Adelaide Desalination Infauna Monitoring

Fourth Quarter Report

April 2011

Glavinic A., Ramsdale T.M. & Dittmann S.* School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University *Author for correspondence e-mail: [email protected]

May be cited as:

Glavinic, A., Ramsdale, T.M., and Dittmann, S. (2011) Adelaide Desalination Infauna Monitoring Fourth Quarter Report 2011, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 The Desalination Plant ...... 1 1.2 Benthic Fauna Monitoring ...... 1 1.3 Aims and Approach ...... 1 2 Methods ...... 2 2.1 Sampling sites ...... 2 2.2 Field Methodology ...... 7 2.2.1 Suction Sampling ...... 7 2.2.2 Dredge Sampling ...... 7 2.2.3 Core Sampling ...... 7 2.3 Laboratory Analyses ...... 8 2.3.1 Macrofauna Sorting and Identification ...... 8 2.3.2 Meiofauna Sorting and Identification ...... 8 2.3.3 Sediment Grain Size Analysis ...... 8 2.4 Data Analyses ...... 9 2.4.1 Macrofauna - Epifauna ...... 9 2.4.2 Meiofauna ...... 9 2.4.3 Statistical Design ...... 9 3 Results ...... 10 3.1 Epifauna ...... 10 3.1.1 Species Diversity ...... 10 3.1.2 Abundance...... 15 3.1.3 Community structure ...... 18 3.2 Meiofauna (All Zones Winter 2010) ...... 20 3.2.1 Taxa Richness ...... 20 3.2.2 Abundance...... 23 3.2.3 Community Structure ...... 26 3.3 Sediment (Summer 2011)...... 28 4 Summary of Key Results ...... 31 5 References ...... 32 6. Appendix ...... 35

1 Introduction 1.1 The Desalination Plant A desalination plant is currently under construction at Port Stanvac, with a capacity of 100 GL of drinking water per annum (SA Water 2008). The desalination plant will be based on reverse osmosis technology, using seawater sourced from Gulf St. Vincent, and will discharge brine back to the local marine environment via an outfall tunnel. Brine will be discharged into a predominantly soft sediment environment.

1.2 Benthic Fauna Monitoring

Monitoring of the subtidal benthos twice a year is governed by the EPA licence. This monitoring program includes the survey of macrofaunal infauna and epifauna, and also meiofauna communities living on or in the soft sediments in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, compared to North and South Control Zones. By sampling both impacted (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) and un-impacted control (North and South Control Zones) sites repeatedly before, during and after plant construction and operation, a replicated before-after-control-impact (beyond BACI) study design has been employed. Such designs are beneficial in assessment of environmental impacts on marine systems, in order to detect anthropogenic effects exceeding the natural variability in local communities (Underwood 1991; 1992; Morrisey et al. 1992).

1.3 Aims and Approach

The investigation was conducted to establish a baseline dataset describing the subtidal macroinvertebrate infauna and epifauna, and meiofaunal communities in Gulf St. Vincent, which can be used for future reference when monitoring potential impacts associated with the operation of the Port Stanvac desalination plant. Three survey methods were applied to assess the benthic communities and achieve a comprehensive assessment of motile and sessile benthic macro- and meiofauna; 1) suction sampling (infauna), 2) a small dredge (epifauna), and 3) a benthic box corer (meiofauna). The benthic community structure was assessed within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones, using a complex spatial sampling design incorporating seasonal sampling events.

This report presents an assessment of the state of the macrobenthic epifauna community for the Summer 2011 sampling event. Benthic infauna samples collected during the Summer 2011 sampling event have been sorted and specimen identification is in progress. A full assessment of the meiofaunal community for all three sampling Zones from the Winter 2010 sampling is provided here in full for the first time. The previous interim report contained only an analysis of the samples from

Port Stanvac, with the completion of the remaining samples from the North and South Control sites pending. These samples have since been completed and a full analysis of the data obtained is presented in this report. Meiofaunal samples collected during the Summer 2011 sampling trip are still being processed, and the analysis of that collection will be provided in the final report, due July 2011. Sediment samples collected during the Summer 2011 sampling trip have been completed and the results are presented here in full. Table 1 details which sampling events and collections have been included in this report, which have been presented previously and which are yet to be presented.

Table 1: Summary of sampling events completed and data presented in previous reports (Glavinic et al. 2009; Beattie et al. 2010; Glavinic et al. 2010), this current report (Glavinic et al. 2011) and data to be presented in the final report (due 30th June 2011).

Sampling event Collection Presented Presented in this report To be presented in final report previously (due 30th June 2011) Winter 2009 Suction  Dredge  Spring 2009 Meiofauna  Sediments  Summer 2010 Suction  Dredge  Meiofauna  Sediments  Winter 2010 Suction  Dredge  Meiofauna  Sediments  Summer 2011 Suction  Dredge  Meiofauna  Sediments  Comparisons between sampling occasions 

2 Methods 2.1 Sampling sites Sampling was carried out at three Zones off the Adelaide metropolitan coastline in Gulf St. Vincent. These Zones consisted of the Port Stanvac Construction Zone (35°06’ S, 138°28’ E), as well as a North Control Zone at Glenelg (34°59’ S, 138°27’ E) and a South Control Zone at Noarlunga (35°09’ S, 138°27’ E) (Figure 1 a, b & c). The control sites had with similar water depth and sediment structure

as the Port Stanvac Construction Zone. Organisms were collected and processed under the collection exemption number 9902250 and the animal ethics permit number E298.

The Port Stanvac coastline, south-west of Adelaide, covers the area from O’Sullivan Beach boat ramp to Hallett Cove. The water depth in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone ranged from 12 - 18 m and the sediments were characterised by a highly variable composition of fine and coarse sand, shell grit, rock and sporadic macroalgae and seagrass beds (Posidonia sp.), which are characteristic of subtidal habitats within Gulf St. Vincent (Bryars et al. 2008; Edyvane 1999; Loo & Drabsch 2008; Loo et al. 2008; Turner and Collings 2008). The habitat heterogeneity created by patches of the aforementioned substrates and vegetation in what is an otherwise predominantly soft sediment, supports a diverse community of benthic organisms with representatives from almost 20 different phyla identified in the region (Loo et al. 2008).

The survey Zones were divided into 800 m long transects, with five transects radiating South (A-E) and five radiating North (F-J) from the proposed site of the effluent discharge pipe at Port Stanvac and five transects radiating from an arbitrarily selected point at each of the Control Zones (Figure 1; Table 2). Three methods of collection, dredge, core and suction sampling, were conducted along each transect from the middle of January to mid February 2011 for the summer 2011 sampling (Table 3).

Figure 1: Maps of the a) North Control Zone; offshore from Glenelg area, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone, c) South Control Zone; offshore from Noarlunga, sampling sites including transect positions during Summer and Winter 2010 surveys.

