HUNTER WATER
Marine Infauna Study
Burwood Beach WWTW
301020-03413 – 104
August 2013
Infrastructure & Environment
3 Warabrook Boulevard
Newcastle, NSW 2304 Australia
PO Box 814 NEWCASTLE NSW 2300
Telephone: +61 2 4985 0000
Facsimile: +61 2 4985 0099
www.worleyparsons.com
ABN 61 001 279 812
© Copyright 2013 WorleyParsons
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Document No : 104 Page ii
SYNOPSIS
The Burwood Beach Marine Infauna Study was undertaken to assess the distribution of marine
infauna along the effluent dispersion pathway, as a function of distance from the outfall. The study
aimed to characterise changes in the infaunal communities that may be related to the discharge of
treated wastewater effluent and biosolids from the Burwood Beach WWTW. The key objective of the
Burwood Beach Marine Infauna Study was to monitor changes in the distribution of marine infauna
along the effluent dispersion pathway, as a function of distance from the outfall. Changes in the
abundance, richness and diversity of infauna and in the dominance of opportunistic species were
monitored.
Infauna sampling was undertaken using a gradient sampling design with sites positioned at increasing
distances from the outfall (10 m, 20 m, 50 m, 100 m, 200 m and 2,000 m) along two radial axis
(approximately north-east and south-west). Surveys were undertaken during December 2011, April
2012, October 2012 and April 2013.
Mixed model nested analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to assess for differences between
time, distance and sites in the abundance, richness and diversity of infauna, as well as the ratio of
polychaetes to other taxa. Polygordid, dorvilleid and nereid polychaetes, as well as gammarid
amphipods and nematodes were analysed separately, as these were the dominant taxa found across
all surveys. For the majority of analyses there were inconsistent trends over the sampling events.
For the ratio of polychaetes to other taxa, while there was a significant interaction found between time
and site, there was an elevated ratio at sites close to the outfall (< 20 m) during most sampling
events. The ratio of polychaetes to other taxa was significantly higher at sites close to the outfall
(10 m or 20 m) in comparison to all other sites during December 2011, October 2012 and April 2013.
For each sampling event, multivariate analyses were also undertaken on infauna assemblages.
During all sampling events, the MDS plots showed that there was a slight gradient with distance from
the outfall. There was also a directional influence within most distances, with the northern and
southern sites clustered separately. Overall analyses were undertaken on the full dataset, to
determine if there were differences over time, distance, direction or season. Time was found to be
the most important factor influencing infaunal assemblages, with the December 2011 sampling event
clustered separately to all other sampling events.
Marine sediment sampling was also undertaken during December 2011 and October 2012. The
particle size distribution of marine sediments was analysed using principle component analysis (PCA)
and it was found that with minor exception, most sites were very similar and had a high proportion of
sand ranging from 97 - 99%. All sites were found to have similar levels of total organic carbon (TOC),
apart from elevated TOC in some samples taken within 10 m of the outfall, including two during
December 2011 and one during October 2012.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Document No : 104 Page iii
The findings of the Burwood Beach Infauna Study suggest that for measures of abundance, richness
and diversity there are no apparent trends with distance from the outfall that are consistent over the
four sampling surveys or two seasons. In addition, there are no consistent trends seen for the
dominant taxa groups. The ratio of polychaetes to other taxa was elevated at sites close to the outfall
during three of the four sampling events and there was also sediment sampled within 10 m of the
outfall (during the Burwood Beach Sediment Study) that was found to have elevated levels of TOC.
These findings may indicate an impact of higher organic loading very close to the outfall (in
comparison to all other sites) with a zone of impact < 20 m.
Similar to the findings of others, there was significant temporal and spatial variability in the abundance
and composition of infauna communities in the receiving environment surrounding the Burwood
Beach WWTW outfall. As there were no consistent trends with distance from the outfall this high level
of variability makes it difficult to determine the potential effects of increased flows on marine infauna
communities in the receiving environment with any certainty.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Document No : 104 Page iv
Disclaimer
This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Hunter Water, and is
subject to and issued in accordance with the agreement between Hunter Water and
WorleyParsons. WorleyParsons accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of
any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
Copying this report without the permission of Hunter Water or WorleyParsons is not permitted.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Document No : 104 Page v
Internal and Client Review Record
PROJECT 301020-03413 – BURWOOD BEACH MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
REV DESCRIPTION ORIG REVIEW WORLEY- PARSONS APPROVAL
DATE CLIENT APPROVAL
DATE
A Draft issued for internal review
Dr K Newton / Dr M Priestley
H Houridis
5 March 2012 N/A
B Draft issued for client review
Dr M Priestley
Hunter Water / CEE
8 March 2012
C Draft issued for internal review
Dr M Priestley Dr K Newton
H Houridis
31 May 2012
D Draft issued for client review
Dr K Newton
Hunter Water / CEE
22 October 2012
E Draft issued for internal review
Dr M Priestley Dr K Newton
H Houridis
7 January 2013
F Draft issued for client review
Dr M Priestley Dr K Newton
Hunter Water / CEE
7 January 2013
G Draft issued for internal review
Dr M Priestley
H Houridis / Dr K Newton
17 June 2013
H Draft issued for client review
Dr K Newton
Hunter Water / CEE
25 June 2013
I FINAL DRAFT
Dr K Newton / Dr M Priestley
EPA
August 2013
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page vi 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Burwood Beach WWTW ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Treatment Process ................................................................................................. 1
1.1.2 Environmental Protection Licence Conditions ....................................................... 1
1.1.3 Characteristics of Current Effluent and Biosolids Discharges ............................... 4
1.1.4 Effluent and Biosolids Flow Data ......................................................................... 12
1.1.5 Dilution Modelling / Dispersion Characteristics .................................................... 13
1.1.6 Biosolids Deposition ............................................................................................. 14
1.2 Burwood Beach Marine Environmental Assessment Program ......................................... 15
1.2.1 Initial Consultation ................................................................................................ 15
1.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 15
1.4 Scope of Works / Study Objectives .................................................................................. 16
1.4.1 Null Hypothesis .................................................................................................... 16
1.5 Review of Previous Studies .............................................................................................. 17
1.5.1 Impacts of Sewage Discharges on Infauna Assemblages .................................. 17
1.5.2 Infauna Assessments at Burwood Beach ............................................................ 20
2 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 21
2.1 Infauna Sampling Sites ..................................................................................................... 21
2.2 Temporal Assessment ...................................................................................................... 23
2.3 Field Sampling Methods ................................................................................................... 23
2.4 Laboratory and Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 24
2.4.1 Laboratory Analysis ............................................................................................. 24
2.4.2 Taxa Abundance, Richness and Diversity ........................................................... 24
2.4.3 Polychaete Ratio .................................................................................................. 25
2.5 Sediment Characteristics .................................................................................................. 25
2.6 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 26
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page vii 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Univariate Analyses of Marine Infauna ............................................................................. 27
3.1.1 Abundance ........................................................................................................... 27
3.1.2 Richness .............................................................................................................. 33
3.1.3 Diversity ............................................................................................................... 35
3.1.4 Polychaete Ratio .................................................................................................. 37
3.1.5 Polychaete Families ............................................................................................. 39
3.1.6 Other Infauna Taxa .............................................................................................. 41
3.1.7 Summary of ANOVAs .......................................................................................... 43
3.1.8 Power Analysis..................................................................................................... 44
3.2 Multivariate Analyses of Infauna ....................................................................................... 45
3.2.1 December 2011.................................................................................................... 45
3.2.2 April 2012 ............................................................................................................. 48
3.2.3 October 2012 ....................................................................................................... 50
3.2.4 April 2013 ............................................................................................................. 52
3.2.5 Summary of MDS ................................................................................................. 54
3.3 Marine Sediments ............................................................................................................. 57
3.3.1 December 2011.................................................................................................... 57
3.3.2 October 2012 ....................................................................................................... 58
3.4 Multivariate Analyses of Sediments .................................................................................. 59
4 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 61
5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 64
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. 65
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 66
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page viii 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figures
Figure 1.1 Location of Burwood Beach WWTW.
Figure 1.2 Burwood Beach WWTW and outfall alignment.
Figure 1.3 Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).
Figure 2.1 Location of all infauna sampling sites.
Figure 2.2 Sampling sites near to the outfall.
Figure 2.3 Infauna sampling equipment.
Figure 3.1 Abundance of all infauna taxa surveyed.
Figure 3.2 Infauna taxa in high abundance.
Figure 3.3 Species richness (number of taxa) of all infauna taxa surveyed.
Figure 3.4 Species diversity (Shannon wiener index) of all infauna taxa surveyed.
Figure 3.5 Ratio of polychaete abundance to all other taxa abundance.
Figure 3.6 Mean abundance of polychaete families surveyed.
Figure 3.7 Mean abundance of dominant infauna (other than polychaetes) surveyed.
Figure 3.8 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of infauna
assemblages for December 2011.
Figure 3.9 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of infauna
assemblages for April 2012.
Figure 3.10 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of
infauna assemblages for October 2012.
Figure 3.11 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of
infauna assemblages for April 2013.
Figure 3.12 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by distance.
Figure 3.13 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by sampling event.
Figure 3.14 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by direction.
Figure 3.15 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by season.
Figure 3.16 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled during
December 2011.
Figure 3.17 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled during
October 2012.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page ix 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.18 MDS analysis of particle size distribution in sediments during December 2011 and
October 2012 represented by zone.
Tables
Table 1.1 Load limits for effluent and biosolids discharges.
Table 1.2 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in effluent during 2006 -
2013.
Table 1.3 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in biosolids during 2006 -
2013.
Table 1.4 Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).
Table 1.5 Classification of zones based on prior effluent dilution modelling.
Table 1.6 Examples of infauna monitoring programs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand.
Table 2.1 GPS co-ordinates and depths of infauna sampling sites.
Table 3.1 Summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables of infauna
taxa.
Table 3.2 SIMPER analysis results for December 2011.
Table 3.3 SIMPER analysis results for April 2012.
Table 3.4 SIMPER analysis results for October 2012.
Table 3.5 SIMPER analysis results for April 2013.
Table 3.7 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for December 2011.
Table 3.8 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for October 2012.
Appendices
APPENDIX 1 - INFAUNA ABUNDANCE (SITE AVERAGES)
APPENDIX 2 - STATISTICAL OUTPUT
APPENDIX 3 - POWER ANALYSIS
Abbreviations
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
CEE Consulting Environmental Engineers
EPA Environment Protection Authority
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page x 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
EPL Environmental Protection License
MDS Multi-Dimensional Scaling
MEAP Marine Environmental Assessment Program
OEH Office of Environment and Heritage
PCA Principle Component Analysis
PERMANOVA Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance
PSD Particle Size Distribution
SIMPER Percentage Similarity Analysis
TOC Total Organic Carbon
WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 1 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Burwood Beach WWTW
The Burwood Beach Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) is located on the Hunter Central Coast of
New South Wales (NSW) approximately 2.5 km south of the city of Newcastle (Figure 1.1). The plant
treats wastewater from Newcastle and the surrounding suburbs, servicing approximately 185,000 people
and local industry and has an average daily dry weather flow of 44 million litres of wastewater (44 ML/d).
Over the next 30 years these flows are expected to increase to 55 - 60 ML/d, even with water
conservation measures in place.
1.1.1 Treatment Process
The secondary treatment process at Burwood Beach consists of physical screening to remove large and
fine particulates, biological filtration and waste activated sludge (biosolids) processing including aeration
and settling stages. Secondary treated effluent from Burwood Beach WWTW is discharged to the ocean
through a multi-port diffuser which extends 1,500 m offshore, with diffusers at a depth of approximately
22 m (Figure 1.2). Approximately 2 ML/d of biosolids, which is surplus to treatment requirements, is also
discharged to the ocean via a separate multi-port diffuser that extends slightly further offshore than the
effluent outfall. Both outfalls have been operating in their current configuration since January 1994.
1.1.2 Environmental Protection Licence Conditions
The Environment Protection Licence (EPL) for Burwood Beach WWTW specifies limit conditions for the
operation of the plant. These conditions provide an indication of the characteristics of the effluent and
biosolids discharged into the ocean. Condition L1 specifies that the operation of the outfall must not
cause or permit waters to be polluted (i.e. the licensee must comply with section 120 of the Protection of
the Environment Operations Act 1997). Condition L2 specifies limits relating to total loads discharged to
the ocean (including the effluent and biosolids). These limits are provided in Table 1.1. Condition 3
specifies limits to concentrations of suspended solids and oil / grease in the effluent discharged to the
outfall. The three day geometric mean concentration limit for suspended solids is 60 mg/L and for oil /
grease is 15 mg/L. Condition 4 sets volume and mass limits of effluent and biosolids discharged via the
outfalls. The limit for effluent flow rate is 510 ML/d (to allow for higher flows in wet weather) and for
biosolids the flow limit is 5 ML/d. Daily monitoring of flow is required.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 2 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 1.1 Location of Burwood Beach WWTW.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 3 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 1.2 Burwood Beach WWTW and outfall alignment.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 4 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Table 1.1 Load limits for effluent and biosolids discharges.
Parameter Load Limits
kg/year kg/day
Total suspended solids 4,717,189 12,924
Biochemical oxygen demand - -
Total nitrogen 778,257 2,132
Oil and grease 341,290 935
Total phosphorous - -
Zinc 3,943 11
Copper 2,080 5.7
Lead 1,472 4.0
Chromium 224 0.61
Cadmium 124 0.34
Selenium 14 0.038
Mercury 9 0.025
Pesticides and PCBs 7 0.019
1.1.3 Characteristics of Current Effluent and Biosolids Discharges
The final treated effluent and biosolids from Burwood Beach WWTW has been monitored by Hunter
Water for microbiological indicators of faecal contaminations and for a suite of metals/metalloids and
organic chemicals. A summary of this data during the period 2006 - 2013 is provided in Tables 1.2
(effluent) and 1.3 (biosolids) (data provided by Hunter Water 2013)
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 5 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Table 1.2 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in effluent during 2006 - 2013.
