Appendix D Derivation of Residential Soil Criteria€¦ · that the dermal absorption of PFOS and...

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the RAAF Base Wagga PFAS Investigation Ref: JCOBS/18/WAGGAR001-E

Appendix D Derivation of Residential Soil Criteria


Human health soil criteria have been derived on the same basis as presented in the NEPM for residents (NEPC 1999 amended 2013a). The risk-based criteria (RBC) for soil have been derived for PFAS on the basis of a threshold approach (refer to the discussion presented in Section 4). Where this is the case the soil criteria for an exposure pathway (x), can be back-calculated by setting the estimated intake for a chemical (i) to the acceptable intake allowable from soil for that chemical (i), then rearranging the equation as follows:

RBCx,i �mgkg�=

Acceptable IntakeIntake from Contamination

= acceptable intake(i) from soil x body weight x averageing time

ingestion rate (i) x exposure frequency x exposure duration

Equation 1

Similarly, criteria can be derived for other pathways of exposure, with the final RBC calculated by combining the pathway-specific RBC as below, noting that the NSW EPA criteria have not included dermal absorption in the calculations (however dermal absorption is accounted for in the higher level of background intake assumed):

( )

+

=

dustingestion RBCRBC

kgmgRBC11

1/ Equation 2

where:

RBCingestion = derived soil guideline associated with the ingestion of soil and dust by children (the most sensitive receptor), refer to Equation 3

RBCdust = derived soil guideline associated with inhalation of contaminants in dust by children (the most sensitive receptor), refer to Equation 4

This approach assumes that the pathways of exposure are all complete and are additive.

The following outlines the equations used to calculate the pathway specific RBC. Table D1 presents a summary of the exposure assumptions adopted for the calculations, which are the default values adopted in the NEPM (NEPC 1999 amended 2013a).

EDEFCFBAIRATBWBITRV

kgmgRBCoSC

TAooingestion ××××

××−=

))%100(()/( Equation 3

EDEFRFETTFPEF

ETPEF

ATBITRVkgmgRBC

ii

oo

Tiidust

×××

××+

×

×−=

11))%100(()/( Equation 4


where: TRVo = toxicity reference value relevant for the quantification of oral, dermal or inhalation intakes, (as

mg/kg/day for threshold contaminants) (refer to Section 4) BIo = background intakes relevant to oral/dermal or inhalation exposures (from sources other than soil,

which include food, water, air and consumer products where relevant) (as % of the TRVo) assumed to be 80% consistent with the conservative approach outlined by the NSE EPA (2017)

IRSC = ingestion rate of soil/dust (mg/day) BAo = oral bioavailability (unitless, expressed as a fraction of 1) CF = conversion factor of 1x10-6 to convert mg to kg PEFi,o = particulate emission factor (or dust loading) for outdoor (O) or indoor (I) air (m3/kg) ETi,o = exposure time outdoors (O) or indoors (I) (hours/day) TF = indoor dust transport factor (unitless) RF = lung retention factor relevant for the inhalation of dust from site (unitless) EF = exposure frequency (days/year) ED = exposure duration (years) BWA = body weight (kg) ATT = averaging time for threshold contaminants (days, = ED x 365 days for oral/dermal exposures and =

ED x 365 days x 24 hours for inhalation exposures) Table D1: Exposure Parameters Adopted for Calculation of Residential Soil RBCs

Parameter Symbol Units HIL A – Residential: Young Child (Most Sensitive)

(HEPA 2018) Body weight BWA kg 15 Exposure duration ED years 6 Exposure frequency EF days 365 Soil/dust ingestion rate IngR mg/day 100 Time spent indoors on site each day Timein hours 20 Time spent outdoors on site each day Timeout hours 4 Dust lung retention factor LR % 37.5 Particulate emission factor indoors PEFi m3/kg 2.6 x 107 Particulate emission factor outdoors PEFo m3/kg 2.9 x 1010 Indoor dust transfer factor TF -- 0.5 Oral bioavailability BAo % 100 Background intake oral BIo % 80 Background intake inhalation BIi % 0

On the basis of the above, the following RBC have been derived for PFAS in soil.


Derivation of Soil CriteriaResidential - No produce

Summary of Exposure Parameters Abbreviation units Parameter References/Notes

Soil and Dust Ingestion Rate - Adults IRSA mg/day 100 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)Time Spent Outdoors ETo hours 4 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)Time Spent Indoors ETi hours 20 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)Lung Retention Factor RF - 0.375 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)

Particulate Emission Factor PEFo (m3/kg) 2.9E+10 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)

Indoor Air Dust Factor PEFi (m3/kg) 2.6E+07 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)Fraction of indoor dust comprised of outdoor soil TF - 0.5 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)Body weight BWC kg 15 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)Exposure Frequency EF days/year 365 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)Exposure Duration EDC years 6 Values from NEPM for HIL-A, as adopted by HEPA (2018)

Averaging Time (noncarcinogenic) ATT days ED*365 Calculated based on ED for each relevant age group, multiplied by 24 hours for the assessment of inhalation exposures

Threshold Calculations - Child Resident

CompoundSoil

Ingestion Dermal Dust

PFOS+PFHxS 0.00002 1 0.00002 100% 80% 0.00007 0% 6.0E-01 NA 1.1E+04 0.6 0.6PFOA 0.00016 1 0.00016 100% 80% 0.00056 0% 4.8E+00 NA 9.2E+04 4.8 5

GI Absorption

(GAF) (unitless)

Toxicity Reference

Value Dermal (TRVD)

(mg/kg/day)

Oral Bioavailability

BAO (%)

Dermal Absorption

Factor (DAF) (unitless)

Pathway Specific HILs (mg/kg)Toxicity Reference

Value Inhalation

(TRVI)

(mg/m3)

Background Intake

Oral/Dermal (BIO) (% of TDI)

Toxicity Reference Value Oral

(TRVO) (mg/kg/day)

Derived Soil HIL (not rounded)

(mg/kg)

Background Intake

Inhalation (BIi) (% of

TC)

Derived Soil HIL (to 1 or 2 s.f.) (mg/kg)

Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the RAAF Base Wagga PFAS Investigation 2 | P a g e Ref: JCOBS/18/WAGGAR001-E

Appendix E Toxicity Summary: PFAS Compounds


E1 PFOS and PFOA

This toxicity summary has been based on information sourced from the US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Control (ATSDR 2018) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ 2017c) unless otherwise indicated.

Properties and Uses

PFAS are a family of man-made fluorine-containing chemicals that do not occur naturally in the environment. The have unique properties to make materials stain- and stick-resistant because they repel oil, grease and water. PFAS are often described as being “ubiquitous in the environment”. They have been widely used in man-made products such as surface protection products (e.g. carpet and clothing treatments) and coatings for cardboard and packaging. Some PFAS are, or were also historically used in fire-fighting foams.

There are hundreds of different PFAS; the most common and well-studied compounds are PFOS and PFOA as these PFAS were manufactured at the highest rate. PFOS is a completely fluorinated compound with eight carbons and a sulfonate group. PFOA is a completely fluorinated compound with seven carbons and a carboxyl functional group. Both PFOS and PFOA are metabolically and environmentally stable (i.e. persistent), bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT). Perfluoroalkyl carboxylates and sulfonates are made up of a long perfluorocarbon tail that is both hydrophobic and oleophobic, and a charged end that is hydrophilic.

In addition, many of the PFAS compounds break down to give PFOS or PFOA when released into the environment. Degradation stops at PFOS and PFOA which is why these compounds are commonly found to have accumulated in organisms. These compounds are mobile in soil and leach into groundwater.

Exposure

Oral

PFOS and PFOA are readily absorbed via the oral route of exposure. The bioavailability of both PFAS is estimated to be >93% within 24 hours (based on studies with rats).

Dermal

When a receptor comes into direct contact with impacted soil or water, exposure is often assumed to occur via incidental ingestion and dermal contact. However, there is scientific evidence to suggest that the dermal absorption of PFOS and PFOA is limited in comparison to the ingestion pathway.

The dermal absorption of a chemical depends on the area of skin in contact with the impacted media/chemical, the concentration of chemical in the media, the duration of contact with the media, how tightly the chemical is bound into the media and the ability of the chemical to penetrate the skin. Anionic surfactants (e.g. PFOS/PFOA), are generally thought to penetrate the whole skin poorly. Experimental values (Scala et. al. 1968) confirm that even at the highest surfactant concentrations studied (0.03 M or 1%), non-detectable concentrations of ionic surfactants passed through the skin


in the first two hours of exposure. Diffusion curves were observed to be non–linear (exponential), with surfactant able to be measured on the underside of the skin four hours following exposure.

Dermal exposures of rats to ammonium PFOA has been shown to produce systemic (e.g., liver, immunotoxicity) effects in animals confirming that the absorption of PFOA by animal skin is possible however estimates of the amount or rates of dermal absorption in humans or animals have not been reported. In addition, experimental studies with rat, mouse and human skin indicate that rat and mouse skin may be more permeable to PFOA than human skin. As would be expected given the physicochemical properties of PFOS and PFOA, dermal permeability was sensitive to pH and was higher when the skin was buffered at pH 2.5 (5.5x10-2 cm/hour) compared to pH 5.5 (4.4x10-5 cm/hour), well above the pKa for the terminal carboxylic acid of PFOA. This suggests that permeability of the unionized acid is greater than that of the dissociated anion (noting that at environmental pH, PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS will be in the ionised form)

Following application of the ammonium salt of PFOA to isolated human or rat epidermis, approximately 0.048% of the dose was absorbed across human epidermis and 1.44% was absorbed across rat epidermis. When applied at the same dose and for the same time frame, 1.44% of the applied dose of PFOA was absorbed across the isolated rat skin however only 0.048% of the dose was absorbed across the isolated human skin. The estimated dermal penetration coefficient was 9.49x10-7 cm/hour in the isolated human epidermis and 3.25x10-5 cm/hour in the isolated rat epidermis.

Default dermal permeability co-efficients for PFOS and PFOA are not available (RAIS). This may be because the measurement of the n-octanol / water partition (a critical parameter for estimating the dermal permeability co-efficient) is not practicable via the standard methodology for PFOS and PFOA as these chemicals form a separate layer when mixed with hydrocarbons and water.

In summary, the existing evidence in the scientific literature indicates that the dermal absorption of PFAS following direct contact is limited in comparison to the ingestion pathway.

Vapour Inhalation

PFOS and PFOA are not volatile at environmental pH (it exists as an anion), hence vapour inhalation exposures have not been considered further in this HHERA. The potential health risks associated with the inhalation of dust have however been considered.

Distribution

Unlike other compounds that have PBT characteristics (e.g. organochlorine pesticides, PCBs or dioxins), PFOS and PFOA are highly water soluble and bioaccumulate by attaching to proteins in the blood rather than accumulating in lipids (USEPA 2014). It has been shown that 99.7% of these chemicals in humans and 97.3% of these chemicals in rats and monkeys is bound to the albumin. Following oral exposure in rats, PFOS is found mainly in the blood, liver, lungs and kidneys. PFOA is found mainly in the blood, liver, testis, spleen, lungs, kidney and brain. In post mortem human studies, most of the PFOS is found in the lungs, kidneys, liver and blood. Most of the PFOA has been found in the lungs, kidneys, liver, blood and bone


Both PFOS and PFOA bind to the fatty acid binding protein in the liver (although PFOS is more strongly bound than PFOA). Both chemicals also have a medium to high binding affinity for other proteins including the human serum thyroid hormone transport protein, transthyretin, low density lipoproteins and / or alpha-globulins. Transporters, including organic anion transporters, and likely to be involved in the absorption, distribution and excretion of PFOS and PFOA. PFOS and PFOA are able to cross the placenta and have been found in breast milk.

Metabolism and Excretion

There is no evidence (from studies with rats and monkeys) that PFOS and PFOA are metabolised in the body.

Excretion primarily occurs via the kidneys (in the urine) in rats. PFOA is also excreted in the bile and may be subject to extensive enterohepatic recirculation. Lactation and menstruation are also relevant routes of excretion in women and mice.

The elimination half-life for PFOS is 5.4 years in humans and 121, 48 and 37 days in monkeys, rats and mice respectively. Half-lives are generally consistent between males and females.

The elimination half-life for PFOA is 2.3 to 3.8 years in humans and 20.8, 11.5 and 15.6 days in monkeys, rats and mice respectively. A marked sex difference is observed for PFOA in rats with males showing slower eliminating which may be linked to difference in expression of organic anion transporters in the kidneys. Significant sex related differences have not been demonstrated in monkeys or humans, however it is noted that this may be due to study design.

Health Effects - PFOS

The database relating to the toxicity of PFOS in animals includes acute and short term studies with mice, rats and monkeys, sub-chronic studies with rats and monkeys, chronic studies with rats and reproductive / developmental studies with mice, rats and rabbits. The critical effects identified from these studies and used by international agencies to develop TRVs include the following:

Rats: mortality, increased liver weights, decreased body weight, decreased body weight gain, decreased serum cholesterol, increased alanine aminotransferase, hepatocellular hypertrophy and hepatocellular vacuolation, delayed eye-opening, reduced pup viability and weight / weight gain, reduced gestation length;

Monkeys: mortality, reduced body weight gain, increased liver weight and liver histopathological changes and reduced serum cholesterol;

Rabbits: lower maternal body weight gain (with no corresponding effect on food ingestion rate), lower foetal weight and abortions; and

Mice: increased relative liver weight, reduced serum triglycerides, increased foetal liver weight, delayed eye-opening; reduced SBRC plaque forming cell response, impaired learning and memory and increased apoptosis in hippocampal cells.