Table 2: Location and description of transect ends ‘Near’ and ‘Far’ from either outlet pipe at Port Stanvac Construction Zone, or the centre of the Control Zones at the North and South Control Zones during the Summer 2011 sampling event. Near Far Site Transect Latitidue Longitude Latitidue Longitude Depth Substrate A 35°05.785’ 138°28.252’ 35°06.138’ 138°28.002’ 13 shell grit /seagrass B 35°05.774’ 138°28.154’ 35°06.135’ 138°27.902’ 15 shell grit /seagrass C 35°05.779’ 138°28.030’ 35°06.111’ 138°27.770’ 18 seagrass D 35°05.757’ 138°27.903’ 35°06.054’ 138°27.489’ 18 shell grit /seagrass E 35°05.583’ 138°28.022’ 35°05.476’ 138°27.498’ 20 soft sediment F 35°05.429’ 138°28.055’ 35°05.014’ 138°28.009’ 20 soft sediment

Port Stanvac Port G 35°05.386’ 138°28.215’ 35°04.982’ 138°28.328’ 18 soft sediment/shell grit H 35°05.416’ 138°28.259’ 35°05.070’ 138°28.474’ 18 seagrass I 35°05.440’ 138°28.322’ 35°05.096’ 138°28.597’ 15 seagrass J 35°05.485 138°28.462’ 35°05.144' 138°28.704' 13 shell grit /seagrass A 34°59.952’ 138°27.163’ 34°59.603’ 138°27.411’ 16 seagrass B 35°00.317’ 138°26.920’ 35°00.703’ 138°26.663’ 18 seagrass C 35°00.052’ 138°26.832’ 34°59.866’ 138°26.384’ 16 soft sediment/shell grit North D 35°00.214’ 138°27.249’ 35°00.386’ 138°27.688’ 18 seagrass E 35°00.302’ 138°27.132’ 35°00.657’ 138°27.342’ 18 shell grit /seagrass A 35°09.135’ 138°26.475’ 35°09.124’ 138°27.002’ 16 seagrass B 35°09.145’ 138°26.212’ 35°09.170’ 138°25.685’ 18 shell grit /seagrass C 35°09.250’ 138°26.382’ 35°09.680’ 138°26.370’ 16 shell grit /seagrass South D 35°09.040’ 138°26.364’ 35°08.623’ 138°26.359’ 18 seagrass E 35°09.197’ 138°26.307’ 35°09.513’ 138°25.956’ 18 soft sediment

Table 3: Collection dates for all sampling methods; dredge (D), suction (S) and coring (C) across all transects within Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones.

Site North Port Stanvac South A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E Date D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C D S C 19/01/2011 P P P P P P P P P P 20/01/2011 P P P P P P 27/01/2011 P P P P 28/01/2011 P P P P P P P P 2/02/2011 P P P P P P P P 4/02/2011 P P P P P P 8/02/2011 P P P P P 9/02/2011 P P P P P P 10/02/2011 P P P P 11/02/2011 P P P P 16/02/2011 P P P P P P P P

2.2 Field Methodology 2.2.1 Suction Sampling Samples containing larger infauna were obtained using a suction sampler constructed at Flinders University, South Australia. The suction sampler operates through the addition of compressed air into the base of a submerged vertical tube (10 cm diameter). This creates a vacuum and draws a sediment sample upwards to be deposited in the catchment bag (Brown et al. 1987). Samples were taken using controlled air pressure (200 psi) for the duration of 1 minute, which equated to an average sample size of approximately 0.25 L of sediment. Along each transect at all Zones, fifteen replicate samples were taken, three at each 200 m interval along the length of an 800 m transect (Figure 2), equating to 300 samples in total. The mean of the three subsamples per transect interval was used for abundance analysis, giving 5 replicates per transect. GPS co-ordinates and the water depth were recorded for each position along each transect.

Suction Samples Box Core Samples Dredge Samples 100 m

800 m Transect Near Far

0 200 400 600 800

Figure 2: Schematic diagram displaying organisation of the three sampling methods along an 800 m long transect. ‘Near’ and ‘Far’ indicate the outer ends of the transect closest or furthest (respectively) to/from either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Diagram not to scale. Dredge width = 0.5m, hence zero to minimal overlap between methods is presumed.

2.2.2 Dredge Sampling Dredge sampling was conducted to assess the epifauna using a hand held dredge (0.5 x 0.3 x 0.8 m, 1 cm2 mesh size), deployed from the rear of the research vessel and towed for 100 m at a speed of 1 knot. A sample was taken from each end of each transect (0 to 100 m, 700 to 800 m, Figure 2) resulting in 2 replicates per transect and a total of 40 samples across the three Zones. Macrofauna obtained was extracted from the catchment cage and transported to the Flinders University laboratory for species identification and abundance counts.

2.2.3 Core Sampling Sediment core samples were obtained to assess both meiofaunal communities and sediment size structure. A box corer (Wildco®, model: 191-A12, internal dimensions: 0.15 x 0.15 x 0.23 m, total weight: 30 kg) was deployed and retrieved using an electric drum winch, which maintained a 7

constant speed of descent and ascent to optimise operation of the corer’s release mechanism. The methodology used enabled a successful closure rate of between 55 and 92%; with the variation in success highly dependent on weather conditions and sediment type. Three replicate core samples were taken at each of the five transect intervals (used in suction sampling) and two subsamples were taken from each core (max. 71 mL each), one each for meiofauna and sediment grain size analysis. In some cases, for example rocky reef substrate, no sediment was collected in the box corer for analysis, and these sites are therefore missing from the analysis.

2.3 Laboratory Analyses 2.3.1 Macrofauna Sorting and Identification Macrofauna from suction and dredge samples was separated from sediment using a 500 µm mesh sieve and preserved in 70% ethanol solution in the field immediately following collection. Prior to sorting samples, ethanol was rinsed off to prevent any ethanol inhalation. All macrofauna was extracted from the sediment. Macrobenthic infauna identification is still pending while epifauna identifications were completed. All macrofauna were identified using a stereomicroscope to the lowest possible taxonomic level, often species, which should be sufficient to detect changes to the community (Dethier and Schoch, 2006). Individuals were enumerated and transferred into 70% ethanol for storage and later lodgement at the South Australian Museum.

2.3.2 Meiofauna Sorting and Identification Meiofauna samples were initially frozen (at -20°C) prior to processing. Meiofauna were extracted from sediments using the ludoxTM flotation method (Somerfield and Warwick, 1996). This process removes meiofauna from sediments by repeated decantations in fresh water through a pair of sieves, the first to remove the macrofauna (500 µm mesh), and a second, finer sieve (53 µm mesh) to separate the meiofauna and smaller, unicellular organisms. The material retained on the finer sieve contains both meiofauna and fine sediments and detritus. Flotation in ludoxTM (Somerfield and Warwick, 1996) is used to separate the meiofauna from other detritus. The extracted meiofauna are then evaporated to pure glycerol and mounted onto slides for identification, counting and storage. Meiofauna were identified to family level where possible using Higgins and Thiel (1988).