Group Parameter (units) Period N Median Mean Min Max Std
Error 75%ile 90%ile
Physicochemical Suspended solids (mg/L) 2006-13
449 27 33.6 <1 390 1.6 40 60
UV254nm Transmittance (%T) 2006-13
6 59.2 58.4 43.6 68.31 3.4 62.475 65.705
pH 2006-13
224 7.6 7.6 7 8 0.01 7.7 7.8
Total dissolved solids (mg/L) 2006-13
56 440 448.5 276 734 12.9 487.5 545
Biological Oxygen Demand - total (mg/L) 2006-13
239 23 27.4 <2 144 1.3 36 50
Chemical Oxygen Demand - Flocculated (mg/L)
2006-13
19 42 41.8 32 55 1.6 46 51.4
Grease - total high range (mg/l) 2006-13
3 <5 4.7 <5 10 2.7 6 8.4
Grease - total low range (mg/l) 2006-13
444 <2 2.7 <2 60 0.2 3 5
Ammonium nitrogen (mg/L N) 2006-13
70 23.0 21.7 1 33.1 0.8 26.8 29.4
Nitrate + nitrate oxygen (mg/L N) 2006-13
236 1.0 1.6 <0.05 14 0.1 2.1 3.7
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L N) 2006-13
236 26.9 26.1 2.2 48.7 0.6 33.0 36.9
Total nitrogen (mg/L N) 2006-13
236 28.7 27.6 2.45 48.7 0.6 33.6 37.7
Total phosphorus (mg/L P) 2006-13
236 2.3 2.64 0.09 8.2 0.11 3.625 4.8
Metals / Metalloids
Silver-Ag-AAS furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
31 1 3.1 <1 18 0.9 2.5 13
Silver Ag-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13
59 0.5 0.7 <1 7 0.1 0.5 1
Arsenic As-vga (µg/L) 2006-13
90 1.7 1.8 0.05 3.9 0.1 2.1 2.51
Cadmium Cd-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
5 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 6 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Group Parameter (units) Period N Median Mean Min Max Std
Error 75%ile 90%ile
Cadmium Cd-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13
59 <1 0.5 <1 1 <1 <1 <1
Chromium Cr-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
31 1 1.9 <1 28 0.9 1.2 2
Chromium Cr- ICP (µg/L) 2006-13
59 <1 0.7 <1 2 0.1 0.75 1
Chromium Cr VI-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <1 0.7 <1 1 - 1 1
Copper Cu-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
31 17 21.2 4 115 3.5 21 34
Copper Cu-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13
93 0.25 0.4 0.04 1.7 - 0.47 0.728
Mercury Hg-VGA ug/L) 2006-13
90 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.6 - <0.1 0.2
Manganese Mn-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
31 70 76.0 31 173 6.6 82 105
Manganese-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13
59 61 63.8 27 119 2.0 67.5 80.2
Nickel Ni-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1
Nickel Ni-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13
59 4 5.3 <1 20 0.6 5.5 13.2
Lead Pb-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13
90 3 3.1 <1 17 0.3 4 5
Selenium Se-VGA (µg/L) 2006-13
90 0.1 0.3 <0.1 2 - 0.4 0.6
Zinc Zn (µg/L) 2006-13
31 50 49.4 10 120 4.3 55 70
Zinc Zn-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13
59 24 31.2 4 164 3.2 35 55.8
Organics
Aldrin (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01
α-BHC Bhc-a (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01
β-BHC-b (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01
α Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 0.000 <0.02 0.003 - <0.01 <0.01
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 7 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Group Parameter (units) Period N Median Mean Min Max Std
Error 75%ile 90%ile
Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 0.001 <0.02 0.020 - <0.01 <0.01
λ Chlordane (µg/L) 2006-13
11 <0.01 0.000 <0.02 0.001 - <0.01 <0.01
Chlorpyrifos 2006-13
90 <0.01 0.007 <0.05 0.629 0.007 <0.01 <0.01
Lindane (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 0.000 <0.01 0.005 - <0.01 <0.01
DDT (ug/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01
DDD (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01
DDE (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01
Diazinon (ug/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 0.000 <0.1 0.030 - <0.01 <0.01
Dieldrin (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 0.000 <0.01 0.012 - <0.01 <0.01
Endosulfan (µg/L) 2006-13
0 <0.01
Endosulfan-s (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Endosulfan-1 (µg/L) 2006-13
0 <0.01
Endosulfan-2 (µg/L) 2006-13
0 <0.01
Endrin (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Heptachlor (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
HCB (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Heptachlor-epoxide (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Methoxychlor (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Parathion (ug/L) 2006-13
90 <0.1 0.000 <0.1 0.010 0.000 <0.1 <0.1
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 8 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Group Parameter (units) Period N Median Mean Min Max Std
Error 75%ile 90%ile
Total PCBs (µg/L) 2006-13
90 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 9 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Table 1.3 Summary of physicochemical, metal/metalloid and organics data in biosolids during 2006 - 2013.
Group Parameter (units) Period N Median Mean Min Max Std
Error 75%ile 90%ile
Physicochemical
Total solids (%w/w) 2006-13 458 0.41 0.45 0.00 2.42 0.01 0.50 0.67
Volatile solids (%w/w) 2006-13 440 69.12 66.35 20.61 96.72 0.51 72.68 74.60
Ammonium N_Total (mg/L N) 2006-13 440 24.00 25.03 0.01 85.40 0.55 30.13 39.00
Grease – total low range (mg/L) 2006-13 440 153.5 172.0 1.0 841.0 5.5 230.0 328.2
Fluoride (mg/L) 2006-13 3 0.77 0.67 0.42 0.82 0.13 0.80 0.81
Metals / Metalloids
Silver-Ag-AASurnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 22 23 4 63 1 29 40
Silver Ag-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13 279 11 12 0.5 38 0 15 18
Arsenic As-vga (µg/L) 2006-13 431 14.7 18.33 2.6 130 0.70 19.75 30.5
Cadmium Cd-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 4 5.93 0.5 128 1.04 6 8
Cadmium Cd-ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01
Chromium Cr VI-furnace (µg/L 2006-13 152 1 1.00 1 1 0.00 1 1
Chromium Cr_VIi-furnace (µg/L ) 2006-13 279 5 10 5 25 0.00 5 25
Chromium Cr-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 46.5 68.16 1 750 7.41 68.5 105
Chromium cr- ICP (µgLl) 2006-13 279 30 50 5 3200 10 40 70
Copper Cu-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 839 954 125 3930 42.8 1134 1426
Copper Cu-ICP (µg/L) 2006-13 279 830 880 5 3300 20 1000 1300
Mercury Hg- VGA ug/L) 2006-13 431 3.7 3.93 0.005 10.2 0.08 4.8 6.3
Manganese Mn-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 339 360 33 1270 13.73 446.25 512.5
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 10 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Manganese -ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 0.39 0.41 0.06 1 0.01 0.47 0.57
Nickel Ni-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 40 47.21 13 180 2.49 55 77.7
Nickel Ni-ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 0.03 0.04 0.005 0.33 0.00 0.05 0.07
Lead Pb-furnace (µg/L) 2006-13 152 187 224 13 900 11.37 269.25 375
Lead Pb ICP µg/L) 2006-13 279 120 130 10 450 0.01 150 212
Selenium Se-VGA (µg/L)) 2006-13 431 0.1 0.91 0.05 5.9 0.06 1.7 2.7
Zinc Zn (mg/L) 2006-13 152 2.4 3.03 0.78 15.6 0.16 3.515 5.39
Zinc Zn-ICP (mg/L) 2006-13 279 2.2 2.46 0.13 6.9 0.06 2.8 3.7
Organics
Aldrin (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
α-BHC Bhc-a (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
β-BHC-b (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
α Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlordane (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
λ Chlordane- (µg/L) 2006-13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chlorpyrifos (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0.003 0 0.239 0.003 0 0
DDT (uµ/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DDD (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DDE (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diazinon (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dieldrin (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0.006 0 0.315 0.004 0 0
Endosulfan-s (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 11 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Endrin (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HCB (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Heptachlor-epoxide (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0.0001 0 0.013 0.0001 0 2.8
Heptachlor (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lindane (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malathion (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Methoxychlor (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parathion (ug/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total PCBs (µg/L) 2006-13 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 12 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
1.1.4 Effluent and Biosolids Flow Data
Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period was obtained from the Burwood Beach WWTW. A
summary of flow data for the period July 2011 to May 2013 is provided in Table 1.4 and Figure 1.3.
Table 1.4 Effluent and biosolids flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).
Date
Rainfall (mm)
Secondary Flow (ML)
1
By-Pass Flow (ML)
2
Total Flow (ML)
WAS (ML)
3
July 2011 238.2 2068.14 777.24 2845.38 71.66
Aug 2011 47.8 1775.64 0 1775.64 87.73
Sep 2011 136.0 1731.62 205.9 1937.52 82.86
Oct 2011 161.4 1966.85 301.27 2268.12 94.93
Nov 2011 184.5 2004.51 465.58 2470.09 86.71
Dec 2011 110.8 1825.98 6.37 1832.35 92.83
Jan 2012 53.6 1481.64 22.32 1503.96 93.38
Feb 2012 336.7 2296.60 485.42 2782.02 89.47
Mar 2012 188.0 2083.66 403.74 2487.40 96.36
Apr 2012 174.0 1889.04 306.14 2195.18 88.98
May 2012 26.2 1470.51 0 1470.51 94.01
Jun 2012 188.0 2255.16 373.09 2628.25 95.01
Jul 2012 83.5 1839.45 24.17 1863.62 86.77
Aug 2012 71.0 1704.78 62.22 1767.00 93.44
Sep 2012 16.7 1305.15 0 1305.15 87.82
Oct 2012 13.5 1257.72 0 1257.72 76.17
Nov 2012 44.6 1201.80 0 1201.80 86.92
Dec 2012 114.2 1375.59 52.98 1428.57 98.06
Jan 2013 229.0 1488.58 322.25 1810.83 99.86
Feb 2013 175.0 1855.55 397.11 2252.66 87.39
Mar 2013 241.0 1954.00 629.58 2583.58 112.08
Apr 2013 94.5 1702.77 116.92 1819.69 102.98
May 2013 60.0 1538.14 55.7 1593.84 95.64
Note 1. Secondary Flow is total secondary treated flow through the plant (i.e. total volume of screened and degritted sewage into
secondary plant over a 24 hour period from 12 midnight and discharged to ocean).
Note 2. By-Pass Flow is total volume of screened and degritted sewage which bypasses the secondary plant over a 24 hour period
from 12 midnight and is discharged to ocean.
Note 3. WAS is the Volume of Waste Activated Sludge (biosolids) pumped from the clarifier underflow over a 24 hour period from 12
midnight and is discharged to ocean.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 13 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 1.3 Effluent and biosolids (WAS) flow data for the study period (July 2011 - May 2013).
1.1.5 Dilution Modelling / Dispersion Characteristics
Consulting Environmental Engineers (CEE 2007) calculated a predicted initial dilution for the Burwood
effluent outfall, assuming a discharge rate of 43 ML/d and all duckbill valves in operation. The model
predicted a typical dilution of 219:1 for the effluent field. Allowing for the reduction in dilution due to the
orientation of the diffuser ports parallel to the currents, initial dilution is expected to be in the range of
180:1 to 220:1. The Water Research Lab (WRL 2007) also carried out field tests of effluent dilution using
rhodamine dye. The dilution of the surface field showed a typical dilution of 185:1. WRL (2007) reported
that the average near-field dilution was 207:1 and the 95th percentile minimum dilution was 78:1. CEE
(2010) therefore considers it reasonable to base the environmental risk assessment of the effects of
effluent discharge on an effluent plume near the ocean surface with an initial dilution in the range of 100:1
to 200:1.
The dilution of a combined biosolids and effluent discharge through the biosolids diffuser was also
calculated (CEE 2007). The CEE model predicted a typical dilution of 475:1 for discharged biosolids if
they rose to the ocean surface, or about 250:1 if trapped by stratification at mid-depth (CEE 2007). The
WRL hydrodynamic computer model showed a median dilution of 300:1, with a minimum dilution of 100:1
when strong stratification decreases the rise and dilution of the small biosolids plumes, and a maximum
dilution at times of strong currents exceeding 1,000:1 (WRL 2007). The WRL model also showed the
biosolids plume is often trapped well below the surface by the natural stratification of the ocean water
column. WRL field tests of the biosolids plume, with dilution measured using rhodamine dye, showed a
typical dilution of 841:1. WRL reported that the average near-field dilution of the biosolids plume was
268:1 and the 95th percentile minimum dilution was 205:1, for a submerged plume (WRL 2007). Based
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 14 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
on these results, it is considered reasonable to base the assessment of the effects of biosolids discharge
on two conditions; surface plume with an initial dilution of 300:1 and submerged plume with an initial
dilution of 200:1 (CEE 2010). WRL (1999) modelled the biosolids plume at 10 m depth and showed that
the centre of the plume, at about 10 m depth, the dilution achieved is between 200:1 and 1,000:1. At a
distance of 200 m from the diffuser, the dilution exceeds 1,000:1 and increases further with distance
travelled. The diluted biosolids extends to the south of the diffuser, but would be indistinguishable except
by the sensitive techniques used in the field studies. Based on the field tests and dilution modelling
undertaken by WRL (1999, 2007) and CEE (2007), the following mixing zones (Table 1.5) were
determined for reporting purposes only.
Table 1.5 Classification of zones based on prior effluent dilution modelling.
Distance from Diffuser Zones
< 50 m outfall impact zone outfall impact
> 50 - 100 m
mixing zone
nearfield mixing zone
> 100 - 200 m midfield mixing zone
> 200 - 2,000 m farfield mixing zone
> 2,000 m reference zone reference
1.1.6 Biosolids Deposition
Previous diver inspections undertaken at the Burwood Beach outfall (i.e. by commercial divers inspecting
the outfall infrastructure) reported that biosolids deposits at the seabed can vary significantly. In-situ
diver observations have reported a biosolids thickness of 0 to 125 mm, with variation likely a result of
weather conditions. Divers have noted biosolids being washed away after storms with no long-term
accumulation on the seabed evident. More protected areas such as small caves have a greater depth of
biosolids and a peak of 750 mm was recorded in 1994/96 (note that at this time effluent was not mixed
with biosolids before discharge). ANSTO (1998) undertook a study of the movement of seabed
sediments 1,100 m south east of the outfall using iridium-radiated glass beads. The beads were found to
disperse over 100 m to the east and west and over 150 m to the north, providing an indication of the likely
expected movement of sandy sediments on the seabed. It is expected that smaller biosolids particles
would disperse at a greater rate and further than sand particles.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 15 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
1.2 Burwood Beach Marine Environmental Assessment Program
A number of monitoring programs and studies have previously been undertaken to assess the impact
of treated effluent and biosolids discharge on the marine environment at Burwood Beach (e.g. NSW
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 1994, 1996; The Ecology Lab 1996, 1998; Australian Water
Technologies (AWT) 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003; Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) 1999, 2000; Ecotox
Services Australasia (ESA) 2001, 2005; BioAnalysis 2006; Andrew-Priestley 2011; Andrew-Priestley
et al. 2012). While providing a wealth of data on the marine environment here, it is considered that
these previous studies have not effectively assessed the spatial extent and ecological significance of
the outfalls impact (CEE 2010).
The aim of the Burwood Beach Marine Environmental Assessment Program (MEAP) was to establish
the impact footprint of the existing outfall, establish the gradient of impact with distance to the edge of
the outfall and predict the potential footprint of future impacts. The current Burwood Beach Marine
Infauna Study aimed to address some of the knowledge gaps. This incorporated assessing both the
spatial and temporal impact of the effluent and biosolids discharges on benthic marine infauna
assemblages along the effluent dispersion pathway.
1.2.1 Initial Consultation
Prior to commencement of the Burwood Beach MEAP, details of the proposed sampling program and
survey methodology were discussed with Hunter Water, CEE and the NSW EPA (then the Office of
Environment and Heritage (OEH) on 10 October 2011. This initial consultation was undertaken to ensure
that the proposed MEAP was adequate in addressing the requirements of both the Client (Hunter Water)
and the Regulator (NSW EPA). During this meeting, concerns with the proposed survey / sampling
program were raised and where required the methodology was subsequently altered accordingly.
1.3 Study Area
Burwood Beach is located in Newcastle, on the Hunter Coast of NSW. It lies to the south of Merewether
Beach and to the north of Dudley Beach (refer to Figure 1.1). The seabed in the vicinity of the outfall
consists of small areas of low profile patchy rocky reef, which is subject to strong wave action and
periodic sand movement, interspersed between large areas of soft sediment (sandy) habitat. These low
profile reefs are emergent approximately 1 m above the sand. Water depth is approximately 22 m at the
outfall diffuser (refer to Figure 1.2). Fine mobile sandy sediments occur in the gutters and low-lying
seabed between reef patches. Extensive sandy beaches with intertidal rocky reef habitats occur along
the shoreline adjacent to the outfall. Merewether Beach lies to the north and Dudley Beach to the south
of Burwood Beach
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 16 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
1.4 Scope of Works / Study Objectives
While several studies have examined the macrobenthic sessile marine fauna living on the rocky reefs at
Burwood Beach (e.g. The Ecology Lab 1996, 1997, 1998; AWT 2000, 2003; BioAnalysis 2006; Roberts
and Murray 2006), there have been no studies undertaken to date that have assessed infauna within the
marine sediments. An assessment of infauna assemblages, abundance and species richness at
Burwood Beach, which incorporates spatial and temporal replication, was proposed to assist in
determining potential impacts from the discharge of treated effluent and biosolids into the marine
environment.
The key objective of the Burwood Beach Marine Infauna Study was to monitor changes in the distribution
of marine infauna along the effluent and biosolids dispersion pathway, as a function of distance from the
outfall. Changes in the abundance, richness and diversity of infauna and in the dominance of
opportunistic species were monitored.
The study also aimed to detect and characterise the following:
Impacts on community structure of infauna communities.
The extent or zone of impact.
The gradient of any impact on biological indicators (species or groups) depending on distance
from the outfall.
1.4.1 Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis of this study was:
There is no significant difference between infauna diversity, abundance and richness at sampling
sites close to the outfall compared to equivalent habitats with increasing distance from the outfall.
There is no significant difference between the ratio of polychaetes to other taxa at sampling sites
close to the outfall compared to equivalent habitats with increasing distance from the outfall.