Data from epidemiological studies with occupationally exposed workers at 3M manufacturing facilities (Alabama, USA and Belgium), communities exposed to contaminated drinking water (USA) and general populations (USA, UK and Scandinavia) are also available. It is noted that concentrations of PFAS in occupationally exposed workers are 100 to 1,000-fold higher than those


in the general populations. Despite this, epidemiology studies have generally failed to draw conclusive links between exposure to PFOS and adverse health effects. Associations between exposure to PFOS and the following health effects have been suggested:

Changes in serum lipid levels e.g. increase total cholesterol levels; Changes in serum liver enzymes levels; Kidney disease; Effects on fertility, pregnancy and birth outcomes; and Effects on thyroid and immune function

Overall, the evidence for adverse effects on humans following PFOS exposure from the epidemiological studies is inconsistent. In addition, the biological significance of some of the observed effects has been questioned (i.e. just because an effect is observed it does not mean it is, or will lead to, an adverse effect) and there is the potential that observed effects may be due to confounding factors e.g. exposure to other contaminants or diet.

Due to the above factors, it has been concluded by all regulatory agencies and bodies (including FSANZ) that the available epidemiological data is unsuitable for use in establishing a TRV for PFOS.

Health Effects - PFOA

The database relating to the toxicity of PFOA in animals includes acute and short term studies with mice, rats and monkeys, sub-chronic studies with monkeys, chronic studies with mice, rats and monkeys and reproductive / developmental studies with mice and rats. The critical effects identified from these studies and used by international agencies to develop TRVs include the following:

Rats: increased liver weights, decreased body weight, decreased body weight gain, significant increases in Leydig cell adenomas, hepatocellular adenomas and pancreatic acinar cell tumours, decreased sexual maturation in offspring;

Monkeys: decreased heart and brain weights, mortality, liver toxicity, body weight effects; and

Mice: decreased maternal weight gain, increased late foetal mortality, decreased pup weight, increase in developmental defects and neonatal mortality, decreased preweaning growth rate, delayed eye-opening, stunted mammary development in pups and immunotoxicity.

Similar to PFOS, data is available from epidemiological studies with occupationally exposed workers at 3M manufacturing facilities, communities exposed to contaminated drinking water and the general population. It is noted that concentrations of PFAS in occupationally exposed workers are 100 to 1,000-fold higher than those in the general populations. Despite this, epidemiology studies have generally failed to draw conclusive links between exposure to PFOA and adverse health effects. Associations between exposure to PFOA and the following health effects have been suggested:

Endocrine effects (e.g. elevated thyroxine levels and increased risk of thyroid disease, diabetes mellitus and early onset menopause);

Changes in serum lipid levels; Effects on fertility, pregnancy, lactation and decreased birthweight; Effects on immune function;


Cardiovascular disease; and Cancer.

Similar to the information for PFOS, the evidence for adverse effects on humans following PFOA exposure from the epidemiological studies is inconsistent. However, the epidemiology does suggest that PFOA may be positively associated with levels of cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein and triglycerides in the serum. The actual toxic mechanisms for these effects in humans has not been determined. Interestingly, the positive association between PFOA and elevated levels of cholesterol and triglycerides in human blood is inconsistent with the findings from animal toxicity studies. These effects are also the reverse of what would be expected for a chemical that activates PPARα (which PFOA has been shown to do) and induces peroxisome proliferation.

There are two main complicating factors with attempting to correlate PFOA toxicity in animals with toxicity in humans:

The large interspecies variation in toxicokinetics (specifically elimination half-life), which is estimated to be years in a human but only hours to days in rats, mice and monkeys; and

The activation of PPARα by PFOA, and the difference in the potential for activation of this receptor in rats and humans. i.e. this receptor is present in both rats and humans however is thought to be more active in rats than humans. This may be the reason some effects (e.g. liver cancer) are seen in rats but not humans.

Due to the above factors, it has been concluded by all regulatory agencies and bodies (including FSANZ) that the available epidemiological data is unsuitable for use in establishing a TRV for PFOA.

Classification - PFOS

EFSA and the USEPA (2016) have concluded that PFOS is not genotoxic based on negative findings in in vitro and in vivo tests (FSANZ 2017c).

The carcinogenic risk of PFOS has also been recently reviewed (Arrieta-Cortes et al. 2017). The review considered the available animal and human toxicity studies in the context of the process adopted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The review concluded that there was inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in human and animal studies and PFOS should be classified as not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3).

With respect to the overall information available relating to the potential for exposure to PFAS to cause cancer:

The literature evidence is often contradictory (or vague), even within the same reference; Associations with kidney, testicular, liver and bladder cancers have been reported for

workers in epidemiological studies, however these studies may include a small number of participants, high occupational exposure and confounding factors (e.g. the study may not be controlled for other cancer causing exposures such as smoking); and

Some observed effects attributed to causing cancer are reversible, hence are not necessarily adverse. In addition, associations are not causations.


As noted above, there are two general groups of carcinogens (NEPC 1999 amended 2013b):

Genotoxic carcinogens for which, in theory, any level of exposure could result in a response as the chemical has the ability to interact directly with DNA; and

Non-genotoxic carcinogens, for which there is a threshold below which exposure is not expected to result in adverse health effects.

PFAS do not possess the chemical / physical properties typically associated with direct genotoxicity and this is supported by an understanding of the mode of action for tumour formation in humans, and differences between humans and animals.

Overall, the weight of evidence is that, if they are carcinogenic, PFOS is a non-genotoxic threshold “carcinogen” (deWitt. J.C. 2015).

Classification - PFOA

In July 2016, IARC classified PFOA as Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC 2016). The following is a summary of the information is provided in the IARC monograph:

The epidemiological literature for cancer and PFOA is relatively small and considers three different types of populations – workers exposed in chemical plants producing or using PFOA, high exposure communities (e.g. where contamination of water supplies has occurred) and the general population (i.e. background exposures);

Two studies have found an increased risk of cancer of the testis. The evidence in these studies was considered credible and unlikely to be explained by bias or confounding, however the numbers were small;

Four studies have investigated the potential for PFOA to cause kidney cancer. The evidence for kidney cancer was considered credible however chance, bias and confounding could not be ruled out;

Some positive associations were observed for bladder, thyroid, prostate, liver and pancreatic cancer however the results were inconsistent and based on small numbers, and the overall evidence was concluded to be inadequate;

PFOA was found to increase the incidence of testicular adenomas (benign tumours) in rats in two studies, and increase the incidence of hepatocellular and pancreatic adenomas in one study. PFOA was also found to promote cancer of the liver in two studies with rats and two studies with rainbow trout;

Due to the reabsorption of PFOA in the kidney, the body burden of PFOA is much greater than that in experimental animals;

PFOA is not DNA-reactive therefore there is strong evidence that PFOA is not a direct genotoxic carcinogen. There is moderate evidence that PFOA is not an indirect genotoxic carcinogen; and

The liver is a well-established target for toxicity in rats and mice. Potential mechanisms include activation of PPARα and cytotoxicity. The human relevance of these findings cannot be excluded based on the available information.

IARC concluded that there is limited evidence in humans and experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of PFOA. Overall, PFOA is possible carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).


Toxicity Reference Values

On the basis that PFOS and PFOA is not considered to be a genotoxic carcinogen, it has been assessed based on a threshold approach in this HHERA. The following threshold chronic values are available from Level 1 Australian and International sources (Table E1):


Table E1: Summary of Toxicity Information for PFOS and PFOA

Source PFOS PFOA TRV (µg/kg/d) Basis/Comments TRV (µg/kg/d) Basis/Comments

Australian ADWG (NHMRC 2011 Updated 2016)

No guideline value -- No guideline value --

NEPM (NEPC 2004) No guideline value -- No guideline value -- Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)

0.02 HBGV based on PBPK modelling for 4 selected pivotal toxicity studies (1 with monkeys and 3 with rats). The final HBGV was derived based on a POD (HED) of 0.6 µg/kg/day associated with decreased pup body weight in a two-generation reproductive toxicity study with rats and an UF of 30 (10 for intraspecies variability and 3 for interspecies variability). HBGVs calculated for the other studies were in the range 0.02 to 0.1 µg/kg/day.

0.16 HBGV based on PBPK modelling for 3 selected pivotal toxicity studies (1 with monkeys, 1 with rats and 1 with mice). The final HBGV was derived based on a POD (HED) of 4.9 µg/kg/day associated with foetal toxicity in a reproductive/developmental toxicity study mice and an UF of 30 (10 for intraspecies variability and 3 for interspecies variability). HBGVs calculated for the other studies were in the range 0.43 to 0.92 µg/kg/day.

International WHO Drinking Water Guidelines

No guideline value -- No guideline value --

United Kingdom Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT 2006)

0.3 Provisional TDI based on a POD (NOAEL) of 30 µg/kg/day associated with decreased serum T3 levels in a 26-week study with cynomolgus monkeys and an UF of 100 for inter- and intra-species variability.

1.5 Provisional TDI based of a POD of 300 µg/kg/day associated with hepatic effects in a number of studies in rats and mice and an UF of 200 (10 for inter- and intra-species variability and 2 for uncertainties relating to internal dose kinetics).

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2008)

0.15 TDI based on a POD (NOAEL) of 30 µg/kg/day associated with changes in serum lipids and thyroid hormones in a 26-week study with cynomolgus monkey and a UF of 200. The UF comprised by factor of 100 adopted by the UK COT for inter- and intra-species variability as well as an additional UF of 2 to account for the

1.5

TDI based on a POD (BMDL10) of 300 µg/kg/day associated with a 10% increase in effects on the liver from studies in rats and mice and an UF of 200 (10 for inter- and intra-species variability and 2 for uncertainties relating to internal dose kinetics).



relatively short duration of the key study and internal dose kinetics.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2016a, 2016b) (Final)

0.02 RfD based on PBPK modelling on for data from 6 subchronic, developmental / neurodevelopmental and reproductive toxicity studies with rats for which measured serum PFOS concentrations were available. Critical effects included increased levels of alanine aminotransferase and blood urea nitrogen, decreased pup body weight and survival rate and increased motor activity / decreased habituation. The adopted UF varied depending on the study and were in the range 30 to 100. Candidate RfDs were in the range 0.02 to 0.05 µg/kg/day.

0.02 RfD based on PBPK modelling on for data from a number of studies with rats, monkeys and mice for which measured serum PFOS concentrations were available. 6 primary studies were selected and critical effects included increased liver and kidney weight (rats), decreased pup body weight (mice) and developmental and immunotoxic effects (mice). The adopted UF varied depending on the study and were in the range 30 to 300. Candidate RfDs were in the range 0.02 to 0.15 µg/kg/day.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2015) (based on Draft 2014 USEPA Guidance)

0.03 MRL based on a POD (NOAEL) of 2.52 µg/kg/day associated with increased absolute liver weight in a 26-week study with cynomolgus monkeys and a UF of 90 (3 for interspecies differences, 10 for intraspecies differences and 3 for deficiencies in the database).

0.02 MRL based on a POD (HED) of 1.54 µg/kg/day associated with increased absolute liver weight in a 26-week study with cynomolgus monkeys and a UF of 90 (3 for interspecies differences, 10 for intraspecies differences and 3 for deficiencies in the database).

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 2018)

0.002 Intermediate MRL based on a POD (HED) of 0.515 µg/kg/day associated with delayed eye opening and decreased pup weight in rats. The adopted UF was 300. ATSDR concluded there was insufficient data to derive a chronic MRL.

0.003 Intermediate MRL based on a POD (HED) of 0.821 µg/kg/day associated with neurodevelopmental and skeletal effects in mice. The adopted UF was 300. ATSDR concluded there was insufficient data to derive a chronic MRL.

Danish Ministry for the Environment (Danish Ministry of the Environment 2015)

0.03 TDI based on a POD (BMDL10) of 33 µg/kg/day associated with hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity) in a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats and an UF of 1,230 (3 for possible differences in pharmacodynamics, 41 for differences in pharmacokinetics and 10 for intraspecies differences).

0.1 TDI based on a POD (BMDL10 converted to a HED) of 3 µg/kg/day associated with hepatotoxicity (liver toxicity) in a chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study with rats and an UF of 30 (10 for intraspecies variation and 3 for interspecies differences).



Minnesota Department of Health (MDH 2009a, 2009b)

0.08 TRV based on a POD (HED) of 2.5 µg/kg/day associated with decreased cholesterol and changes in thyroid hormones in rats and a UF of 30.

0.08 TRV based on a POD (HED) of 2.3 µg/kg/day associated with decreased cholesterol and changes in thyroid hormones in monkeys and a UF of 30.

German Drinking Water Commission (GDWC 2006)

0.1 TRV based on a POD of 25 µg/kg/day which was the lowest POD for rats from a range of studies with rats and monkeys. The adopted UF was 300.

