St Landfill 15

Table 4: Annual Evaporation and Rainfall Data from Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS; 2009 –

2015, July. 19

Table 5: Annual Evaporation and Rainfall Data from Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS; 2009 –

2015, July. 20

Table 7: Water Holding Capacity of Natural Soils in the Vicinity of ExistingLlandfills in the Hunter

Valley. 23

Table 8: Possible Alternative Cover Materials Available in the Hunter Region 25

Table 9: Suggested Plant List 27

Table 10: Justification for Suggested Plant Species Selected 28

Table 11: Sampling Site Descriptions 33

Table 12: Soil Sampling Results - ALS 36

Table 13: Summary of the EILs for Fresh and Aged Contamination in Soil with Various Land Use 38

Table 14: ANZEEC Sediment quality and associated trigger value guidelines 39

iii List of Figures

Figure 1: Standard Water Balance equation – inputs and outputs 10

Figure 2: Land of interest for proposed Extension of Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia 13

Figure 3: Boundary of Declared Remediation Site, and Surrounding Components 14

Figure 4: Digital Elevation Model of the Hunter Wetlands and Surrounding Area 21

Figure 5: The Proposed Lismore Phytocap Soil Profile 23

Figure 6: Typical soil profile and water balance of a phytocap 24

Figure 7: Groundwater Contour Plan Astra Street Shortland 32

Figure 8: Sediment Sampling Locations 34

Figure 9: Bed Sediment Comparative Sample Analysis 37



1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Shortland Wetlands Pty Ltd, commonly recognised as Hunter Wetland Centre Australia (HWCA),

(henceforth referred to in this report as Hunter Wetlands (HW)), has visions for potential expansion

of its current wetlands, onto the former Astra Street Landfill, owned and operated by the Newcastle

City Council (NCC). For a period of two months, I have been investigating and researching the

possible remediation and revegetation options for the former Astra Street Landfill that is adjacent to

the HW to the North and North-East, a Ramsar listed wetland, and SEPP 14 wetlands.

This report aims to fulfil obligations required by my academic institution, Hartwick College, and

achieve the goals set out by HW listed in my internship description/acceptance letter, refer to

Appendix A.

The report attempts to follow the layout of a professional report, whilst maintaining elements found

in research papers. The sediment sampling experiment is presented as a hybrid scientific report and

technical report. The report was compiled from information attained in the literature, from relevant

agencies and from studies conducted by myself.

To the best of my ability and knowledge, I have detailed my findings and relevant information in

accordance with legislation relevant for any possible relationship concerning stakeholders in the

event that redevelopment of the site can proceed.

The following legislation are relevant:

- Contaminated Land Management Act 1997;

- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

- National Environment Protection Council (1999) National Environment Protection

(Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure;

- National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)

- Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW)

- NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2006) Guidelines for the NSW Site

Auditor Scheme 2nd Edition;

- NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) (1995) Sampling Design Guidelines;

- State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) 14 – Coastal Wetlands

- The NSW Office of Environmental and Heritage (OEH (2011) Guidelines for Consultants

Reporting on Contaminated Sites;

- The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

- Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW)



1.2 Objectives

In my internship Hunter Wetlands, a not-for-profit organisation, I was tasked with the following:

- Seeking information from Newcastle City Council (NCC), University of Newcastle (UoN), NSW

Environmental Protection Authority (NSW EPA) and other relevant agencies regarding the

pollution, remediation, risks and future land use options for the site;

- Researching best practice approaches globally to remediating and revegetating disused

dumps for potential application to the former Astra Street dump;

- Propose a list of plant species and vegetation communities for planting once the site is

appropriately remediated, and;

- Produce a concise report documenting what you have learnt, and recommending options for

remediating and revegetating the site.

1.3 Scope of Works

This report will address known contaminants presented and evaluated in previous

investigation/assessments of the site and relevant surrounding areas. Accompanying this is a

sediment quality study, found in Section 3, undertaken by myself with the support and aid of Steven

Lucas from the Tom Farrell Institute (TFI). The later, serves more from an academic viewpoint, as

required by my learning goals for my internship.

The surrounding environments include ecologically sensitive environments – the Shortland

Wetlands, a Rasmar listed and protected site; and SEPP 14 wetlands.

Research and justification of suitable remediation options; including, foremost, the development of

a phytocap that represents a rainforest community and provides habitat for koalas.

Identify and propose a list of plant species specific to rainforest species found in the Lower Hunter

with capacity to function as a phytocap and/or have phytoremediation properties as this may be

required.

2 Site Importance – Hunter Wetlands

2.1 Introduction

Presented briefly in this section is a validation for providing protection of the Hunter Wetlands from

potential environmental impacts in order to conserve the ecologically significant wetland.

2.2 Site Description

The Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia is a small (42 hectare) complex of wetlands located

approximately 2.5 kilometres south west of Kooragang. The wetlands are in a natural drainage

depression, a remnant of extensive tidal and floodplain wetlands that once extended east of

Ironbark Creek.

“The Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia component of the Ramsar site comprises the land owned by

Shortland Wetlands: Lot 5 DP233520, Lot 2 DP1043133, Lot 7 DP233520 and most of Lot 1



DP1069498. The Ramsar site excludes the portion of Lot 1 DP1069498 that contains a car park,

visitor facilities, roads and utility services” (OEH, 2012).

Central Coastal Plain at 32° 53' S, 151° 42' E. Located on the eastern edge of Hexham Swamp in the

suburbs of Newcastle. Sydney Basin.

2.2.1 Physical features

The annual average rainfall for the area is 1145mm. Mean daily temperatures range from maximums

of 24°C in the summer months to minimums of 8°C in the winter months (Winning, Ekert, Conway, &

Trute, 2013). The geology of the Hunter Wetlands consists of Quaternary estuarine/lacustrine

sediments including silts and clays (Matthei, 1995) (refer to APPENDIX B).

2.3 Ecological significance In 2002 the Hunter Wetlands was added to the Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site. The Shortland

Wetlands were included in the Hunter Estuary Wetland site in 2002 independently satisfying criteria

1 and 4. Further details are presented below.

Criterion 2. A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable,

endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities, presented in

Table 1 (OEH, 2012).

Table 1: Vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities at the Hunter Wetlands.

Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports species at a

critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions:

The Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia component regularly provides habitat for at least seven

species of migratory shorebird. Up to twenty-eight bird species are supported and have been

recorded critical seasonal stage of their breeding cycle at the Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia

component. There is an important egret and ibis breeding site within the Melaleuca swamp, at the

Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia, with 55 white ibis nests recorded at the Shortland Wetlands in

2006-07 (Herbert & Club, 2007).

Twenty one species at Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia are presently listed as migratory under the

EPBC Act which includes species other than shorebirds, such as the great egret (Ardea alba), cattle

egret (Ardea ibis), terns (Sterna spp.), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), and the white-breasted sea-

eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster). Some of these migratory species are recorded under the Japan-

Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA)

and/or Republic of Korea - Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA) and Convention on the

Conservation of Migratory species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) (OEH, 2012).



3 Current Proceedings – Former Astra Street Landfill

3.1 Statutory Obligations

The Newcastle City Council currently is required to legislation under the Contaminated Land Act,

1997. The latest act performed by the NCC, is a Voluntary Management Proposal (VMP), issued by

the NSW EPA on March 2009. Confirmation that the NSW EPA received the report was confirmed

over the phone, whilst discussing a GIPA request for the report (further information regarding the

GIPA is found in Section 5.1). As of now, no conclusions have been made of the report and future

actions required of the site. The NCC is adhering to the policy set by the NSW EPA, and no further

actions of future land use can proceed until a decision is made by the NSW EPA based off the GHD

Pty Ltd Site assessment.

Possible outcomes as specified by the NSW EPA via phone include:

- Continued management of the site under the Contaminated Land Act 1997 Act.

- Alternative management under different legislation simultaneously with the Contaminated

Land Act 1997 Act/or not.

- Continued site monitoring and assessment.

- Removal of the site from the Contaminated Land Act 1997 Act.

- Sanctioned action to remediate/negate any environmental hazards.

Following the impending outcomes of any of the above, the Hunter Wetlands involvement for future

land use will be dependent on what outcome is chosen.

3.1 Scenarios

If the site is deemed to have no threat in its current state, and requires no action to remediate, any

future land use options would require a new site assessment to evaluate any proposed

developments. It would need to demonstrate that any new development would not disrupt the

current conditions of the site in a negative way that would pose an imminent risk.

If the NSW EPA sanctions action for the NCC to remediate the site, a partnership or agreement could

be made between the NCC, the HW and/or any other organization to remediate the site in a way

that aligns itself with HW’s visions i.e. native rainforest revegetation. By forming an agreement or

co-ownership of the site, HW should be aware of any potential liability by their involvement on the

site. NCC would be aware of this factor, and, as a result, may be hesitant allow any participation by

the HW for liability purposes.

A key selling point of the remediation option presented below, is the sustainable practice and

longevity, and low-cost to remediate contaminated land. The Hunter Wetlands community

involvement and volunteer body would allow for a ‘cheaper’ workforce to facilitate the remediation

and redevelopment of the site.



4 Remediation Options – Phytocapping

4.1 Introduction

The WMAA publication “Guidelines for the Assessment, Design, Construction and Maintenance of

Phytocaps as Final Covers for Landfills”, should be read in conjunction with this report. It provides an

in-depth study of phytocapping, the Australian-Alternative Covers Assessment Program (A-ACAP)

conducted in Australia, as well as, some sample designs.