There is no significant difference between dominant infauna groups or between infauna
assemblages close to the outfall compared to equivalent habitats with increasing distance from
the outfall.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 17 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
1.5 Review of Previous Studies
1.5.1 Impacts of Sewage Discharges on Infauna Assemblages
The release of sewage into the marine environment has been demonstrated to impact on marine biota at
the cellular, individual and community levels (Underwood and Peterson 1988). The type and extent of
impact varies and depends on the quantity and composition of sewage effluent. Impacts on marine biota
have been reported as localised, in the immediate vicinity of the WWTW (Fairweather 1990) or wide
ranging, such as kilometres from the WWTW source (Fry and Butman 1991; Zmarzly et al. 1994).
Temporally, impacts may be pulse events or sustained press events (Underwood 1992, 1993).
Soft sediments provide habitat for a range of macroinvertebrate infauna (i.e. fauna living within the
sediments) including crustaceans (amphipods, isopods and cumaceans), worms (polychaetes,
nemerteans) and molluscs (bivalves and gastropods). Infauna may feed using filter feeding mechanisms
(e.g. molluscs), active predation, or by gathering detritus from the sediments. Marine infauna
assemblages have been used extensively to monitor the level of anthropogenic impacts on the marine
environment. Infauna assemblages are useful as indicators due to their relatively sedentary lifestyle and
as they live within the sediments. They are also relatively easy to quantitatively sample. Infauna
communities have been established to respond to anthropogenic disturbance (Warwick 1993; Otway et
al. 1996). Environmental changes, resulting from the discharge of treated sewage effluent into the
marine environment, can include increased algal growth as a result of increased availability of nutrients
(e.g. phosphorus and nitrogen), release of and potential exposure to organic and / or inorganic
contaminants and pathogens (bacteria or fungi) from wastewater (Defeo et al. 2009). In turn, impacts on
infauna communities can include changes in species abundance, species richness, the dominance of
opportunistic species or the dominance of deposit feeders (Dauvin and Ruellet 2006; Dean 2008).
Changes in infauna communities around the point of WWTW discharge may result from organic
enrichment of bottom sediments (Pearson and Rosenberg 1976, 1978). Organic and inorganic
contaminants in sewage can also bioaccumulate in soft-bottom organisms (Phillips 1977, 1978) causing
alterations to infauna communities (Reish et al. 1987).
One of the difficulties in using infauna assemblages to monitor impacts of WWTWs is their inherent
spatial and temporal variability, making it difficult to attribute change to an impact rather than natural
variation. Infauna communities are composed of a mosaic of successional patches, resulting from
numerous interacting processes; also attributing to the significant spatial and temporal variation observed
(Peterson 1977; Dayton and Oliver 1980). Infauna monitoring programs have been used to assess
impacts from WWTWs in Australia and New Zealand, both shoreline (where wastewater is discharged
into the intertidal zone) and deep water (where outfall diffuser is extended out to sea and wastewater
discharged into deeper waters). Some examples of infauna monitoring programs are provided in Table
1.6. Summaries of some of these studies are also provided.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 18 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Table 1.6 Examples of infauna monitoring programs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand.
Outfall Monitoring period
Hobart outfall 1990 - present
Blackmans Bay outfall 2007, 2010, 2013
Anglesea outfall 2005, 2009
Altona outfall 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013
Geelong outfall 1978 - 2004
Latrobe Valley outfall 1987 - 2003
Port Kembla outfall 1974 - 1989
Sydney outfalls 1976, 1995
Coffs Harbour outfall 2000, 2008
Kawana outfall 1990, 1996
Perth outfalls 2000, 2004
Werribee outfall 1982
Gisbourne outfall 2002
Marine infauna assemblages were assessed as part of the Sydney Water NSW Environmental Monitoring
Programme (EMP) which was undertaken during 1989 - 1993 to assess impacts of Sydney‟s deepwater
outfalls, North Head, Malabar and Bondi, on the marine environment (Otway et al. 1995, 1996). The
EMP was required by the NSW EPA to assess impacts of the WWTWs on the receiving marine
environments and also included studies on fish communities. The experimental design consisted of a
before-after-control-impact (BACI) design with sampling undertaken before and after commissioning of
the deepwater outfalls. In the receiving environment of each outfall, six sites (which consisted of three
outfall sites and three reference sites) were sampled using a grab method, with three random sediment
grabs per site. All sites were located in 60 - 80 m of water. Sediment was sieved through a 1 mm sieve
to capture infauna. Polychaetes, crustaceans and molluscs were identified to family level while other taxa
were identified to Phylum and Class. They found that the infauna communities were comprised of 54%
polychaetes, 39% crustaceans, 3% molluscs and 4% miscellaneous taxa. They found that the
abundance of infauna varied through time and there were significantly less individuals collected during
winter. Overall, the abundance of organisms comprising these three communities fluctuated in time and
space and no obvious patterns were evident. Analysis of polychaete families indicated that their
populations fluctuated at varying spatial and temporal scales. Despite the variability reported by Otway et
al. (1995, 1996) they were able to demonstrate impacts on infauna assemblages due to the
commissioning of the three deepwater outfalls.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 19 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Following commissioning of the Malabar outfall, they found that the combined number of Anthurid and
Paranthurid isopods increased where the mean number of polychaete families decreased. At North Head
and Malabar, they reported that nereid polychaetes and crustaceans increased. They also found that the
percentage of impacts were related to the flow data of effluent and suspended solids load; as the flow
rate or suspended solid load increased, the impact on increased abundance of infauna around the
WWTWs decreased (Otway et al. 1995, 1996). This may suggest a hormesis type impact, i.e. whereby at
low concentrations the infauna abundance is stimulated by WWTW releases but at higher concentrations
abundance is negatively impacted. Such a scenario would have negative implications on infauna
abundance if flow rates or suspended solid loads increased in the future. Results of the Sydney
deepwater outfalls EMP were consistent with previous studies indicating spatial and temporal fluctuations
in the abundance of soft-bottom infauna communities (e.g. Gray 1974; Pearson and Rosenberg 1978).
The variability between results from the three outfalls was thought to relate to variable patterns in
abundance and / or sediment grain size and structure (Otway 1995).
Marine infauna assemblages were assessed as part of the replacement of Blackmans Bay Outfall from
shoreline discharge to offshore (Kingsborough Council 2008). They analysed infauna communities north
and south of the existing outfall at 200 m and 1000 m, as well as at the site of the proposed new outfall.
There were no differences between the 200 m and 1000 m sites in the abundance or diversity of the
infauna assemblages. However they found that the abundance and diversity of infauna was higher at the
proposed site for the new outfall. It was speculated that impacts from the proposed outfall would be
changes to the infauna composition and abundance of certain species. It was also noted that the spatial
arrangement of sampling sites was not sufficient to quantify the variability of infauna assemblages.
In the receiving environment of Black Rock outfall in Geelong, Victoria, marine infauna assemblages were
monitored before and after the replacement of an outfall in 1989. The old outfall discharged into the
intertidal zone and was replaced by an outfall which discharges into the subtidal zone, 1.2 km offshore at
an average depth of 15 m. Analysis of the infauna assemblages around the subtidal zone of the new
outfall showed that there were no outfall related impacts or changes following. The study found evidence
that the polychaete population in the intertidal zone (where the old outfall had discharged) had
decreased, but it was suggested that further monitoring was needed to confirm this.
There is also other evidence of increased abundance and richness of marine infauna at sewage affected
locations compared with control locations. Dauer and Conner (1980) reported that the total abundance,
biomass and richness of polychaete populations were significantly greater at a location receiving sewage
effluent (Tamba Bay, Mexico) in comparison to a control location. However, it should be noted that this
particular study did not replicate at the location level and differences seen may be due to natural
variability. In 2002, an assessment of the ecological effects of primary treated effluent, discharged into
water depths of 18 m from the Gisborne wastewater outfall in New Zealand was undertaken (Keeley et al.
2002). Soft bottom benthic infauna samples were taken along two transects radiating away from the
outfall in two directions (of the most likely effluent flow). Analysis of abundance and richness suggest an
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 20 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
environmental gradient of enrichment which radiates away from the outfall including four approximate
zones: tending towards abiotic at the outfall (i.e. 0 m), highly enriched 50 m from the outfall, a transitional
area of detectable but diffuse enrichment out to 1,200 m and background levels beyond 1,200 m (Keeley
et al. 2002). The species most responsible for the overall trend in abundance was the surface deposit
feeding bristle worm (Prionospio sp.) which accounted for over half of all individuals collected. The
majority of species found had surface-oriented feeding behaviours (e.g. scavenging, filter feeding,
predation and omnivorous deposit feeding) (Keeley et al. 2002). Again, these situations are not
comparable to Burwood Beach but do demonstrate that an increased infauna abundance or richness can
be a potential response from sewage effluent release.
In terms of infauna assessment, richness, abundance and diversity of infauna communities are the main
variables used in the monitoring of environmental impacts. Polychaetes have been useful as monitors of
environmental pollution and are known to respond to organic enrichment (Pearson and Rosenberg 1976;
Gray and Pearson 1982), particularly in studies of monitoring of sewage outfalls (Reish 1957; Tsutsumi
1990; Weston 1990). Polycheates can respond to organic enrichment by the dominance of opportunistic
polychaete species. In particular, polycheates from the Capitellidae family have been established as
opportunistic (Dorsey 1982; Roper et al. 1989; Ward and Hutchings 1996). It is also known that there are
opportunistic infauna species within the families of Spionidae and Nereidae (Dauvin and Ruellet 2006;
Dean 2008). Some polychaete families can be sensitive and a lack of their presence, in ecosystems
where they are known to occur, can also be an indication of an impact. An impact can also be shown
through the overall dominance of polychaetes in comparison to other taxa. Intertidal infauna were
assessed in sandy sediments adjacent to drains from the Werribee, a large outfall that discharges on the
shoreline in Victoria and found that species diversity was low, abundance was high and the infauna
assemblages were characterised by opportunistic species such as spionids, capitellids, nereid
polychaetes and corophiid amphipods (Dorsey 1982). In summary, these studies indicate that richness,
abundance and diversity are all important parameters in the assessment of potential anthropogenic
impacts on marine infauna assemblages, with potential positive and negative impacts from the discharge
of sewage effluent into marine environments.
1.5.2 Infauna Assessments at Burwood Beach
No previous assessments of marine infauna have been undertaken at Burwood Beach.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 21 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
2 METHODS
2.1 Infauna Sampling Sites
Infauna sampling for the Burwood Beach outfall was undertaken using a gradient sampling design. Sites
were positioned at increasing distances from the outfall at 10 m, 20 m, 50 m, 100 m, 200 m and
2,000 m (reference sites), along two radial axis (approximately north-east and south-west) (Figures 2.1
and 2.2) (N = 6 distances and 12 sites). GPS co-ordinates and depths of each of the sampling sites are
provided in Table 2.1. All sampling sites were located in areas of soft seabed and samples were taken
along the same depth contour (~ 22 m), or as close to this depth as possible.
Figure 2.1 Location of all infauna sampling sites.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 22 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 2.2 Sampling sites near to the outfall.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 23 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Table 2.1 GPS co-ordinates and depths of infauna sampling sites.
Location Distance Site Latitude (S) / Longitude (E) Depth (m)
Outfall Impact Zone 10 m 10m S 32°58.239' / 151°45.129' 23
10m N 32°58.231' / 151°45.137' 23
20 m 20m S 32°58.244' / 151°45.126' 22
20m N 32°58.226' / 151°45.140' 24
Nearfield Mixing Zone 50 m 50m S 32°58.272' / 151°45.119' 21
50m N 32°58.208' / 151°45.156' 24
Midfield Mixing Zone 100 m 100m S 32°58.284' / 151°45.087' 22
100m N 32°58.159' / 151°45.182' 25
Farfield Mixing Zone 200 m 200m S 32°58.347' / 151°45.037' 24
200m N 32°58.114' / 151°45.237' 25
Reference 2,000 m 2,000m S 32°59.115' / 151°44.370' 22
2,000m N 32°57.232' / 151°45.878' 22
2.2 Temporal Assessment
Four marine infauna surveys were undertaken over a two period. This included two cool water surveys
during December 2011 and October 2012 and two warm water surveys during April 2012 and April 2013.
2.3 Field Sampling Methods
Benthic infauna was collected using a diver operated core which was 22 cm deep and 16 cm in diameter.
Three replicate cores were taken at each site and immediately transferred into individual sieve bags of
size 1 mm (see Figure 2.3) (N = 3 replicates per site).
At each site, the replicate cores were taken approximately 1 - 2 m apart. The sediment was sieved in-situ
by the diver, tied off and all sample bags returned to the surface. On the boat, each sieve bag was
transferred into a separate snap lock bag into which a 10% formalin solution was placed to cover the
entire sample.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 24 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 2.3 Infauna sampling equipment.
2.4 Laboratory and Data Analysis
2.4.1 Laboratory Analysis
Samples were sent to Aquen© (Aquatic Environmental Consulting) for sorting and identification of
infauna. Samples were identified at least to family level and to species level where possible.
Identification to family level has been established as adequate for the detection of impacts on infauna
communities (Warwick 1988).
2.4.2 Taxa Abundance, Richness and Diversity
Taxa abundance, richness and diversity were calculated for the infauna data. A brief definition of each of
these is provided below:
Abundance: Relates to how common or rare taxa are relative to other taxa in a defined
location or community.
Richness: A measure related to the total number of different taxa present within a sample.
Diversity: Taxa diversity accounts for the number of taxa and the evenness of taxa, giving a
measure of the biodiversity and complexity of a population. Taxa diversity consists of two
components, taxa richness and taxa evenness. Taxa richness is a simple count of taxa,
whereas taxa evenness quantifies how equal the abundances of the taxa are.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 25 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Taxa diversity was calculated using the Shannon Weiner diversity index as follows;
H = Σ - (Pi * ln Pi)
i = 1
Where:
H = the Shannon diversity index
Pi = fraction of the entire population made up of taxa i
Σ = sum from taxa 1 to taxa S (number of taxa encountered)
Abundance was calculated as the mean proportion of total fauna and for individual phyla that were
dominant in the dataset.
2.4.3 Polychaete Ratio
Benthic indices have often been used to explore relationships between the relative abundance of
sensitive taxa versus opportunistic taxa that may be indicators of organic enrichment (Dauvin and Ruellet
2006; Dean 2008). As polychaetes are well established indicators of environmental health their
abundance was examined in relation to other taxa present using a polychaete ratio.
The polychaete ratio was calculated by the division of combined polychaete abundance by the combined
abundance of all other taxa.
Σ Polychaete Abundance
Σ Other Taxa Abundance (all taxa other than polychaetes)
2.5 Sediment Characteristics
It is evident that some factors are more important than others in determining the distribution of particular
species. Particle size is perhaps the single most important ecological factor influencing the distribution of
infaunal taxa such as polychaetes (Gray and Elliott 2010).
The Burwood Beach Sediment Study, another component of the MEAP, was undertaken twice; during
December 2011 and October 2012. Marine sediment sampling was undertaken at the same sites as the
infauna study and sediments were analysed for metals, total organic carbon (TOC) and particle size
distribution. It should be noted that sediment analyses were based on sediment samples of 2 cm depth
(this was as per NSW EPA requirements to take just the top 2 cm of sediments for the Burwood Beach
Sediment Study) compared to the 22 cm depth sediment cores used for infauna sampling.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 26 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
2.6 Statistical Analysis
Univariate statistical analyses were performed using Statistica Version 7. Diversity, abundance and
richness measures were examined for normality, using a normality plot and Levenes test for homogeneity
of variance. Where p <0.05, the data was transformed via a log transformation ln (x +1) and the
parameters transformed are indicated in the statistics results in Section 3.1.7.
Significant differences (p < 0.05) between time, distance (fixed factors) and site (nested within distance)
(random factor) along with significant interactions between time and distance were examined using a
mixed model nested analyses of variance (ANOVAs) under the General Linear Model (GLM) of Statistica.
Note that the design was unbalanced due to missing sites during the December 2011 sampling event.
Pairwise Tukey‟s post hoc tests were used to determine where differences occurred.
Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and cluster plots were generated in PRIMER 6, using infauna family
abundance, to identify whether differences in infauna communities were evident between sites.