0.1 TRV based on a NOAEL of 100 µg/kg/day which was the lowest POD from a range of studies reviewed by the USEPA. The adopted UF was 1,000.

Notes: Grey italics indicates TRVs that have since been superseded. BMDL = Benchmark Dose Level, HBGV = Health Based Guideline Value, HED = Human Equivalent Dose, MRL = Minimal Risk Level, NOAEL = No Observed Adverse Effect Level, PBPK = Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic, POD = Point of Departure, RfD = Reference Dose, TDI = Tolerable Daily Intake, UF = Uncertainty Factor.


Table E1 indicates that available TRVs for PFOS range from 0.002 to 0.15 µg/kg/day (i.e. a range of 75 times). Available TRVs for PFOA range from 0.003 to 1.5 µg/kg/day (i.e. a range of 500 times).

The differences between the available TRVs are mainly due to the following:

The selection of the critical study and the point of departure (POD) from the available toxicity studies;

The application of different uncertainty factors (UFs). The application of significantly different UFs by various agencies is largely due to the toxicokinetics related issues (i.e. clearance), as well as the application of additional UFs because the available studies were less than lifetime for the estimated POD; and

The use (or not) of PBPK modelling.

In April 2017, FSANZ released TRVs for PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS in the form of TDIs (called HBGVs) (FSANZ 2017c). The FSANZ TRVs are the final values for use in Australia and hence the TRVs for PFOS and PFOA have been adopted in this HHERA:

PFOS: 0.02 µg/kg/day; and PFOA: 0.16 µg/kg/day.

Background Intake

In the HHERA, the background intake of PFOS + PFHxS has been assumed to be 7% of the toxicity value, and the background intake of PFOA has been assumed to be negligible.

The background intakes are based on a literature review of PFOS and PFOA concentrations in blood serum as undertaken by ToxConsult (ToxConsult 2016) as part of assessment works at other Defence sites. It is noted that blood levels of PFAS are reflective of all intakes from consumer products, drinking water and the environment in general, including PFOS in food that the general population may be exposed to away from PFAS impacted sites. This is because PFOS accumulates in the blood serum.

For PFOS, the information reviewed by ToxConsult indicated that background intakes in the Australian population were in the order of 0.0008 µg/kg/day (average) and 0.0014 µg/kg/day (upper estimate). This equates to 4% and 7% of the TRV (0.02 µg/kg/day). The upper estimate of 7% has been adopted in this HHERA.

For PFOA, the average and upper estimate background intakes were 0.00054 µg/kg/day and 0.00078 µg/kg/day respectively. This is negligible (<1%) when compared with the TRV (0.16 µg/kg/day).

FSANZ (2017b) indicates that there is currently insufficient information to estimate total dietary exposure to PFOS for the general population as the majority of the available information relates to contaminated sites. However, the limited data from the 24th Australian Total Diet Survey, alongside information in the scientific literature and further research on PFOS concentrations in fish purchased from Sydney retail outlets by the NSW Food Authority, indicates that dietary exposure from the


general food supply is likely to be low. Hence, the adoption of 7% background contribution for PFOS is considered appropriately conservative.

E2 PFHxS

PFHxS is a completely fluorinated compound with six carbons and a sulfonate group and is the next most well-known PFAS after PFOS and PFOA. In addition, PFHxS is considered to be structurally similar to PFOS (having the same functional group with less carbons) and as a result is often considered of similar potential toxicity as PFOS.

Like PFOS and PFOA, PFHxS is readily absorbed following oral exposure (with a bioavailability of close to 100% within 24 hours in rats) and binds strongly to serum proteins. The highest PFHxS concentrations have generally been reported in the liver and kidney, with elimination occurring primarily in the urine in experimental animals. The is evidence that PFHxS can cross the placenta and PFHxS has been detected in breast milk. The elimination half-life of PFHxS in humans in estimated to be in the range 7.3 to 8.5 years.

There is limited information available relating to the toxicity of PFHxS:

It has been shown to be a moderate activator of PPARα; There was no evidence of developmental or reproductive toxicity at the highest dose tested

in one study with rats; and A number of epidemiological studies have reported associations between PFHxS exposure

and health effects including physician diagnosed asthma, cholesterol levels, sperm quality, birth weight and learning difficulties. However, the results of these epidemiological studies are complicated by the factors present in the studies for PFOS and PFOA (as discussed above).

The comparative toxicity of PFHxS (and other PFAS) was recently investigated in a cumulative health risk assessment for 17 PFAS compounds (Borg et.al. 2013). A summary of the POD for hepatotoxicity and reproductive toxicity for the PFAS investigated in the health risk assessment are provided in Table E2.

Table E2: Summary of Toxicity Data for PFAS (Borg et.al. 2013)

PFAS POD Hepatotoxicity Reproductive Toxicity Other

External Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Internal Dose

(µg/mL serum)

External Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Internal Dose

(µg/mL serum)

External Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Internal Dose

(µg/mL serum)

PFBS 100 67 1 300 >45 1 60 4 -- PFHxS 1 89 >10 >60 0.3 2,4 44 2,4 PFOS 6 0.025 4.04 0.1 4.9 -- -- PFOSA 0.024 1 4.03 1 0.1 1 4.9 1 -- -- PFDS 0.029 1 4.85 1 0.1 1 5.9 1 -- -- PFBA 6.0 14 175 4.4 3 5 -- PFPeA 0.04 1 4.5 1 0.55 1 10.0 1 -- --


PFAS POD Hepatotoxicity Reproductive Toxicity Other

External Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Internal Dose

(µg/mL serum)

External Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Internal Dose

(µg/mL serum)

External Dose

(mg/kg/day)

Internal Dose

(µg/mL serum)

PFHxA 20 5.4 1 100 11.9 1 -- -- PFHpA 20 6.2 1 0.76 1 13.8 1 -- -- PFOA 6 0.06 7.1 0.86 15.7 -- -- PFNA 0.83 2 28.5 0.83 8.9 -- -- PFDA 1.2 31.6 1 3.0 9.9 1 -- -- PFUnA 1.01 1 34.6 1 1.01 1 10.8 1 -- -- PFDoA 0.02 1 37.7 1 1.10 1 11.8 1 -- -- 6:2 FTS 0.020 1 3.45 1 0.085 1 4.2 1 15 3 --

Notes for Table E2: 1 = Read-across on a molar basis from PFOA, PFOS or PFHxS of PFNA (for PFDA and PFUnA). Borg et. al.

(2013) indicates that “for congeners lacking data, read-across extrapolation from the closest most conservative congener on a molar basis has been performed”. Read-across is the process where endpoint information for one chemical is used to predict the same endpoint for another chemical which is considered to be similar in some way (e.g. structurally similar). PFTriDA and PFTeDA were also evaluated on this basis

2 = Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) 3 = Critical effect is nephrotoxicity 4 = Critical effect is decrease in haemoglobin levels 5 = Critical effect decrease in serum cholesterol 6 = Based on an independent review of toxicity data by the study authors which may consider different PODs to

those selected by other jurisdictions for the development of guideline values and hence, may differ to the information presented above. The information presented by the study authors has been replicated here to ensure a consistent approach is adopted for the review of the toxicity data for PFOS / PFOA as compared to other PFAS compounds.

-- = No data available

Table E2 indicates that where chemical specific information is available and evaluated on a consistent basis (values shown in bold; other values have been estimated via read across from PFOS, PFOA or PFHxS), PODs for other PFAS are 10 to 100 times higher than that for PFOS and PFOA. This means these PFAS compounds are 10 to 100 times less toxic than PFOS and PFOA.

The exceptions are:

PFNA which has reproductive toxicity and hepatotoxicity PODs (external dose) of 0.83 mg/kg/day; and

PFHxS which has a haematology toxicity POD (external dose) of 0.3 mg/kg/day which is similar to PFOS and PFOA.

In their recent review (FSANZ 2017d), FSANZ concluded that structure of PFOS and PFHxS are similar, and there is some evidence of similar potency in the activation of PPARα which may at least partially mediate the toxicity of some PFAS.


Given this, the TRVs for PFOS of 0.02 µg/kg/day has been adopted for PFHxS in this HHERA. In practical terms, this means that concentrations of PFOS and PFHxS are evaluated together (as a sum) in the HHERA calculations.


Appendix F Risk Calculations: Recreational Exposures

to Surface Water


Exposure to Chemicals via Ingestion of Water during Recreational Use

(µg/kg/day)

AdultsAverage Upper

estimateIngestion rate for activitiy (L/hour) 0.025 0.125Duration of activity (hours/day) 0.5 1.5Ingestion Rate of Water (IRw, L/day) 0.0125 0.1875Fraction of ingested from site (FI) 100% 100%Exposure Frequency (EF, day/year) 52 150Exposure Duration (ED, years) 10 35Body Weight (BW, kg) 78 78Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 3650 12775

Daily Intake Calculated HQThreshold TDI Background

Intake (% TDI)TDI Allowable for Assessment

(TDI-Background)

Average Upper estimate Average Upper estimate

(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/L) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless)Gumly Gumly Wetlands (max from SW258)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 4.62 1.1E-04 4.6E-03 0.006 0.25Marshalls Creek (max from SW231)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 0.84 1.9E-05 8.3E-04 0.001 0.04

ChildAverage Upper

estimateIngestion rate for activitiy (L/hour) 0.05 0.15Duration of activity (hours/day) 0.5 1.5Ingestion Rate of Water (IRw, L/day) 0.0250 0.225Fraction of ingested from site (FI) 100% 100%Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 52 150Exposure Duration (ED, years) 5 5Body Weight (BW, kg) 15 15Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 1825 1825



(TDI-Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/L) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless)Gumly Gumly Wetlands (max from SW258)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 4.62 1.1E-03 2.8E-02 0.0590 1.5Marshalls Creek (max from SW231)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 0.84 2.0E-04 5.2E-03 0.0107 0.3

Notes:Grey shading indicates HI >1.Blue shading indicates HI >2.Orange shading indicates HI > 5.

Key Chemical Toxicity Data

PFAS in surface water

Exposure Parameters - refer to Appendix X

Key Chemical Toxicity Data




Exposure to Chemicals via Dermal Contact with Water during Recreational Use

(µg/kg/day)

AdultsAverage Upper

estimateSurface area wet (cm2) 20000 24000Exposure Time (hours/day) 0.5 1.5Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 52 150Exposure Duration (ED, years) 10 35Body Weight (BW, kg) 78 78Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 3650 12775



(TDI-Background)

Dermal permeability


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (cm/hr) (µg/L) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless)Gumly Gumly Wetlands (max from SW258)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 3.25E-05 4.62 2.7E-06 2.8E-05 0.00015 0.0015Marshalls Creek (max from SW231)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 3.25E-05 0.84 5.0E-07 5.2E-06 0.00003 0.0003

ChildAverage Upper

estimateSurface area wet (cm2) 6100 7000Exposure Time (hours/day) 0.5 1.5Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 52 150Exposure Duration (ED, years) 5 5Body Weight (BW, kg) 15 15Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 1825 1825



(TDI-Background)

Dermal permeability


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (cm/hr) (µg/L) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless)Gumly Gumly Wetlands (max from SW258)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 3.25E-05 4.62 4.3E-06 4.3E-05 0.000234 0.0023Marshalls Creek (max from SW231)PFOS + PFHxS 0.02 7% 0.0186 3.25E-05 0.84 7.9E-07 7.9E-06 0.000043 0.0004

Notes:Grey shading indicates HI >1.Blue shading indicates HI >2.Orange shading indicates HI > 5.


Key Chemical



Key Chemical


Toxicity and Chemical Data

Toxicity and Chemical Data


Appendix G Risk Calculations: Consumption of Fish

and Crustaceans


Exposure to Chemicals via Ingestion of Fish and Crustaceans - 100% of Diet

(µg/kg/day)

AdultAverage Upper Estimate

Ingestion Rate of Fish (IRf, kg/day) 0.045 0.123Ingestion Rate of Crustaceans (IRf, kg/day) 0.021 0.063Fraction from site in diet (FI) 100% 100%Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 365 365Exposure Duration (ED, years) 10 35Body Weight (BW, kg) 78 78Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 3650 12775


Intake (% TDI)TDI Allowable for Assessment (TDI-

Background)

Average Upper Estimate Average Upper Estimate Average Upper Estimate

(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 5.4E-03 1.7E-02 0.3 0.9Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 1.6E-03 5.2E-03 0.1 0.3Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 1.9E-03 6.6E-03 0.1 0.4Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 2.1E-03 5.8E-03 0.1 0.3Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 1.0E-03 3.7E-03 0.1 0.2Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 6.6E-03 2.2E-02 0.4 1.2Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 9.7E-03 4.1E-02 0.5 2.2Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 5.8E-03 2.5E-02 0.3 1.3Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 1.5E-03 4.4E-03 0.1 0.2Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 1.3E-02 4.0E-02 0.7 2.1Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 5.3E-03 1.6E-02 0.3 0.9Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10 10 5.5E-03 1.5E-02 0.3 0.8Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 3.2E-04 1.8E-03 0.02 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 7.4E-03 4.2E-02 0.4 2.3Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 2.9E-03 1.7E-02 0.2 0.9Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 1.3E-03 4.0E-03 0.1 0.2Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 9.5E-03 4.6E-02 0.5 2.5Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 3.8E-03 1.8E-02 0.2 1.0

PFAS in edible tissue

Exposure Parameters

PFOS + PFHxS Toxicity Data


ChildAverage Upper Estimate




Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 1.5E-02 5.2E-02 0.8 2.8Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 4.5E-03 1.6E-02 0.2 0.9Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 5.2E-03 2.0E-02 0.3 1.1Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 5.9E-03 1.8E-02 0.3 1.0Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 2.0E-03 6.4E-03 0.1 0.3Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 1.8E-02 6.8E-02 1.0 3.7Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 2.7E-02 1.3E-01 1.4 6.8Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 1.6E-02 7.6E-02 0.9 4.1Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 2.9E-03 7.6E-03 0.2 0.4Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 2.6E-02 6.9E-02 1.4 3.7Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 1.0E-02 2.7E-02 0.6 1.5Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.5 9.5 1.5E-02 4.6E-02 0.8 2.5Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 6.3E-04 3.1E-03 0.03 0.2Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 1.5E-02 7.3E-02 0.8 3.9Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 5.8E-03 2.9E-02 0.3 1.6Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 2.6E-03 6.9E-03 0.1 0.4Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 1.9E-02 8.0E-02 1.0 4.3Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 7.5E-03 3.2E-02 0.4 1.7

Notes:The scenario evaluates potential health risks for a population that obtains 100% of the fish or prawns that they eat from the relevant waterbody.Upper estimate based on the maximum concentration reported at each sampling location with the exception of catfish from SW202 and SW203 where there was sufficient data to calculated a 95%UCLav erage.Average estimate based on the average concentration reported at each sampling location. Average only calculated when 3 or more samples were analysed.Grey shading indicates HI >1.Blue shading indicates HI >2.Orange shading indicates HI > 5.