4.2 Overview

Phytocapping is an emerging technology here in Australia that has extensive use and application in

the United States for contaminated land (Ashwath & Venkatraman, 2010; Dwyer, 1998; Khire,

Benson, & Bosscher, 1997). Often referred to as Evapotranspiration Covers (ET Covers), they

function as a technology that controls water balance at a site and ‘branches’ off as a form of

phytoremediation. Conceptually, the plants act as ‘biopumps’, taking up water stored in the soil

layer and eliminating it via evapotranspiration. They also limit infiltration, by capturing or diverting

rainfall. Essentially, design specific soil profile and vegetation selection can control the water balance

in favourable climate conditions. It incorporates the processes of phytoextraction, rhizoextraction,

phytovolatilization, and phytostabilisation (Ashwath & Venkatraman, 2010). Its growing use in

Australia as a sustainable management practice for landfills is evident by Waste Management

Association Australia’s Australian Alternative Covers Assessment Program (A-ACAP) national trial

study of phytocaps in 5 site locations around Australia, and publication – Guidelines for the

Assessment, Design, Construction and Maintenance of Phytocaps as Final Covers for Landfills (Salt,

Lightbody, Stuart, Albright, & Yeates, 2011). Also, the EPA’s latest draft publication, Draft

Environmental Guidelines for Solid Waste Landfills, now includes a section on “Alternate caps;

evapotranspiration caps” (NSW EPA, 2015).

Clay caps have been used as a standard capping technique for landfills worldwide to limit water

infiltration with low permeability materials. In recent times, the technology used for this capping is

much more complex and expensive; using synthetic liners, multiple layers, vegetation, gas emission

controls, and leachate control and treatment. Due to environmental and physical factors, these caps

are subject to relatively short functional lifespans (Lamb et al., 2014). The design of capping in

Australia varies under individual state regulations that set specific benchmark capping techniques

and outcomes to be met for capping landfills. Whilst, clay has low permeability rates, over time,

fluctuations in moisture content can form cracks in the layers forming preferential pathways for

water flow and thus leachate generation (Albright et al., 2006).

Phytocaps operate on the principle of maintaining and controlling water balance, in particular the

functions of evapotranspiration and change water storage (soil) (refer to Figure 1)



Figure 1: Standard Water Balance equation – inputs and outputs

Where:

P – Precipitation

I – Infiltration

ET – Evapotranspiration

R – Runoff

L – Lateral Flow

D – Drainage

∆S – Change in water storage

Evapotranspiration encompasses the largest loss in a water balance, 78-89%. Therefore, with proper

assessment and design, phytocaps can increase the rate of evapotranspiration and, also, alter the

amount of water storage in soil. Specific selection of plant species in relation to environmental

factors such as climate, rainfall, soil, available nutrients etc. can achieve positive water balances, or

at least neutral, and, thus, control the amount of water entering contaminated land.

A multitude of benefits exist in the development of phytocaps:

- Aesthetic value of native flora; change disused, non-vegetated land into vibrant green

spaces.

- Provide a habitable landscape for native fauna to flourish.

- Lower cost than conventional capping.

- Long-term sustainability with little maintenance costs.

- Cultivation of biomass for economic use; e,g. biosolids, biochar etc (Venkatraman &

Ashwath, 2009).

Shown in Table 2 below is a comparison of Phytocaps, Compacted Clay caps and Geosynthetic Caps

(Salt et al., 2011).



Table 2: Comparison of Phytocaps, Compacted Clay caps and Geosynthetic Caps



5 Site Summary – Former Astra Street Landfill

5.1 Introduction

An assessment of known environmental conditions for the former Astra Street landfill are key to the

development of a suitable and sustainable phytocap. Due to lack of information or access to

information thus far, some section may be underrepresented and will require further research once

information becomes available.

Site characteristics to be detailed:

- Location

- History

- Description

- Previous Investigation

- Climate

- Topography

- Soil

- Vegetation

- Hydrology

A GIPA request was submitted for the release of GHD Pty Ltd Voluntary Management Proposal Site Assessments (2013) (refer to Appendix C) for the initial application sent by myself). On the 17th of July 2015, it was approved for “Full Release” under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (‘GIPA Act’) (refer to Appendix D, for the Notice of Decision). A third party has objected to the decision and are entitled 40 working days to submit an application for an external review. Until that date the information cannot be released. The site assessment should contain all the information provided by myself, and more. If the information is released I will provide the document, which may supplant most of the information compiled here, or at least be more relevant and specific.

5.2 Location, identification

Astra Street landfill (henceforth referred to as “the site”) is former waste site operated and owned

by the Newcastle City Council still. It is located at 1/2 Astra St (Lot 3 of Deposited Plan 1043133) and

28 Astra St (Lot 11 of Deposited Plan 594894), Shortland, NSW, 2307. The total area is approximately

45 hectares. The land of interest to HW is shown in Figure 2 (Blanch, 2014), and the entirety of the

site is shown in Figure 3. It is estimated that approximately 3 million tonnes of e-waste, scrap metal,

etc. was dumped at this site (Kelly, 2013). A golf driving range exists on the property, and an

industrial works site is in close proximity (GHD, 2003).



Figure 2: Land of interest for proposed Extension of Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia



Figure 3: Boundary of Declared Remediation Site, and Surrounding Components

5.3 Site History

The former Astra Street landfill was operated by the Newcastle City Council in the years 1974 to

1995, and is estimated that approximately 3 million tonnes of waste was dumped here (Kelly, 2013).

The site was decommissioned in 1995, prior to the NSW EPA (EPA) Protection of the Environment

Operations Act 1997. The site was not required to follow a closure plan in accordance with the, now

regulated, NSW EPA’s Environmental Guidelines: Solid Waste Landfills. As a result the site was not

capped using the benchmark technique, and is likely to not sufficiently contain or limit contaminants

within the site.

Instead, the site is managed under by the NSW EPA, under the Contaminate Land Management Act

1997. Four notices have been issued to this site, Area 3111 shown in Table 3 (EPA, 2015).



Table 3: Contaminated Land Record of Notices issued for the Former Astra St Landfill

Subsequent to the Voluntary Investigation Proposal (VIP) (refer to Appendix E) issued in 2004,

Newcastle City Council has since contracted GHD Pty Ltd. to carry out a Voluntary Management

Proposal (VMP) (refer to Appendix F) under Section 17 of the Contaminated Land Management Act

1997. The site assessment’s final submission was to be provided to the NSW EPA by August 2013.

Currently, the NSW EPA is reviewing the conclusions of the project.

5.4 Site Description

Taken from GHD’s VIP, 2003:

“The site was filled from the original, unmodified, un-lined ground surface and is estimated

to have a fill thickness of approximately 12m. Prior to filling the site area was a topographic

low point in the landscape, but filling has converted it to a land-formed topographic high.

The site is in close proximity to Ironbark Creek, adjacent Hexham Swamp, a SEPP 14 wetland,

and Shortlands Wetland Centre (Hunter Wetland Centre Australia). Tributaries of the

Ironbark Creek (Canoe Channel) adjoin the site.

The majority of the site was capped with crushed shale and coal washery reject material,

with limited sections covered with a low permeability cap. Most of the site is unused except

for the northeastern quadrant, which is occupied by a golf driving range. Some of the site is

grassed to prevent dust generation and limit erosion of the landfill. Erosion onsite has been

noted, however offsite sediment migration from this erosion is considered to be limited. A

pond located in the northern portion of the site is used primarily as a retention basin for

surface water runoff. The pond intercepts a sub-surface seep of leachate, and at times can be

variably contaminated from this inflow. After heavy rains, the pond overfills and spills into a



tributary of the Ironbark Creek. Leakage from the pond walls is also thought to occur. A clay

berm may have been installed outside of the landfill to prevent leachate from impacting

adjacent water bodies. However, its exact location and design is unknown. No other formal

leachate collection is in place at the site.”

The site is also sporadically vegetated with larger plant species and at times has heavy vehicles

dumping tailings/waste materials.

5.5 Previous Environmental Investigation

The following assessments have been previously reported for the site:

- Robert Carr & Associates (RCA) (2000) Review of Existing Water and Leachate Monitoring

Data: Milestone Two.

Summary of surface water monitoring from 1990 – 2000.

- Subsequent, and ongoing, Groundwater Monitoring Reports by Robert Carr & Associates (2001; 2002) Section 60 Assessment report. Groundwater monitoring conducted biannually from 2001.

- GHD Pty Ltd Voluntary Management Proposal Site Assessments (2013). a. Capital Works; construction of bores on site to facilitate sampling.

b. Remediation; contaminant transport modelling

c. Monitoring; ongoing monitoring program – sampling surface water, groundwater

and leachate and landfill gas.

Existing reports test water and soil quality of the Shortland Wetlands, and the Ironbark Creek and

tributaries.

- BMT WBM Pty Ltd (2010) Environmental Impact Statement: Hunter Wetlands Centre

Hydrological and Ecological Restoration

5.6 Identified issues

Groundwater flow was determined by RCA to flow outwards radially along a hydraulic gradient. The

driving force for these flow patterns are likely due to infiltration on the surface and the slope

gradients. Flow is shown to migrate towards the Iron Bark and subsequent tributaries, and, thus,

could potentially pollute the ecologically sensitive Shortland Wetland (Ramsar wetland) and SEEP 14

wetlands. RCA identified multiple contaminants in its Section 2002 Assessment.

The contaminants included:

- Heavy metals; Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Mercury, Nickel, Lead, Zinc

- Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs); Napthalene, Phenanthrene, Anthracene,

Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene

- Free cyanide

- Nitrate

- Ammonia



As per the EPA, Declaration of Investigation Area, issued 2003, the following concerns were raised:

- The groundwater quality has been degraded by heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) and ammonia contamination resulting from leachate impact;

- The concentrations of heavy metals, PAHs and ammonia in groundwater at the land

boundary adjacent to Ironbark Creek exceed the ANZECC guideline trigger values;

- Leachate contaminated groundwater may potentially migrate from the land into Ironbark

Creek and the adjacent Hexham Swamp (SEPP 14 wetland). Heavy metals and ammonia

contaminants have been detected in Ironbark Creek at levels exceeding ANZECC guideline

trigger values;

- Leachate contaminated groundwater may continue to migrate from the land into Ironbark

Creek if left unchecked and potentially impact aquatic ecosystems; and

- Heavy metals, some PAHs and ammonia are toxic to aquatic organisms and can bio-

accumulate in plants and animals, including aquatic organisms.

Following, the EPA’s Declaration of remediation site, issued 2007, the contaminants of concern

were:

- Non-metallic inorganics – ammonia, total nitrogen and total phosphorus;

- Metal and metalloids – cobalt, copper, nickel and zinc; and

- Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH).