2.3.3 Sediment Grain Size Analysis Sediment samples were initially frozen (at -20°C) prior to processing. Grain-size distribution was obtained using laser diffraction granulometry (Malvern Instruments Mastersizer with Hydro 2000 attachment). Prior to processing, samples were dried (at 80°C for 24 hours) to constant weight and total dry weight obtained in grams. Samples were then pre-screened to remove particles greater than 1 mm, an operational requirement because larger particles can damage pipes in the machine.

The fraction retained on the 1 mm sieve was weighed and recombined into the grain-size distribution data after the remaining sample was processed by the Mastersizer. A standard operating procedure was used across all samples (pump speed 3500 rpm; target obscuration 7-10%; data obtained were the average of 5 replicate measurements of grain-size distribution for each subsample). Data were then extracted from the Malvern software in quarter phi intervals, allowing the fraction greater than 1 mm to be reincorporated into the total distribution and the resulting data analysed for grain-size distribution statistics using GRADISTAT (Blott & Pye 2001).

2.4 Data Analyses All statistical analyses were conducted using PRIMER version 6 +PERMANOVA add-on.

2.4.1 Macrofauna - Epifauna Species numbers, species diversity and relative abundances were determined for each site using data obtained from the dredge for epifauna. Data shown in this report are total number per dredge (dredge sampler), representing a quantitative sample (i.e. a 100 m long, 0.5 m wide strip of the seafloor) and displayed as catch per unit effort (CPUE).

Three different indices (Shannon-Wiener index, Pielou’s evenness and Simpson’s index) were used to determine the diversity and evenness of macrofaunal species composition at all sites. These indices were calculated based on the total number of individuals (N) from the number of each taxa (ni). The Shannon-Wiener index (H’) identifies greater species diversity as index values increase. Pielou’s index is a measure of how evenly the individuals are distributed among the different taxonomic groups, where a larger number indicates higher evenness. The Simpson’s index is a measure of ecological diversity with diversity increasing as the value approaches one (Clarke and Warwick 2001).

2.4.2 Meiofauna For analyses, abundance of meiofauna in each sample were standardised to abundance per mL of sediment collected, which varied for each sample. The volume of sediment was measured for each sample and the number of organisms per mL calculated by dividing the abundances by the volume of sediment. The total abundance of meiofauna, the abundance of major groups (Nematoda and Copepoda) and the number of taxa collected were calculated for each sample.

2.4.3 Statistical Design A series of three-factor PERMANOVAs (9999 permutations) were used to investigate differences in epifaunal abundance, diversity and community richness variables described above. Euclidian distance similarity matrices were used for univariate data (e.g. total abundance) while Bray-Curtis similarity matrices were used for multivariate data (e.g. community structure). Epifauna data were square-root

transformed prior to analysis to decrease the influence of dominant species on the analysis, and a dummy variable of one added with Bray-Curtis similarities to eliminate the effects of joint absence of taxa. Comparisons were made among Types (a fixed-factor with two levels, Impact and Control), Zones (a fixed-factor with 4 levels, Port Stanvac North, Port Stanvac South, South Control and North Control, nested in Types) and Distances (a fixed-factor with 2 levels, ‘near’ and ‘far’ from the effluent discharge pipeline). Port Stanvac was split into two Zones (Figure 1), North (transects F – J) and South (transects A – E) based on sediment characteristics (determined visually). The southern transects contained visually finer sediments than those in the north.

A four-factor design was used to test differences in meiofaunal abundance, species richness and community structure by adding the factor of Transects (a fixed-factor with 20 levels, Transects 1 – 20 nested in Zones) and altering the Distance factor (a fixed-factor with 5 levels, 0m, 200m, 400m, 600m and 800m from the effluent discharge pipeline for meiofauna) to incorporate the five sampling stations on each transect. Meiofauna data were fourth-root transformed to reduce the influence of dominant taxa.

PCO plots were produced to provide a visual pattern of community structure for both epifauna and meiofauna. SIMPER was used to identify species with high contributions to similarities among samples from each Zone (i.e. species that characterised communities from each Zone). PERMDISP (which tests for differences between factors in dispersion of points within groups of a factor) was used to further investigate differences among levels of factors found to be significantly different by PERMANOVA.

3 Results 3.1 Epifauna 3.1.1 Species Diversity In total, 88 different species of macrofauna were recorded from dredge samples collected in Summer 2011 (Appendix I, Table 1). Species numbers of epifauna were greatest (>20) in the transect E (far) in the South Control Zone followed by the Port Stanvac Construction Zone transects H (near) and transect B (far) in North Control Zone (Figure 4). Mollusca was the most frequently encountered phylum, occurring at 60% of sites, followed by Arthropoda and Echinodermata (Figure 3). Some dredge samples did not contain any macrofaunal specimens (Figure 4).

Along each transect, no significant differences (Table 4) occurred in species numbers with Distance from the centre of the sampling Zone (Figure 3). Species numbers were similar with distance from the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zones.

Species numbers of epifauna per transect ranged from zero to 26 (Table 5). In Summer 2011, there were no significant differences in the total number of species, nor for any of the major phyla, between the Zones (Table 4) (Figure 5).

Table 4: PERMANOVA main test results for total number of macrofauna species collected with dredge samples in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones in Summer 2011, including comparisons of total species richness separately for Porifera, Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda and Echinodermata. Columns show permutations based P-values.