PFAS in edible tissue PFOS + PFHxS Toxicity Data

Exposure Parameters



(µg/kg/day)





Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 3.0E-03 9.3E-03 0.2 0.5Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 8.9E-04 2.8E-03 0.05 0.2Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 1.0E-03 3.6E-03 0.1 0.2Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 1.2E-03 3.2E-03 0.1 0.2Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 5.6E-04 2.0E-03 0.03 0.1Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 3.6E-03 1.2E-02 0.2 0.7Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 5.3E-03 2.2E-02 0.3 1.2Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 3.2E-03 1.3E-02 0.2 0.7Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 8.0E-04 2.4E-03 0.04 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 7.2E-03 2.2E-02 0.4 1.2Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 2.9E-03 8.7E-03 0.2 0.5Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10 10 3.0E-03 8.2E-03 0.2 0.4Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 1.7E-04 9.7E-04 0.01 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 4.0E-03 2.3E-02 0.2 1.2Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 1.6E-03 9.2E-03 0.1 0.5Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 7.2E-04 2.2E-03 0.04 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 5.2E-03 2.5E-02 0.3 1.4Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 2.1E-03 1.0E-02 0.1 0.5

Exposure Parameters

PFOS + PFHxS Toxicity Data PFAS in edible tissue






Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 8.2E-03 2.9E-02 0.4 1.5Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 2.5E-03 8.7E-03 0.1 0.5Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 2.8E-03 1.1E-02 0.2 0.6Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 3.2E-03 9.9E-03 0.2 0.5Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 1.1E-03 3.5E-03 0.1 0.2Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 1.0E-02 3.7E-02 0.5 2.0Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 1.5E-02 6.9E-02 0.8 3.7Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 8.8E-03 4.2E-02 0.5 2.2Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 1.6E-03 4.1E-03 0.1 0.2Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 1.4E-02 3.8E-02 0.8 2.0Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 5.7E-03 1.5E-02 0.3 0.8Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.5 9.5 8.3E-03 2.5E-02 0.4 1.4Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 3.4E-04 1.7E-03 0.02 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 8.0E-03 4.0E-02 0.43 2.2Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 3.2E-03 1.6E-02 0.2 0.9Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 1.4E-03 3.8E-03 0.1 0.2Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 1.0E-02 4.4E-02 0.6 2.4Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 4.1E-03 1.8E-02 0.2 0.9



Exposure Parameters



(µg/kg/day)





Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 1.5E-03 4.8E-03 0.1 0.3Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 4.6E-04 1.5E-03 0.02 0.1Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 5.3E-04 1.9E-03 0.03 0.1Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 6.1E-04 1.7E-03 0.03 0.1Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 2.9E-04 1.1E-03 0.02 0.1Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 1.9E-03 6.3E-03 0.1 0.3Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 2.8E-03 1.2E-02 0.1 0.6Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 1.7E-03 7.0E-03 0.09 0.4Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 4.1E-04 1.2E-03 0.02 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 3.8E-03 1.1E-02 0.2 0.6Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 1.5E-03 4.5E-03 0.1 0.2Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10 10 1.6E-03 4.3E-03 0.1 0.2Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 9.0E-05 5.1E-04 0.005 0.03Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 2.1E-03 1.2E-02 0.1 0.6Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 8.4E-04 4.8E-03 0.05 0.3Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 3.8E-04 1.1E-03 0.02 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 2.7E-03 1.3E-02 0.1 0.7Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 1.1E-03 5.3E-03 0.06 0.3Murray Cod HatcheryCatfish - edible portion, Pond A1 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 243 443 4.0E-02 2.0E-01 2.1 10.7Catfish - edible portion, Pond A4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 196 310 3.2E-02 1.4E-01 1.7 7.5

Exposure Parameters







Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 4.3E-03 1.5E-02 0.2 0.8Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 1.3E-03 4.5E-03 0.1 0.2Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 1.5E-03 5.8E-03 0.1 0.3Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 1.7E-03 5.1E-03 0.1 0.3Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 5.8E-04 1.8E-03 0.03 0.1Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 5.2E-03 1.9E-02 0.3 1.0Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 7.7E-03 3.6E-02 0.4 1.9Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 4.6E-03 2.2E-02 0.2 1.2Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 8.2E-04 2.2E-03 0.04 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 7.4E-03 2.0E-02 0.4 1.1Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 3.0E-03 7.8E-03 0.2 0.4Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.5 9.5 4.3E-03 1.3E-02 0.2 0.7Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 1.8E-04 8.8E-04 0.01 0.05Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 4.1E-03 2.1E-02 0.2 1.1Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 1.7E-03 8.3E-03 0.1 0.4Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 7.5E-04 2.0E-03 0.04 0.1Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 5.4E-03 2.3E-02 0.3 1.2Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 2.1E-03 9.1E-03 0.1 0.5Murray Cod HatcheryCatfish - edible portion, Pond A1 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 243 443 1.1E-01 6.1E-01 6.0 33.0Catfish - edible portion, Pond A4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 196 310 8.9E-02 4.3E-01 4.8 23.1

Notes:The scenario evaluates potential health risks for a population that obtains 100% of the fish or prawns that they eat from the relevant waterbody.Upper estimate based on the maximum concentration reported at each sampling location with the exception of catfish from SW202 and SW203 where there was sufficient data to calculated a 95%UCLav erage.Average estimate based on the average concentration reported at each sampling location. Average only calculated when 3 or more samples were analysed.Grey shading indicates HI >1.Blue shading indicates HI >2.Orange shading indicates HI > 5. Purple shading indicates HI > 10.


Exposure Parameters



(µg/kg/day)





Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 4.1E-04 1.3E-03 0.02 0.1Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 1.2E-04 4.0E-04 0.01 0.02Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 1.4E-04 5.1E-04 0.01 0.03Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 1.6E-04 4.5E-04 0.01 0.02Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 7.8E-05 2.9E-04 0.004 0.02Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 5.1E-04 1.7E-03 0.03 0.1Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 7.4E-04 3.1E-03 0.04 0.2Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 4.5E-04 1.9E-03 0.02 0.1Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 1.1E-04 3.3E-04 0.01 0.02Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 1.0E-03 3.0E-03 0.1 0.2Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 4.0E-04 1.2E-03 0.02 0.07Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.5 9.5 4.2E-04 1.1E-03 0.02 0.1Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 2.4E-05 1.4E-04 0.001 0.01Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 5.6E-04 3.2E-03 0.03 0.2Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 2.3E-04 1.3E-03 0.01 0.1Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 1.0E-04 3.0E-04 0.01 0.02Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 7.3E-04 3.5E-03 0.04 0.2Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 2.9E-04 1.4E-03 0.02 0.1Murray Cod HatcheryCatfish - edible portion, Pond A1 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 242.9 443.0 1.1E-02 5.4E-02 0.6 2.9Catfish - edible portion, Pond A4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 195.5 310.0 8.7E-03 3.8E-02 0.5 2.0

Exposure Parameters







Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murrumbidgee River Carp - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4 10.8 1.2E-03 4.0E-03 0.1 0.2Golden Perch - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.8 3.3 3.5E-04 1.2E-03 0.02 0.1Murray Cod - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.2 4.2 4.0E-04 1.6E-03 0.02 0.1Gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.7 3.7 4.5E-04 1.4E-03 0.02 0.1Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8 4.6 1.6E-04 4.9E-04 0.01 0.03Smelt - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 11.4 14.0 1.4E-03 5.2E-03 0.1 0.3Marshalls Creek Carp - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 16.8 26.0 2.1E-03 9.7E-03 0.1 0.5Carp - whole fish x 0.6 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.1 15.6 1.2E-03 5.8E-03 0.07 0.3Shrimp - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.4 5.4 2.2E-04 5.8E-04 0.01 0.03Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 49.0 49.0 2.0E-03 5.3E-03 0.1 0.3Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 19.6 19.6 8.0E-04 2.1E-03 0.04 0.1Carp gudgeon - whole fish 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.5 9.5 1.2E-03 3.5E-03 0.06 0.2Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2 2.2 4.8E-05 2.4E-04 0.003 0.01Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 27.3 52.2 1.1E-03 5.6E-03 0.06 0.30Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 10.9 20.9 4.5E-04 2.2E-03 0.02 0.1Farm Dams Gregadoo CreekYabby - edible portion 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9 4.9 2.0E-04 5.3E-04 0.01 0.03Yabby - whole 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 35.3 57.1 1.4E-03 6.1E-03 0.1 0.3Yabby - whole x 0.4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 14.1 22.8 5.8E-04 2.5E-03 0.03 0.1Murray Cod HatcheryCatfish - edible portion, Pond A1 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 243 443 3.0E-02 1.7E-01 1.6 8.9Catfish - edible portion, Pond A4 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 196 310 2.4E-02 1.2E-01 1.3 6.2



Exposure Parameters


Appendix H Assessment of Risks: Consumption of

Home-Grown Livestock Products


H1 General

This section outlines the approach used to assess the uptake of PFAS (specifically PFOS + PFHxS) into home-grown produce including livestock meat, cow’s milk and chicken eggs, when livestock are exposed via soil, water or pasture containing PFAS, or water and soil containing PFAS is used to grow produce.

The generic equation for intake of a chemical originally developed by the USEPA was used to determine PFAS uptake in livestock. To determine how that uptake translated into concentrations in livestock a review of available studies (written in English) that examined the uptake of PFAS and distribution into animal tissue, milk and eggs was undertaken. Cattle meat and milk, along with chicken eggs were the primary focus of this review. A review of PFAS uptake by pasture was also undertaken to determine the PFAS concentration in pasture to which the livestock may be exposed (where pasture data has not been collected).

Uptakes into sheep have not been considered separately as a review of relevant parameters has indicated that risk calculations for cattle are conservative and protective of risk calculations for sheep. Further information is provided in Section G6.

H2 Transfer from Intake to Meat for Cattle

As part of the estimation of PFAS concentrations in meat or milk it is necessary to determine a transfer factor to allow determination of how much of the chemical taken in by cattle then moves from their food/water into the muscle or milk which people then consume.

Five studies were identified that examined the transfer of one or all of the PFAS of concern from consumption (intake) by the organism into the muscle (i.e. meat) (Kowalczyk, J. et al. 2013; Lupton et al. 2015; Lupton et al. 2012, 2014; Vestergren et al. 2013). Two studies were identified that examined the transfer of one or all of the PFAS of concern from consumption by the organism (intake) into milk (Kowalczyk, J. et al. 2013; Vestergren et al. 2013). One study was designed in a way that would provide data suitable for calculating transfer factors, however, these data were not reported in the study (van Asselt et al. 2013).