Ordination of infauna family abundance was performed using MDS scaling in PRIMER 6, based on
ranked matrices of dissimilarities between samples, employing the square root transformation with Bray
Curtis similarity. Goodness of fit (stress) was assessed using Kruskal‟s stress formula and compared to
maximum values recommended by Sturrock and Rocha (2000). To identify which taxa had the highest
contribution to the average similarity within each site, SIMPER analysis was performed. Significant
differences in overall results of infauna assemblages between time and distance were analysed using a
factorial nested Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA).
Power analysis was undertaken on the first round of sampling data (refer to Section 3.1.8), and in
combination with the statistical analysis, was intended to help design and modify, where applicable, future
infauna studies. A Type I error rate of 5% (0.05) was adopted and a Type II error rate of 20% (0.2, power
80%) and an effect size of 50% was used.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 27 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3 RESULTS
3.1 Univariate Analyses of Marine Infauna
Average taxa abundance, richness and diversity of infauna are presented in Figures 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4.
Images of infauna taxa which were in high abundance are provided in Figure 3.2. The ratio of
polychaetes to all other taxa is presented in Figure 3.5. Abundance of polychaete taxa is presented in
Figure 3.6 and abundance of all other taxa is presented in Figure 3.7. A summary of the raw data (i.e.
infauna abundance at each site) for each sampling period is provided in Appendix 1.
Mixed model nested ANOVAs were undertaken for the measures of abundance, richness and diversity for
all infauna and the ratio of polychaetes to all other taxa, which are all discussed separately in the
following sections. A summary of all key statistical output is provided in Table 3.1. Differences in infauna
measures were analysed to assess if there were significant differences for the main factors of time,
distance and site (nested within distance) and for interactions between time by distance and time by site
(distance). As some sites were missing (due to a lack of soft sediments to sample in predominately rocky
reef areas) during December 2011 (i.e. 10m N, 10m S, 50m N and 100m S) and October 2012 (i.e. 10m
N), the model bases estimated effects on the distances or sites that were available. This means that the
statistical analyses are comprised in terms of calculating temporal effects, between sampling events and
seasons.
During the first sampling round there were a number of sites that could not be sampled due to insufficient
sediment available for sampling in areas where were dominated by reef habitat. These included 10m N,
10m S, 50m N and 100m S. During subsequent sampling events in April 2012, October 2012 and April
2013 there were sufficient sediment at all sites, with the exception of 10m N during October 2012. The
fact that there is mobile sand offshore at Burwood Beach is an important factor that may influence the
results of this study. Intermittent sand movement may influence the abundance, diversity and
composition of the infauna communities.
3.1.1 Abundance
The average abundance of various infauna taxa and total infauna taxa for each sampling period is
detailed in the sections below. Figure 3.1 provides a graphical representation of the average total
infauna abundance at each site (i.e. average of three sediment cores) for each survey event. Images of
some abundant infauna taxa are provided in Figure 3.2.
Overall, infauna abundance was higher during December 2011 and October 2012 due to high populations
at several sites. The findings of the mixed model nested ANOVA for abundance found a significant
interaction between time and site (distance) (Table 3.1). A significant interaction demonstrates that the
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 28 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
trends among sites are inconsistent over the four sampling events. Tukey‟s post hoc tests showed that
this was due to higher total infauna abundance at the 20m S, 50m S and 200m s sites during December
2011 compared to April 2012, October 2012 and April 2013. Total infauna abundance was also higher at
10m S during October 2012 compared to April 2012 and April 2013.
DECEMBER 2011
During this sampling event a very low abundance of infauna was recorded at both of the reference sites
(2,000m N and 2,000m S) and at the 100m N site, whereas other sites (e.g. 20m S, 50m S and 200m S)
were all characterised by a high abundance of a single family.
The most abundant taxon at reference site 2,000m N were the gammarid amphipods, but mean
abundance was very low with just one individual per sample. At the reference site 2,000m S, Trochidae
were most abundant, with a mean abundance of 18 individuals per sample. At the site 100m N, the most
abundant taxa were nematodes, with a mean abundance of six individuals per sample.
Polygordiid polychaetes were present in highest abundance at the 200m N and 20m S sites, with
respective site means of 66 and 209 individuals per sample. Nematodes were also present in high
abundance, particularly at sites 50m S and 200m S, with respective means of 225 and 69 individuals per
sample. The most abundant taxa at 20m N were spionid polychaetes, with a mean abundance of 30
individuals per sample.
Importantly, across all sites the composition of families varied and no taxonomic group was consistently
abundant.
APRIL 2012
During the April 2012 sampling event infauna abundance was generally lower compared to the December
2011 sampling event, but for some sites it was similar (e.g. at sites 200m N and 100m N). Overall, there
was very low abundance across all distances and sites in April 2012.
Gammarid amphipods were the most abundant taxon at the sites 10m S, 50m N, 100m N, 200m N and
200m S (with respective site means of 12, nine, 16, 28 and 31 individuals per sample). Nereid
polychaetes were the most abundant taxon at 50m S and 100m S with respective means of 24 and 34
individuals per sample. Finally, Corophiidae (amphipods) were the most abundant family at sites 20m N,
20m S, 2,000m N and 2,000m S, with respective means of four, 16, four and 11 individuals per sample.
Sites closest to the outfall (the 10 m and 20 m distances) had total means of between 23 to 53 individuals
per sample. Mean total abundance at the 50 m and 100 m distances were much higher and ranged from
49 to 120 individuals per sample. The 200 m distance also had high abundances of infauna in
comparison to other distances, with mean total abundances of 91 and 135 individuals per sample for
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 29 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
these sites. The 2,000 m reference sites had low abundances, with just 22 and 34 individuals per sample
respectively.
OCTOBER 2012
During the October 2012 survey event, with the exception of site 10m S, infauna abundance was low at
all sites. Abundance at 10m S was at least four times that of other sites.
For the 10m S outfall site, Dorvilleidae, Nereididae and Gammarid spp. were the most abundant taxa with
respective means of 209, 86 and 77.
For all other sites, gammarid amphipods were the most abundant taxon. Mean total abundance of
Gammaridae was highest at 20m N, 20m S, 50m S, 100m S and > 2,000m S with respective mean
abundances of 20, 25, 22, 13 and 17. The sites 50m N, 100m N, 200m N, 200m S and > 2,000m N all
had average mean abundances which were less than 10.
Ostracods (seed shrimps) were the second most abundant taxon for the 20m N, 20m S, 50m S and
200m S sites with respective means of five, 18, 16 and two. At the 2,000m N and 2,000m S reference
sites, Oligochaeta spp. and Gastropoda were the second most abundant taxa with means of 10 and four
respectively.
All other taxa had low abundances with an average mean of three or less.
APRIL 2013
During April 2013, infauna abundance was similar at most sites with the exception of 10m S and 50m S
which had elevated abundance levels in comparison to the other sites.
Gammarid spp. were the most abundant taxon at sites 10m N, 50m N, and 100m S, with respective mean
abundances of 15, nine and six. Dorvilleidae was the most abundant family at 10m S and 50m S with
respective mean abundances of 43 and 88. Spionidae was the most abundant family at sites 20m N and
100m N with respective mean abundances of 11 and 12. Nematodes were the most abundant at 20m S,
Paraonidae the most abundant at 200m N and Polygordiidae at 200m S, with respective mean
abundances of 67, 12 and 30. At the > 2,000m N and > 2,000m S reference sites, Corophiidae was the
most abundant family with respective mean abundances of 13 and seven.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 30 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.1 Abundance (mean ± SE) of all infauna taxa surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to insufficient
sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance from the WWTW outfall.
December 2011 April 2012
October 2012 April 2013
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 31 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Phylum: Annelida, Class: Polychaeta, Suborder:
incertae sedis, Family: Polygordiidae, Species:
Polygordius kiarama
Phylum: Annelida, Class: Polychaeta, Suborder:
incertae sedis, Family: Polygordiidae, Species:
Polygordius kiarama
Phylum: Annelida, Class: Oligochaeta, Family:
undifferentiated, Species: sp. a
Figure 3.2 Infauna taxa in high abundance.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 32 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Phylum: Annelida, Class: Oligochaeta, Family:
undifferentiated, Species: sp. b
Phylum: Nematoda, Class: undifferentiated, Family:
undifferentiated, Species: undifferentiated
Phylum: Annelida, Class: Polychaeta, Family:
Spionidae
Figure 3.2 (continued) Infauna taxa in high abundance.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 33 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.1.2 Richness
Results for richness of infauna taxa are presented in Figure 3.3. Overall, there were no consistent trends
in richness among sites or distances.
During December 2011, there was little difference in richness between the available sites. In April 2012,
there was a slight trend of increasing richness with distance from the outfall, out to about 200 m, followed
by a decline at the reference distance. In October 2012, richness was similar among sites with the
exception of at > 2,000 m, which was higher than all other sites. During April 2013, richness was similar
among all sites.
The findings of the mixed model nested ANOVA for richness showed a significant interaction between
time and site (distance) (Table 3.1). This was due to significantly higher taxa richness during October
2012 at site 2000m S in comparison to other sites, but not during December 2011, April 2012 and April
2013, determined through the Tukey‟s post hoc analysis. There was a slight trend of increasing richness
with distance up to 200 m during April 2012 and April 2013. During December 2011 and October 2011,
this was not consistent and there was higher richness at the 10 m and / or 20 m distances in comparison
to 50 m, 100 m and 200 m.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 34 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.3 Richness (number of taxa; mean ± SE) of all infauna taxa surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to
insufficient sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance from the WWTW outfall.
December 2011 April 2012
October 2012 April 2013
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 35 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.1.3 Diversity
Results for infauna taxa diversity at each sampling site are presented in Figure 3.4. Within each survey
event there were variations in diversity among sites, however there was no consistent pattern across all
four surveys.
In December 2011, taxa diversity was higher at the 20m N site while the other sites had similar levels.
There was large variability at the > 2,000m N, > 2,000m S and 100m N sites. In April 2012, there was
similar diversity among sites but diversity was slightly elevated at the 100m N and 50m N sites. In
October 2012 richness was lowest at the >2,000m N site and highest at the > 2,000m S site, and similar
among all other sites. During April 2013, diversity was similar among the 10 m, 20 m, 50 m and 200 m
distances and the > 2,000m S site. The 100 m distance and the > 2,000 m sites had higher taxa diversity
in comparison.
The mixed model nested ANOVA found that there was a significant interaction between time and site
(distance) (Table 3.1). This was due to significantly lower diversity at > 2,000 m sites in comparison to
other sites during December 2011 only, determined through Tukey‟s post hoc analyses. There was also
lower diversity at the > 2,000m N site during October 2012.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 36 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.4 Diversity (Shannon wiener index) (mean ± SE) of all infauna taxa surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A
due to insufficient sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance from the WWTW outfall.
December 2011 April 2012
October 2012 April 2013
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 37 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.1.4 Polychaete Ratio
The ratio of polychaete families to all other taxa is presented in Figure 3.5. The polychaete ratio was
consistently elevated at 10 m or 20 m sites. In December 2011, there was a significantly higher ratio of
polychaetes to all other taxa at site 20m S. In April 2012, the polychaete ratio was much lower compared
to December 2011 and was similar among sites. In October 2012, the polychaete ratio was higher at
100m N and 10m S compared to all other sites.
The mixed model nested ANOVA found that there was a significant interaction between time and site
(distance). Although this indicates that there are inconsistent trends among the sampling events, the
Tukey‟s post hoc analyses demonstrate that during December 2011, October 2012 and April 2013, this
result was due to an elevated ratio at sites close to the outfall (i.e. < 20 m), compared to those at greater
distances. For example, there was a significantly higher polychaete ratio during December 2011 at the
site 20m S, but not during other sampling events. There was also an elevated polychaete ratio at 10m S
during October 2012 and April 2013 only. During April 2012, there was a similar polychaete ratio among
all distances.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 38 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.5 Ratio of polychaete abundance to all other taxa abundance (mean ± SE). Note: there is a different scale for the December
2011 graph. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to insufficient sediment depth to sample. Colours indicate distance
from the WWTW outfall.
December 2011 April 2012
October 2012 April 2013
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 39 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.1.5 Polychaete Families
The abundance of polychaete families is presented in Figure 3.6. As well as accounting for
approximately half of all taxa surveyed in this study, some polychaete families are potential indicators of
high organic loadings.
Differences between the compositions of polychaete families occurred between the four surveys. During
December 2011, the polychaete families were comprised of mainly Polygordiidae and Spionidae.
Polygordiidae had high abundance at 20m S and 200m N and Spionidae had high abundance at 50m S.
In comparison, polychaetes in the April 2012 survey were mostly comprised of Nereididae, Capitellidae
and Dorvilleidae. These families occurred in higher abundances at the sites within 100 m of the outfall
compared to the reference sites. Polychaete families at the reference sites were largely made up less
abundant species that have been categorised as “other”. The group “other” was generally similar across
all other sites. Polygordiidae were again present in the April 2012 survey, and with higher abundance
when compared to December 2011. However, no Polygordiidae were detected at 20m S during April
2012, where they had been previously abundant in December 2011.
During October 2012 and April 2013, the composition of polychaete families was quite different from
December 2011 and April 2012 in terms of the taxa present and also in terms of distribution between
sites. In general, Dorvilleidae, Nereididae and Spionidae were the families that occurred in the highest
abundances. Spionidae was also found to be among the most abundant polychaete families in
December 2011 and April 2012, while Dorvilleidae were most abundant in April 2012. During October
2012, the 10m S site had much higher abundance in comparison to all other sites and this was largely
characterised by the Dorvilleidae family. During April 2013, the 50m S site had the highest abundance
which was also dominated by the Dorvilleidae family.
The Polygordiidae and Dorvilleidae families were analysed by mixed model nested ANOVAs (Table 3.1).
For both families it was found that there was a significant interaction between time and site (distance),
indicating that the patterns in their abundance were different across the four surveys. For Polygordiidae,
there was significantly higher abundance at 20m S and 200m N in comparison to other sites, but during
December 2011 only. Dorvilleidae were significantly higher at 10m S during October 2012 and at 10m S
and 50m S during April 2013.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 40 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.6 Mean abundance of polychaete families surveyed. Families with low abundance (i.e. < 10 individuals across all sites) were
grouped as “other”. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A due to insufficient sediment depth to sample.
December 2011
April 2012
October 2012
April 2013
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 41 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.1.6 Other Infauna Taxa
Abundance of dominant infauna families other than polychaetes is presented in Figure 3.7. During
December 2011, there was a high abundance of Nematoda at the 50m S and 200m S sites. At 200m S
there was a high abundance of Oligochaeta.
The pattern of dominant families was different between the April 2012 and December 2011 surveys. Few
nematodes were detected in April 2012. There was also a general pattern of increasing Gammarids and
to a lesser extent of Ostracods, within 10 m to 200 m from the outfall. This pattern was not consistent for
the reference sites and there was very low abundance of infauna families here compared to all other
sites.
During October 2012, the dominant families were similar to April 2012 (but different to December 2011).
Gammarids and Ostracods were the most abundant taxa. However, in contrast to April 2012 there was a
trend for decreasing abundance of Gammarids with distance from the outfall.
During April 2013, the abundance of other dominant taxa was highest at sites 10m N, 20m S and 50m S.
The 20m S site was dominated by nematodes and the 50m S site was dominated by Gammarids.
Nematodes and Gammarids were analysed by mixed model nested ANOVAs, as these were taxa that
had the highest abundance across the two surveys or demonstrated trends with distance from the outfall
(Table 3.1). For Gammarids and nematodes, there was a significant interaction found between time and
site (distance) indicating that their patterns of abundance were inconsistent across the four surveys.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 42 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.7 Mean abundance of dominant infauna (other than polychaetes) surveyed. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site. = N/A
due to insufficient sediment depth to sample.
December 2011 April 2012
October 2012 April 2013
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 43 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.1.7 Summary of ANOVAs
Table 3.1 provides a summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables of
infauna taxa during all infauna surveys.
Table 3.1 Summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables of infauna
taxa. N = 3 replicate sediment cores per site.