GHD Pty Ltd stated in their site assessment they would test the following, from the 2007 EPA issuing,

as well as:

- Nitrate; and

- Reactive phosphorus

The EPA has considered the matters in s.9 of the Act, and for the following reasons has determined

that the site is contaminated in such a way as to present a significant risk of harm to the

environment:

- Groundwater and the surface water pond at the site are contaminated at levels exceeding

trigger values for the protection of aquatic ecosystems with ammonia in particular and the

other contaminants to a lesser extent.

- The contaminants are migrating from the site in groundwater and surface water to sensitive

and valuable aquatic ecosystems comprising SEPP14 and Ramsar wetlands where

threatened and protected species may be exposed to the contaminants.

ANZEEC trigger guidelines are not site specific. They provide a general indication of water quality and

are used as initial screening. A specific site source-pathway-receptor conceptual model can be

facilitated to indicate whether any risk is posed. This is especially important due to the ecological

sensitivity and importance to the neighbouring environments.



5.7 Climate

The Newcastle region, including Shortland, is classified as temperate, with a moderately dry winter

(hot summer) (BoM, 2012; Gov, 2004; OEH, 2012). The Bureau of Meteorology has a weather station

located at the University of Newcastle (Station Number 061390), which commenced in 1998. The

coordinates are 32.89 °S and 151.71 °E, this station is located approximately 2.27 km to the

coordinates of the Astra Street landfill site - 32°52'16.33"S and 151°41'57.66"E. Older weather and

climate data exists from the Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS, which has been open from 1862.

Whilst, the amount of data history and available parameters are limited in comparison, the

Newcastle University Station provides greater locality measurements for the site.

Average diurnal temperatures ranging from a mean daily minimum of 7.3°C to a mean daily

maximum of 29.1°C from 2001 till 2014. There is moderate variation in annual rainfall with the

higher rainfall months being March through to June and the driest months being August to October.

Mean annual rainfall at 1,110 millimetres from 2002 till 2014. The highest maximum temperature

recorded was 44.1°C in January 2013; and lowest minimum temperature of 1.2°C in July 2002 (BoM,

2015). The high temperatures could cause plant stress, which will dictate plant selection.

Temperatures have never fallen below 0°C so frost is not an issue.

For comparative purposes and quality control, the Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS recorded a

mean annual rainfall of 1,131 millimetres.

5.7.1 Climate – Water Balance

Due to limited access to analytical tools to perform water balance modelling, generic assumptions

will be presented from the available data and relevant studies found in the literature.

A simple construction of the inputs and outputs of rainfall and evapotranspiration data from the

BoM indicates:

- (1) Mean annual rainfall of 1,131 millimetres (Nobbys Signal Station AWS, Data from 2015 was

omitted from the calculation); and

- (2) Mean annual evaporation of approximately 1,400 millimetres

The evaporation value was calculated over a 29 year period -1975 to 2005 using a class A

evaporation pan.

Other data regarding evapotranspiration was found on BoM:

- Areal actual evapotranspiration was 800 – 900 mm

- Areal potential evapotranspiration was 1300 – 1400 mm

The Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS has also kept evapotranspiration data since 2009 till 2014,

presented in Table 4, with a mean average over a 6 year period of:

- 1373 mm

Eq. 1: Input – Output; 1131 (1) – 1400 (2) = -269 mm

This value is simplistic in nature and need other parameters to evaluate water balance for the area.

Models would include soil storage, crop factors, runoff, infiltration, lateral flow, drainage etc. A

study found in the literature is presented below that has assessed the Hunter Region’s suitability for

Evapotranspiration Covers, and presents water balance data.



Table 4: Annual Evaporation and Rainfall Data from Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS; 2009 – 2015, July.

2009 2010 2011

Month Evapotranspiration Rain Evapotranspiration Rain Evapotranspiration Rain

January 185.7 15.4 169.7 59 161 20.6

February 118.8 167.8 148.6 10.8 147.1 34.6

March 114 48.6 152.2 75.4 130.3 80.4

April 103.2 164.6 130.9 22.2 87.4 87.4

May 69.7 158.4 88.1 127.6 85.6 145.6

June 68.4 94 73.2 114.6 71.9 95.8

July 80.9 43.6 55.3 80.4 86 134.2

August 121.3 0.6 96.3 35 81.4 29.4

September 143.4 11.4 120.1 20.8 127.9 96.6

October 145.3 63.8 121 80.2 125.6 79.2

November 87.5 34.2 138.6 88.2 127.6 133.8

December 154.6 49 151.7 56.8 131.3 71.4

Total 1392.8 851.4 1445.7 771 1363.1 1009

2012 2013 2014 2015

Month Evapo- transpiration

Rain Evapo- transpiration

Rain Evapo- transpiration

Rain Evapo-transpiration

Rain

January 137.7 48 158.9 136.6 156.4 11 148.8 86.6

February 81.5 169.6 120.6 138.6 112 207 123.7 39.4

March 100.6 99.4 109.8 140.4 108.8 73.6 134.7 49.2

April 59.5 106.8 97.4 103.8 83.5 134.8 81.8 295.2

May 84.4 24.2 85.2 65.6 80.4 114.6 77.8 123.6

June 53.1 110.8 51.4 110.6 71.8 124.6 55.4 92

July 61.4 78.4 63.8 49.4 80.5 32.6 70.3 34.5

August 104.5 49.2 117 8 75.1 165.8

September 123.9 16.2 149.5 24.4 96.4 52.6

October 160.6 5.8 199.7 48 135.7 33

November 141.9 29.8 139.3 244.2 141.2 31.6

December 167.6 91.4 181.6 13.8 141.2 115.4

Total 1276.7 829.6 1474.2 1083.4 1283 1096.6

The study by Whitehead & Whitehead, 2005 “Does emerging Evapotranspiration (Et) Cover

technology offer a suitable alternative for landfill covers in the Hunter Region?”, evaluates the

climate data to model water balances within the Hunter Region. An analysis was performed at

Williamtown RAAF (Station Number 061078; Location 32°47'36"S and 151°50'9"E; Open 1942),

approximately 15.4 km from the Astra Street Landfill Site. The proximity of this site to the study site

provides valuable and relevant data of the climatic conditions in this region. Values from the study

are presented in Table 5.



Negative values are recorded from the median cumulative stored rainfall data indicating minimal

infiltration. The 90th percentile rainfall values account for data recorded at the higher end of the

spectrum. As a result, the 90th percentile cumulative stored rainfall values from Table 5, are positive

values indicating that an adequate amount of infiltration would occur and a very conservative

approach would be needed. This study used values of rainfall and evaporation for on-site

wastewater management system designs which essentially rely on a similar balance between

evaporation and rainfall to ensure appropriate loading rates and avoid exceeding transpiration bed

storage capacity (Patterson, 2003). It found 90th percentile rainfall has been shown to be

overestimated, up to 300%, whilst monthly median annual rainfall is underestimated approximately

10%. Evaluating the Williamtown RAAF water balance indicates that a phytocap cover in this region

is plausible. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Astra Street landfill Site would have the

capacity to have a phytocap cover, pending further evaluation of available data and future studies.

Patterson (2003) also suggested that that 70th percentile data provides a more reliable measure for

wastewater designs, and perhaps also be acceptable for water balance calculations for ET cover

design.

5.8 Topography

Referring to BMT WBM 2008 EIS report, the topography was depicted for the HWCA. In the scope of

the digital elevation model representation presented in Figure 4 the majority of the Astra Street Site

is in view in the north-eastern quadrant. It indicates that most of is above 15m AHD to

approximately 25m AHD at its highest point. As mention previously in Section 5.4, the site was

altered from a topographic low point to a topographic high in the surrounding area with a fill

amount of approximately 12m.

Table 5: Annual Evaporation and Rainfall Data from Newcastle Nobbys Signal Station AWS; 2009 – 2015, July.



Figure 4: Digital Elevation Model of the Hunter Wetlands and Surrounding Area



5.9 Soil

The Hunter Wetlands is situated on Quaternary Estuarine/lacustrine sediments including silts and

clays (Matthei, 1995). The highlighted area from the geologic map in Appendix B indicates that the

sediment for the site is the same as that found at the HW. According to the map, the Quaternary

sediments include, gravel, sand, silt, clay, “Waterloo rock” marine and freshwater deposits

(Australia. Bureau of Mineral Resources & Geophysics, 1966). The surface soils in the vicinity of the

Astra Street Landfill are sandy (to about 6m below surface level), underlain by clay, with rock

underlying the site at approximately 35m (Haines, Richardson, Agnew, Zoete, & Winning, 2005). The

soil composition of the site is otherwise unknown other than that previously described in Section

5.4; “It was filled from the original, unmodified, unlined ground surface and is estimated to have a

fill thickness of approximately 12 metres…the majority is capped with shale and coal washery reject

material, with limited sections covered with low permeability cap”.

5.9.1 Soil Profile

Soil storage is an important aspect for an effective phytocap to allow sufficient water holding

capacity. The particle size, composition and organisation of sediments greatly influence soil moisture

capacity. Typically, larger particle size and organisation of sediment increase porosity and storage.

Conversely, smaller sized, unorganised sediments lack porosity and permeability. High clay soils have

cohesive forces which creates low rates of permeability, a feature that has made it useful for

providing impermeable caps. The field capacity and wilting point are key aspects to determine in

potential phytocap soils.

From the known information, natural soils in the Hunter Region have a water holding capacity

volume of water held between Field capacity (FC) and Wilting point (WP), this is shown in Table 6

(Kovac & Lawrie, 1991; Matthei, 1995). A model soil profile would be well organised, and have a

particle size and composition representative of a loam. Potentially, a suitable soil profile already

exists at the site with sands, silts and clays noted as present, and that the existing vegetative

groundcover and trees/shrubs appears healthy. The limited capping with clay or coal washery seems

to have not impeded root penetration and vegetation growth. Coal washery is discussed below in

Section 5.9.2 and referenced in Table 5-9-1 as potential alternate soil material. Usually, compacted

sediment with high bulk density can cause problems for root penetration (Smith & May, 2001).