Total number of species Number of species per Phyla Source d.f. MS Pseudo-F P(perm) Porifera Annelida Mollusca Arthropoda Echinodermata Type 1 163.95 17.258 0.343 0.324 0.671 0.347 0.358 0.329 Distance 1 4.15 0.629 0.568 1.000 0.195 0.341 0.083 0.348 Zone(Type) 2 9.50 0.244 0.846 0.863 0.334 0.912 0.662 0.179 TypexDistance 1 57.85 8.765 0.085 1.000 0.228 0.075 0.062 0.219 Zone(Type)xDistance 2 6.60 0.170 0.908 0.592 0.717 0.921 0.898 0.445 Error 32 38.91

8 Near

6 Far

4 Number of species (CPUE) of species Number

0 North Port Stanvac South

Summer 2011

Figure 3: Species numbers of epifauna (CPUE) collected using the dredge across the three Zones; a) North Control Zone, b) Port Stanvac Construction Zone and c) South Control Zone during the Summer 2011 Season. Mean number of species presented per distance from either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

12 Chordata 10 Echinodermata

8 Arthropoda Mollusca 6 Annelida

Number of species (CPUE) of species Number 4 Brachiopoda 2 Bryozoa 0 Porifera near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far near far

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Summer 2011

Figure 4: Species numbers of epifauna (CPUE) collected using the dredge, per phyla identified across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during the Summer 2011 Season. Samples were collected along two 100 m lengths at the near (0 to 100 m) and far (700 to 800 m) end of 10 (A-J)

transects at Port Stanvac Construction Zone and 5 transects (A-E) at the North and South Control Zones. Transects without bar indicate no fauna collected from sample.

a) b) 2.5 1.6 Porifera Annelida 1.4 2 1.2

1 1.5 0.8

1 0.6

0.4 0.5 0.2

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

c) d) 7 3.5 Mollusca Arthropoda 6 3

5 2.5

4 2

3 1.5

2 1 Number of species (CPUE) of species Number 1 0.5

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South e) f) 2.5 16 Echinodermata Total 14 2 12

1.5 10 8

1 6

4 0.5 2

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

Figure 5: Species numbers of epifauna (CPUE) collected using the dredge across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone per phyla: a) Porifera, b) Annelida, c) Mollusca, d) Arthropoda, e) Echinodermata, f) all phyla combined. Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation. Note different scales for the y-axis on each plot.

Species Diversity indices

The Shannon-Wiener diversity index calculated from dredge data for Summer 2011 shows a spread from low to high epifauna diversity between the transects, which was significantly different between the three zones (PERMANOVA, Pseudo-F 1, 2.96 = 4.62, P=0.046) (Table 5). Some transects in the Southern Reference Zone had high species numbers, yet the dominance of single species, in particular Limaria orientalis (Bivalvia), lead to low eveness and diversity indices (Table 5). Apart from two transects without any epifaunal specimens, transect J had the lowest diversity in the Port Stanvac Zone. Diversity indices were consistently higher, with higher eveness as well, at the transects in the Northern Reference Zone (Table 5).

Table 5: Diversity of epifauna per transect, derived from dredge samples in Summer 2011. S = number of taxa; N = number of individuals. Pielou's J = eveness index, Shannon-Wiener H' and Simpson's are diversity indices. No epifaunal specimens were found at two transects in the Port Stanvac Zone.

Shannon- Site Transect S N Pielou's J Simpson's Wiener H' A 20 38 0.91 2.73 0.93 Northern B 17 30 0.90 2.54 0.93 Reference C 4 10 0.96 1.33 0.80 Zone D 16 28 0.94 2.61 0.95 E 12 20 0.96 2.39 0.95 A 0 0 B 10 23 0.88 2.03 0.86 C 4 5 0.96 1.33 0.90 D 10 36 0.85 1.96 0.82 Port E 9 13 0.97 2.14 0.95 Stanvac F 0 0 G 10 39 0.76 1.76 0.76 H 18 35 0.90 2.61 0.93 I 12 45 0.77 1.91 0.77 J 5 31 0.53 0.85 0.43 A 8 10 0.95 1.97 0.93 Southern B 11 23 0.89 2.14 0.89 Reference C 17 158 0.29 0.83 0.28 Zone D 26 496 0.20 0.65 0.20 E 20 292 0.19 0.57 0.18

3.1.2 Abundance In total, 1332 individual organisms were collected in the Summer 2011 Season across all three Zones. There were no significant differences in abundance based on distance along the transect in either zone (Table 6, Figure 6). Significant differences were detected based on type (Impact versus Control) for Porifera and Echinodermata (Table 6). This was due to particular sponge and echinoderm species occurring only in some samples from Control sites. Molluscs were most abundant (Figure 7), largely attributable to the collection of Limaria orientalis colonies (larger than 100 individuals), along transect D and E (near and far end respectively) in South Control Zone and transect I (near end) and J (far end) in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone. Yet, for Summer 2011, abundances of the total epifauna and major phyla were not significantly different between the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and both Control Zones (Table 6; Figure 8).

Limaria orientalis (Bivalvia) was the most abundant species overall, and the most abundant for Port Stanvac Construction Zone followed by the sea squirts Pyura abradata and Pyura praeputialis (Chordata) for North and South Control Zones, respectively.

Table 6: PERMANOVA main test results for total macrofauna abundance collected in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones in Summer 2011, including comparisons of total abundance and separately for Porifera, Mollusca Arthropoda, Echinodermata and Chordata, among Type, Distance and Zones for Summer 2011. Columns show permutations based P-values, values in bold are significant.

Total abundance Abundance per Phyla Arthro- Echino- Source d.f. MS Pseudo-F P(perm) Porifera Mollusca Chordata poda dermata Type 1 5.203 3.609 0.067 0.001 0.076 0.417 0.024 0.062 Distance 1 0.147 0.102 0.749 0.500 0.745 0.632 0.794 0.909 Zone(Type) 2 1.587 1.101 0.356 0.518 0.105 0.183 0.407 0.114 TypexDistance 1 0.869 0.603 0.433 0.492 0.780 0.646 0.398 0.773 Zone(Type)xDistance 2 0.749 0.519 0.602 0.242 0.910 0.529 0.803 0.927 Error 32 1.442

350

300

250

200

150 near

100 far Number of organisms (CPUE) of organisms Number 50

0 north Port Stanvac south

Summer 2011

Figure 6: Abundance of epifauna (CPUE) collected using the dredge across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during Summer 2011. Mean number of organisms presented per distance from either the proposed outlet pipe (Port Stanvac Construction Zone) or the centre of the Control Zone (North and South Control Zones). Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

500

450

400

350

300 Porifera Cnidaria 250 Bryozoa 200 Brachiopoda 150 Other Worm Phyla Mollusca

Number of organisms (CPUE) of organisms Number 100 Arthropoda 50 Chordata

far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far

near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near near

A B C D E A B C D E F G H I J A B C D E

North Port Stanvac South

Figure 7: Total abundance of epifauna (CPUE) collected using the dredge, per phyla identified across the three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during Summer 2011 Season. Samples were collected along two 100 m lengths at the near (0 to 100 m) and far (700 to 800 m) ends of 10 (A-J) transects at Port Stanvac (b) and 5 transects (A-E) at the North and South Control Zones. Some dredge samples contained no specimens.

a) b) 7 Porifera 300 Mollusca 6 250

5 200 4 150 3 100 2

1 50

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

c) 3.5 d) 10 Echinodermata 9 Arthropoda 3 8 2.5 7 6 2 5 1.5 4 3 1 2 0.5 1 0 0 Number of organisms (CPUE) of organisms Number North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

16 300 e) Chordata f) 14 Total 250 12 200 10

8 150

6 100 4 50 2

0 0 North Port Stanvac South North Port Stanvac South

Figure 8: Abundance of epifauna (CPUE) collected using the dredge across three Zones; North Control Zone, Port Stanvac Construction Zone and South Control Zone during Summer 2011 Season per phyla: a) Porifera, b) Mollusca, c) Arthropoda, d) Echinodermata, e) Chordata and f) all phyla combined. Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation. Note different scales for the y-axis on each plot.