Source Effect DF MS F p MS F p
Infauna Abundance Infauna Richness
Time Fixed 3 5.24 1.63 0.22 4.49 5.04 0.01*
Distance Fixed 5 7.98 0.86 0.55 0.74 0.56 0.73
Distance*Time Fixed 14 5.97 1.85 0.12 1.17 1.31 0.31
Site(Distance) Random 7 8.79 2.73 0.04* 1.28 1.44 0.26
Site(Distance)*Time Random 15 3.22 4.98 0.00** 0.89 3.66 0.00**
Error
90 0.65
0.24
Infauna Diversity Polychaete Ratio
Time Fixed 3 1.14 9.18 0.001** 0.97 1.34 0.29
Distance Fixed 5 0.06 0.45 0.802 1.02 1.04 0.47
Distance*Time Fixed 14 0.16 1.25 0.334 0.93 1.28 0.32
Site(Distance) Random 7 0.13 1.08 0.423 0.96 1.32 0.31
Site(Distance)*Time Random 15 0.12 2.90 0.000** 0.72 3.63 0.00**
Error
90 0.04
0.20
Polygordiidae Dorvilleidae
Time Fixed 3 5.63 1.59 0.04* 0.05 0.74 0.54
Distance Fixed 5 7.91 5.92 0.23 0.04 0.44 0.81
Distance*Time Fixed 14 3.35 0.95 0.53 0.05 0.83 0.63
Site(Distance) Random 7 1.52 0.43 0.87 0.09 1.35 0.29
Site(Distance)*Time Random 15 3.52 17.11 0.00** 0.06 3.48 0.00**
Error
90 0.21
0.02
Gammarid Amphipods Nereid Worms
Time Fixed 3 8.86 10.29 0.00** 3.94 2.27 0.13
Distance Fixed 5 2.51 1.15 0.42 11.13 3.56 0.07
Distance*Time Fixed 14 3.72 4.31 0.00** 3.01 1.73 0.15
Site(Distance) Random 7 2.07 2.39 0.07 3.01 1.73 0.18
Site(Distance)*Time Random 15 0.86 1.67 0.07 1.74 8.32 0.00**
Error
90 0.51
0.21
** = significant, p < 0.01, * = significant, p < 0.05. Note: all data was log transformed (ln x+ 1) to treat unequal
variances.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 44 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Table 3.1 (continued) Summary of mixed model nested ANOVAs for selected dependent variables
of infauna taxa.
Source Effect DF MS F p
Nematodes
Time Fixed 3 4.55 1.48 0.26
Distance Fixed 5 3.98 1.15 0.43
Distance*Time Fixed 14 3.29 1.07 0.45
Site(Distance) Random 7 4.32 1.11 0.41
Site (distance)*Time Random 15 3.07 5.38 0.00**
Error
90 0.57
** = significant, p < 0.01, * = significant, p < 0.05, ns = not significant.
Where Levenes test indicated unequal variances (p < 0.05), data was log transformed.
3.1.8 Power Analysis
Power analyses were carried out on the December 2011 survey data (i.e. data from first sampling round).
The first analysis was done to determine what replication would be required to detect significant
differences among sites. A Type I error rate of 5% (0.05) was used, a Type II error rate of 20% (0.2,
power 80%) was considered acceptable and a 50% effect size was used. The power analysis estimated
the amount of replication required to detect a significant difference (p < 0.05) with a 50% effect size
(Appendix 3). The amounts of estimated replicates per site were 115 for abundance, 12 for richness and
four for diversity. The analysis indicates that the sampling size of three sediment cores per site and six
sediment cores per distance was not sufficient replication to detect differences for abundance and
richness.
The second analysis was done to determine what power was achieved using the sample size used in the
current study (i.e. n = 3 per site). A Type I error rate of 5% (0.05) was used, a 50% effect size was used
and a sample size of 3 was used. The amount of power achieved was low with 5.2% for abundance,
12.3% for richness and 13.5% for diversity.
It should be noted:
The post hoc power analyses undertaken during the first sampling round suggested that much
more replication would be required for abundance and richness, however, this is likely to also be
due to the fact that low abundance was found at the 2,000 m distance during December 2011,
which is used as the basis for the effect size. The very large estimate for replicates required to
detect significant differences in abundance is due to the very low results for these measures at
the reference sites and the high variability at all sites. Alternative reference sites with a more
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 45 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
similar particle size distribution were found for the third and fourth sampling event (although
similar infauna assemblages were still found at the new sites).
Following the first and second sampling events, it was recommended that the replication should
be increased. However, it was considered that the costs and logistics (i.e. diving and sampling
days required) were too large.
ANOVAs undertaken on the first and second sampling events were able to detect differences
between sites and distances (this is generally considered to be sufficient evidence that enough
replication has been used). However, after incorporating the data from all four sampling events
differences could not be detected. At the site level, results were also inconsistent among the four
surveys and this is reflected in the analysis with significant interactions between time and site
(distance).
3.2 Multivariate Analyses of Infauna
3.2.1 December 2011
Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were used to compare patterns in the similarities of
infauna assemblages surveyed during the December 2011 survey (Figure 3.8; full analysis in Appendix
2). Visual examination of the MDS plot for the December 2011 survey indicates some grouping of sites
(e.g. 50m S, 100m N, 200m N and S) and distances (e.g. 100 m and 2,000 m). There is also some
directional separation evident between southern and northern sites at specific distances from the outfall
(e.g. 20 m N and S, 200 m N and S and 2,000 m N and S). While all sites within 200 m of the outfall tend
to lie on the right hand side of the plot, the reference sites all lie in the center and on the left, showing a
degree of dissimilarity between them.
Two-way global analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) indicated that there was a significant difference in
infauna assemblages. For December 2011 (R = 0.412, p < 0.05), this was due to significant pairwise
comparisons whereby the 20 m distance was different to 50 m and 2,000 m, the 50 m distance was
different to 100 m and 2,000 m and the 200 m distance was different to 2,000 m.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 46 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Figure 3.8 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of
infauna assemblages for December 2011.
The SIMPER analysis in Table 3.2 identifies and ranks families which are contributing the most to the
average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily accounted for the
observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique) in December 2011. Note: SIMPER
ranking does not necessarily correspond to the most abundant taxa. Abundant taxa for each survey
period are discussed in Section 3.1.
There was high variability in the structure of infauna assemblages among distances. In particular, the
>2,000 m distance had some distinctly ranked families such as Sipunculidae, Lumbrineridae and
Ophiuroidea spp. during December 2011.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 47 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Table 3.2 SIMPER analysis results for December 2011. Taxa are ranked in order of highest
contribution (using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets
within each location (distance).
Family / Taxa Common Name Phylum 10 m * 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m
Polygordiidae Polygordiid
worms Annelida - 1 (108) 1 (33)
Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida - 2 (19) 2 (64) 1 (12) 2 (1)
Gammarid spp. Gammarid Amphipods
Arthropoda - 3 (5) 4 (1) 4 (6) 1 (1)
Paraonidae Paranoid worms Annelida - 5 (7) 5 (1)
Hoplonemertea spp.
Ribbon worms Nemertea - 4 (3)
Nematoda spp. Nematodes Nematoda - 1 (113) 2 (79)
Capitellidae Capitellid worms Annelida -
Oligochaeta spp.
Oligochaeta Annelida - 2 (2) 3 (88)
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms Annelida - 3 (1)
Sipunculidae Peanut worms Sipuncula - 3 (1)
Lumbrineridae Lumbrinereid
worms Annelida - 4 (1)
Ophiuroidea spp.
Brittle stars Echinodermata - 5 (1)
* N.B. 10 m sites could not be sampled during December 2011 due to a lack of sediment depth.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 48 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.2.2 April 2012
Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were used to compare patterns in the similarities of
infauna assemblages surveyed during the April 2012 survey (Figure 3.9; full analysis in Appendix 2).
For the April 2012 survey, clear grouping of the > 2,000 m distance was seen. While the site replicates
for many of the other distances are overlapping, some clustering within the 10 m, 20 m and 50 m
distances are evident. These three distances are also clustered quite closely to each other in the bottom
central area of the plot, while the 100 m and 200 m distances are clustered together in the top right of the
plot. Site replicates from the northern and southern directions did not show much distinction from each
other, with the exception of 200 m. However this plot should be interpreted with caution due to the high
stress value of 0.2, however still below the maximum stress value of 0.3 recommended by Sturrock and
Rocha (2000) for two-dimensional MDS plots. During April 2012, there was a significant difference
between distances (R = 0.39, p < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons indicated that 50 m was significantly
different to the 10 m, 20 m and 100 m distances. The 10 m distance was also different to 20 m.
Figure 3.9 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of
infauna assemblages for April 2012.
Transform: Square root
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)
Distance10m
20m
50m
100m
200m
> 2000m
10m N
10m N10m N
10m S
10m S
10m S
20m N
20m N
20m N
20m S
20m S
20m S
50m N50m N
50m N
50m S
50m S
50m S
100m N
100m N
100m N
100m S
100m S
100m S
200m N200m N
200m N
200m S
200m S
200m S
> 2000m N
> 2000m N
> 2000m N
> 2000 m S> 2000 m S
> 2000 m S
2D Stress: 0.2
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 49 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
The SIMPER analysis in Table 3.3 identifies and ranks families which are contributing the most to the
average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily accounted for the
observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique) in April 2012. Abundant taxa for each
survey period are discussed in Section 3.1.
Table 3.3 SIMPER analysis results for April 2012. Taxa are ranked in order of highest contribution
(using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets within each
location (distance).
Family / Taxa Common Name Phylum 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m
Nereididae Nereid worms Annelida 1 (7) 2 (5) 2 (13) 2 (18)
Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps
Arthropoda 2 (7) 3 (2) 4 (11) 2 (12)
Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida 4 (2) 5 (3)
Gammarid spp.
Gammarid amphipods
Arthropoda 3 (5) 1 (4) 1 (15) 1 (15) 1 (30) 1 (2)
Capitellidae Capitellids Annelida 5 (2) 5 (5)
Corophiidae Corophiid
amphipods Arthropoda 4 (6) 3 (6) 3 (6) 2 (3)
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms Annelida 4 (5) 5 (10)
Cumacea Cumaceans Arthropoda 4 (3)
Polygordiidae Polygordiid
worms Annelida 3 (22)
Nephtyidae Nephtyid worms Annelida 3 (1)
Loveniidae Heart urchins Echinodermata 4 (1)
Lumbrineridae Lumbrinereid
worms Annelida 5 (1)
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 50 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.2.3 October 2012
Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were used to compare patterns in the similarities of
infauna assemblages surveyed during the October 2012 survey (Figure 3.10; full analysis in Appendix
2). For the October 2012 survey grouping of site replicates for distances was apparent. There also
appears to be a slight gradient across the MDS. The 10 m site replicates are clustered together. This is
followed by 20 m, 50 m and 100 m, which still follow the gradient but with some overlapping. The
> 2,000m S sites are separately clustered together. There is directional separation evident within the
10 m, 50 m and > 2,000 m distances, with the northern and southern sites separately clustered.
There was a significant difference between distances during October 2012 (R = 0.31, p < 0.05). Pairwise
comparisons indicated that 100 m was significantly different to the 50 m, 200 m and > 2,000 m distances.
The 10 m distance was also different to 20 m. The > 2,000 m distance was also different to 50 m and
200 m and the 20 m distance was different to 50 m.
Transform: Square root
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)
Distance10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
200 m
> 2000 m
10m S10m S
10m S
20m N
20m N
20m N20m S
20m S
20m S
50m N
50m N
50m N
50m S50m S
50m S
100m N
100m N
100m N
100m S
100m S
100m S
200m N
200m N
200m N
200m S
200m S
200m S
> 2000m N> 2000m N
> 2000m N
> 2000 m S> 2000 m S
> 2000 m S2D Stress: 0.18
Figure 3.10 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of
infauna assemblages for October 2012.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 51 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
The SIMPER analysis for October 2012 in Table 3.4 identifies and ranks families which are contributing
the most to the average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily
accounted for the observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique). Abundant taxa for
each survey period are discussed in Section 3.1. The SIMPER analysis showed that the 10 m distance
had different infauna composition compared to the other distances, although there was variation between
all distances. Dorvilleidae (dorvilleid worms) were the most important ranked taxa at 10 m. In comparison
to the other distances, Gammarid spp. (gammarid amphipods) was the most important ranked family.
Table 3.4 SIMPER analysis results for October 2012. Taxa are ranked in order of highest
contribution (using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets
within each location (distance).
Family / Taxa Common Name Phylum 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms Annelida 1 (209)
Nereididae Nereid worms Annelida 2 (86) 4 (2)
Gammarid spp.
Gammarid amphipods
Arthropoda 3 (77) 1 (23) 1 (15) 1 (8) 1 (7) 1 (11)
Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps
Arthropoda 2 (12) 3 (8) 3 (2)
Corophiidae Corophiid
amphipods Arthropoda 3 (3) 3 (2) 2 (3)
Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida 4 (9) 2 (3) 2 (2)
Oligochaeta spp. Oligochaete sp.
Annelida 5 (4) 2 (5)
Cumacea Cumaceans Arthropoda 4 (1)
Paraonidae Paranoid worms Annelida 5 (1)
Nematoda spp. Nematodes
Nematoda 4 (1) 3 (3)
Terebellidae Terebellid
worms Annelida 4 (4)
Syllidae Syllid worms Annelida 5 (2)
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 52 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.2.4 April 2013
Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were used to compare patterns in the similarities of
infauna assemblages surveyed during the April 2013 survey (Figure 3.11; full analysis in Appendix 2).
During April 2013, there was some grouping of sites and a slight gradient with distance from the outfall.
Within most distances, there is strong directional separation with the southern and northern sites
separately clustered (i.e. 20 m, 50 m, 200 m and > 2,000 m). However this plot should be interpreted
with caution due to the high stress value of 0.23, however still below the maximum stress value of 0.3
recommended by Sturrock and Rocha (2000) for two-dimensional MDS plots. During April 2012, there
was a significant difference between distances (R = 0.39, p < 0.05).
There was a significant difference between distances during April 2013 (R = 0.20, p < 0.05). Pairwise
comparisons indicated that 200 m was different to all other distances. The 10 m and 20 m distances were
also different to 100 m and > 2,000 m.
Transform: Square root
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)
Distance10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
200 m
> 2000 m
10m N10m N
10m N
10 m S
10 m S
10 m S
20m N
20m N
20m N 20m S
20m S
20m S
50m N50m N50m N
50m S
50m S
50m S
100 m N
100 m N
100 m N
100 m S
100 m S100 m S
200 m N
200 m N
200 m N
200 m S
200 m S200 m S
> 2000 m S
> 2000 m S
> 2000 m S
> 2000 m N
> 2000 m N
> 2000 m N
2D Stress: 0.23
Figure 3.11 MDS analysis (square root transformation with Bray Curtis measure of similarity) of
infauna assemblages for April 2013.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 53 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
The SIMPER analysis for April 2013 in Table 3.5 identifies and ranks families which are contributing the
most to the average dissimilarity between sites and was used to identify which families primarily
accounted for the observed assemblage differences (i.e. which taxa were unique). Abundant taxa for
each survey period are discussed in Section 3.1. The SIMPER analysis showed that Gammarid spp.
were the most important ranked taxa at all distances from the outfall. Polychaetes were the second
ranked taxa at all distances except for > 2,000 m. Nereididae was ranked second at 10 m. Spionidiae
were ranked as the second most important taxa at 20 m, 100 m and 200 m. The > 2,000 m distance had
ostracods ranked as the second most important taxa.
Table 3.5 SIMPER analysis results for April 2013. Taxa are ranked in order of highest contribution
(using a cut off of 90%) to the average similarity with average abundance in brackets within each
location (distance).
Family / Taxa Common
Name Phylum 10 m 20 m 50 m 100 m 200 m 2000 m
Gammarid spp. Gammarid amphipods
Arthropoda 1 (13) 1 (8) 1 (32) 1 (8) 4 (2) 1 (3)
Nereididae Nereid worms Annelida 2 (4) 4 (24)
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid
worms Annelida 3 (22) 2 (44)
Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps Arthropoda 4 (6) 4 (2) 2 (2)
Spionidae Spionid worms Annelida 5 (3) 2 (8) 3 (5) 2 (5) 2 (2) 4 (1)
Nematoda spp. Nematodes Nematoda 3 (2) 5 (2)
Corophiidae Corophid
amphipods Arthropoda 3 (3) 3 (4)
Oligochaeta spp. Oligochaete sp.