Again, this indicates a poorly designed impermeable cap and/or failure of the cap over time since

closure of the site. However, this is promising for the establishment of newly selected plant species

to create a well-designed and effective phytocap.

Uncompacted soils, with lowers bulk density values, promote deep rooted vegetation and growth,

and effective water storage capacity. This allows the plants to access the entire soil profile during

evapotranspiration. Thorough planning of soil profile depth and root depth of selected plants are

required to prevent root penetration into the waste material. If this is not achieved, plant death may

occur and/or create preferential water flow paths into the waste, which can pose major

environmental risks (Lamb et al., 2014).



As the current soil profile of the site is unknown, it is difficult to propose any potential soil profile

design. However, upon analysis of other established phytocaps and in the literature, a general

overview can be formulated. The soil profile must not be too thick or to thin, and it must allow

sufficient water storage and nutrients for vegetation growth and survival. The Lismore phytocap

used the following design shown in Figure 5:

Table 6: Water Holding Capacity of Natural Soils in the Vicinity of ExistingLlandfills in the Hunter Valley.

Figure 5: The Proposed Lismore Phytocap Soil Profile



A similar design to this may be plausible for the Astra Street Site. The design above has been divided

into three distinct sections, each providing important aspects required for the successful

development of the phytocap. The mulch layer provides a well-drained surficial layer that allows

water percolation and sufficient nutrients. It also promotes oxidation of any anaerobic emission that

are not degraded in the phytocaps rhizosphere and may escape through the cover. The topsoil is of

low density and will have minimal compaction to allow sufficient porosity and permeability. The

lower layer acts as a foundation between the waste materials, and will aid in reducing the

permeability rate by having a greater clay composition and compaction. This will create a similar

scenario to Figure 6, where the lower layer will maintain the water storage within the entire soil

profile for longer for the plants to access and limit drainage into the waste.

5.9.2 Soil Sources

If the soil profile and composition is later determined to be inadequate, Whitehead & Whitehead,

2005, made reference other studies that evaluate natural soil water holding capacities in the Hunter

region for potential use. This is displayed above in Table 8.

The water holding capacity displayed are comparative to the available soil water storage used at the

Lismore site or 10-12% (volumetrically). If there is a limitation or lack of availability due to amounts

of material need or effective costs, alternate media may be suitable for use. This is referred to in

Table 5-9-1 (Whitehead & Whitehead, 2005). The large amount of industry in Newcastle and in the

Kooragang area have ample amounts of material that may be suitable for use and due to the

closeness of proximity, transport costs would be minimised.

Figure 6: Typical soil profile and water balance of a phytocap



5.9.3 Soil Ameliorants

Referred to in section 6.1.1 WMAA’s Guidelines for the Assessment, Design, Construction and

Maintenance of Phytocaps as Final Covers for Landfills, soil additives can improve vegetation growth.

5.10 Vegetation

It is important to utilise species already present at the Hunter Wetlands, and other native species of

the Lower Hunter. In alignment with Hunter Wetlands visions to revegetate the site, rainforest

species were chosen where possible.

A ‘master list’ was first created, cross referencing plants that (Appendix G):

- Are already present on the Hunter Wetlands, Kooragang Wetlands

- Were found to be common rainforest species in the Lower Hunter; and,

- Plants that had a survival rate of fair or above on the initial WMAA trial, and the final plants

selected for the Lismore Landfill phytocap (Lismore phytocap was established to create a

rainforest habitat and koala feeder trees)

This plant list was then reduced to create the suggested plant list shown in Table 8. It was

formulated by selecting plants that met some or all of the following criteria:

- High tolerance to a range of soils and/or salt

- Suitability to known soils

- Diversity of life forms (to establish levels of vegetation i.e. ground cover, canopy)

- Suitable for moderate rainfall based off climate averages

- Moderate to high transpiration rates

- Ability to intercept rainfall in the canopy

- High water uptake

- Moderate root depth, to access entire soil storage profile

Table 7: Possible Alternative Cover Materials Available in the Hunter Region



- Koala feeder trees/habitat

- Shallow, extensive root system for erosion control

- Economic cultivation

- Phytoremediation properties/capacity

Plant justification and website links are provided below in Table 9 for the plant species selected.

Due to a lack information regarding the soil content and the current vegetation on the Astra Street

site, a broader range of potential plant species were selected. Assumptions were made, that the

geographical proximity of plants already found at the HW to the site, coupled with a capacity to

tolerate and grow on a range of soils will allow the majority of plants selected to be suitable. The

Lismore phytocap was used as a model due to its similar climatic rainfall and evaporation data, and

its goal to facilitate a rainforest environment and koala habitat from plant selection.

Further research by higher qualified personal will help improve the reliability of plants chosen. The

master list provides a moderate compilation of plants meeting the initial criteria stated above. As

more information is gathered, providing further site-specific information, some plants may be

substituted out for a more suitable species.

Some current issues with the plant species selected include:

- Unknown compatibility of species when grown together on site.

- Accumulation of toxic material in fodder by plants with phytoremediation capacity. This

poses a risk to wildlife if consumed. The biomass should be cultivated and disposed

of/treated in accordance with NSW EPA legislation.

- Some grasses/reeds may be considered weeds, however, they provide excellent erosion

control due to shallow and extensive root system. They have potential to create

groundcover and for implementation on the outward slopes of the site to control erosion

and, intercept and remediate some runoff off or groundwater.

Vegetation can be sourced from local nurseries in the area. The Hunter Wetlands has its own

nursery, and collects its own seedling to vegetate the area. This Nursery is predominantly run by

volunteers, and is very sustainable. Other nurseries to source from are ‘Trees of Newcastle’ and

‘Newcastle Wildflower Nursery’.



Table 8: Suggested Plant List

Trees

Acacia melanoxylon

Alphinotonia excelsa

Baeckea utilis

Casuarina cunninghamiana

Cynodon dactylon

Eucalyptus grandis

Eucalyptus microcorys

Eucalyptus robusta

Eucalyptus siderophloia

Eucalyptus terreticornis

Lophostemon confertus

Melaleuca ericifolia

Melaleuca quinquenervia

Toona ciliata

Shrubs

Cordyline stricta

Hibiscus tiliaceous

Hypolepis muelleri

Omalanthus populifolius

Solanum nigrum

Typha orientalis

Palms

Archontophoenix cunninghamii

Livistona australis

Grasses/Reeds

Chloris gayana

Imperta cylindrica

Lomandra longifolia

Microlaena stipoides

Phragmites australis

Poa labillardierei

Sporobolus virginicus



Table 9: Justification for Suggested Plant Species Selected









Identification of existing plant species on the site should also be undertaken to assess if any of the species present fit the criteria. As they are already established and, hence, seem healthy and viable. Any weed species may require removal.

5.11 Hydrology

The only hydrological data that exists is from RCA 2002 report referred to in Section 5.5. A map from

the report is shown here in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Groundwater Contour Plan Astra Street Shortland

6 Sediment Quality Testing – Canoe Channel

6.1 Overview

Sediment quality testing was undertaken by myself, with the support of HWCA and the Tom Farrell

Institute, to gather data and quantify any possible contaminants found, mainly, in the Canoe

Channel, adjacent the Astra Street Landfill Site. Sediment sampling is used consistently in

environmental studies to determine contaminants found in water bodies. The fine grained

Quaternary estuarine / lacustrine sediments found at the Hunter Wetlands will naturally accumulate

trace elements and hydrophobic organic contaminants due to sorptive characteristics of the

sediment and contaminants. As a result, the bed sediment may contain relatively large

concentrations. Generally, the concentration of trace elements on stream bed materials increases as

particle size decreases. Low velocity depositional environments can provide time-integrated samples

from the accumulated bed sediments that water samples often do not (Shelton & Capel, 1994).

Furthermore, sediment processes occur at a slower rate than water quality processes, thus,

providing a greater standpoint of the constant conditions. This field study aligns itself with learning

goals established by Hartwick College, and is an academic focal point aimed to improve and build



upon field techniques and sampling, and analysis. Simultaneously, it will provide information

baseline data for and further testing or monitoring that may occur in the future, helping to develop

trends. A transect of seven bed sediment samples were extracted from the Canoe Channel, one from

the Ironbark Creek, and one from Deepbridge Creek and analysed for heavy metal concentrations;

cadmium, chromium, lead, zinc, and nickel.

6.2 Sampling Parameters – Sediment Quality

Sediment samples were collected from the bed of the Canoe Channel, Ironbark Creek and

Deepbridge Creek to test for heavy metal concentration of the following:

- Cadmium;

- Chromium;

- Lead;

- Zinc; and

- Nickel

These heavy metals were detected in previous investigations listed in Section 5.5 & 5.6. The

sediment is fine particulates of loamy/silt clay, with strong adhesive properties. The bed sediment

should provide a sound historical account and accumulation of sediments, and any contaminants

associated with them.

6.3 Sampling Sites

Sediment sampling was conducted by myself on the 2nd of July, 2015, with a total of 10 samples

collected (presented in Table 10 and Figure 8:

- A transect sampling, seven from the Canoe Channel;

- One at Deepbride Creek; and

- One near the Rainforest Shelter at HW, in the Ironbark Creek.

Samples 2-9 serve to isolate the Canoe Channel, whilst samples 1 and 10 serve as ‘controls’ to

compare against.

Table 10: Sampling Site Descriptions

Sample Number Site Location/description GPS Coordinates

1 Deepbridge Creek 32°52'30.06"S; 151°42'7.96"E

2 Canoe Channel 32°52'21.76"S; 151°41'54.56"E

3 Canoe Channel 32°52'19.15"S; 151°41'51.60"E

4 Canoe Channel 32°52'16.45"S; 151°41'48.46"E

5 Canoe Channel 32°52'13.45"S; 151°41'45.07"E

6 Canoe Channel 32°52'10.40"S; 151°41'41.33"E

7 Canoe Channel 32°52'8.00"S; 151°41'38.46"E

8 Canoe Channel 32°52'5.39"S; 151°41'35.44"E

9 Canoe Channel – junction with accessory channel

32°52'2.91"S; 151°41'32.64"E

10 Ironbark Creek – Downstream of Rainforest Shelter

32°52'6.79"S; 151°41'16.86"E



Figure 8: Sediment Sampling Locations



6.4 Laboratory Methods and Analysis

All sediment samples were submitted by Dr. Steven Lucas, from the University of Newcastle and the

Tom Farrell Institute, and analysed by NATA accredited ALS Water Global. All costs incurred were

covered by TFI. The metals of relevance were analysed by the protocols specified by “USEPA 200.8

mod.(Ext.) APHA (2012) 3120(Anal.) (Metals)”.