Transfer to Meat Following Intake by Cattle

The papers detailing studies of transfer from intake by cattle to beef muscle have been reviewed and a short summary is provided:

Study 1 – Kowalczyk and team in 2013 examined the uptake of PFOS, PFHxS, and PFOA by taking six milking cows, dividing them into two groups and feeding both groups contaminated feed for 28 days. They routinely took blood and milk samples. On the 29th day of the study group one organisms were slaughtered with liver, kidney and muscle tissue samples taken. Group two were fed contamination free feed for a further 21 days before slaughter on day 50, with liver, kidney and muscle tissue samples taken. This study provided direct comparison of PFOS, PFHxS, and PFOA intake to PFOS, PFHxS, and PFOA concentrations in the liver, kidney, muscle and milk. It also allowed for comparison of PFOS, PFHxS, and PFOA blood plasma concentrations to PFOS, PFHxS, and PFOA concentrations in the liver, kidney, muscle and milk. Strengths of this study included a constant exposure period and individual beast sampling. The short exposure period is a


weakness as the organisms are unlikely to have reached equilibrium (Kowalczyk, J. et al. 2013);

Study 2 – In 2015 Lupton and team examined the uptake of PFOS using 2 steers (male) and 4 heifers (female). The animals were dosed with a single dose of PFOS. The steers were given a lower dose of 98 µg/kg-bw. They were sacrificed at day 342. The heifers were given a higher dose of 9,090 µg /kg-bw and these animals were separated into two groups. The first group was sacrificed on day 105 while the second was sacrificed on day 343. Blood samples were routinely collected, and liver, kidney and muscle tissue samples were taken on sacrifice. This study provided direct comparison of PFOS intake to PFOS concentrations in the liver, kidney and muscle. It also allowed for comparison of PFOS blood plasma concentrations to PFOS concentrations in the liver, kidney, and muscle. Strengths of this study included a long period of observation and accurate individual intake dose measurement. A potential weakness of the study included the high, one off nature of the dose which may induce differing pharmacokinetic pathways than from a lower level but constant exposure (Lupton et al. 2015);

Study 3 – In 2014, Lupton and team examined the uptake of PFOS by taking 3 steers (male) and dosing them with a single dose of PFOS at 8,000 µg/kg-bw. Blood was routinely collected and on day 28 all 3 animals were sacrificed with liver, kidney and muscle harvested. This study provided direct comparison of PFOS intake to PFOS concentrations in the liver, kidney and muscle. It also allowed for comparison of PFOS blood plasma concentrations to PFOS concentrations in the liver, kidney, and muscle. A strength of this study is the accurate intake dose measurement with individual beast measurements. Weaknesses of the study included the high, one off nature of the dose which may induce differing pharmacokinetic pathways than from a lower level but constant exposure, along with the short exposure period meaning the beasts were unlikely to have reached equilibrium (Lupton et al. 2014);

Study 4 – In 2012, Lupton and team also investigated uptake of PFOA in 4 steers (male) dosed with a single dose of PFOA at 1,000 µg /kg-bw. This study allowed for direct comparison of PFOA intake to PFOA concentrations in the liver, kidney and muscle and for PFOA blood plasma concentrations to PFOA concentrations in the liver, kidney, and muscle. Strengths and weakness are similar to those discussed above for the other studies by this team (Lupton et al. 2012); and

Study 5 – Vestergren and team investigated PFOS and PFOA uptake in cattle meat and milk using approximately 92 milking cows. The investigation was based on pooling the samples. A mass balance design was used where intake was estimated based on total food and water consumed across the herd with excretion measured through urine, faeces and milk excretion. Mean concentrations of PFOS and PFOA intake were reported along with PFOS and PFOA concentrations in meat and milk. This study provided a comparison of estimated PFOS and PFOA intake to PFOS and PFOA concentrations in muscle and milk. This study is considered the weakest of the five reported above. The pooled sample design linked to some individual meat samples along with milk samples based on a pooled milk sample of six individual hand milked cows presents potential issues. The movement of different cattle in and out of the herd as well as no defined exposure period presents weaknesses to the study design. A strength is the potential low level constant exposure likely to be more representative of most environmental exposures (Vestergren et al. 2013).


Table H1 collates the transfer factors for PFOS and PFHxS concentration in meat to intake of PFOS and PFHxS by cattle calculated across the identified studies.

Table H1: Intake to Muscle Transfer Factors in Cattle

Chemical

Study 1

Study 2

Study 3

Study 4

Study 5

Recom

mended

Transfer Factor

Transfer Factor (µg/kg muscle/µg/kg bw–d) PFOS 19 - 41 14 (steer)

10 – 11 (heifer) 4 -- 42 41 (all cattle)

PFHxS 2 - 4 -- -- -- -- 4 (all cattle)

The recommended transfer factors for use in this modelling exercise are those for daily intake transferring to muscle5 for PFOS and PFHxS from Study 1 – 41 and 4 – for cattle. These values are drawn the study by Kowalczyk and team from 2013, the study with the most robust and relevant study design. These values are also the upper end of values reported in the studies reviewed. The studies did not indicate a significant difference between the sexes, so no distinction has been made for gender.

H3 Transfer from Intake by Chickens to Eggs

Only one study was identified that examined the uptake of PFOS, PFHxS or PFOA in eggs, although this report was in German (Kowalczyk, J. 2014). This study was used in the initial assessment that was undertaken as part of the HHRA for RAAF Base Williamtown. The study indicates a percentage of chemical transferred into egg which was were reported as 0.55 (i.e. 55% of what they ingest moves into the eggs)6.

A more recent study was conducted as part of the Williamtown HHRA released in December 2017 (AECOM 2017). This study involved the collection of eggs from chickens fed water containing PFAS. The exposure period was 9 weeks followed by an elimination phase, and eggs were collected on a daily basis. Chickens were exposed to water with PFAS concentrations in the order of 0, 0.3, 3, 30 and 300 µg/L (actual concentrations of 0, 0.2, 2.6, 26.7 and 264 µg/L). The study estimated the transfer factors using the more commonly used approach, taking into account the laying rate of the hen (i.e. a hen does not lay eggs every day):

PFOS – 1.0 µg/edible egg-d/µg/d hen intake; and

5 Using transfer factors for daily intake to meat or milk is one approach to modelling uptake by cattle. Other studies have used transfer factors for serum to meat or serum to milk. This has been because of the availability of serum data for PFAS in livestock at some locations. In other investigations, the approach has been to model from intake to serum and then serum to meat or milk. This additional step adds to the uncertainty of the modelling. Also modelling intake to serum requires the use of a volume of distribution for PFAS chemicals in cattle but there are no robust determinations of this parameter and predicting the value can be undertaken but the limited understanding of the mode of action of these chemicals and how they distribute through the body makes such predictions quite uncertain. The studies described above provide sufficient information to model transfer from intake to meat or milk, so this is the approach adopted for this investigation. 6 It is difficult to check the % transfer reported in this study given that the original paper is in German. Given this lack of clarity, the transfer factors determined from the more recent work have been adopted for this assessment.


PFHxS – 0.58 to 0.87 (average of 0.69) µg/edible egg-d/µg/d hen intake.

The average weight of a bird in the study was 2.1 kg and the average weight of edible egg per day was 0.056 kg. Table H2 shows these transfer factors converted into ones that can be used in this assessment.

Table H2: Intake to Egg Transfer Factors for Chickens

Chemical Converted transfer factors (µg/kg egg/µg/kg bw-d) PFOS 37.5 PFHxS 25.9

The above transfer factors have been used in the HHERA.

H4 Transfer from Soil or Water to Pasture Crops

Understanding how pasture crops (grasses etc) may accumulate PFAS from the soil in which they are growing, or the water used to irrigate them is essential for understanding uptake by livestock.

Soil to Pasture Crops

A review of literature was undertaken of studies that examined uptake of PFOS, PFHxS or PFOA in grass/ryegrass, oats, wheat and maize from soil. A total of 6 studies were reviewed (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014; Navarro et al. 2017; Stahl et al. 2009; Weinfurtner et al. 2008; Wen et al. 2014; Zhao, S et al. 2014).

A short summary of each of these studies is provided:

Study 1 examined the uptake of PFOS and PFOA in ryegrass, oats, wheat and maize from PFOS and PFOA spiked soil. Plants were grown in soil with six treatments assessed (control (<LOR at 0.001), 250, 1,000, 10,000, 25,000, 50,000 µg PFOS or PFOA/kg soil) with four replicates for each treatment. Most of the crops were only harvested at the end of the exposure period (6 months to 1 year) but ryegrass was harvested on four separate occasions during the exposure period (1 month, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months). Generally, PFOA was taken up by the plants more readily than PFOS. Uptake into shoots and leaves that become straw was significantly more than uptake into grain for oats, wheat and maize. Potatoes accumulated very little for either chemical. Ryegrass showed similar concentrations in samples at all four harvest times. (Stahl et al. 2009);

Study 2 examined the uptake of PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA in wheat from contaminated soil. Five land plots were developed, one used as a control and four which had varying rates of biosolids applied (0, 4.5, 9, 18, 36 tonnes biosolids dry weight per ha per year), with a total of 3 replicates for each treatment. Concentrations of PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA ranged from 10-40, 13-35, 4-26 µg/kg respectively in the plots. These concentrations are similar to environmental concentrations measured at this site. Transfer factors (i.e. ratio of concentration in wheat compared to concentration in soil) were determined for uptake from the soil into wheat grain and uptake from soil into wheat straw using average concentrations across all replicates (Wen et al. 2014);

Study 3 examined the uptake of PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA in wheat from spiked soil. Four treatments were used in the study – a control plus three concentrations of PFOS, PFHxS, PFOA (O, 200, 500, 1,000 µg/kg) with 3 replicates. Plants were harvested after 30 days, and roots and shoots were separated after harvest. The ratio of concentrations in combined


shoots and roots and the concentration in soil was determined for each individual sample (Zhao, S et al. 2014);

Study 4 examined the uptake of PFOS and PFHxS in maize, spinach, tomatoes and earthworms from soil amended with biosolids containing PFOS and a brominated flame retardant. Only maize is relevant for consideration in regard to pasture crops. The study included a control and three for each organism. Treatment 1 was a single application of biosolids spiked with 50,000 µg/kg PFOS, treatment 2 was biosolids spiked with 5,000 µg/kg Deca-BDE and treatment 3 was biosolids spiked with both PFOS and Deca-BDE (50,000 µg/kg PFOS and 5,000 µg/kg Deca-BDE). Deca-BDE is decabrominated diphenyl ether, one of the members of this group of chemicals. This chemical is used as a flame retardant in computer equipment, audio visual equipment and some types of furniture. The plants were allowed to grow for 28 days. Maize leaf and roots were harvested, and transfer factors calculated for soil to leaf concentrations. Unfortunately, there seems to be an issue with the units used in reporting the results for maize which could not be resolved using the paper and supplementary information. The transfer factors for PFOS are in line with those from other studies. The factors for PFHxS (which was present in the PFOS used to spike the biosolids) are significantly higher than reported in other work. However, if the units in the paper are reported incorrectly that would bring the transfer factors more in line with other studies using PFHxS. This paper has, therefore, not been used to determine transfer factors for this assessment (Navarro et al. 2017); and

Study 5 (written in German) examined the uptake of PFOS and PFOA in ryegrass, wheat and maize from soil. They appear to have developed soil plots of low, medium and high concentrations of PFOS and PFOA, developing transfer factors for uptake into the plant for each individual sample (Weinfurtner et al. 2008).

Table H3 lists the transfer factors developed in the above studies plus the recommended value for the factor to be used in this assessment for pasture.

Table H3: Plant Uptake Transfer Factors Related to Soil Contamination

Plant

Study 1#

Study 2

Study 3

Study 5

Recom

mended

Transfer Factor

Transfer Factor (µg/kg plant (dw)/µg/kg soil) PFOS Ryegrass 0.2 (average) -- -- 0.03 – 0.13

0.5

Oats (grain) 0.004 – 0.02 -- -- -- Oats (straw) 0.15 – 0.22 -- -- -- Wheat (grain) No uptake at

relevant conc. 0.06 – 0.08 -- 0.0004 – 0.006

Wheat (straw) 0.2 – 0.27 0.24 – 0.34 0.2 – 0.5 -- Maize (ears) 0 – 0.003 -- -- -- Maize (straw) 0.1 – 0.13 -- -- 0.02 – 0.03 PFHxS Ryegrass -- -- -- --

0.7 Oats (grain) -- -- -- -- Oats (straw) -- -- -- --


Plant

Study 1#

Study 2

Study 3

Study 5

Recom

mended

Transfer Factor

Transfer Factor (µg/kg plant (dw)/µg/kg soil) Wheat (grain) -- 0.12 – 0.19 -- -- Wheat (straw) -- 0.43 – 0.67 0.3 – 0.7 -- Maize (ears) -- -- -- -- Maize (straw) -- -- -- --

Notes: # = Transfer factors only calculated for soil concentrations 250 and 1,000 µg/kg soil as these are more

environmentally relevant.

The recommended transfer factor is the maximum of the transfer factors calculated for grasses or straws for the various crops. The transfer of these chemicals into the grains seems to be much lower than into the leaves and stems.

Water to Pasture Crops

The data available for assessing uptake of PFAS into pasture crops from water is limited. There are only two studies that appear to be relevant (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014; Zhao, H et al. 2013).

Garcia-Valcarcel and team examined uptake of PFOS, PFHxS and PFOA into grass from contaminated water. Five seedlings were hydroponically grown at concentrations of 0, 0.5 and 1 µg/mL (i.e. 0, 500, 1,000 µg/L), with 5 replicates for each treatment. Each seedling was subject to a different harvest time (day 1, 2, 6, 13, 20) with the aerial (above ground) part of the plant sampled and analysed (García-Valcárcel et al. 2014).

Zhao and team grew wheat seedlings in a hydroponic setup exposing them to a range of concentrations (0, 1,000, 10,000, 50,000 and 100,000 µg/L). These concentrations are much higher than would be expected in an environmental situation and the data to calculate transfer factors has not been included in the paper, so these results have not been used in this assessment. Uptake into roots and shoots was assessed separately with uptake into roots higher than shoots. This study also investigated the impact of water pH, temperature and salinity on the potential uptake of PFOS into the wheat seedlings. Neutral pH, increased temperature and higher salinity reported higher uptake especially for roots (Zhao, H et al. 2013).