Annelida 4 (7)
Capitellidae Capitellid
worms Annelida 5 (3)
Polygordiidae Polygordiid
worms Annelida 1 (16)
Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms
Nemertia 3 (1)
Syllidae Sylid worms Annelida 5 (1)
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 54 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.2.5 Summary of MDS
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) plots were used to identify overall patterns in infauna assemblages at
Burwood Beach by distance, survey event, direction and season (Figures 3.12 - 3.15 respectively).
The MDS plot of infauna assemblages by sampling event (Figure 3.13) shows the strongest
groupings, suggesting that sampling event was the strongest factor driving differences in infauna
assemblages over the study period. Overall analysis by sampling event shows that there is separate
grouping of the April 2013 sampling event. The main infauna taxa responsible for these differences
were Amphinomidae, Gammarid spp., Polycladida spp. The MDS plot of infauna assemblages by
season also shows quite strong grouping between the cool water versus warm water seasons (Figure
3.15). Figures 3.12 and 3.14 which show infauna assemblages by distance and direction
respectively do not show strong grouping between the variables. The overall analysis of distances
(Figures 3.12) indicates that while there are similarities between the distances, much overlap
between replicates occurs. No overall grouping by direction is evident (Figure 3.14).
A nested Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA), with time and distance as
the main factors, was undertaken and significant differences were found at all levels of the analysis
(Table 3.6). Pairwise comparisons between sampling events found that April 2013 was significantly
different to October 2012 and April 2012. However, a significant interaction with distance indicates
that this pattern was not consistent across all distances. A significant interaction between time and
distance was due to a significant difference between sampling events for distances of 100 m and 200
m. Pairwise comparisons found that infauna assemblages were significantly different for
100 m in December 2011 in comparison to April 2012 and October 2012, and for 200 m in October
2012 in comparison to April 2012 and April 2013.
Table 3.6 Overall PERMANOVA analysis of infauna assemblages across all survey events.
Factor Source DF MS Pseudo F Ratio
p-value Permutations
Time Fixed 5 5028.1 1.52 0.048* 997
Distance Fixed 3 19613.0 5.57 0.001** 999
Site(Distance) Random 6 3357.9 2.81 0.001** 999
Time*Distance Fixed 13 5084.1 1.44 0.019* 997
Time*Site(Distance) Random 14 3520.9 2.95 0.001* 994
Error 84 1193.5
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 55 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Transform: Square root
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)
Distance10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
200 m
> 2000 m
Amphinomidae
Gammaridea spp
Polycladida sp.
2D Stress: 0.19
Figure 3.12 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by distance.
Transform: Square root
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)
Survey EventDecember 2011
April 2012
October 2012
April 2013
Amphinomidae
Gammaridea spp
Polycladida sp.
2D Stress: 0.19
Figure 3.13 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by sampling event.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 56 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Transform: Square root
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)
DirectionNorth
South
Amphinomidae
Gammaridea spp
Polycladida sp.
2D Stress: 0.19
Figure 3.14 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by direction.
Transform: Square root
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d)
Seasoncool water
warm water
Amphinomidae
Gammaridea spp
Polycladida sp.
2D Stress: 0.19
Figure 3.15 Overall MDS analysis of infauna assemblages by season.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 57 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.3 Marine Sediments
3.3.1 December 2011
During December 2011, TOC concentrations were consistently elevated at the 10 m S site. Sediment
samples collected from most sites were found to have similar levels of TOC which ranged from 0.02 -
0.07%, with the exception of sites 10m S and 20m N. The 10m S site was found to have TOC levels
of 0.76 and 0.53% while 20m N had one sample with 0.13% TOC.
Table 3.7 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for December 2011.
Site Total Organic Carbon (TOC %)
Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
10m N 0.07, 0.07
Majority comprised of sand (99%, 98%) with very low levels of silt (<1%,
2%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
10m S 0.76, 0.53
Majority comprised of sand at one site (88%), gravel (8%), silt (4%) with low levels of clay and cobbles. Majority comprised of sand in other sample (73%), clay (22%), gravel (4%) with low levels of silt and cobbles
(<1%).
20m N 0.03, 0.13
Majority comprised of sand (98%, 95%), low silt (1%, 3%), low gravel
(<1%, 2%) and very low clay and cobbles (<1%).
20m S 0.07, 0.12
Majority comprised of sand (99%, 97%), low silt (1%, 2%) with very low
levels of clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
50m N 0.1, <0.2
Majority comprised of sand (both 98%) with very low levels of silt (2%,
<1%), clay, gravel and cobbles (<1%).
50m S <0.02, <0.02
Majority comprised of sand (98%, 98%) with very low levels of silt (<1%,
2%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
100m N 0.07, 0.03
Majority comprised of sand (99%, 98%) with very low levels of silt, clay,
gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
100m S 0.07, 0.06
Majority comprised of sand (97%, 99%) with very low levels of silt (3%,
<1%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
200m N 0.02, 0.03
Majority comprised of sand (both 97%), followed by silt (both 3%), with
very low levels of clay, gravel and cobbles (<1%).
200m S 0.03, 0.07
Majority comprised of sand (97%, 98%) with very low levels of silt (3%,
<1%), clay, gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
500m N 0.04, 0.06
Majority comprised of sand (both 99%) with very low levels of silt, clay,
gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
500m S 0.03, 0.03
Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%) with very low levels of silt, clay,
gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
2,000m N 0.03, 0.04
Majority comprised of sand (both 99%) with very low levels of silt, clay,
gravel and cobbles (all <1%).
2,000m S 0.03, 0.05
Majority comprised of sand (89%, 97%) with very low levels of silt (1%,
3%), gravel (9%,1%), clay (2%, 1%), cobbles (<1%).
Note: Analyses of total organic carbon and particle size distribution were based on sediment samples of
2 cm depth compared to 22 cm sediment cores for infauna sampling. N.B. there were two sediment
sampling sites in the vicinity of each infauna site.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 58 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.3.2 October 2012
During October 2012 it was found that most sites had low levels of TOC (0.05% or less) with the
exception of sites 10m S, 10m N, 50m S and 100m S. The 10m S site had the highest TOC with
2.16%. The 50m S site had 0.25%, followed by 10m N which had one sample with 0.14% and
100m S with one sample of 0.11%. At the 10m S and the 50m S sites there was a lack of sediments
that were deep enough to sample. Most sites had similar particle size distribution with the majority
comprised of over 90% sand. The exceptions to this were 10m S, 50m S and 200m S.
Table 3.8 Sediment characteristics at each sampling site for October 2012.
Site Total Organic
Carbon (TOC %) Particle Size Distribution (PSD)
10m N 0.05, 0.14 Majority comprised of sand (95%, 96%), low clay (4%, 3%) with very
low levels of silt (1%, <1%), gravel (<1 %, 1%) and cobbles (<1%).
10m S 2.16 Mostly comprised of sand (73%), followed by gravel (19%) with low
levels of clay (6%), silt (2%) and cobbles (<1%).
20m N <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (92%, 98%), low silt (4%, <1%), low clay
(3%, 1%) with very low levels of gravel (1%) and cobbles (<1%).
20m S 0.04, 0.03 Majority comprised of sand (99%, 96%), low silt (1%, 2%) with very
low levels of clay (<1%, 1%), gravel (<1 %, 1%) and cobbles (<1%).
50m N 0.03, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%), with very low levels of clay
(1%, <1%), silt (1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
50m S 0.25 Mostly comprised of sand (80%), followed by gravel (11%) with low
levels of clay (7%), silt (2%) and cobbles (<1%).
100m N <0.02, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%), with very low levels of clay
(1%, <1%), silt (1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
100m S 0.02, 0.11 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 99%), with very low levels of clay
(1%, <1%), silt (1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
200m N <0.02, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (98%, 97%), with very low levels of clay
(2%), silt (<1%, 1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
200m S 0.03, 0.03 Majority comprised of sand (88%, 97%) followed by clay (5%, <1%),
gravel (6%, <1%), with low levels of silt (1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
500m N < 0.02, 0.02 Majority comprised of sand (99%, 100%), with very low levels of clay
(<1%), silt (1%, <1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
500m S < 0.02, <0.02 Majority comprised of sand (99%, 100%), with very low levels of clay
(<1%), silt (1%, <1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
2,000m N <0.02, 0.03 Majority comprised of sand (94%, 98%), followed by gravel (6%, 1%)
with very low levels of clay, silt and cobbles.
2,000m S <0.02, 0.02 Majority comprised of sand (99%), with very low levels of clay (<1%),
silt (1%), gravel (<1 %) and cobbles (<1%).
Note: Analyses of total organic carbon and particle size distribution were based on sediment samples of
2 cm depth compared to 22 cm sediment cores for infauna sampling. N.B. there were two sediment
sampling sites in the vicinity of each infauna site.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 59 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
3.4 Multivariate Analyses of Sediments
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ordinates samples based on their dissimilarities between
parameters. Differences in sediment size can contribute to the variability observed in infauna
assemblages. The particle size distribution (PSD) data from sediments sampled at Burwood Beach in
December 2011 were analysed to examine for potential variability between distances. It should be
noted that while taken at the same sites, these sediment samples were only taken from the top 2 cm
of sediment while infauna sediment cores were collected to 22 cm deep.
The PSD of sediments from the December 2011 survey is presented in Figure 3.16. Overall, PSD for
this sampling period was very similar among distances with the majority of samples comprised of 97%
- 99% sand, with the exception of several site replicates. Two site replicates at the 10 m distance had
73% and 88% sand, respectively, and one site replicate at the > 2,000 m distance had 89% sand.
Consequently, these replicates are clustered separately on the PCA plot.
Figure 3.17 presents the PSD results for October 2012. During October 2012, with the exception of
some site replicates, the PSD for most distances was similar with the majority comprised of at least
94% sand. The exceptions were the 10m S, 50m S and 200m S sites. These sites had lower
proportions of sand compared to the other sites which ranged from 73% - 88%. Consequently, these
replicates are clustered separately on the PCA plot.
The sediment samples were also classified into smaller PSD categories and a MDS plot of particle
size for samples collected during both years presented by zone (i.e. outfall impact, midfield mixing
and reference zones) is presented in Figure 3.18. This MDS plot indicates that most sites share a
similar particle size distribution. Four outfall samples (10SE and 10SW from 2011 and 10SE and
50SE from 2012) were also found to have disparate particle size distribution, which was partly due to
having a high proportion of particles in the 75 - 150 µm size class.
-10 0 10 20 30 40
PC1
-10
0
10
PC
2
Distance
10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
200 m
500 m
> 2000 m
Clay (<2 µm)
Silt (2-60 µm)
Sand
Gravel (>2mm)
Cobbles (>6cm)
Figure 3.16 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled
during December 2011 (n = 4 per distance). Points are coloured by distance.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 60 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
-10 0 10 20 30
PC1
-10
0
10
PC
2
Distance10 m
20 m
50 m
100 m
200 m
500 m
> 2000 m
Clay (<2 µm)
Silt (2-60 µm)
Sand (0.06-2.00 mm)
Gravel (>2mm)
Cobbles (>6cm)
Figure 3.17 Principal component analysis of particle size distribution in sediments sampled
during October 2012 (n = 4 per distance). Points are coloured by distance.
Figure 3.18 MDS analysis of particle size distribution in sediments during December 2011 and
October 2012 represented by zone (n = 4 per distance / survey). Each point represents a
single sample and points are coloured by zone.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 61 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
4 DISCUSSION
Burwood Beach WWTW is located in a high energy coastal environment where large movements of
sand occur intermittently offshore. This issue has been identified by previous consultants monitoring
the marine receiving environment of Burwood Beach WWTW. During the first sampling event, many
sites could not be sampled due to a lack of sufficient depth for sampling of sediment (i.e. at least 22
cm deep). However, there was sufficient sediment available to sample at all sites during subsequent
sampling events. Infauna assemblages are likely to be influenced by the lack of a stable sandy
environment which may result in fluctuating infauna abundance, richness and diversity and a bias
toward opportunistic species that have rapid reproductive turnover that allow them to recover once
the sand returns. The rate of recovery will be dependent on a range of factors including the species
present prior to sand covering, the environmental characteristics of the sites (depth and exposure),
the amount of mobile sand and the period of sand cover.
During this study it was found that there was large spatial and temporal variability in the infauna
assemblages. This has been identified by others as a common issue in using infauna communities to
monitor environmental impacts (Gray 1974; Pearson and Rosenberg 1978; Otway et al. 1996).
Infaunal communities are composed of a mosaic of successional patches, resulting from numerous
interacting processes; often attributing to the significant spatial and temporal variation observed in
infaunal monitoring programs (Peterson 1977; Dayton and Oliver 1980). As there were no consistent
spatial or temporal patterns seen between the abundance, richness or diversity of infauna with
distance away from the outfall, it was not possible to detect a gradient of impact from the Burwood
Beach WWTW discharge. In contrast, despite high spatial and temporal variability, the key findings of
Otway et al. (1996) were that infauna abundance generally increased around the Sydney outfalls
(Malabar, North Head and Bondi) in comparison to the reference sites. However, it was also found
that the percentage of impacts of increased infauna abundance decreased with an increase in the
flow rate and suspended solids loads (i.e. with higher flow rates the impact of increased infauna
abundance was not observed as often). This may be an important consideration and highlights one
example of how WWTW processing can also impact on variability of infauna communities, another
factor that may have potentially contributed to the variability found in the present study.
The degree of inherent spatial and temporal variability can have a large influence on the experimental
design and the replication that is required to detect significant differences (Underwood 1998). As a
result of the large variability found in infaunal communities, the post hoc power analyses also
estimated that much higher replication (i.e. than what was used) was required to detect significant
differences between distances. The power of the statistical tests affects the ability to detect
significant differences (i.e. making a type II error) and this has been identified in past studies on
infaunal communities (Peterman 1990; Otway et al. 1995). The lack of sufficient replication may have
been at least partially responsible for the finding of no significant differences in infauna abundance,
richness and diversity between time and distance.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 62 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
One indicator of high organic loading in a marine environment can be the dominance of polychaetes
in comparison to other infauna species. The ratio of polychaetes to all other taxa was assessed and
there was an elevated ratio close to the outfall (in comparison to all other sites) during April 2012,
October 2012 and April 2013. This finding suggests that there may be an occasional effect of
polychaete dominance < 20 m from outfall. This finding of an elevated polychaete ratio close to the
outfall is likely to be related to higher levels of organic loading close to the WWTW as higher TOC
levels and lower proportions of sand were also found at 10m S (compared to other sites) during
December 2011 and October 2012 in the Burwood Beach Sediment Study. As outlined in the
sediment study, these results may suggest that a very small (temporary) area of organic enrichment
may exist around the outfall. This is consistent with the results from a previous assessment of the
Burwood Beach WWTW by Roberts et al. (2007). Roberts et al. (2007) found that there were
significant differences in TOC levels between sites located near (< 50 m) and far (> 200 m) from the
outfall. The findings of the Burwood Beach Infauna Study suggest that there may be a localised area
of impact around the Burwood WWTW discharge.
Some polychaetes can also respond to high levels of organic loading and the abundance of
polychaete families may be useful to assess impacts from WWTWs. Polychaete taxa that are
opportunistic, such as species within the families of Capitellidae, Nereidae and Syllidae, are
commonly used as indicators of sources of organic pollution (such as WWTWs) (Dean 2009).
Polychaete families that were highest in abundance were individually assessed to identify if any
families showed a trend with distance from the outfall. There was occasional high abundance of
some polychaete families close to the outfall (i.e. ≤ 50 m) in comparison to other sites. This included
higher abundance of Polygordiidae and Spionidae during December 2011, Dorvilleidae during
October 2012 and Dorvilleidae and Nereididae during April 2013. Within these polychaete groups,
there are taxa that have been identified to exhibit subsurface or surface deposit feeding methods and
a higher abundance of deposit feeders can be a reflection of an environment with high organic
loading (Dean 2009). This may indicate a potential impact in terms of elevated abundance of infauna
that are (potentially) deposit feeders, close to the outfall.