3.1.3 Community structure Principle coordinate (PCO) plots of the epifauna samples for Summer 2011 displayed a high level of overlap between Zones (Figure 9a), indicating no specific epifaunal communities for any of the Zones. The epifaunal assemblages at the study sites were quite variably, yet without forming any distinct communities, which was further corroborated by PERMANOVA analysis, which revealed no significant differences of community composition between Zones (Table 7). There were also no significant differences based on Distance between near and far ends of the sampling transects within the Zones (Table 7, Figure 9b). Epifaunal communities in all three Zones were characterised by relatively high abundances of Limaria orientalis (Bivalve) and Pyura abradata (Chordata), as determined by SIMPER analysis.

Transform: Square root Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity (+d) 60 zone a) NorthControl Port StanvacNorth

) 40 Port StanvacSouth

o i

t SouthControl

a 20

% 3

. 0

(

O C

P -20

-40 -40 -20 Transform:0 Square20 root 40 60 PCO1 (34.3%Resemblance: of total S17 variation) Bray Curtis similarity (+d) 60 distance b) near

far )

n 40

a 20

% 3

. 0

(

2 O

C -20 P

-40 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 PCO1 (34.3% of total variation)

Figure 9: PCO plots of square root transformed abundances (mean per site) of dredge sampled epifauna communities comparing: a) the North Control Zone (▲), Port Stanvac North Construction Zone (▼), Port Stanvac South Construction Zone ( ) the South Control zone ( ) and b) the near (▲) and far (▼) Distance.

Table 7: PERMANOVA main test results of macrobenthic epifauna assemblages collected in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones in Summer 2011.

Source d.f. MS Pseudo-F P(perm) Type 1 72.546 3.791 0.055 Distance 1 0.030 0.002 0.967 Zone(Type) 2 43.093 2.252 0.112 TypexDistance 1 2.721 0.142 0.714 Zone(Type)xDistance 2 6.185 0.323 0.746 Error 32 19.136

3.2 Meiofauna (All Zones Winter 2010) Notes on samples

The Winter 2010 sample collection was highly successful, with only 27 samples missing due to rocky substrate (i.e. no/insufficient sediment for analysis). Unfortunately, during processing, a further three samples (all from Glenelg, Transect E, 0m) were lost when a tray in a drying oven collapsed.

3.2.1 Taxa Richness In total, representative species of 17 different Taxa were collected, including Nematoda, Tardigrada, various Orders of the Crustacea (Copepoda, Amphipoda, Isopoda, Ostracoda, Cumacea, Tanaidacea) and Polychaeta (Table 8). The number of Taxa collected in each Zone was similar across all Zones (Table 8). Unlike previous sampling occasions (November 2009 and February 2010) individuals of the Hexapoda and Sipuncula were not found (Glavinic et al. 2010).

Taxa richness was even across Zones and Transects, with no particular Transect outstanding in Taxa richness (Figure 10a). Likewise, taxa richness was even across samples collected from increasing Distance from the centre of the sampling area in all three Zones (Figure 10b).

PERMANOVA detected significant differences in Taxa richness among Types (Table 9). Post hoc analysis indicated that this result was due to samples from the northern and southern sections of the Port Stanvac construction site being dissimilar to each other. Overall these results indicate a high degree of small-scale spatial variation among and within Zones (i.e. significant terms involving Transects and Distances; Table 9).

Table 8. Taxa identified in samples collected from the three Zones; North and South Control Zones and Port Stanvac Construction Zone, in Winter 2010. Ticks () indicate that Taxa was found in at least one sample in that Zone, crosses () indicate it was not. The far right column indicates the total number of Zones from which each Taxa was recorded, with the maximum possible value being 3 (i.e. present in all Zones). Taxa North Port Stanvac South Total Sarcomastigophora    3 Foraminifera    3 Cnidaria    2 Nematoda    3 Turbellaria    3 Polychaeta    3 Bivalvia    3 Gastropoda    3 Copepoda    3 Ostracoda    3 Amphipoda    3 Isopoda    3 Cumacea    3 Tardigrada    3 Tanaidacea    3 Acari    3 Rotifera    3 Total Taxa found: 16 17 17

Table 9. PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons meiofaunal Taxa richness among Types (A), Zones (Z), Transects (T) and Distances (D) for data collected in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone (‘Impact’; n = 150) and North and South ‘Control’ Zones (n = 150) in Winter 2010. Significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. Note: 30 samples (of total possible 300 samples) were lost from the analysis due to rocky substrate. Source df MS Pseudo-F P (permutations based) A 1 55.967 13.502 0.0022 D 4 5.0140 1.3962 0.2474 Z(A) 2 12.835 3.0711 0.0783 A*D 4 4.7384 1.3195 0.2681 T(Z(A)) 16 4.3315 1.7676 0.0369 Z(A)*D 8 4.0914 1.1336 0.3491 T(Z(A))*D 59 3.6814 1.5023 0.0213 Residual 175 2.4505

Figure 10. Average taxa richness for meiofauna samples collected in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones in Winter 2010 a) across Transects (n = 15 samples per Transect) and b) among increasing Distances (n = 30 samples per Distance) from the effluent discharge pipe-line. Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation.

3.2.2 Abundance Abundances of meiofaunal organisms were greatest along Transects A and B in the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, relative to other transects and the North and South Controls (Figure 11). Nematodes dominated abundance in samples (Figure 11 and 12a), and mean Nematode abundances were generally higher within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone relative to the North and South Controls (Figure 12a). Copepoda were the second most abundant taxa collected, followed by the Tardigrada (included in ‘Other’; Figure 12c).

The only consistently significant term among PERMANOVA tests was for differences among Transects nested in Zones(Types) (Table 10). There was a high degree of small-scale spatial variation in abundance of all groups (i.e. differences based on Transects and Distances; Table 10; Figures 11, 12).

Table 10. PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of total abundance separately for nematodes, copepods and all taxa of meiofaunal organisms, among Types (A), Transects (T), Zones (Z) and Distances (D) for Winter 2010. Columns show permutations based P-values, with significant P values (<0.05) highlighted in bold. Note: 30 samples (of total possible 300 samples) were lost from the analysis due to rocky substrate.