Transfer factors have been calculated and are presented in Table H4.

Table H4: Plant Uptake Transfer Factors Related to Water Contamination

Chemical Transfer Factor (µg/kg plant/µg/L water) Mean Range Recommended Transfer

factor Garcia-Valcarcel et al. 2014 PFOS 3.3 0.092 – 3.43 3.5 (for each chemical) PFHxS 3.7 0.1 – 3.7

PFOS and PFHxS had similar transfer factors. A value of 3.5 µg/kg-plant/µg/L water will be used in this assessment for each of the chemicals. These values, although reported as means by Garcia–Valcarcel et al (2014), represent the upper end of the transfer factors identified by the study authors and are considered conservative.


H5 Estimating Intake

Estimating intake of chemicals for livestock or people uses the same generic equation. This approach was originally outlined by the USEPA (USEPA 1989). The basic methodology outlined in the early years of contaminated sites risk assessment (i.e. 1980s) is still relevant today.

The generic equation (or a modified version for a specific type of exposure) is included in the enHealth guidance on risk assessment for Australia. The generic equation is:

Intakem=Cm x IRm x FI x Bo x EF x ED

BW x AT

Where

Intakem = Daily intake of PFAS i.e. from water or pasture for livestock, or from beef meat or offal, or milk for humans (µg/kg/day)

Cm = Concentration PFAS impacted media i.e. in water or pasture for livestock, or meat (muscle or liver), milk or eggs for humans (µg/kg or µg/L)

IRm = Ingestion rate (kg/day or L/day)

FI = Fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless)

Bo = Oral bioavailability (unitless)

EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = Exposure duration (years)

AT = Averaging time (days)

BW = Body weight (kg)

To assess the risks to health from PFAS in the off-base area, the uptake of the PFAS chemicals into the livestock being assessed is estimated. The intake of these chemicals can then be converted into an estimate of the concentration that may be in the part of the animal people consume – meat, milk or eggs. Once the concentrations in food are estimated, the potential risks to human health can be estimated based on how much of the produce is consumed.

There are a number of ways in which livestock can be exposed to PFAS – ingestion of water that contains PFAS, ingestion of soil (incidental when grazing) that contains PFAS and ingestion of grass and fodder that may contain PFAS because it has been grown in affected soil or irrigated with affected water. Where data is available for pasture, there is no need to calculate concentrations in pasture as derived from soil or water.

The equation for estimating daily intake of PFAS for these organisms is (i.e. PFAS in water + PFAS in pasture irrigated with water + PFAS in soil irrigated with water + PFAS in soil):

IntakeL=((Cw x IR

w x FI)+(Cw x PW x IRp x FI)+(Cs x PS x IRpx CF x FI) + (Cs x IRs x FI)) x Bo x EF x ED

BW x AT

Where


IntakeL = Daily intake of PFAS by livestock (µg/kg bw -day) Cw = PFAS concentration in water (µg/L) IRw = Water ingestion rate (L/day) FI = Fraction ingested from contaminated source (unitless) PW = Water to pasture transfer factor (µg/kg-plant (ww)/µg/L- water) IRp = Pasture ingestion rate (kg/day) Cs = PFAS concentration in soil (µg/kg) PS = Soil to pasture transfer factor (µg/kg-plant (dw)/ µg/kg-soil (dw)) IRs = Soil ingestion rate (kg/day) CF = Wet weight to dry weight fodder conversion factor Bo = Oral bioavailability (unitless) EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time (days) BW = Body weight (kg)

Where data for pasture is not available, transfer factors are required to estimate the movement of PFAS chemicals from soil or water into the pasture crops (as discussed in Section G4).

The values used for the parameters in this equation are listed in Table H6.

Table H6: Exposure Parameters for Estimating Livestock Intake

Parameter Units Cattle Chicken Basis / Comment

IRw L/d 45 0.32

Average daily consumption from Table 9.3.1 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Volume 3 – Primary Industries (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000)

IRp kg/d 20 0.15

Daily feed intake based on assuming they consume 2.5% of body weight from Table 9.3.4 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Volume 3 – Primary Industries (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000)

IRs kg/d 2.42 0.001 Cattle - (API 2004) Chicken - (Travis & Hattemer-Frey 1991)

PW µg/kg-plant (ww)/µg/L-

water

3.5 for each chemical

3.5 for each chemical Refer to Section H4

PS µg/kg-plant (dw)/µg/kg-

soil

0.5 (PFOS) 0.7 (PFHxS)

0.5 (PFOS) 0.7 (PFHxS) Refer to Section H4

CF Wet weight

to dry weight conversion

0.15 0.15 Average dry matter percentage for cut grass (15%) (DairyNZ 2017)

FI unitless 1 1 Assumed 100% of soil, water and fodder exposure is to affected media

BO unitless 1 1 Assumed to be 100% bioavailable in all media EF d/y 365 365 Assumed exposed daily

ED y 2 8 Personal Communication from NZ Beef and Lamb supported by other online references (years)

AT d 730 2920 Personal Communication from NZ Beef and Lamb supported by other online references (exposure duration in days)

BW kg 800 2.8

Average body weight from Table 9.3.2 Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Volume 3 – Primary Industries (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000) Jersey cow used for dairy (NZ Agricultural Engineering Institute 1984)


Notes for Table H6: ww = wet weight dw = dry weight

H7 Applicability to Sheep

A comparison of sheep and cattle water and fodder intake, meat to intake transfer factors for sheep and cattle, and human sheep and beef consumption patterns has been undertaken as shown in Table H7.

Table H7: Comparison of Cattle and Sheep Exposure Parameters

Factor Cattle Sheep Value Reference Value Reference

Water intake (/kg bw-d) 0.06 (beef) 0.18 (dairy)

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000; NZ Agricultural Engineering Institute

1984)

0.07 (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000)

Pasture intake (kg/kg bw-d) 0.025 (beef) 0.05 (dairy)

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000; NZ Agricultural Engineering Institute

1984)

0.024 (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000)

Soil intake (kg/kg bw-d) 0.003 (beef) 0.006 (dairy)

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000; API 2004; NZ

Agricultural Engineering Institute 1984)

0.006 (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000; API 2004)

Meat to intake ratio (ug/kg(muscle)/ug/kg bw-d)

41 (PFOS) 4.2 (PFHxS) 0.3 (PFOA)

Section 3.2 – Table 6 42 (PFOS)

0.4 (PFOA)

(Kowalczyk, Janine et al. 2012)

Human consumption of meat (g/d) 89 Mean for male 25+ NZ Total Diet Survey

16 Mean for male 25+ NZ Total Diet Survey

51 Mean for female 25+ NZ Total Diet Survey

9 Mean for female 25+ NZ Total Diet Survey

30 Mean for child (1-3 yo) NZ Total Diet Survey

2 Mean for child (1-3 yo) NZ Total Diet Survey

221 90%ile, Adult, Australian Dietary Exposure

Assessment (FSANZ 2017g)

85 90%ile, Adult, Australian Dietary

Exposure Assessment (FSANZ 2017g)

85 90%ile, Child (2-6 yo), Australian Dietary


36 90%ile, Child (2-6 yo), Australian Dietary


Based on the comparison presented in Table H7, it is concluded that risk calculations for cattle would also be conservative and protective for the consumption of sheep meat. The reasons for this conclusion are:

Intake of water, fodder and soil per kilogram of beast is similar between cattle and sheep; Estimated meat to intake transfer factors were similar for cattle and sheep; and Human consumption of meat is lower for sheep (lamb and mutton) than it is for beef.

Hence, no separate assessment for sheep has been undertaken in this HHERA.


Intake of Chemicals by Beef Cattle (stock watering, pasture, pasture watering, pasture soil and/or soil ingestion)

(µg/kg/day)

PFOS PFHxS unitsWater to pasture ratio = 3.5 3.5 ug/kg (plant) (w/w)/ug/L

Soil to pasture ratio = 0.5 0.7 ug/kg (plant) (d/w)/ug/kg (soil)Meat to intake ratio = 41 4 ug/kg (muscle)/ug/kg bw-d

Beef Cattle

Cattle soil ingestion rate (kg/day) 2.42Cattle water ingestion rate (L/day) 45Cattle pasture ingestion rate (kg/day) 20CF (dw to ww) 0.15Fraction of produce from site in diet (FI) 1Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 365Exposure Duration (ED, years) 2Body Weight (BW, kg) 800Bioaccessibility (B) 1Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 730

Exposure Parameters


Concentration in Soil

Concentration in Water

Concentration in Pasture

Livestock Intake from Soil

Livestock Intake from Water

Livestock Intake from Pasture

Total Livestock Intake

(µg/kg) (µg/L) (µg/kg ww) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg ww per day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg)Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 21.00 5.40 20.48 6.4E-02 3.0E-01 5.1E-01 8.8E-01 3.6E+01PFHxS 1.40 1.64 5.85 4.2E-03 9.2E-02 1.5E-01 2.4E-01 9.7E-01Project Adjacent to Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 18.30 1.43 6.38 5.5E-02 8.0E-02 1.6E-01 3.0E-01 1.2E+01PFHxS 0.70 0.38 1.38 2.1E-03 2.1E-02 3.5E-02 5.8E-02 2.3E-01STP Irrigation AreasPFOS 6.10 0.02 0.44 1.8E-02 1.1E-03 1.1E-02 3.1E-02 1.3E+00PFHxS 0.30 0.20 0.00 9.1E-04 1.1E-02 0.0E+00 1.2E-02 4.9E-02Kyeamba Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 11.90 0.02 1.10 3.6E-02 1.1E-03 2.8E-02 6.5E-02 2.6E+00PFHxS 0.70 0.20 0.00 2.1E-03 1.1E-02 0.0E+00 1.3E-02 5.3E-02Gregadoo Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 3.00 0.08 0.00 9.1E-03 4.5E-03 0.0E+00 1.4E-02 5.6E-01PFHxS 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.0E+00 2.3E-03 0.0E+00 2.3E-03 9.0E-03Gumly Gumly WetlandsPFOS 130.00 3.38 170.00 3.9E-01 1.9E-01 4.3E+00 4.8E+00 2.0E+02PFHxS 10.00 1.24 25.00 3.0E-02 7.0E-02 6.3E-01 7.3E-01 2.9E+00Marshalls CreekPFOS 38.00 0.67 3.00 1.1E-01 3.8E-02 7.5E-02 2.3E-01 9.3E+00PFHxS 2.00 0.17 1.00 6.1E-03 9.6E-03 2.5E-02 4.1E-02 1.6E-01OTH207PFOS 0.00 0.10 0.35 0.0E+00 5.6E-03 8.8E-03 1.4E-02 5.9E-01PFHxS 0.00 0.16 0.56 0.0E+00 9.0E-03 1.4E-02 2.3E-02 9.2E-02MW223PFOS 0.00 0.30 1.05 0.0E+00 1.7E-02 2.6E-02 4.3E-02 1.8E+00PFHxS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00MW233PFOS 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.0E+00 4.5E-03 7.0E-03 1.2E-02 4.7E-01PFHxS 0.00 0.10 0.35 0.0E+00 5.6E-03 8.8E-03 1.4E-02 5.8E-02

Area Investigated Estimation of Uptake and Intake of PFAS

PFAS in Muscle


Exposure to Chemicals via Ingestion of Beef

(µg/kg/day)

AdultsLight

ConsumptionMedium

ConsumptionWorst-Case

Consumption

Ingestion Rate of Beef (IRp, kg/day) 0.071 0.163 0.163Fraction of produce from site in diet (FI) 5% 10% 100%Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 365 365 365Exposure Duration (ED, years) 10 35 35Body Weight (BW, kg) 78 78 78Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 3650 12775 12775

Exposure Parameters




(TDI-Background)

Light Medium Worst-Case Light Medium Worst-Case

(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.6E+01 1.6E-03 7.5E-03 7.5E-02 8.82E-02 4.05E-01 4.05E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.7E-01 4.4E-05 2.0E-04 2.0E-03 2.37E-03 1.09E-02 1.09E-01TOTAL 9.06E-02 4.16E-01 4.16E+00Property Adjacent to HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2E+01 5.5E-04 2.5E-03 2.5E-02 2.96E-02 1.36E-01 1.36E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.3E-01 1.1E-05 4.9E-05 4.9E-04 5.68E-04 2.61E-03 2.61E-02TOTAL 3.02E-02 1.39E-01 1.39E+00STP Irrigation AreasPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.86E-02 1.3E+00 5.7E-05 2.6E-04 2.6E-03 3.07E-03 1.41E-02 1.41E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.86E-02 4.9E-02 2.2E-06 1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.19E-04 5.46E-04 5.46E-03TOTAL 3.19E-03 1.46E-02 1.46E-01Kyeamba Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.6E+00 1.2E-04 5.5E-04 5.5E-03 6.48E-03 2.98E-02 2.98E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.3E-02 2.4E-06 1.1E-05 1.1E-04 1.31E-04 6.01E-04 6.01E-03TOTAL 6.61E-03 3.04E-02 3.04E-01Gregadoo Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.6E-01 2.5E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-03 1.36E-03 6.25E-03 6.25E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.0E-03 4.1E-07 1.9E-06 1.9E-05 2.20E-05 1.01E-04 1.01E-03TOTAL 1.38E-03 6.35E-03 6.35E-02Gumly Gumly Wetlands 0.0E+00PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.0E+02 9.0E-03 4.1E-02 4.1E-01 4.85E-01 2.23E+00 2.23E+01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.9E+00 1.3E-04 6.1E-04 6.1E-03 7.10E-03 3.26E-02 3.26E-01TOTAL 4.92E-01 2.26E+00 2.26E+01Marshalls CreekPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.3E+00 4.2E-04 2.0E-03 2.0E-02 2.28E-02 1.05E-01 1.05E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.6E-01 7.4E-06 3.4E-05 3.4E-04 3.98E-04 1.83E-03 1.83E-02TOTAL 2.32E-02 1.07E-01 1.07E+00OTH207PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.9E-01 2.7E-05 1.2E-04 1.2E-03 1.44E-03 6.62E-03 6.62E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.2E-02 4.2E-06 1.9E-05 1.9E-04 2.25E-04 1.03E-03 1.03E-02TOTAL 1.67E-03 7.66E-03 7.66E-02MW223PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.8E+00 8.0E-05 3.7E-04 3.7E-03 4.33E-03 1.99E-02 1.99E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00TOTAL 4.33E-03 1.99E-02 1.99E-01MW233PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.7E-01 2.1E-05 9.9E-05 9.9E-04 1.15E-03 5.30E-03 5.30E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.8E-02 2.6E-06 1.2E-05 1.2E-04 1.41E-04 6.46E-04 6.46E-03TOTAL 1.29E-03 5.94E-03 5.94E-02