The biology of abundant infauna families may provide further insight into the findings of the Burwood
Beach Infauna study. The most abundant infauna taxa in this study included Dorvilleidae,
Gammarids and Polygordiidae. Dorvilleidae is a family of polychaetes that are known to reside in
both the intertidal and deep marine environments and depending on the species, can occur in algae
debris or in coarse or fine sandy sediments. The dorvilleid species, Ophryotrocha adherens, has also
been shown to be a positive indicator of polluted environments (Bailey-Brock et al. 2000; Dean 2008).
Higher abundance of Dorvillieids were found close to the outfall during October 2012 and April 2013
and this could be a result of an outfall influence, depending on the composition of species within
Dorveilleidae and whether they are opportunistic or not.
Gammarid amphipods accounted for approximately one quarter of total infauna sampled during the
April 2012, October 2012 and April 2013 sampling events. Gammarid amphipods are crustaceans
that are sometimes referred to as sand fleas. They are known to be one of the most common aquatic
marine taxa and are frequently found to be the most abundant and diverse crustaceans in studies of
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 63 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
shallow marine ecosystems such as Boulder Bay (Chapman 1988; Jones and Morgan 1994). The
pattern of abundance of gammarid amphipods found in this study does not suggest any relationship
with distance from the outfall.
The presence of Polygordiidae at a number of sampling sites was of taxonomic interest as this family
has only one other published occurrence in Australian waters (Avery et al. 2009). The Polygordiid
collected in this study was confirmed by the Australian Museum as P. kiarama (Anna Murray, pers.
comm).
In monitoring infauna assemblages, seasonality is an important factor to consider in the experimental
design and interpretation of findings. As with all ecological communities, seasonality can play a major
role in the distribution and abundance of infauna assemblages with variations in temperature, nutrient
availability and light (Gray and Elliot 2009). There was higher overall abundance of infauna during
the spring / summer months (i.e. cool water surveys; December 2011 and October 2012) in
comparison to the autumn months (i.e. warm water surveys; April 2012 and April 2013). The April
2013 sampling event was also clustered separately in the MDS analysis by sampling event. The
main infauna taxa responsible for the observed difference were Amphinomidae, Gammarid spp. and
Polycladida spp. The higher abundance during the cool water surveys is likely related to seasonality,
and potentially differences in recruitment of these taxa. Not surprisingly, others have found that there
are differences in infaunal assemblages, in terms of abundance and composition, between different
seasons. During summer months, there can be large numbers of juveniles which can inflate
abundance and can mask trends in the data. Others have reported that there has been higher
abundance of infauna during the summer months in comparison to winter. For example, Buchanan et
al. (1978) demonstrated that abundance of infauna measured in the UK off the coast of
Northumberland over three years displayed a clear annual pattern of fluctuating abundance which
was dependent on the season, with high increases during the warm waters in summer and low
abundance during winter. This may provide an explanation for the high abundance at several sites
during December 2011 and October 2012 as often abundance at these sites was characterised by a
large number of one particular taxon (for example, during December 2011 with Polygordiidae). The
study by Otway et al. (1996) of infauna communities around the Sydney deepwater outfalls, also
found significantly higher infauna abundance during summer, in comparison to winter. Thus, it is
likely that the higher overall abundance found during December 2011, and to a lesser extent during
October 2012, may be linked to seasonality.
There have been no previous studies of infaunal communities undertaken in the receiving
environment of Burwood Beach WWTW to use as a comparison for the results in this study.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 64 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
5 CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there were no detectable impacts on infauna abundance, richness and diversity.
The only apparent trend that could be related to discharge was the high polychaete ratio
observed at sites closest to the outfall, where a potential zone of effect is within 20 m of the
outfall.
A high level of variability was found in infauna assemblages which likely contributed to the
difficulty in detecting significant differences between sites that could be attributed to the discharge
from the outfall. Significant differences may not have been detected due to insufficient power to
detect differences.
Burwood Beach WWTW is located in a high energy coastal environment where large movements
of sand occur intermittently offshore. High variability is also common in studies of infauna
assemblages. Although significant differences were found between sites, these differences were
confined within sampling events and the patterns were not consistent at the distance level or
between sampling events.
The high spatial and temporal variability detected in infauna communities here makes it difficult to
determine the potential effects of increased WWTW flows on infauna in the receiving environment
with any degree of certainty.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 65 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank those that assisted with the design and implementation of this study.
Consulting Environmental Engineers, NSW EPA, NSW Marine Parks and NSW DPI Fisheries
assisted with the design of the sampling program and methodology. Sandy Bottom Boat Charters, a
commercial fishing charter, provided a boat for sampling. Divers from WorleyParsons undertook all
the sampling with Judith Phillips acting as an ADAS Commercial Diving Supervisor. Aquen undertook
the infauna identification and Anna Murray from the Australian Museum confirmed the species
identification of a recently described Polygordiidae family. Operators from Burwood Beach WWTW
assisted with the sampling by turning off the biosolids diffuser for the divers. All surveys / sampling
for the Boulder Bay MEAP were undertaken under NSW Fisheries Permit #P110051-1.2 and NSW
Marine Parks Permit #2011/046.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 66 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
7 REFERENCES
Ashton, P. H. and Richardson, B. (1995) Biological Monitoring of the Marine Ocean Outfall at Black
Rock, Victoria Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 31, 334-340.
Avery, L., Ramey, P. and Wilson, R. (2009). New Polygordiidae (Polychaeta) from the Australian
region. Zootaxa 2068, 59-68.
AWT (2000). Benthos survey at Boulder Bay and Burwood Beach wastewater treatment works ocean
outfalls. Australian Water Technologies. October 2000.
BioAnalysis (2006). Patterns in assemblages of macrobenthos associated with the ocean outfalls at
Boulder Bay, Burwood Beach and Belmont Beach – ocean outfall benthos study. Editors: Roberts,
D.E. and Murray, S.R. August 2006.
Buchanan, J., Warwick, Sheader, M. and Kingston, P. (1978). Sources of variability in the benthic
macrofauna of the south Northumberland coast. 197106, Journal of the Marine Association of the UK
54, 191-210.
Chapman, M. G. (1998). Relationships between spatial patterns of benthic assemblages in a
mangrove forest using different levels of taxonomic resolution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 162,
71-78.
Dauer, D. and Conner (1980). Effects of moderate sewage input on benthic polychaete populations.
Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 10 (3), 1-12.335-346.
Dauvin, J. and Ruellet, T. (2006). Polychaete/Amphipod Ratio Revisited. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55
(1-6), 215-224.
Dayton, P.K. and Oliver, J.S. (1980). An evaluation of experimental analysis of population and
community patterns in benthic marine environments. In: Marine benthic Dynamics, K.R. Tenore and
B.C. Coull eds. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC, pp 93-120.
Dean, H. (2008). The use of polychaetes (Annelida) as indicator species of marine pollution: a review.
Revista de Biologia Tropical 56, 11-38.
Defeo, O., McLachlan, A., Schoeman, D., Schlacher, T.,Dugan, J., Jones, A., Lastra, M. and Scapini,
F. (2009). Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: A review. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 81, 1-
12.
Del-Pilar-Ruso, Y., de-la-Ossa-Carretero, J., Giménez-Casalduero, F. and Sánchez-Lizaso, J. (2010).
Sewage treatment level and flow rates affect polychaete assemblages. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60,
1930–1938.
Dorsey, J. (1982). Intertidal community offshore from the Werribee sewage-treatment farm: an
opportunistic infaunal assemblage. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33(1), 45 –
54.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 67 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Fairweather, P.G. (1990). Sewage and the biota on seashores: assessment of impact in relation to
natural variability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 14, 197-210.
Fry, V.A. and Butman, B. (1991). Estimates of the seafloor area impacted by sludge dumped at the
106-mile site in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Marine Environmental Research 31, 145-60.
Gray and Elliott. (2009). Ecology of Marine Sediments, from science to management. 2nd
Eds.
Published by Oxford University Press. New York.
Gray, J. and Pearson, T. (1982). Objective selection of sensitive species indicative of pollution-
induced changes in benthic communities. I Comparative methodology. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 66, 285-299.
Gray, J.S. (1974). Animal-sediment relationships. Oceanography and Marine Biology: Annual
Review 12, 223-261.
Keeley, N., Barter, P. and Robertson, B. (2002). Assessment of ecological effects on the seabed
surrounding the Gisborne wastewater outfall: winter 2002. Cawthron Report No. 735. Prepared for
Gisborne District Council. 40 p. + Appendices.
Kingsborough Council (2008) Environmental Assessment Report Replacement of Blackmans Bay
Outfall. A report produced by Kingsborough Council for submission of EPA Tasmania.
Morris, L. and Keough, M. (2002). Organic pollution and its effects: a short-term transplant experiment
to assess the ability of biological endpoints to detect change in a soft sediment environment. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 225, 109-221.
Otway, N.M., Gray, C.A., Craig, J.R., McVea, T.A. and Ling, J.E. (1996). Assessing the impacts of
deepwater sewage outfalls on spatially and temporally variable marine communities. Marine
Environmental Research 41, 45-71.
Pearson, T.H. and Rosenberg, R. (1976). A comparative study of the effects on the marine
environment of wastes from cellulose industries in Scotland and Sweden. Ambio 5, 77-79.
Pearson, T.H. and Rosenberg, R. (1978). Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment
and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 16, 229-
311.
Peterson, C.H. (1977). Competitive organisation of the soft-bottom macrobenthic communities of
southern California lagoons. Marine Biology 43, 343-359.
Phillips, D.J.H. (1977). The use of biological indicator organisms to monitor trace metal pollution in
marine and estuarine environments – a review. Environmental Pollution 13, 281-317.
Phillips, D.J.H. (1978). The use of biological indicator organisms to quantitate organochlorine
pollutants in aquatic environments – a review. Environmental Pollution 16, 167-229.
Reish, D.J. (1980). Effects of domestic wastes on the benthic marine communities of southern
California. Helgol. Meeresunters., 33, 377-383.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 68 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Reish, D.J., Oshida, P.S., Mears, A.J., and Ginn, T.C. (1987). Effects on saltwater organisms.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 59, 572-586.
Roberts, D.E. and Murray, S.R. (2006). Patterns in assemblages of macrobenthos associated with
the ocean outfalls at Boulder Bay, Burwood Beach and Belmont Beach. Report to Hunter water
Corporation by BioAnalysis Pty Ltd.
Roberts, D.E., Smith, A., Ajani, P. and Davis, A.R. (1998). Rapid changes in encrusting marine
assemblages exposed to anthropogenic point-source pollution: a „Beyond BACI‟ approach. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 163, 213-224
Roper, D., Smith, D. and Read, G. (1989). Benthos associated with two New Zealand coastal outfalls.
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 23, 295-309.
Tsutumi, H. (1990). Population persistence of Capitella sp. (Polychaeta; Capitellidae) on a mud flat
subject to environmental disturbance by organic enrichment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 63,
147-156.
Underwood, A. J. (1998). Experiments in Ecology. Their logical design and interpretation using
analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press.
Underwood, A.J., Chapman, M.G. and Roberts, D.E. (2003). A practical protocol to assess impacts of
unplanned disturbance: a case study in Tuggerah Lakes estuary, NSW. Ecological Management and
Restoration 4, 4-11.
Underwood, A.J. (1992). Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on populations in the
real, but variable, world. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 161, 145-178.
Underwood, A.J. (1993). The mechanics of spatially replicated sampling programmes to detect
environmental impacts in a variable world. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 99-116.
Underwood, A.J. and Peterson, C.H. (1988). Towards an ecological framework for investigating
pollution. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46, 227-234.
Ward, T. and Hutchings, P. (1996). Effects of trace metals on infaunal species composition in polluted
intertidal and subtidal marine sediments near a lead smelter, Spencer Gulf, South Australia. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 135, 123-135.
Warwick, R.M. (1993). Environmental impact studies on marine communities: pragmatical
considerations. Australian Journal of Ecology 18, 63-80.
Weston, D. (1990). Quantitative examination of macrobenthic community changes along an organic
enrichment gradient. Marine Ecology Progress Series 61, 233-244.