The detection limits were set to ANZEEC and wetland sensitive limits specified by NEPM.

6.5 Sampling Method

Bed Sediment Sampling was conducted on the 2nd of July, 2015, with a total of 10 samples extracted

from the Canoe Channel, Ironbark Creek and Deepbridge Creek.

Polyethylene containers were cleaned for storage of sediment samples. Samples were extracted

using a 2.8m length and 32mm PVC pressure pipe system, based off other similar low-cost models

(Cooper, Schiebe, & Ritchie, 1991; Somsiri et al., 2006; WRP, 1993). The sampling device was

constructed using two lengths of PVC pipe, joined with a brace and PVC cement. A hand operated

ball valve was attached to the top end of the pipe to control the pressure. The bottom end of the

pipe was cut at an angle to improve penetration into the bed sediment.

The sampling method used was designed to produce little disturbance to the bed, and limit water

above the core sample. As we were not interested in testing layers of the sediment, but rather the

overall composition of the bed sediment profile, the sampling device did not accommodate to

preserve the depositional layers of the core sample.

The following procedure was adapted and used:

- Prior to immersion of the PVC pipe into the water, the valve was closed to prevent water

from entering the column.

- The PVC pipe was lowered vertically into the water until the bottom end touched the

bottom.

- The valve was opened and the pipe forced down rapidly to penetrate the sediment with

force until the bottom of the bed is reached. Minimal time between opening the valve and

penetrating the bed sediment will reduce water entry.

- The pipe was rotated to loosen the pipe from the sediment once a firm plug of sediment was

established. The valve was then closed to create a vacuum, and the pipe withdrawn, still in

its vertical position, above the water surface

- The valve was then opened to absolve the vacuum and allow the air pressure to enter from

the top and force the sediment sample out into the sample container.

- The sediment samples collected were placed on ice immediately after extraction for the

entire sampling period (approximately 3 hours), and then transferred to TFI for sampling

storage and preparation for laboratory analysis.

The sampling device was rinsed out thoroughly three times between samples to flush out any

remnant sediment.

Physical description of locations, weather conditions, GPS coordinates (Go Finder 2), and equipment

list were notated in a field notebook.



6.6 Sampling Results

A summary of the soil sampling results analysed by ALS is presented in Table 11 and Figure 9. A

complete table of results for all metals is available in Appendix H.

Table 11: Soil Sampling Results - ALS

Contaminant A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10

Cadmium 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2

Chromium 22 9 32 9 20 19 21 36 25 18

Lead 157 17 9 49 37 75 53 22 51 160

Nickel 32 16 30 11 31 26 38 42 43 41

Zinc 469 90 52 183 207 401 374 144 409 788

Assessment of the soil sample results were compared against sediment quality guidelines set by

ANZEEC (ANZEEC, 2000) and the NEPC (NEPC, 2011). ISQG Trigger values and Ecological Investigation

Levels (EIL’s) are used to provide varying levels of ecosystem protection depending on land use and

ecology. The Hunter Wetlands can be assessed by the land use category area of ecological

significance and the ISQG-Low Trigger values, as it is a site of ecological significance, identified in

Section 2.3.

Contaminant concentration values above the trigger values warrant further site-specific

investigation and evaluation. This is specified by the NEPC in the NEPM Assessment of Site

Contamination (NEPC, 1999). Recommended sediment quality guidelines are presented in Table 12

and 13.



Figure 9: Bed Sediment Comparative Sample Analysis



Table 12: Summary of the EILs for Fresh and Aged Contamination in Soil with Various Land Use



Using ‘aged’ EIL’s trigger values for land use area of ecological significance in Table 12;

- Cd does not have a trigger value;

- Cr (III) was < 60 in all samples;

- Pb was < 470 in all samples;

- Ni was > 5 mg/kg in all samples

- Zn was > 15 mg/kg in all samples

Using the ISQC-Low trigger values in Table 13;

- Cd in sample A10 was > 1.5 mg/kg (2 mg/kg);

- Cr was < 80 mg/kg in all samples;

- Pb in samples A1, A6, A7, A9 & A10 were > 50 mg/kg (157; 75; 53; 51; 160; mg/kg,

respectively);

- Ni in samples A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9 & A10 were > 21mg/kg (32; 30; 31;26; 38; 42; 43; 41

mg/kg, respectively);

- Zn in samples A1, A5, A6, A7, A9 & A10 were > 200 mg/kg (469; 207; 401; 374; 409; 788

mg/kg, respectively).

Table 13: ANZEEC Sediment quality and associated trigger value guidelines



6.7 Discussion of Sampling Results

The difference in trigger values for the ISQC and EIL’s and land use is due to different derivation

methodologies. The ISQC values are used in the ANZEEC which provide species sensitivity

distribution to contaminants, which was adapted from NOAA study that investigated biological and

chemical data from numerous modelling, laboratory, and field studies performed in marine and

estuarine sediments (Long, MacDonald, Smith, & Calder, 1995). The NEPC EIL’s presented here are

generic derivation that aim to protect areas of ecological significance up to 99%. This includes the

protection of biota supporting ecological processes, including: micro-organisms and soil

invertebrates, native flora and fauna, introduced flora and fauna, transitory or permanent wildlife

(NEPC, 2011). A newer, more specific and accurate analytical tool is available from the NEPM, the

ASM NEPM toolkit. The new derivation calculator requires site specific values for: CEC, soil pH,

organic carbon content, measured background concentration, Australian State, and traffic volume.

Our sampling plan didn’t include these other parameters, thus, the generic values were used. More

information regarding the EIL calculator can be accessed here:

http://www.scew.gov.au/system/files/pages/9b067155-4726-423b-989b-5263263b9c16/files/eil-

calculation-spreadsheet-december-2010.xls

The ‘aged’ limits for the EIL’s were used as the landfill been closed for well over 2 years and thus

serve to test for potential aged contaminants from the former landfill, opposed, to any other recent

sources of contamination. Although the values for each contaminant vary between the two testing

criteria used, this was rationalised as these trigger values, when exceeded, prompt further site-

specific investigation (NEPC, 2011). This was necessary due to a lack of information regarding the

source site and other soil parameters.

Most of the results were above trigger values for both the ISQC-Low and EIL’s for land use of

ecological significance. This data seems to indicate contaminants are present in the Canoe channel,

Deepbridge Creek and Ironbark. Similar findings have been detailed in previous reports referred to in

Section 5.6 for contaminants found. These contaminants may pose a risk to the ecologically sensitive

Hunter Wetland.

The sample site A1 and A10 were used to try and isolate the Canoe Channel transect samples and

are found ‘upstream’ from the former landfill. A1 is located outside of the Canoe Channel and away

from groundwater flow of the landfill, therefore, it would have a low probability of contamination

from the landfill at the A1 sample site. A10 is located upstream from where the Canoe Channel flows

into the Ironbark, and then adjoins onto the Hunter River. Therefore, any contamination measured

at site A10 would be from other sources.

The values for contaminants found at A1 and A10 are higher or of comparable numbers to the

transect values. This seems to indicate that contamination from the former Astra Street Landfill is

minimal or comparable to other sources in the surrounding area. This seems plausible as the area is

surrounded by industrial works, both in the past and present, and also that the Wetland was

constructed upon a remnant landfill previously. Also, the area is largely interconnected in terms of

the catchment area and interaction of water bodies. Conversely, if the values were higher in the

Canoe Channel transect than both A1 and A10 this would indicate that the landfill is most likely

contributing greater contamination than the surrounding area. This does not disprove that the

landfill is not responsible for the contaminants found in the Canoe Channel, as most values are still

above trigger limits. Interestingly, most of the contaminants above the trigger values found in the

Canoe Channel are highest, generally, from A5 to A9. Referring to Robert Carr & Associates previous

investigation Groundwater Contour Plan presented in Section 6.5 (Figure 7), we can see preferential

http://www.scew.gov.au/system/files/pages/9b067155-4726-423b-989b-5263263b9c16/files/eil-calculation-spreadsheet-december-2010.xls

http://www.scew.gov.au/system/files/pages/9b067155-4726-423b-989b-5263263b9c16/files/eil-calculation-spreadsheet-december-2010.xls



flow paths that enter the Canoe Channel approximately at the sample site A2, A4 & A5, and A8.

From the latter groundwater flow paths, A4 & A5, and A8, and the higher concentration values, we

can draw conclusion that if contamination is coming from the landfill, the majority seems to be

entering though these groundwater paths.

6.7.1 Metals

6.7.1.1 Lead

Lead in high levels can pose serious harm to humans and has a high potential to bioaccumulate in

food, animals and plants (Wuana & Okieimen, 2011). Common sources include batteries, lead-fuel

and lead based paint. Also, lead can be present in soils in combination with sulfur or oxygen (Abadin

et al., 2007). High lead levels were found at both A1 and A10 and are most likely due to industrial

sources. The A1 sample site is situated under a bridge crossing with high volumes of traffic which

may be a source of pollutants. Also, the recent construction of the Newcastle inner city bypass

would have produced sediment and other potential material into the system. Acid Sulfate Soil

exposure was a risk identified in the proposal for the bypass construction that could reduce water

pH (RTA, 2006). Alteration of pH could influence contaminant mobility (Leth & Gregersen, 2005).

6.7.1.2 Chromium

Chromium wasn’t found to exceed any trigger values, and poses no immediate concern.

6.7.1.3 Cadmium

Cadmium was found to be above the ISQC limit in only sample A10 by 0.5 mg/kg. This may again be a

result of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides used in the nearby residential property.