Source df Nematoda Copepoda All Taxa A 1 0.1093 0.0228 0.3228 D 4 0.3995 0.2802 0.4088 Z(T) 2 0.0969 0.1145 0.2014 A*D 4 0.8589 0.0377 0.4347 T(Z(A)) 16 0.0001 0.0058 0.0001 Z(A)*D 8 0.1803 0.0526 0.1847 T(Z(A))*D 59 0.0003 0.1237 0.0031 Residual 175

* * ** *

Figure 11. Average abundance per mL of sediment of meiofauna identified across all three Zones during Winter 2010. Data show the average of three samples that were collected at five 200m intervals along 10 (A-J) Transects. Asterisk denotes absence of any samples at that sampling location.

a) Nematoda

b) Copepoda

c) Other Taxa

d) All Taxa

Figure 12. Mean abundance of meiofauna per mL of sediment, averaged across Distances (n = 30 samples per Distance) from the effluent discharge pipe-line outlet (x-axis) collected within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone for a) Nematode Taxa, b) Copepod Taxa, c) Other Taxa and d) all Taxa combined. Note different scales of the y-axis. Error bars = ± 1 standard deviation. Note the x-axis is consistent among the four plots but the y-axis varies.

3.2.3 Community Structure Significant differences were detected by PERMANOVA in meiofaunal community structure (i.e. abundance and species composition) between Types and among Transects nested in Zone(Type)s (Table 11). Differences between Types (Port Stanvac ‘Impact’ versus ‘Control’ sites to the north and south) can be seen in Figure 13, with replicate samples from each Type tending to group together (i.e. control samples group towards the upper left of the cloud of points). However, there is a great deal of overlap among Types, and only approximately 25-30% of the total variation explained by the distribution pattern of the points (Figure 13). PERMDISP analysis on the factor Type showed that there was a significant difference in dispersion of points between samples from Impact (i.e. Port Stanvac; n = 142) and Control (n = 128) Types (F1,268 = 34.26; p (permutations based) = 0.0001), with samples from the Impact site having a greater distance among points than the Control sites. This indicates that samples from within the Port Stanvac Impact site are more variable in terms of meiofaunal community structure than nearby controls.

Importantly, no apparent differences in meiofaunal community structure based on proximity to the effluent discharge pipeline were detected at the time of sampling (i.e. Distance factor is only significant as part of interaction terms Z(A)*D and T(Z(A))*D for Taxa tested; Table 11).

The meiofauna communities of all Zones in Winter 2010 were characterised (as determined by SIMPER analysis) by the numerically dominant taxa; firstly the Nematoda and then the Copepoda and Tardigrada. Average similarity of communities among replicate samples was slightly greater at the two Control sites (average similarity = 73.1% and 70.8% for South and North Controls respectively) than for replicate samples at the Port Stanvac Impact site (average similarity = 65.0%).

Table 11. PERMANOVA main test results of comparisons of meiofaunal community structure (Taxa composition and abundance), among Types (A), Zones (Z), Transects (T) and Distances (D). Significant P values (<0.05) are highlighted in bold. Source df MS Pseudo-F P (permutations based) A 1 7722.9 5.0466 0.0006 D 4 591.9 0.9565 0.4915 Z(A) 2 2620.7 1.6874 0.1139 A*D 4 933.3 1.5082 0.0911 T(Z(A)) 16 1655.2 4.1921 0.0001 Z(A)*D 8 1207.3 1.9401 0.0026 T(Z(A))*D 59 636.5 1.6121 0.0001 Residual 175 394.8

) 20

l 0

% 1

. -20

(

O C P -40 Control

Impact

-60 Impact -40 -20 0 20 40 60 PCO1 (29.5% of total variation)

Figure 13. PCO plots of fourth-root transformed abundances of meiofauna communities comparing Types for samples collected in Winter 2010. Each point on this plot represents a sample. Points plotting closely on these plots indicate samples with similar meiofaunal communities. Each axis denotes the degree of variation explained by the left-right and the up-down distribution of points for the x- and y-axes, respectively.

3.3 Sediment (Summer 2011) Sediments in all three Zones ranged from medium to coarse sands and were moderately to poorly sorted (Blott & Pye 2001; Table 12. Sediments across all three Zones contained a high percentage (over 95% in all cases) of sands (grain size range = 63-1000μm), with very small fractions (less than 5% in all cases) of finer sediments (grain size less than 63μm; Table 12). Often, a large percentage of the sand fraction was comprised of sediments greater than 1mm in size, including fine gravels through to small cobbles (Figure 14). Course sediment fractions were greater in the northern half of the Port Stanvac construction site and Transects C – E in Glenelg (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Average percentage of sediments that were greater than 1mm in diameter for samples collected from all Zones in Summer 2011.

Sediments from each Zone contained a large proportion of coarse sands and gravels, with median grain sizes always larger than mean grain sizes (Table 12).

There were no trends or patterns in sediment grain-size statistics based on distance from the centre of each Zone (Table 12).

Table 12. Sediment grain size distribution statistics for all three Zones by distance from the centre of the Zone for samples collected in Summer 2010. Classification terms for grain size and sorting coefficients were obtained from Blott and Pye (2001).

Grain size distribution statistics and classifications Fractions (%) Zone Distance Median (m) Mean (m) Classification Sorting Classification Sand Mud 0 726.71 652.21 Coarse Sand 1.72 Moderately sorted 99.79% 0.21% 200 922.38 703.20 Coarse Sand 1.93 Moderately sorted 99.56% 0.44% North 400 810.26 673.83 Coarse Sand 1.68 Moderately sorted 99.93% 0.07% 600 591.31 534.00 Coarse Sand 1.85 Moderately sorted 99.98% 0.02% 800 598.57 477.60 Med – Coarse Sand 2.00 Poorly sorted 99.86% 0.14% 0 908.79 747.55 Coarse Sand 2.09 Poorly sorted 96.93% 3.07% 200 815.77 669.39 Coarse Sand 1.82 Moderately sorted 99.70% 0.30% Port 400 801.06 676.03 Coarse Sand 1.79 Moderately sorted 99.69% 0.31% Stanvac 600 737.64 615.46 Coarse Sand 1.82 Moderately sorted 99.65% 0.35% 800 641.36 552.05 Coarse Sand 1.86 Moderately sorted 99.65% 0.35% South 0 482.65 455.57 Medium Sand 1.70 Moderately sorted 99.73% 0.27% 200 464.06 443.79 Medium Sand 1.71 Moderately sorted 99.82% 0.18% 400 539.63 473.62 Med – Coarse Sand 1.88 Moderately sorted 99.68% 0.32% 600 739.33 631.33 Coarse Sand 1.82 Moderately sorted 99.79% 0.21% 800 844.03 730.33 Coarse Sand 1.71 Moderately sorted 99.68% 0.32%

Appearance of fine sediments around the intake pipeline:

Sediments around the intake pipeline have become very fine, with a large increase in clay-sized particles between the March 2010 and February 2011 sampling occasions. This effect was highly localized (see Figure 15c – only one of three replicate sediment samples contained these very fine sediments).