WorleyParsons (2013). Burwood Beach Sediment Study. A report prepared for Hunter Water by
WorleyParsons.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 69 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
Appendix 1 – Infauna Abundance (site averages)
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 70 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
December 2011
Family Common Name >2000m
N 200m
N 100m
N 50m
N 20m
N 10m
N 10m
S 20m
S 50m
S 100m
S 200m
S >2000m
S
undifferentiated Anemones 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00
Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Arrow worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Glyceridae Bloodworms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ophurida sp Brittle stars 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
Haminoeidae Bubble shell 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capitellidae Capitellid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.33 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chaetopteridae Chaetopterid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Corallanidae Corallanid pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Copepods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.33 0.33
Cossuridae Cossuridae worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Crab megalopas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cumacea sp. a Cumaceans (small telson) 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33
undifferentiated Decapod shrimp sp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 71 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
December 2011
Family Common Name >2000m
N 200m
N 100m
N 50m
N 20m
N 10m
N 10m
S 20m
S 50m
S 100m
S 200m
S >2000m
S
Nassariidae Dog Whelks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 0.00 2.67 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 5.33 0.33 0.00 1.33 0.00
Sabalidae Feather-duster worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gammaridea spp. Gammarid amphipods 1.33 4.33 2.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 0.00 4.33 10.00 0.00 6.67 2.67
Callianassidae Ghost shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Loveniidae Heart urchins 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Diogenidae Hermit crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0.00 4.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Holothuriidae Holothurians 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phoronida Horse shoe worms 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Lace animals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tellinoidea Little brown tellin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33
Luciferidae Lucifer shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67
Mactridae Mactrid shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Serolidae Marine isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Halacaridae Marine Mite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Marine slugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gastrapoda sp.a Marine snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 72 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
December 2011
Family Common Name >2000m
N 200m
N 100m
N 50m
N 20m
N 10m
N 10m
S 20m
S 50m
S 100m
S 200m
S >2000m
S
undifferentiated Marine sponges 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annelida sp. Marine worms 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Megalonidae Megalonid worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Naticidae Moon snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Mytilidae Mussels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Mysidae Mysids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
undifferentiated Nematodes 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 3.00 0.00 10.00 225.33 0.00 8.00 0.00
Nephtyidae Nephtyid worms 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33
Nereididae Nereid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00
Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oligochaeta ? sp.a Oligochaeta ? sp.b 0.00 0.00 3.67 0.00 0.67 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.50 1.00
Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oweniidae Oweniid worms 0.00 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paraonidae Paraonid worms 0.33 8.67 2.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 13.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Polycladida sp. Pointed rostrum-small chaetae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.67 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 73 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
December 2011
Family Common Name >2000m
N 200m
N 100m
N 50m
N 20m
N 10m
N 10m
S 20m
S 50m
S 100m
S 200m
S >2000m
S
Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama) Polyclad flatworms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
Orbiniidae Polygordiid worms 0.00 65.67 0.00 0.00 7.33 0.00 0.00 208.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Orbiniidae Rag worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 0.00 2.67 2.67 0.00 2.67 0.67 0.00 3.33 0.67 0.00 2.00 0.00
undifferentiated Sea Squirts (stalked) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Seapens 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Seed shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 2.00 0.00
Sigalionidae? Sigalionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00
Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Majidae Spider crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Spionidae Spionid worms 0.33 2.67 19.33 0.00 30.00 8.00 0.00 7.00 128.67 0.00 1.67 0.67
Portunidae Swimming crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.67 2.33 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.67
Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 1.00 0.67
undifferentiated Tanaids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 74 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
December 2011
Family Common Name >2000m
N 200m
N 100m
N 50m
N 20m
N 10m
N 10m
S 20m
S 50m
S 100m
S 200m
S >2000m
S
Tellinidae Tellins 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Terrebellidae Terebellid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated tunicata larvaceans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Veneridae Venus shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Volutidae Volutes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trichobranchidae Trichobranchid worms 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trochiodae Trochiod shells 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.67
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 75 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2012
Family Common Name 10m
N 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000m
S
undifferentiated Anemones 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Arrow worms 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Glyceridae Bloodworms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ophurida sp Brittle stars 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33
Haminoeidae Bubble shell 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Capitellidae Capitellid worms 4.00 0.33 0.33 9.00 1.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chaetopteridae Chaetopterid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Corallanidae Corallanid pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Copepods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67
Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 1.00 1.00 2.33 10.33 1.00 11.33 6.00 5.33 1.67 0.00 2.67 3.67
Cossuridae Cossuridae worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Crab megalopas 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cumacea sp. a Cumaceans (small telson) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.67 2.67 0.33 5.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 76 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2012
Family Common Name 10m
N 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000m
S
undifferentiated Decapod shrimp sp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nassariidae Dog Whelks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 2.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 4.33 5.33 1.00 18.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.33
Sabalidae Feather-duster worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gammarid spp Gammarid amphipods 1.67 7.67 2.67 5.67 9.33 21.33 15.67 14.00 27.67 31.33 1.33 2.00
Callianassidae Ghost shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Loveniidae Heart urchins 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67
Diogenidae Hermit crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.00
Holothuriidae Holothurians 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Phoronida Horse shoe worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Lace animals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tellinoidea Little brown tellin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Luciferidae Lucifer shrimps 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00
Mactridae Mactrid shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Serolidae Marine isopods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
Halacaridae Marine Mite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 77 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2012
Family Common Name 10m
N 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000m
S
undifferentiated Marine slugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00
Gastrapoda sp.a Marine snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Marine sponges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00
Annelida sp. Marine worms 1.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Megalonidae Megalonid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Naticidae Moon snails 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mytilidae Mussels 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00
Mysidae Mysids 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Nematodes 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 3.00 1.00 1.67 1.00 3.00 3.67 0.33 0.00
Nephtyidae Nephtyid worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Nereididae Nereid worms 9.67 4.00 2.33 7.67 2.00 24.00 2.00 33.67 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00
Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.67
Oligochaeta ? sp.a Oligochaeta ? sp.b 0.33 2.33 0.33 2.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.33 1.00 0.00 0.00
Oweniidae Oweniid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Paraonidae Paraonid worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.33 1.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Polycladida sp. Pointed rostrum-small chaetae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 78 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2012
Family Common Name 10m
N 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000m
S
Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama)
Polyclad flatworms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Orbiniidae Polygordiid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 44.00 0.67 0.00 0.00
Orbiniidae Rag worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 5.67 4.33 0.00 2.67 2.00 0.33 0.33
undifferentiated Sea Squirts (stalked) 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Seapens 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Seed shrimps 11.33 2.00 2.67 0.67 1.67 1.67 3.00 19.67 0.33 24.00 0.00 0.00
Sigalionidae? Sigalionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 1.33 2.00 0.33 0.00
Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.67 0.67 1.33 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Majidae Spider crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Spionidae Spionid worms 2.00 1.33 0.33 1.33 1.00 4.33 4.00 2.67 4.33 1.00 0.00 0.67
Portunidae Swimming crabs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Syllid worms 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 2.67 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00
Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.33 2.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated Tanaids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 79 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2012
Family Common Name 10m
N 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000m
S
Tellinidae Tellins 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Terrebellidae Terebellid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
undifferentiated tunicata larvaceans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Veneridae Venus shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Volutidae Volutes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trichobranchidae Trichobranchid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Trochiodae Trochiod shells 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 80 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
October 2012
Family / Other Taxa Common Name 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000 m
S
Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 209.33 0.00 12.67 0.00 0.33 1.67 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.67
Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 4.00
Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33
Nereididae Nereid worms 86.33 0.33 4.00 0.33 4.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Goniadidae Goniadid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Glyceridae Glycerid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67
Aciculata sp. Aciculatid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
Sabalidae Feather-duster worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.33
Amphinomidae Amphinomid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.67
Sigalionidae Sigalionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33
Pisionidae Pisionid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67
Chrysopetalidae Chrysopetalid worms 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Exogonin Syllid worms 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 2.67
Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67
Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama) Polygordiid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.33 0.00
Spionidae Spionid worms 17.33 1.00 16.00 0.33 6.33 1.00 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.33
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 81 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
October 2012
Family / Other Taxa Common Name 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000 m
S
Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Terrebellidae Terebellid worms 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 7.33
Capitellidae Capitellid worms 3.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 2.00
Orbiniidae Rag worms 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paraonidae Paraonid worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.33
Annelida sp. Marine worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Oligochaeta spp. Oligochaete spp. 0.00 1.67 6.67 1.33 0.33 1.33 0.33 0.00 0.67 0.00 9.67
Halacaridae Marine Mite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 1.00 1.00 2.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 0.00 3.00 3.67 1.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 3.33 2.00 0.00 0.00
Gammaridea spp Gammarid amphipods 77.33 19.67 25.33 7.33 22.33 3.00 13.33 10.00 4.00 5.67 16.67
Cumacea sp. a Cumaceans (small telson) 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.00 0.00
Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00
Serolidae Marine isopods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Mysidae Mysids 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nebaliidae Nebaliaceans 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tanaidacea spp. Tanaids 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 82 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
October 2012
Family / Other Taxa Common Name 10m
S 20m
N 20m
S 50m
N 50m
S 100m
N 100m
S 200m
N 200m
S >2000m
N >2000 m
S
Copepoda spp. Copepods 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.00 1.00
Ostracoda spp. Seed shrimps 18.33 5.33 18.33 0.00 16.33 0.67 2.33 0.67 2.33 0.00 1.00
Bryazoa spp. Lace animals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00
Ascidacea spp. Sea Squirts (other) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ophurida spp. Brittle stars 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.67
Bivalvia spp undiferentiated bivalve 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
Carditidae Clams 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mactridae Mactrid shells 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mytilidae Mussels 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Veneridae Venus shells 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Olividae Olive Shells 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Volutidae Volutes 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Neogastrapoda spp. Marine snails 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.33 0.00
Opisthobranchia spp. Marine slugs 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.33 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33
Nematoda spp. Nematodes 0.33 0.33 6.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.33 6.33
Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.00 1.67
Polycladida spp. Polyclad flatworms 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 3.00
Demospongiae spp. Marine sponges 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Sipuncula spp Peanut worms (other) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 83 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2013
Family / Other Taxa Common Name
10m N
10m S
20m N
20m S
50m N
50m S
100m N
100m S
200m N
200m S
>2000m N
>2000m S
Cirratulidae Spagetti worms 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 2.5
Dorvilleidae Dorvilleid worms 0 43 1 9 1 88 1 1 1 2 1 4.5
Eunicidae Eunicid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lumbrineridae Lumbrinerid worms 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Oenonidae Oenoid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Onuphidae Onuphid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 1.5 0 1.5 0 1
Chrysopetalidae Chrysoptalid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hesionidae Hesionid worms 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Nereididae Nereidid worms 5 3 1 1.5 0 47 3 0 0 0 0 2
Phyllodocidae Paddle worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Sigalionidae? Sigalionid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Syllidae (sf. Exogoninae) Syllid worms 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 4 0 0 4
Syllidae (sf. Sylllinae) Syllid worms 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2.33
Polygordiidae (Polygordius kiarama) Polygordiid worms
3 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 30.33 0 0
Oweniidae Oweniid worms 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Sabellidae Feather-duster worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Serpuliidae Serpulid tube worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Chaetopteridae Chaetopterid worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 84 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2013
Family / Other Taxa Common Name
10m N
10m S
20m N
20m S
50m N
50m S
100m N
100m S
200m N
200m S
>2000m N
>2000m S
Spionidae Spionid worms 6 4.67 11.33 4.33 5.67 5 11.5 2.67 4.33 0 1.67 1
Pectinariidae Trumpet worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
Capitellidae Capitellid worms 0 0 0 0 1 1 4.33 2 0 1 0 1
Maldanidae Bamboo worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Opheliidae Opheliid worms 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Orbiniidae Rag worms 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paraonidae Paraonid worms 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 12 1 0 0
Oligochaeta spp. Marine Oligochaetes 0 5 4 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Caprellidae Caprellid amphipods 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Corophiidae Corophid amphipods 2.5 1 7 1 0 2.5 8.5 1 0 0 13 6.5
Gammaridea spp Gammarid amphipods 15.33 15 9.33 7.33 9.33 55 9.67 6 2 9 5.33 1.33
Cumacea spp Cumaceans (small telson)
0 1 0 1 1 1 2 3.67 0 1 3 1
Alpheidae Snapping shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Peneidae Peneid shrimps 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dendrobranchiata sp. Other shrimps 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diogenidae Hermit crabs 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1.5
Palaemonidae Cleaner shrimps 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Portunidae Swimming crabs 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 85 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2013
Family / Other Taxa Common Name
10m N
10m S
20m N
20m S
50m N
50m S
100m N
100m S
200m N
200m S
>2000m N
>2000m S
Raninidae Frog crabs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brachyura sp. Crab megalopas 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Anthuridae Anthurid isopods 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Cirolanidae Cirolanid isopods 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Serolidae Serolid isopods 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Sphaeromatidae Spheridae pill bugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Arcturidae Arcturid isopods 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 1
Mysidae Mysids 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Nebaliacea sp. Nebaliaceans 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
undifferentiated Tanaids 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
undifferentiated Copepods 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
undifferentiated Seed shrimps 9.7 2.5 2 1.5 0 9 3.7 1.5 0 2 1 3.3
undifferentiated tunicata larvaceans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
undifferentiated Anemones 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Hydroida sp. Hydroids 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Loveniidae Heart urchins 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ophurida sp Brittle stars 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Tellinidae Tellins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Mytilidae Mussels 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 86 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT: August 2013
April 2013
Family / Other Taxa Common Name
10m N
10m S
20m N
20m S
50m N
50m S
100m N
100m S
200m N
200m S
>2000m N
>2000m S
Veneridae Venus shells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Opisthobranchia sp. Marine slugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
undifferentiated Nematodes 11.5 3 0 67 1 0 1.7 2 0 4 0 1
Hoplonemertea spp. Ribbon worms 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1.5 2 0 2
Phoronida Horse shoe worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Polycladida sp. Polyclad flatworms 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 2
undifferentiated Marine sponges 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sipunculidae Peanut worms 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 87 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
Appendix 2 – Statistical Output: ANOSIM Analyses
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 88 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
ANOSIM:
Multivariate analysis of the similarities among sites in the abundance of infauna assemblages.
December 2011
Global ANOSIM Test
Between distances
Sample statistic (Global R): 0.272
Significance level of sample statistic: 0.2%
Number of permutations: 999 (Random sample from a large number)
Number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Global R: 1
Groups R
Statistic Significance
Level % Possible
Permutations Actual
Permutations Number >= Observed
>2000 m, 200 m 0.626 0.2 462 462 1
>2000 m, 100 m -0.076 58.9 462 462 272
>2000 m, 50 m -0.028 54.5 462 462 252
>2000 m, 20 m 0.65 0.2 462 462 1
>2000 m, 10 m 0.008 42.4 462 462 196
200 m, 100 m 0.581 0.4 462 462 2
200 m, 50 m 0.241 8.4 462 462 39
200 m, 20 m 0.252 6.5 462 462 30
200 m, 10 m 0.669 1.1 462 462 5
100 m, 50 m -0.068 54.5 462 462 252
100 m, 20 m 0.504 1.5 462 462 7
100 m, 10 m -0.032 54.5 462 462 252
50 m, 20 m 0.281 6.5 462 462 30
50 m, 10 m 0.051 30.3 462 462 140
20 m, 10 m 0.622 1.5 462 462 7
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 89 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
April 2012
Global ANOSIM Test
Between distances
Sample statistic (Global R): 0.387
Significance level of sample statistic: 0.1%
Number of permutations: 999 (Random sample from a large number)
Number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Global R: 1
Groups R
Statistic Significance
Level % Possible
Permutations Actual
Permutations Number >= Observed
10 m, 20 m -0.069 76 462 462 351
10 m, 50 m 0.167 6.5 462 462 30
10 m, 100 m 0.331 0.9 462 462 4
10 m, 200 m 0.735 0.2 462 462 1
10 m, > 2000 m 0.739 0.2 462 462 1
20 m, 50 m -0.007 51.9 462 462 240
20 m, 100 m 0.315 1.1 462 462 5
20 m, 200 m 0.741 0.2 462 462 1
20 m, > 2000 m 0.45 0.6 462 462 3
50 m, 100 m -0.13 85.3 462 462 394
50 m, 200 m 0.444 0.2 462 462 1
50 m, > 2000 m 0.517 0.2 462 462 1
100 m, 200 m 0.233 3.9 462 462 18
100 m, > 2000 m 0.633 0.2 462 462 1
200 m, > 2000 m 0.846 0.2 462 462 1
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 90 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
October 2012
Global ANOSIM Test
Between distances
Sample statistic (Global R): 0.306
Significance level of sample statistic: 0.1%
Number of permutations: 999 (Random sample from a large number)
Number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Global R: 1
Groups R
Statistic Significance
Level % Possible
Permutations Actual
Permutations Number >= Observed
10 m, 20 m 0.574 2.4 84 84 2
10 m, 50 m 0.463 3.6 84 84 3
10 m, 100 m 0.648 1.2 84 84 1
10 m, 200 m 0.988 1.2 84 84 1
10 m, > 2000 m 0.648 2.4 84 84 2
20 m, 50 m 0.07 22.3 462 462 103
20 m, 100 m 0.213 3.2 462 462 15
20 m, 200 m 0.32 0.9 462 462 4
20 m, > 2000 m 0.372 1.3 462 462 6
50 m, 100 m 0.031 38.7 462 462 179
50 m, 200 m 0.246 2.2 462 462 10
50 m, > 2000 m 0.104 22.1 462 462 102
100 m, 200 m 0.109 15.2 462 462 70
100 m, > 2000 m 0.137 11.3 462 462 52
200 m, > 2000 m 0.246 6.3 462 462 29
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 91 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
April 2013
Global ANOSIM Test
Between distances
Sample statistic (Global R): 0.201
Significance level of sample statistic: 0.1%
Number of permutations: 999 (Random sample from a large number)
Number of permuted statistics greater than or equal to Global R: 0
Groups R
Statistic Significance
Level % Possible
Permutations Actual
Permutations Number >= Observed
10 m, 20 m 0.059 28.8 462 462 133
10 m, 50 m 0.026 33.5 462 462 155
10 m, 100 m 0.319 0.6 462 462 3
10 m, 200 m 0.381 0.9 462 462 4
10 m, > 2000 m 0.263 4.3 462 462 20
20 m, 50 m 0.085 23.6 462 462 109
20 m, 100 m 0.311 1.7 462 462 8
20 m, 200 m 0.274 3.2 462 462 15
20 m, > 2000 m 0.091 24 462 462 111
50 m, 100 m 0.228 8.2 462 462 38
50 m, 200 m 0.369 0.9 462 462 4
50 m, > 2000 m 0.156 12.8 462 462 59
100 m, 200 m 0.359 0.6 462 462 3
100 m, > 2000 m 0.13 18.6 462 462 86
200 m, > 2000 m 0.261 2.8 462 462 13
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 92 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
Appendix 3 – Power Analyses Based on the First
Sampling Round
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 93 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
Power analyses to determine the suitability of the sample size used in
sampling period 1:
Species Abundance
121086420
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Maximum Difference
Po
we
r
A lpha 0.05
StDev 21.49
# Lev els 2
A ssumptions
115
Size
Sample
Power Curve for One-way ANOVA
Power Analysis determined that a sample size of 115 should be sufficient to detect a significant
difference in species abundance among distances.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 94 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
Species Richness
43210
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Maximum Difference
Po
we
r
A lpha 0.05
StDev 2.19
# Lev els 2
A ssumptions
12
Size
Sample
Power Curve for One-way ANOVA
Power Analysis determined that a sample size of 12 should be sufficient to detect a significant
difference in species richness among distances.
HUNTER WATER
MARINE INFAUNA STUDY
BURWOOD BEACH WWTW
Page 95 301020-03413 : 104 FINAL DRAFT August 2013
Species Diversity
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Maximum Difference
Po
we
r
A lpha 0.05
StDev 0.32
# Lev els 2
A ssumptions
4
Size
Sample
Power Curve for One-way ANOVA
Power Analysis determined that a sample size of 4 should be sufficient to detect a significant
difference in species diversity among sites.