It is also found in batteries, PVC, detergents and electrical compounds (Wuana & Okieimen, 2011).

Some of these materials may have been present in past land use. Cadmium has potential to

biomagnify up the food chain, and has been observed to have numerous health effects in humans

from consumption of cadmium contaminated food (Jarup, Berglund, Elinder, Nordberg, & Vahter,

1998). In plants and microorganisms, negative effects have been minimal (Nies, 1999). The

exceeded values is minimal, however, further monitoring from the same location and at more points

along the Ironbark may help determine a source or presence of cadmium in amounts that exceed

the low trigger values, and increase the reliability of the results.

6.7.1.4 Nickel

Nickel was above trigger values in at least either the ISQC or EIL’s for all samples. Most of the values

are double the ISQC limit of 21 mg/kg. High levels of nickel can cause cancer and retard growth in

microorganisms and plants, but generally does not bioaccumulate in animals and plants (Wuana &

Okieimen, 2011). However some hyper-accumulating nickel plants do exist (Jaffré, Pillon, Thomine,

& Merlot, 2013). Nickel is commonly found in metal production, is released into the atmosphere via

power plants and garbage incinerators (Khodadoust, Reddy, & Maturi, 2004). Also, nickel can enter

water solution via wastewater effluents. The bioavailability of nickel in the sediment in the Canoe

Channel should be low, as nickel, typically, adsorbs to sediment and becomes immobilised. Leaching

can occur if the soils are or become acidic (Wuana & Okieimen, 2011).



6.7.1.4 Zinc

Zinc levels were the highest in all samples in comparison to the other metals tested, with A10 having

a significantly high value. Zinc is a transition metal that can cause health and environmental

problems in high amounts. This heavy metal can accumulate in fish and can biomagnify if consumed.

Zinc uptake from plants is not tolerated well and can retard growth. It also negatively influences

microorganism and earthworm activity in contaminated soils that reduces the rate of breakdown of

organic matter (Martınez & Motto, 2000). The high zinc level at A10 may be from urban sources that

are in close proximity to the bank. Sources such as effluent wastewater, fertiliser and pesticides

would also increase zinc levels. During sampling in this area, visible waste was evident from the

houses nearby. Sediment sources were found to enter the Ironbark Creek from urban runoff and

subsoil, topsoil and channel bank erosion (Ormerod, 1999). Elevated zinc levels were also reported

to be a result of site impacts and background factors (RCA, 2001).

6.7.2 Biogeochemical Processes

Wetlands are natural carbon sinks and sequester much of the atmospheric carbon as peat, in

sediment and plant biomass (Bridgham, Megonigal, Keller, Bliss, & Trettin, 2006). Environmental

factors found in wetland settings that may affect the potential mobility of metals are salinity,

temperature, particle size, organic matter and pH (Förstner, 1993). Large amounts of organic soil

carbon accumulate in fine-sediment estuarine environments (Meade, 1972). The soil samples taken

from the canoe channel and surrounding tributaries were all fine-grained sediments, most likely clay

and silts. The Ironbark creek was found to have a high overall composition of clays and silts (Hyne &

Everett, 1998). Also, due to the depositional environment, it would assumedly have high organic

carbon content. A previous study by Hyne & Everett, 1998 showed the Ironbark Creek to have an

organic carbon composition of 3.5%. Clays, silts and organics generally have high cation exchange

capacities (CEC) that provide multiple exchange sites for heavy metals and other contaminants to

bind via adsorption (Lau & Chu, 1999). Thus, these factors would reduce the mobility and

bioavailability of heavy metals from the sediment. Bioassays completed in wetlands with highly

contaminated sediment showed low toxicity levels in the bioindicator organisms, indicating, poor

mobilisation and bioavailability of the contaminants (Lau & Chu, 1999, 2000). Whilst, some of our

results were above trigger values in both the ISQC and EIL’s, an imminent risk to water quality, and

flora and fauna at Hunter Wetlands seems low.

The low contaminant values found in Canoe Channel, comparatively to sampling site A1 and A10,

could be due the remediation ability of the Wetland. Wetlands are often used as passive

remediation system that process contaminant via biogeochemical processes (Prasad, Greger, &

Aravind, 2005). Processes such as phytoaccumulation has been shown to occur in wetland settings

(Keller, 2011; Zayed, Gowthaman, & Terry, 1998). It is possible that the Phragmites australis that

lines the bank of the Canoe Channel maybe processing and accumulating contaminants (refer to

section 6.4 for phytoremediation properties of Phragmites australis).



6.7.3. Further Recommendations

Pending the release and subsequent results of the Site assessment from GHD Pty Ltd, regarding their

own groundwater and soil monitoring program, further investigation may be warranted.

The sediment sampling conducted has limitations and could be improved in a multitude of areas.

Limitations include:

1. Lack of access to information regarding the source site (landfill)

2. Minimal data or previous investigations to compare results against

3. Lack of sampling data, i.e. sampling and monitoring could occur more frequently

4. No biological studies that give indication of toxicology to biota present in the stream

channel, i.e. microorganisms, macroinvertebrates etc.

By addressing the addressing the limitations it would:

1. Provide data about the contaminants, hydrology, sediments, other soil physiochemical

parameters etc.

2. Increase the reliability and validity of our findings

3. Increase the scope and understanding of environmental relationships and processes in

regards to changes in seasons, tidal fluctuations, extreme weather events etc.

4. Assesses the receptor, since previous reports indicate the landfill as a source and leaching

and groundwater as a pathway. Therefore, it adds weighting to how the levels of

contaminants found in the sediment relate to contaminant mobility and bioavailability, and

thus, ecotoxicity.

Concluding, the values found to be above the trigger values for the ISQC and EIL’s require further

contextual analysis to provide relevance pertaining to their toxicity in the environment. The

bioavailability, bioaccumulation and a conceptual source-pathway-receptor modelling is required to

progress the study past these initial screening/investigative parameters.



7 Summary of Report and Recommendations

This report aims to provide sufficient information for possible revegetation and redevelopment of

part of the former Astra Street Landfill into a Rainforest Reserve with some attachment/ownership

to the Hunter Wetlands.

Phytocapping technology is presented and justified as a suitable pathway to achieve this. Data has

been gathered from the literature and reviewed the results of the A-ACAP study conducted, trialling

phytocaps in different climates around Australia. The Lismore phytocap has served as a model to

achieve a phytocap that promotes native rainforest species and koala habitat. A generic phytocap

design and potential planting list are provided. This information is limited due to insufficient

information on the site. Further analysis by an assemblage of more qualified personal in specific

scientific disciplines i.e. environmental scientists, engineers, botanists, Eco-toxicologists, botanists

and other relevant scientific disciplines would increase the reliability and validity of design options

presented in this report and the assessment of site characteristics.

The sediment sampling confirmed reports of contaminants found in previous studies from the NSW

EPA, RCA, GHD, NCC and other relevant organisations. It aimed to provide first-hand information of

contamination that may be coming from the site. It also, met academic requirements required by my

College.

The progress for development of the site should be reassessed once either the Site Assessment from

GHD is attained or when the NSW EPA delivers its verdict on the next course of action in regards to

the Contaminated Land Act 1997. Further information on the site will allow more specific plans to be

constructed. Access or approval to conduct trials on-site will help to alleviate and assess any short-

comings in design and provide options for improvement.

The information presented would be useful if any studies on the site were to continue by any other

individual or organisation. A meeting was held with Nanthi Bolan, from CRCCARE at the University of

Newcastle. He expressed an interest in the site and goals expressed by myself and Stuart. It is

possible that a partnership could be formed with CRCCARE. Other faculties within the University of

Newcastle could implicate continued monitoring and studies of the surrounding tributaries to

improve upon the Sediment sampling completed in Section 7. Steven Lucas from TFI, supported me

with the sediment project and may be interested in providing further assistance for studies

regarding the site. Environmental projects such as this, align itself with core principles recognised by

TFI regarding conservation and environment. PHD students from either TFI or CRCCARE may be

willing to undertake further study on the site and could pursue grants or scholarships to fund their

studies.

Funding remains problem if Hunter Wetland is to be involved. That is why a partnership is crucial to

the progression. The Ian Potter Foundation provides grants and funding for environmental and

conservation projects. Other funding options may exist to facilitate the project. The Volunteer body

present at the Hunter Wetland will reduce any cost to revegetate the site. This is beneficial element

that the Hunter Wetland could present to the Newcastle City Council in the hope of formulating an

agreement. Interestingly, NCC is a supporter A-ACAP so assumingly they would support the idea of a

phytocap as an option (WMAA, 2009).



Other options of remediation exist that may be worth investigating in the future, including:

- Permeable Reactive Barrier, filters contaminants

- Vermiremediation, earthworm assisted bioremediation

- Microbial remediation, microbes assisted bioremediation

- Phytoremediation, plant assisted bioremediation, potential economic biomass farming

- Slope adjustments

- Biotechnology

- Economic

Community engagement and liaison with relevant stakeholders are necessary to create awareness of

the current situation and to assess any proposal for redevelopment of the site. Release of

information through the media may help to create a ‘voice’ to increase the likelihood of action

and/or bring in other organisation or individuals who may offer funding, recommendation or

expertise.



References

Abadin, H., Ashizawa, A., Stevens, Y.-W., Llados, F., Diamond, G., Sage, G., . . . Swarts, S. G. (2007). Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta (GA): Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Albright, W. H., Benson, C. H., Gee, G. W., Abichou, T., Tyler, S. W., & Rock, S. A. (2006). Field performance of three compacted clay landfill covers. Vadose Zone Journal, 5(4), 1157-1171.

Allen Jr, L., Sinclair, T., & Bennett, J. (1997). Evapotranspiration of vegetation of Florida: perpetuated misconceptions versus mechanistic processes. Paper presented at the Proceedings-Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida.

ANZEEC, A. (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, 1-103.

Archer, M., & Caldwell, R. (2004). Response of six Australian plant species to heavy metal contamination at an abandoned mine site. Water, air, and soil pollution, 157(1-4), 257-267.