Particle Size Distribution a) 14 12 10 8 6

Volume Volume (%) 4 2 0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 3000 Particle Size (µm) STF.0-1 - Average, Monday, 3 May 2010 11:57:10 AM STJ.0-1 - Average, Monday, 3 May 2010 3:51:30 PM Particle Size Distribution 14 b) 12 10 8 6

Volume Volume (%) 4 2 0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 3000 Particle Size (µm) STF.0-3 - Average, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 2:59:41 PM STJ.0-1 - Average, Thursday, 3 March 2011 3:28:22 PM Particle Size Distribution c) 10 8 6

4 Volume Volume (%) 2 0 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 3000 Particle Size (µm) STF.0-1 - Average, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 2:33:38 PM STF.0-2 - Average, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 2:44:25 PM STF.0-3 - Average, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 2:59:41 PM

Figure 15. Particle size frequency plot for area around intake pipeline (Transect F, 0m distance; red) compared to a site away from the intake pipeline, but still in the ‘inside’ the construction zone (Transect J, 0m distance; green) showing the increased proportion of fine sediments (i.e. particle size values towards the left side of the plot) around the intake pipeline between a) March 2010 and b) February 2011; and c) all three replicate samples from Port Stanvac; Transect F; Site 0m.

4 Summary of Key Results

Comparison across Zones

 Arthropoda and Mollusca were the dominant phyla represented in the epifauna across all three Zones based on dredge sampling.  The diversity indices calculated for epifauna in the Summer 2011 Season indicated significantly different diversity between the three zones, with indices being consistently higher in the Northern Reference Zone.  For Winter 2010, abundances of meiofaunal organisms was higher on transects A and B of the Port Stanvac Construction Zone, relative to other transects and those from the North and South Control Zones. Significant differences were detected based on type for Porifera and Echinodermata.  Epifaunal community structure was not significantly different between Port Stanvac Construction Zone and North and South Control Zones.

Comparison within the Port Stanvac Construction Zone

 Macrofauna data revealed that Molluscs were the dominant phylum.  Abundances of meiofaunal organisms in Winter 2010 were generally greatest on Transects A and B.  No apparent differences in meiofaunal community structure based on proximity to the effluent discharge pipe-line were detected at the time of sampling.

Comparison over time

 Decreased species richness and abundance of macrofauna was observed based on infaunal samples across all three Zones for the Summer 2011 in comparison to the Winter 2010 (Glavinic et al.2010) and Summer 2009 (Beatie et al. 2010).  There were no apparent changes in meiofauna Taxa Richness between samples collected in the Spring of 2009 and Winter 2010.  Abundance of meiofaunal organisms in Winter 2010 and Spring 2009 were similar across most Transects and Distances.

5 References Altayaran, A. and Madany, I. (1992) ‘Impact of a desalination plant to the physical and chemical properties of seawater, Bahrain’, Water Research, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 435 – 441.

Beattie, K.J., Glavinic, A., Ramsdale, T.M., Dittmann, S., and Benkendorff, K. (2010) Adelaide Desalination Plant Final Benthic Fauna Monitoring Report 2009/2010, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Blott, S.J. & Pye, K. (2001) ‘GRADISTAT: A grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments’ Earth Surface Processes and Landforms vol. 26, pp. 1237 – 1248.

Bilyard, G.R. (1987) ‘The value of benthic infauna in marine pollution monitoring studies’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 581 – 585.

Brown, A.V., Schram, M.D., and Brussock, P.P. (1987) ‘A vacuum benthos sampler suitable for diverse habitats’, Hydrobiologia, vol. 153, pp. 241 – 247.

Bryars, S., Wear, R. and Collings, G. (2008) Chapter 11. Seagrasses of Gulf St Vincent and Investigator Strait. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 132 – 147.

Clarke, K.R. and Warwick, R.M. (2001) Change in Marine Communities – An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd Edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.

Dethier, M.N. and Schoch, G.C. (2006) ‘Taxonomic sufficiency in distinguishing natural spatial patterns on an estuarine shoreline’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 306, pp. 41 – 49.

Edyvane, K.S. (1999) ‘Coastal and marine wetlands in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia: understanding their loss and degradation’, Wetlands Ecology and Manangement, vol. 7, pp. 83 – 104.

Einav, R., Harussi, K. And Perry, D. (2002) ‘The footprint of the desalination process on the environment’, Desalination, vol. 152, pp. 141 – 154.

Fernández-Torquemada, Y., Sánchez-Lizaso, J.L. and González-Correa, J.M. (2005) ‘Preliminary results of the monitoring of the brine discharge produced by the SWRO desalination plant of Alicante (SE Spain)’, Desalination, vol. 182, pp. 395 – 402.

Gacia, E., Invers, O., Manzanera, M., Ballesteros, E. and Romero, J. (2007) ‘Impact of brine from a desalination plant on a shallow seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) meadow’, Estaurine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 72, pp. 579 – 590. 32

Glavinic, A., Beattie, K.J., Dittmann, S. and Benkendorff, K. (2009) Adelaide Desalination Infauna Monitoring Winter Report 2009, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Glavinic, A., Ramsdale, T.M., and Dittmann, S. (2010) Adelaide Desalination Infauna Monitoring Second Quarter Report 2010, Flinders University, Adelaide.

Higgins, R.P. & Thiel, H. (1988) Introduction to the study of meiofauna. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Hoepner, T. (1999) ‘A procedure for environmental impact assessments (EIA) for seawater desalination plants’, Desalination, vol. 124, pp. 1 – 12.

Kämpf. J., Brokensha, C. and Bolton, T. (2009) ‘Hindcasts of the fate of desalination brine in large inverse estuaries: Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia’, Desalination and Water Treatment, vol. 2, pp. 325 – 333.

Loo, M.G.K. and Drabsch, S.L. (2008) Chapter 16. Subtidal soft sediments of Gulf St Vincent. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 204 – 223.

Loo, M.G.K., Mantila, L., Segade M-E., Wiltshire, K., and Sharma, S. (2008) Adelaide Desalination Project, Macroinfauna/Meiofauna Characterisation Study. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2008/000823-1

Malfeito, J, Díaz-Caneja, J., Fariñas, M., Fernández-Torquemada, Y., González-Correa, J., Carratalá- Giménez, A. and Sánchez-Lizaso, J. (2005) ‘Brine discharge from the Javea desalination plant’ Desalination, vol. 185, pp. 87 – 94.

Miri, R . & Chouikhi, A. (2005) ‘Ecotoxicological marine impacts from seawater desalination plants’, Desalination, vol. 182, pp. 403 – 410.