Ashwath, N., & Venkatraman, K. (2010). Phytocapping: An alternative technique for landfill remediation. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management, 6(1-2), 51-70.

Australia. Bureau of Mineral Resources, G., & Geophysics (Cartographer). (1966). Australia 1:250 000 geological series. SI 56-2, Newcastle [cartographic material] / Published by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Department of National Development ; in conjunction with the [States Geological Surveys].

Blanch, S. (2014). Location of Proposed Newcastle Rainforest Reserve. BMT WBM. (2010). Environmental Impact Statement: Hunter Wetlands Centre Hydrological and

Ecological Restoration BoM, B. o. M. (2012). Köppen Climate Maps. Commonwealth of Australia, Bureau of Meteorology. BoM, B. o. M. (2015). Weather Summary - Newcastle University. Commonwealth of Australia,

Bureau of Meteorology. Bonanno, G., & Giudice, R. L. (2010). Heavy metal bioaccumulation by the organs of Phragmites

australis (common reed) and their potential use as contamination indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10(3), 639-645.

Bridgham, S. D., Megonigal, J. P., Keller, J. K., Bliss, N. B., & Trettin, C. (2006). The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands, 26(4), 889-916.

Cardwell, A. J., Hawker, D. W., & Greenway, M. (2002). Metal accumulation in aquatic macrophytes from southeast Queensland, Australia. Chemosphere, 48(7), 653-663. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00164-9

Chaudhry, T., Hayes, W., Khan, A., & Khoo, C. (1998). Phytoremediation- focusing on accumulator plants that remediate metal-contaminated soils. Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 4(1), 37-51.

Chaudhry, T. M. (1999). Biogeochemical characterization of metalliferous wastes and potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizae in their phytoremediation.

Cooper, C. M., Schiebe, F. R., & Ritchie, J. C. (1991). An inexpensive sampler for obtaining bulk sediment cores. Environmental Geology and Water Sciences, 18(2), 115-117.

Dwyer, S. F. (1998). Alternative landfill covers pass the test. Civil Engineering—ASCE, 68(9), 50-52. Ederli, L., Reale, L., Ferranti, F., & Pasqualini, S. (2004). Responses induced by high concentration of

cadmium in Phragmites australis roots. Physiologia Plantarum, 121(1), 66-74. EPA, N. (2015). Record of Notices - Shortland - Former Astra Street Landfill. Contaminated Land Act

1997. Förstner, U. (1993). Metal Speciation - General Concepts and Applications. International Journal of

Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 51(1-4), 5-23. doi: 10.1080/03067319308027608

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-6535(02)00164-9



Froome, C., Venkatraman, K., & Ashwath, N. (2010). Field performance of a phytocap at Lakes Creek landfill, Rockhampton, Australia. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 21(2), 237-252.

Gaskin, S. E., & Bentham, R. H. (2010). Rhizoremediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soil using Australian native grasses. Science of The Total Environment, 408(17), 3683-3688. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.004

GHD, P. L. (2003). Astra Street Landfill Voluntary Investigation Proposal (VIP). Contaminated Land Act 1997.

Gov, N. (2004). Newcastle Catchment Characteristics. Newcastle Stormwater Management Plan. Grant, C., Campbell, C., & Charnock, N. (2002). Selection of species suitable for derelict mine site

rehabilitation in New South Wales, Australia. Water, air, and soil pollution, 139(1-4), 215-235.

Grisey, E., Laffray, X., Contoz, O., Cavalli, E., Mudry, J., & Aleya, L. (2012). The bioaccumulation performance of reeds and cattails in a constructed treatment wetland for removal of heavy metals in landfill leachate treatment (Etueffont, France). Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 223(4), 1723-1741.

Haines, P., Richardson, D., Agnew, L., Zoete, T., & Winning, G. (2005). Environmental impact statement: Hexham Swamp rehabilitation project: A report to Hunter–Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority by WBM Oceanics Australia.

Hayes, W., Chaudhry, T., Buckney, R., & Khan, A. (2003). Phytoaccumulation of trace metals at the Sunny Corner mine, New South Wales, with suggestions for a possible remediation strategy. Australasian Journal of Ecotoxicology, 9(1), 69-82.

Herbert, C., & Club, H. B. O. (2007). Distribution, abundance and status of birds in the Hunter estuary. Hunter Bird Observers Club Special Report No, 4.

Hu, F., Zhang, J., Yang, W., Wu, F., Liu, Y., Liu, K., . . . Huang, X. (2012). Effects of Pb Stress on the Growth, Development and Pb Enrichment Properties of Toona ciliata Roem Saplings. Journal of Agro-Environment Science, 31(2), 284-291.

HUANG, Y., LIU, D., WANG, Y., WANG, X., & LI, J. (2006). Heavy metals accumulation by hydrophytes [J]. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 5, 014.

Hyne, R., & Everett, D. (1998). Application of a benthic euryhaline amphipod, Corophium sp., as a sediment toxicity testing organism for both freshwater and estuarine systems. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology, 34(1), 26-33.

Jaffré, T., Pillon, Y., Thomine, S., & Merlot, S. (2013). The metal hyperaccumulators from New Caledonia can broaden our understanding of nickel accumulation in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4, 279. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00279

Jarup, L., Berglund, M., Elinder, C. G., Nordberg, G., & Vahter, M. (1998). Health effects of cadmium exposure--a review of the literature and a risk estimate. Scand J Work Environ Health, 24 Suppl 1, 1-51.

Keeling, S. M., & Werren, G. (2005). Phytoremediation: The uptake of metals and metalloids by rhodes grass grown on metal‐contaminated soil. Remediation Journal, 15(2), 53-61.

Keller, J. (2011). Effectiveness of wetland remediation on heavy metals in storm water runoff. Journal of Student Research in Environmental Science at Appalachian.

Kelly, M. (2013). Toxic threat to wetlands. Newcastle Herald. Khire, M. V., Benson, C. H., & Bosscher, P. J. (1997). Water balance modeling of earthen final covers.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Khodadoust, A. P., Reddy, K. R., & Maturi, K. (2004). Removal of nickel and phenanthrene from

kaolin soil using different extractants. Environmental Engineering Science, 21(6), 691-704. Kovac, M., & Lawrie, J. W. (1991). Soil landscapes of the Singleton 1: 250 000 sheet: Soil Conservation

Service of NSW. Kumar, P., Mandal, B., & Dwivedi, P. (2011). Heavy metals scavenging of soils and sludges by

ornamental plants. Journal of Applied Horticulture (Lucknow), 13(2), 144-146.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.004



Lamb, D. T., Venkatraman, K., Bolan, N., Ashwath, N., Choppala, G., & Naidu, R. (2014). Phytocapping: An alternative technology for the sustainable management of landfill sites. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 44(6), 561-637.

Lau, S. S. S., & Chu, L. M. (1999). Contaminant release from sediments in a coastal wetland. Water Research, 33(4), 909-918. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00286-3

Lau, S. S. S., & Chu, L. M. (2000). The significance of sediment contamination in a coastal wetland, Hong Kong, China. Water Research, 34(2), 379-386. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00145-1

Leth, P. M., & Gregersen, M. (2005). Ethylene glycol poisoning. Forensic science international, 155(2), 179-184.

Li, Y., Liu, J., Liu, Y., & Li, X. (2009). Effects of EDTA on mechanism of lead accumulation in Typha orientalis Presl. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology, 83(4), 553-557.

Long, E. R., MacDonald, D. D., Smith, S. L., & Calder, F. D. (1995). Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental management, 19(1), 81-97.

Martınez, C., & Motto, H. (2000). Solubility of lead, zinc and copper added to mineral soils. Environmental Pollution, 107(1), 153-158.

Matthei, L. (1995). Soil landscapes of the Newcastle 1: 100 000 sheet (Allworth, Stockton, Maitland, Paterson): Dept. of Land and Water Conservation.

McJannet, D. (2008). Water table and transpiration dynamics in a seasonally inundated Melaleuca quinquenervia forest, north Queensland, Australia. Hydrological Processes, 22(16), 3079-3090.

Meade, R. H. (1972). Sources and sinks of suspended matter on continental shelves Shelf sediment transport (pp. 249-262): Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Stroudsburg, Pa.

NEPC, N. E. P. C. (1999). Schedule B1 - Guideline on Investigation Levels for Soil & Groundwater. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.

NEPC, N. E. P. C. (2011). Schedules B5a - Guideline on Ecological Risk Assessment. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.

Nies, D. H. (1999). Microbial heavy-metal resistance. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 51(6), 730-750.

NSW EPA. (2015). Solid Waste Landfills. Draft Environmental Guidelines. OEH, O. o. E. a. H. (2012). Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands for the Hunter Estuary Ramsar

Sites Information Service. Ormerod, L. M. (1999). Sedimentation Rates and Sediment Provenance Within a Predominantly

Urbanised Catchment: Ironbark Creek, New South Wales: University of Newcastle. Patterson, R. A. (2003). Rainfall Statistics for On-site Wastewater Management. Lanfax Laboratories,

Armidale. Paz-Alberto, A. M., Sigua, G. C., Baui, B. G., & Prudente, J. A. (2007). Phytoextraction of lead-

contaminated soil using vetivergrass (Vetiveria zizanioides L.), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica L.) and carabaograss (Paspalum conjugatum L.). Environmental Science and Pollution Research-International, 14(7), 498-504.

Prasad, M., Greger, M., & Aravind, P. (2005). 24 Biogeochemical Cycling of Trace Elements by Aquatic and Wetland Plants: Relevance to Phytoremediation. Trace Elements in the Environment: Biogeochemistry, Biotechnology, and Bioremediation, 451.

RCA, R. C. A. (2001). Geotechnical Assessment of Flood Gate Opening: Ironbark Creek Hexham

WBM Oceanics. Read, J., Wevill, T., Fletcher, T., & Deletic, A. (2008). Variation among plant species in pollutant

removal from stormwater in biofiltration systems. Water Research, 42(4–5), 893-902. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.08.036

RTA, R. T. A. (2006). Review of Environmental Factors NSW RTA, Main Volume.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00286-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00145-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(99)00145-1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.08.036



Salt, M., Lightbody, P., Stuart, R., Albright, W., & Yeates, R. (2011). Guidelines for the assessment, design, construction and maintenance of phytocaps as final covers for landfills. Waste Management Association of Australia.