Morrisey, D.J., Howitt, L., Underwood, A.J. and Stark, J.S. (1992) ‘Spatial variation in soft-sediment benthos’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 81, pp. 197 – 204.

Raventos, N., Macpherson, E. and García-Rubiés, A. (2006) ‘Effect of brine discharge from a desalination plant on macrobenthic communities in the NW Mediterranean’, Marine Environmental Research, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1 – 14.

Ruso, Y., Carratero, J., Casalduero, F. and Lizaso, J. (2007) Spatial and temporal changes in infaunal communities inhabiting soft-bottoms affected by brine discharge’, Marine Environmental Research, vol. 64, pp. 492 – 503.

SA Water (2008) Proposed Adelaide Desalination Plant Environmental Impact Statement. SA Water, Government of South Australia.

Sadhwani, J., Veza, J. and Santana, C. (2005) ‘Case studies on environmental impact of seawater desalination’, Desalination, vol 185, pp. 1 – 8.

Somerfield, P.J. & Warwick, R.M. (1996) Meiofauna in marine pollution monitoring programmes. A laboratory manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowerstoft, UK.

Turner, D.J., Collings, G. (2008) Subtidal macroalgal communities of Gulf St Vincent. In: Shepherd, S.A., Bryars, S., Kirkegaard, I., Harbison, P. and Jennings, J.T. (Eds.) Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc. Adelaide, Australia, pp. 264 – 278.

Underwood, A.J. (1991) ‘Beyond BACI: Experimental designs for detecting human impacts on temporal variation in natural populations’, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 42, pp. 569 – 587.

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, vol. 161, pp. 145 – 178.

Younos, T. (2005) ‘Environmental issues of desalination’, Universities Council on Water Resources, Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, vol. 132, pp. 11 – 18.

6. Appendix Table 1: Epifauna species identified in samples collected from the three Zones; North and South Control Zones and Port Stanvac Construction Zone, in Summer 2011. Ticks () indicate species that were found in at least one sample in that Zone. The far right column indicates the total number of Zones from which species were recorded, with the maximum possible value being 3 (i.e. present in all Zones). North Control Port Stanvac Construction South Control Phylum/Class Family Species Name Zone Zone Zone Total Porifera Ancorinidae Ecionemia sp. P 1 Callyspongiidae Callyspongia sp. P P 2 Chalinidae Chalinula sp. P 1 Darwinellidae Darwinella sp. P 1 Dysideidea Euryspongia sp. P P 2 Sycettidae Sycon sp. P P 2 Thorectidae Thorecta sp. P 1 Bryozoan Catenicellidae Costaticella solida P P 2 Phidoloporidae Retoporella granulata P 1 Phidoloporidae Reteporellina sp P 1 Brachiopoda Terebratillidae Megellania flavascens P P P 3 Polychaeta Amphinomidae Amphinomidae sp. P 1 Capitellidae Capitellidae sp. P 1 Cirratulidae Cirratulidae sp. P 1 Eunicidae Eunice laticeps P P 2 Flabelligeridae Flabelligeridae sp. P 1 Hesionidae Hesionidae sp. P 1 Nereidae Nereidae sp. P 1 Terebellidae Eupolymnia koorangia P 1 Polyplacophora Iscinochitonidae Ischinochiton variegatus P P 2 Iscinochitonidae Ischinochiton elongatus P 1 Iscinochitonidae Ischinochiton torri P 1 Bivalvia Arcidae Barbatia pistachia P 1

Cardiidae Cardita crassicosta P 1 Cardiidae Acrosterigma cygnorum P 1 Clycymerididae Glycimeris radians P P 2 Corbulidae Corbula stolata P 1 Crassatellidae Eucrassatella donacina P 1 Limidae Limaria orientalis P P 2 Limidae Limatula strangei P P P 3 Limidae Lima vulgaris P 1 Malleidae Malleus meridianis P 1 Mytilidae Musculista senhousia P 1 Mytilidae Musculus nanus P P 2 Osteridae Ostrea angasi P 1 Osteridae Saccostrea glomerata P 1 Pectinidae Equichlamys bifrons P P P 2 Pectinidae Pecten fumatus P 1 Pectinidae Semipallium aktinos P P 1 Pholadidae Barnea obturamentum P 1 Veneridae Placamen placidum P 1 Veneridae Dosina victoriae P P 2 Veneridae Circe rivularis P P P 3 Veneridae Tawera logopus P P 2 Gastropoda Calyptraeidae Calyptraea calyptraeaformis P P P 3 Fasciolariinae Fusinus australis P 1 Hipponicidae Hipponix australis P P P 3 Olividae Oliva australis P 1 Philinidae Philine angasi P P 2 Trochidae Thalotia conica P 1 Trochidae Notogibbula lehmanni P 1 Trochidae Clanculus limbatus P 1 Trochidae Clanculus limbatus P 1

Turbinidae Turbo torquatus P 1 Cirripedia Calanticidae Smilium peronii P P 3 Malacostraca Alpheidae Alpheus astrinx P 1 Alpheidae Alpheus richardsoni P 1 Amphithoidae Amphitoe flindersi P 1 Caprellidae Caprella sp.1 P 1 Diogonidae Stigopagarus elongatus P P 2 Gammaridae Gammaridae sp.1 P 1 Hymenosomatidae Hymenosomatidae sp. P 1 Idoteidae Euidotea sp. P 1 Ischyroceridae Cerapus sp. P P P 3 Leucosiidae Ebalia intermedia P P 2 Majidae Naxia aurita P P 2 Melitidae Ceradocus rubromaculatus P P 2 Penacidae Penaeus latisulcatus P 1 Petalophthalmidae Waldeckia kroyeri 1 Podoceridae Podocerus sp. P 1 Portunidae Liocarcinus corrugatus P 1 Seroiidae Serolina bakeri P 1 Sphaeromatidae Cerceis trispinosa P 1 Sphaeromatidae Sphaeroma quoyana P 1 Xanthidae Actaea calculosa P 1 Crinoidea Comasteriidae Comatulella brachiolata P 1 Asteroidea Astropectinidae Astropecten sp. P P 2 Ophiuroidea Ophiodermatidae Ophioconus opacum P P 2 Ophionereididae Opionereis schayeri P 1 Ophionereididae Ophiura kinbergi P 1 Echinoidea Cidaridae Goniocidaris tubaria P P 2 Temnopleuridae Amblypheustes ovum P P 2

Holothuroidea Stichopodidae Stichopus ludwigi P 1 Ascidiacea Holozoidae Sycozoa pulchara P 1 Pyuridae Pyura praeputialis P P P 3 Pyuridae Pyura gibbosa P P P 3 Pyuridae Pyura abradata P P P 3 Pyuridae Herdmania fimbriae P P 2