Shelton, L. R., & Capel, P. D. (1994). Guidelines for collecting and processing samples of stream bed sediment for analysis of trace elements and organic contaminants for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: US Geological Survey; USGS Earth Science Information Center, Open-File Reports Section [distributor].

Sinha, R. K., Herat, S., & Tandon, P. (2007). Phytoremediation: Role of plants in contaminated site management EnVironmental Bioremediation Technologies (pp. 315-330): Springer.

Smith, K. D., & May, P. B. (2001). Soil design and vegetation establishment on landfill sites: engineering constraints versus biological opportunities. Proceedings of the 2nd Australia and New Zealand Conference on Environmental Geotechnics - GeoEnvironment.

Somsiri, T., Oanh, D. T. H., Chinabut, S., Phuong, N. T., Shariff, M., Yusoff, F. M., . . . Bertone, S. (2006). A simple device for sampling pond sediment. Aquaculture, 258(1), 650-654.

Venkatraman, K., & Ashwath, N. (2009). Phytocapping: an innovative technique to reduce methane emission from landfills. Paper presented at the Environmental Research Event 2009.

Wang, J. Y., Yang, L., Tseng, C.-C., & Hsu, H.-L. (2008). Application of phytoremediation on soil contaminated by pyrene. Environmental Engineering Science, 25(6), 829-838.

Wei, S., Zhou, Q., & Koval, P. V. (2006). Flowering stage characteristics of cadmium hyperaccumulator Solanum nigrum L. and their significance to phytoremediation. Science of The Total Environment, 369(1–3), 441-446. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.06.014

Wei, S., Zhou, Q., & Wang, X. (2005). [Cadmium-hyperaccumulator Solanum nigrum L. and its accumulating characteristics]. Huan jing ke xue= Huanjing kexue/[bian ji, Zhongguo ke xue yuan huan jing ke xue wei yuan hui" Huan jing ke xue" bian ji wei yuan hui.], 26(3), 167-171.

White Jr, P. M., Wolf, D. C., Thoma, G. J., & Reynolds, C. M. (2006). Phytoremediation of alkylated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a crude oil-contaminated soil. Water, air, and soil pollution, 169(1-4), 207-220.

Whitehead, B., & Whitehead, J. (2005). Does emerging evapotranspiration (ET) cover technology offer a suitable alternative for landfill covers in the Hunter Region?| NOVA. The University of Newcastle's Digital Repository.

Winning, G., Ekert, P., Conway, K., & Trute, P. (2013). Shortland Wetlands - Site Management Plan 2013-2023. Hunter Wetland Centre Australia.

WMAA. (2009). The A-ACAP Fact sheet 2 - WMAA. WMAA. WRP. (1993). Collection of Undisturbed Bulk Samples. WRP Technical Note SD-EV-4.1. Wuana, R. A., & Okieimen, F. E. (2011). Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources,

chemistry, risks and best available strategies for remediation. ISRN Ecology, 2011. Zayed, A., Gowthaman, S., & Terry, N. (1998). Phytoaccumulation of trace elements by wetland

plants: I. Duckweed. Journal of environmental quality, 27(3), 715-721.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.06.014



Appendices

Appendix A – Internship Letter of Acceptance





Appendix B – Geological Map of Newcastle: HW Quaternary estuarine/lacustrine

sediments



Appendix C – Government Information (Public Access) Application Submission









Appendix D – GIPA Notice of Decision









Appendix E – Voluntary Investigation Proposal























Appendix F – Voluntary Management Proposal



















Appendix G – Plant Master List

HW - Hunter Wetland Estuary LS - Lismore WMAA Trial and Final Plants Selected

RF - Rainforest Plants Found in the Lower Hunter, NSW

Botanical Name Common Name Location

Acacia melanoxylon Sally Wattle LS

Acmena smithii Creek Lillipilly HW, RF

Adiantum aethiopicum Maidenhair Fern RF

Adiantum formosum Giant Maidenhair RF

Adiantum hispidium Rough Maidenhair RF

Adiantum silvaticum Creeping Maidenhair RF

Alphitonia excelsa Red Ash HW, RF

Archontophoenix cunninghamii Bangalow Palm HW, RF

Baeckea utilis Mountain Baeckea RF

Breynia oblongifolia Coffee Bush HW, RF

Callicoma serratifolia Black Wattle HW, LS, RF

Cassine australis Red Olive Berry HW, RF

Casuarina cunninghamiana She Oak HW, RF

Chloris gayana Rhodes Grass HW, RF

Cissus antartica Kangaroo Vine RF

Cissus hypoglauca Water Vine RF

Claoxylon australe Brittlewood RF

Clematis aristata Old Man's Beard RF

Clerodendron tomentosum Hairy Clarodedron HW, RF

Commelina cyanea Native Wandering Jew HW, RF

Cordyline stricta Narrow-leafed Palm Lily HW, LS

Cryptocarya hypospodia Nothern Laurel HW, RF

Cupaniopsis anarcardiodes Tuckeroo HW, RF

Cynanchum elegans White Wax Flower HW, RF

Cynodon dactylon Couch HW, RF

Decaspermum humile Silky Myrtle LS

Desmosdum acanthocladum Thorny Pea LS

Dianella caerulea Blue Flax Lily HW, LS, RF

Dianella longifolia Tall Flax Lily RF

Dioscorea transversa Native Yam RF

Diospyros australis Black Plum RF

Dipliglottis australis Native Tamarind RF

Dubosia myoporoides Corkwood RF

Dysoxylum fraserianum Rosewood RF

Elaeocarpus obovatus Hard Quandong HW, RF

Elaeocarpus reticulatus Blue Berry Ash HW, RF

Eucalyptus grandis Rose Gum LS

Eucalyptus microcorys Tallowwood LS

Eucalyptus robusta Swamp Mahogany LS

Eucalyptus siderophloia Northern Grey Ironbark HW

Eucalyptus terreticornis Forest Red Gum LS, RF

Eupomatia laurina Bolwara HW, RF

Euroschinus falcata Ribbonwood RF

Eustrephus latifolius Wombat Berry HW, RF

Ficus coronata Creek Sandpaper Fig HW, RF

Ficus fraseri Sandpaper Fig HW, LS, RF

Ficus racemosa Cluster Fig HW, RF

Ficus rubiginosa Rusty Fig HW, RF

Gahnia aspera Red-fruited Saw Sedge HW, RF

Gahnia clarkei Tall Saw Sedge HW, RF

Gahnia siberiana Red Fruit Saw Sedge HW, RF

Geitanoplesium cymosum Scrambling Lily RF

Geranium solanderi Native Geranium HW, LS, RF

Glochidion ferdinandi Cheese tree HW, RF

Guioa semiglauca Guioa HW, LS, RF

Gymnostachys anceps Native Flax RF

Hibbertia dentata Trailing Guinea Flower RF

Hibbertia scandens Guinea Flower HW, RF

Hibiscus tiliaceous Cottonwood Hibiscus HW, RF

Hydrocotyle bonariensis Pennywort HW, RF

Hydrocotyle laxiflora Stinking Pennywort HW, RF



Hypolepis muelleri Ground Fern HW, RF

Imperta cylindrica Blady Grass LS

Livistona australis Cabbage Tree Palm HW, RF

Lomandra longifolia A Matrush HW. LS. RF

Lophostemon confertus Queensland box LS, RF

Lophostemon suaveolens Swamp Turpentine LS, RF

Macaranga tanarius Macaranga LS, RF

Melaleuca ericifolia Swamp Paperbark HW, RF

Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark HW, LS

Melicope micrococca White Euodia HW, RF

Microlaena stipoides Weeping grass RF

Morinda jasminoides Morinda HW, RF

Notelaea johnsonii Veinless Mock Olive RF

Notelaea lloydii Narrow-leafed Mock Olive RF

Notelaea longifolia Mock Olive HW, RF

Notelaea venosa Veiny Mock Olive RF

Omalanthus populifolius Native Bleeding Heart HW, LS, RF

Oplismenus aemulus A Basket Grass RF

Oplismenus imbecilis A Basket Grass HW, RF

Oplismenus undulatifolius A Basket Grass RF

Pandorea pandorana Wonga Vine HW, RF

Parsonsia straminea Common Silkpod/Monkey Rope HW, RF

Phragmites australis Native Reed HW, RF

Pilidiostigma glabrum Plum Myrtle LS, RF

Pittosporum revolutum Hairy Pittosporum HW, RF

Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum HW, RF

Planchonella australis Black Apple HW, RF

Poa labillardieri Common Tussock-grass RF

Podocarpus elatus Plum Pine HW, RF

Polyscias sambucifolia Elderberry Panax RF

Pouteria australis Black Apple HW, RF

Rapanea variabilis Muttin Wood HW, RF

Rhodamnia rubescens Scrub Turpentine LS, RF

Rubus parvifolius Native Raspberry RF

Sarcopetalum harveyanum Pearl Vine RF

Scolopia braunii Flintwood HW, RF

Senna acclinis Brush Senna RF

Smilac glyciphylla Sweet Sarsaparilla RF

Solanum nigrum Blackberry Nightshade HW, RF

Sporobolus virginicus Saltwater Couch HW, RF

Stephania japonica Snake Vine HW, RF

Synoum glandulosum Scentless Rosewood HW, RF

Syzygium australe Brush Cherry HW. RF

Syzygium paniculatum Magenta Lilly-Pilly HW, RF

Toona ciliata Red Cedar HW, RF

Trema tomentosa Poison Peach LS, RF

Typha orientalis Broad-leafed Cumbungi HW, RF

Viola banksii Native Violet LS, RF

Viola hederacea Ivy-Leaved Violet HW, RF

Wilkiea huegeliana Veiny Wilkiea RF

Botanical Name Common Name Location



Appendix H – Complete Sediment Sampling Results







Documents

Nicholas Hills Final Paper - HWCA