Calculations for PFOS+PFHxS Toxicity Data

PFAS in Muscle


ChildLight

ConsumptionMedium


Consumption

Ingestion Rate of Beef (IRp, kg/day) 0.033 0.085 0.085Fraction of produce from site in diet (FI) 5% 10% 100%Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 365 365 365Exposure Duration (ED, years) 5 5 5Body Weight (BW, kg) 15 15 15Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 1825 1825 1825

Exposure Parameters




(TDI-Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.6E+01 4.0E-03 2.0E-02 2.0E-01 2.13E-01 1.10E+00 1.10E+01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.7E-01 1.1E-04 5.5E-04 5.5E-03 5.74E-03 2.96E-02 2.96E-01TOTAL 2.19E-01 1.13E+00 1.13E+01Property Adjacent to HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2E+01 1.3E-03 6.9E-03 6.9E-02 7.16E-02 3.69E-01 3.69E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.3E-01 2.6E-05 1.3E-04 1.3E-03 1.37E-03 7.07E-03 7.07E-02TOTAL 7.30E-02 3.76E-01 3.76E+00STP Irrigation AreasPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.3E+00 1.4E-04 7.1E-04 7.1E-03 7.41E-03 3.82E-02 3.82E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.9E-02 5.3E-06 2.8E-05 2.8E-04 2.88E-04 1.48E-03 1.48E-02TOTAL 7.70E-03 3.97E-02 3.97E-01Kyeamba Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.6E+00 2.9E-04 1.5E-03 1.5E-02 1.57E-02 8.07E-02 8.07E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.3E-02 5.9E-06 3.0E-05 3.0E-04 3.16E-04 1.63E-03 1.63E-02TOTAL 1.60E-02 8.23E-02 8.23E-01Gregadoo Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.6E-01 6.1E-05 3.2E-04 3.2E-03 3.29E-03 1.70E-02 1.70E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.0E-03 9.9E-07 5.1E-06 5.1E-05 5.32E-05 2.74E-04 2.74E-03TOTAL 3.34E-03 1.72E-02 1.72E-01Gumly Gumly WetlandsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.0E+02 2.2E-02 1.1E-01 1.1E+00 1.17E+00 6.04E+00 6.04E+01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.9E+00 3.2E-04 1.6E-03 1.6E-02 1.72E-02 8.84E-02 8.84E-01TOTAL 1.19E+00 6.13E+00 6.13E+01Marshalls CreekPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.3E+00 1.0E-03 5.3E-03 5.3E-02 5.52E-02 2.84E-01 2.84E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.6E-01 1.8E-05 9.2E-05 9.2E-04 9.61E-04 4.95E-03 4.95E-02TOTAL 5.62E-02 2.89E-01 2.89E+00OTH207PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.9E-01 6.5E-05 3.3E-04 3.3E-03 3.49E-03 1.80E-02 1.80E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.2E-02 1.0E-05 5.2E-05 5.2E-04 5.44E-04 2.80E-03 2.80E-02TOTAL 4.03E-03 2.08E-02 2.08E-01MW223PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.8E+00 1.9E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.05E-02 5.39E-02 5.39E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00TOTAL 1.05E-02 5.39E-02 5.39E-01MW233PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 4.7E-01 5.2E-05 2.7E-04 2.7E-03 2.79E-03 1.44E-02 1.44E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.8E-02 6.3E-06 3.3E-05 3.3E-04 3.40E-04 1.75E-03 1.75E-02TOTAL 3.13E-03 1.61E-02 1.61E-01

Notes:Grey shading indicates HI >1.Blue shading indicates HI >2.Orange shading indicates HI > 5. Purple shading indicates HI > 10.


PFAS in Muscle


Intake of Chemicals by Chickens (stock watering, pasture, pasture watering, pasture soil and/or soil ingestion)(µg/kg/day)

PFOS PFHxS unitsWater to pasture ratio = 3.5 3.5 ug/kg (plant) (w/w)/ug/L

Soil to pasture ratio = 0.5 0.7 ug/kg (plant) (d/w)/ug/kg (soil)Egg to intake ratio as per study = 1 0.69 mg/edible egg-d/mg/d

Adjusted egg to intake ratio = 37.5 25.9 ug/kg (egg)/ug/kg bw-d

Chickens

Chicken soil ingestion rate (kg/day) 0.001Chicken water ingestion rate (L/day) 0.32Chicken pasture ingestion rate (kg/day) 0.15CF (dw to ww) 0.15Fraction of produce from site in diet (FI) 1Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 365Exposure Duration (ED, years) 8Body Weight (BW, kg) 2.8Bioaccessibility (B) 1Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 2920

Exposure Parameters


Concentration in Soil

Concentration in Water

Concentration in Pasture

Livestock Intake from Soil

Livestock Intake from Water

Livestock Intake from Pasture

Total Livestock Intake

(µg/kg) (µg/L) (µg/kg ww) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg ww per day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg)Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 21 5.40 20.48 7.5E-03 6.2E-01 1.1E+00 1.7E+00 6.5E+01PFHxS 1.4 1.64 5.85 5.0E-04 1.9E-01 3.1E-01 5.0E-01 1.3E+01Project Adjacent to Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 18.3 1.43 6.38 6.5E-03 1.6E-01 3.4E-01 5.1E-01 1.9E+01PFHxS 0.7 0.38 1.38 2.5E-04 4.3E-02 7.4E-02 1.2E-01 3.0E+00STP Irrigation AreasPFOS 6.1 0.02 0.44 2.2E-03 2.3E-03 2.4E-02 2.8E-02 1.1E+00PFHxS 0.3 0.20 0.00 1.1E-04 2.3E-02 0.0E+00 2.3E-02 5.9E-01Kyeamba Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 11.9 0.02 1.10 4.3E-03 2.3E-03 5.9E-02 6.5E-02 2.5E+00PFHxS 0.7 0.20 0.00 2.5E-04 2.3E-02 0.0E+00 2.3E-02 6.0E-01Gregadoo Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 3 0.08 0.00 1.1E-03 9.1E-03 0.0E+00 1.0E-02 3.8E-01PFHxS 0 0.04 0.00 0.0E+00 4.6E-03 0.0E+00 4.6E-03 1.2E-01Gumly Gumly WetlandsPFOS 130 3.38 170.00 4.6E-02 3.9E-01 9.1E+00 9.5E+00 3.6E+02PFHxS 10 1.24 25.00 3.6E-03 1.4E-01 1.3E+00 1.5E+00 3.8E+01Marshalls CreekPFOS 38 0.67 3.00 1.4E-02 7.7E-02 1.6E-01 2.5E-01 9.4E+00PFHxS 2 0.17 1.00 7.1E-04 1.9E-02 5.4E-02 7.4E-02 1.9E+00OTH207PFOS 0 0.10 0.35 0.0E+00 1.1E-02 1.9E-02 3.0E-02 7.8E-01PFHxS 0 0.16 0.56 0.0E+00 1.8E-02 3.0E-02 4.8E-02 1.2E+00MW223PFOS 0 0.30 1.05 0.0E+00 3.4E-02 5.6E-02 9.1E-02 2.3E+00PFHxS 0 0.00 0.00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00MW233PFOS 0 0.08 0.28 0.0E+00 9.1E-03 1.5E-02 2.4E-02 6.2E-01PFHxS 0 0.10 0.35 0.0E+00 1.1E-02 1.9E-02 3.0E-02 7.8E-01

Estimation of Uptake and Intake of PFASArea Investigated

PFAS in Egg


Exposure to Chemicals via Ingestion of Eggs

(µg/kg/day)

AdultsLight

ConsumptionMedium


Consumption

Ingestion Rate of Eggs (IRp, kg/day) 0.03 0.06 0.06Fraction of produce from site in diet (FI) 5% 10% 100%Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 365 365 365Exposure Duration (ED, years) 10 35 35Body Weight (BW, kg) 78 78 78Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 3650 12775 12775

Exposure Parameters




(TDI-Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 6.5E+01 1.2E-03 5.0E-03 5.0E-02 6.67E-02 2.67E-01 2.67E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.3E+01 2.5E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.34E-02 5.36E-02 5.36E-01TOTAL 8.02E-02 3.21E-01 3.21E+00Property Adjacent to HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.9E+01 3.7E-04 1.5E-03 1.5E-02 1.98E-02 7.93E-02 7.93E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.0E+00 5.9E-05 2.3E-04 2.3E-03 3.15E-03 1.26E-02 1.26E-01TOTAL 2.30E-02 9.19E-02 9.19E-01STP Irrigation AreasPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.86E-02 1.1E+00 2.0E-05 8.1E-05 8.1E-04 1.09E-03 4.35E-03 4.35E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.86E-02 5.9E-01 1.1E-05 4.6E-05 4.6E-04 6.14E-04 2.46E-03 2.46E-02TOTAL 1.70E-03 6.81E-03 6.81E-02Kyeamba Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.5E+00 4.7E-05 1.9E-04 1.9E-03 2.54E-03 1.02E-02 1.02E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 6.0E-01 1.1E-05 4.6E-05 4.6E-04 6.18E-04 2.47E-03 2.47E-02TOTAL 3.16E-03 1.26E-02 1.26E-01Gregadoo Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8E-01 7.4E-06 2.9E-05 2.9E-04 3.96E-04 1.58E-03 1.58E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2E-01 2.3E-06 9.1E-06 9.1E-05 1.22E-04 4.89E-04 4.89E-03TOTAL 5.18E-04 2.07E-03 2.07E-02Gumly Gumly Wetlands 0.0E+00PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.6E+02 6.9E-03 2.8E-02 2.8E-01 3.70E-01 1.48E+00 1.48E+01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8E+01 7.4E-04 3.0E-03 3.0E-02 3.97E-02 1.59E-01 1.59E+00TOTAL 4.10E-01 1.64E+00 1.64E+01Marshalls CreekPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4E+00 1.8E-04 7.2E-04 7.2E-03 9.73E-03 3.89E-02 3.89E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.9E+00 3.7E-05 1.5E-04 1.5E-03 1.97E-03 7.89E-03 7.89E-02TOTAL 1.17E-02 4.68E-02 4.68E-01OTH207PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 7.8E-01 1.5E-05 6.0E-05 6.0E-04 8.07E-04 3.23E-03 3.23E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2E+00 2.4E-05 9.6E-05 9.6E-04 1.29E-03 5.17E-03 5.17E-02TOTAL 2.10E-03 8.40E-03 8.40E-02MW223PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.3E+00 4.5E-05 1.8E-04 1.8E-03 2.42E-03 9.69E-03 9.69E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00TOTAL 2.42E-03 9.69E-03 9.69E-02MW233PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 6.2E-01 1.2E-05 4.8E-05 4.8E-04 6.46E-04 2.58E-03 2.58E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 7.8E-01 1.5E-05 6.0E-05 6.0E-04 8.07E-04 3.23E-03 3.23E-02TOTAL 1.45E-03 5.81E-03 5.81E-02


PFAS in Eggs


ChildLight

ConsumptionMedium


Consumption

Ingestion Rate of Eggs (IRp, kg/day) 0.03 0.06 0.06Fraction of produce from site in diet (FI) 5% 10% 100%Exposure Frequency (EF, days/year) 365 365 365Exposure Duration (ED, years) 5 5 5Body Weight (BW, kg) 15 15 15Bioaccessibility (B) 100% 100% 100%Averaging Time - Threshold (Atn, days) 1825 1825 1825

Exposure Parameters




(TDI-Background)


(µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (µg/kg/day) (unitless) (unitless)Murray Cod HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 6.5E+01 6.5E-03 2.6E-02 2.6E-01 3.47E-01 1.39E+00 1.39E+01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.3E+01 1.3E-03 5.2E-03 5.2E-02 6.97E-02 2.79E-01 2.79E+00TOTAL 4.17E-01 1.67E+00 1.67E+01Property Adjacent to HatcheryPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.9E+01 1.9E-03 7.7E-03 7.7E-02 1.03E-01 4.13E-01 4.13E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.0E+00 3.0E-04 1.2E-03 1.2E-02 1.64E-02 6.55E-02 6.55E-01TOTAL 1.20E-01 4.78E-01 4.78E+00STP Irrigation AreasPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.1E+00 1.1E-04 4.2E-04 4.2E-03 5.65E-03 2.26E-02 2.26E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 5.9E-01 5.9E-05 2.4E-04 2.4E-03 3.19E-03 1.28E-02 1.28E-01TOTAL 8.85E-03 3.54E-02 3.54E-01Kyeamba Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.5E+00 2.5E-04 9.8E-04 9.8E-03 1.32E-02 5.28E-02 5.28E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 6.0E-01 6.0E-05 2.4E-04 2.4E-03 3.21E-03 1.29E-02 1.29E-01TOTAL 1.64E-02 6.57E-02 6.57E-01Gregadoo Creek Including Farm DamsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8E-01 3.8E-05 1.5E-04 1.5E-03 2.06E-03 8.24E-03 8.24E-02PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2E-01 1.2E-05 4.7E-05 4.7E-04 6.36E-04 2.54E-03 2.54E-02TOTAL 2.70E-03 1.08E-02 1.08E-01Gumly Gumly WetlandsPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.6E+02 3.6E-02 1.4E-01 1.4E+00 1.92E+00 7.69E+00 7.69E+01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 3.8E+01 3.8E-03 1.5E-02 1.5E-01 2.07E-01 8.26E-01 8.26E+00TOTAL 2.13E+00 8.52E+00 8.52E+01Marshalls CreekPFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 9.4E+00 9.4E-04 3.8E-03 3.8E-02 5.06E-02 2.02E-01 2.02E+00PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.9E+00 1.9E-04 7.6E-04 7.6E-03 1.03E-02 4.10E-02 4.10E-01TOTAL 6.08E-02 2.43E-01 2.43E+00OTH207PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 7.8E-01 7.8E-05 3.1E-04 3.1E-03 4.20E-03 1.68E-02 1.68E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 1.2E+00 1.2E-04 5.0E-04 5.0E-03 6.72E-03 2.69E-02 2.69E-01TOTAL 1.09E-02 4.37E-02 4.37E-01MW223PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 2.3E+00 2.3E-04 9.4E-04 9.4E-03 1.26E-02 5.04E-02 5.04E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00TOTAL 1.26E-02 5.04E-02 5.04E-01MW233PFOS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 6.2E-01 6.2E-05 2.5E-04 2.5E-03 3.36E-03 1.34E-02 1.34E-01PFHxS 2.0E-02 7% 1.9E-02 7.8E-01 7.8E-05 3.1E-04 3.1E-03 4.20E-03 1.68E-02 1.68E-01TOTAL 7.56E-03 3.02E-02 3.02E-01


PFAS in Eggs


Appendix I Review of Information: Uptake of PFAS

into Fruit and Vegetables and Depuration of PFAS

from Fish and Crustaceans


I1 Uptake of PFAS into Fruit and Vegetables

A review of PFAS concentrations reported in fruit and vegetables at other Defence sites has been undertaken to support this HHERA. Review of data on PFAS concentrations in edible fruit and vegetable produce collected from the investigation of the RAAF Williamtown (AECOM 2017), Army Aviation Centre Oakey (AECOM 2016) and HMAS Albatross sites, has indicated the following:

In the Williamtown area, PFAS was not detected in any of the fruit and vegetable samples collected (53 samples of orange, mandarins, limes, strawberries, tomatoes, sweet potatoes and thyme sprigs). These samples were from properties where PFOS + PFHxS in water ranged up to 1.4 µg/L. However, there were limitations associated with this data, as the use of bore water for irrigation of produce was banned proper to the collection of produce samples for analysis;

At Williamtown, the modelled concentration of PFOS in produce, associated with PFOS in irrigation water at 1.4 µg/L, was 0.2 - 2 µg/kg, exceeding the FSANZ trigger levels;

In the Oakey area, PFAS was not detected in pumpkin, olives or citrus, however PFOS and PFHxS was detected in celery and silverbeet at concentrations up to 8.5 µg/kg, exceeding the FSANZ trigger level for PFOS + PFHxS in vegetables. This data was from an area where the water concentrations of PFOS ranged from 1 to 20 µg/L; and

In the Albatross area, one property was identified as having fruit and vegetables grown for home consumption, and a sample of rhubarb (leaf and stem) was analysed. There were no detections of PFAS reported in this sample. The PFOS + PFHxS concentration in water used of irrigation at this property was 0.003 µg/L.

Two further studies were taken to investigate the uptake of PFAS into fruit and vegetables are part of the RAAF Williamtown investigation. The first study was a tree crop (fruit) study where 128 fruit samples were collected from trees grown in soil with PFOS concentrations of up to 0.78 mg/kg and in areas where PFOS concentrations in shallow groundwater were up to 29 µg/L. However, any irrigation of the fruit trees using PFAS impacted water had ceased before the study was undertaken.

The second study was a 120-day greenhouse trial that investigated the uptake of PFAS into 7 horticultural crops comprising alfalfa, beet, cucumber, radish, lettuce, strawberry and tomatoes. These products are primarily consumed by humans however alfalfa is a common pasture grass for livestock. The crops were housed in 4 different greenhouses and were irrigated with test solutions containing 0 µg/L, 1 µg/L, 10 µg/L and 100 µg/L of PFOS, PFHxS, PFOA and PFHxA, with a further sample of produce irrigated with groundwater sourced from downgradient of the AACO and Williamtown sites (total PFAS concentrations of 37 and 138 µg/L respectively). The aim of the study was to derive transfer factors for the uptake of PFAS into fruit and vegetables. A transfer factor is a mathematical term that indicates the relationship between PFAS in soil, groundwater and/or irrigation and PFAS in different parts of the fruit or vegetable (e.g. root or leaf), including those parts that may be consumed.

AECOM (2017) concluded that uptake of PFAS into plants was directly correlated to PFAS concentration in water (with a linear relationship) where irrigation water was artificially modified with PFAS. However, when groundwater from the AACO and Williamtown sites was used to irrigate produce the same relationship was not observed, especially for beet leaf and alfalfa leaf. This was compounded by the saltiness of the groundwater used for irrigation and adds additional uncertainty


as it is not clear whether the greenhouse trials with the artificially modified irrigation water are representative of the use of groundwater that already contains PFAS for irrigation. There were also some experimental issues with raising the tomatoes, strawberries and cucumbers which means that the transfer factors are not statistically significant for strawberries and cucumbers and no transfer factors were derived for tomatoes.

Overall, the greenhouse trial undertaken by AECOM confirmed that PFAS are taken up into edible plants that may be consumed by humans and livestock, consistent with the results from other international studies. The derived transfer factors were within the range of other published literature values.

I2 Depuration of PFAS from Fish and Crustaceans

A number of studies have been conducted in Australia to look at uptake and removal of PFAS in aquatic organisms. Studies have included the following:

Baduel et al. investigated the presence of these chemicals in stranded stingrays from eastern Australia. Concentrations ranged from 2-117 µg/kg wet weight for PFOS and 0.2-19 µg/kg wet weight for PFOA (Baduel et al. 2014);

Thompson et al. investigated the presence of these chemicals in water, sediments and wildlife from Sydney Harbour. Mean concentration in sea mullet muscle was 1.8 µg/kg wet weight for PFOS and 66 µg/kg wet weight for PFOS in liver. Water concentrations ranged from 0.008-0.02 µg/L for PFOS and 0.004-0.006 µg/L for PFOA (Thompson et al. 2011);

Taylor and Johnson reported the results from the investigation around RAAF Base Williamtown. PFOS was the main PFAS chemical detected in the fish with PFOA and PFHxS also detected on occasion. PFOS concentrations in a range of fish and crustacea varied between 0.5 and 42 µg/kg wet weight (Taylor & Johnson 2016); and

SA EPA reported tissue concentrations for a range of aquatic organisms – mostly from areas around Adelaide (Port River). Concentrations of PFOS in edible portions ranged from 0.4 to 10 µg/kg wet weight. PFOS concentrations in the Port River ranged from 0.0005 to 0.01 µg/L (SA EPA 2017).

Taylor et al. have investigated the potential for depuration (excretion/elimination) of these chemicals by prawns and crabs collected around Williamtown, NSW (Taylor et al. 2017). School prawns and mud crabs were collected from relevant areas around RAAF Base Williamtown. The organisms were held in uncontaminated water for 33 days. For PFOA levels in prawns and crabs were near the limit of reporting at the start of depuration. No detections were noted after 4.5 hours in prawns and 72 hours in crabs. For PFHxS, rapid depuration was observed in prawns with a half-life of 5.7 hours. The results for the crabs were highly variable and no half-life could be calculated. For PFOS depuration was observed in prawns with a half-life of 158.5 hours. The results for the crabs were highly variable and no half-life could be calculated (Taylor et al. 2017).

These results indicate that for prawns if organisms are held in clean water for a few days these chemicals are rapidly removed. For crabs, this may also be the case but further work is required to confirm (Taylor et al. 2017).


Martin et al. have investigated uptake and depuration in the rainbow trout (Martin et al. 2003). This study involved exposing juvenile fish to a range of PFAS for 12 days followed by holding in clean water to allow depuration for 33 days. Fish were collected for analysis at 4.5, 9, 18, 36, 72, 144 and 288 hours during exposure and 4.5, 9, 18, 36, 72, 144, 288, 456 and 792 hours during depuration phase. Water samples were also collected during the exposure phase. The half-life of PFOS in juvenile rainbow trout was around 12-15 days, for PFOA it was 4 to 5 days and for PFHxS it was 10 to 12 days. While these chemicals are not transformed by metabolic processes, these half-lives do indicate that the chemicals can be removed from the body and this may occur via the gills as excretion via urine or faeces appears to be low (Martin et al. 2003).

In summary, finfish and crustaceans do appear to be able to remove PFAS from their systems if placed in unaffected water. The time required ranged from hours to weeks depending on the species. Therefore, assuming the finfish and crustaceans were placed in a PFAS-free environment for at least 2 weeks following sale and prior to consumption, there should not be any health risk issues of concern in relation to the consumption of these fish and crustaceans.


Appendix J Data Supporting the Calculation of

Concentration Factors for Fish

Location description Biota type Sample type analysed Portion Weight (kg) Total Weight Lab (kg) Total weight Field (kg) Difference in Weight (kg)

PFOS + PFHxS Concentration in Portion

(mg/kg)

Amount of PFOS + PFHxS in Portion (mg)

Amount of PFOS + PFHxS in Individual

(mg)

PFOS + PFHxS Concentration in Individual (mg/kg)

Concentration Factor (Concentration in Portion/Concentration in Individual)

0906_BIO203_A_180403 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.43 0.69 1.24 0.55 0.0036 0.0015 0.0046 0.007 0.50906_BIO203_B_180403 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.26 0.012 0.0031 1.80906_BIO239_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.21 0.37 0.76 0.39 0.0016 0.0003 0.0012 0.003 0.50906_BIO239_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.16 0.0055 0.0009 1.70906_BIO256_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.31 0.56 0.98 0.42 0.002 0.0006 0.0027 0.005 0.40906_BIO256_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.25 0.0086 0.0021 1.70906_BIO266_A_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.21 0.66 0.74 0.08 0.0034 0.0007 0.0029 0.004 0.80906_BIO266_B_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.45 0.0049 0.0022 1.10906_BIO288_A_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.23 0.73 0.89 0.16 0.0034 0.0008 0.0039 0.005 0.60906_BIO288_B_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.50 0.0063 0.0031 1.20906_BIO289_A_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.32 0.90 1.02 0.12 0.0034 0.0011 0.0043 0.005 0.70906_BIO289_B_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.58 0.0055 0.0032 1.20906_BIO290_A_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.41 1.01 1.10 0.09 0.004 0.0016 0.0101 0.010 0.40906_BIO290_B_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.60 0.014 0.0084 1.40906_BIO291_A_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.15 0.42 0.52 0.10 0.0027 0.0004 0.0014 0.003 0.80906_BIO291_B_180409 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.28 0.0036 0.0010 1.10906_BIO298_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.37 0.63 1.23 0.60 0.0025 0.0009 0.0028 0.005 0.60906_BIO298_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.25 0.0075 0.0019 1.70906_BIO299_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.16 0.25 0.52 0.27 0.0032 0.0005 0.0018 0.007 0.50906_BIO299_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.09 0.014 0.0012 2.00906_BIO300_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.18 0.30 0.77 0.47 0.0031 0.0005 0.0016 0.005 0.60906_BIO300_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.13 0.0086 0.0011 1.60906_BIO301_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.26 0.44 0.89 0.46 0.004 0.0010 0.0047 0.011 0.40906_BIO301_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.18 0.02 0.0037 1.90906_BIO308_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.20 0.38 0.77 0.39 0.00093 0.0002 0.0007 0.002 0.50906_BIO308_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.18 0.0027 0.0005 1.50906_BIO309_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.26 0.42 0.96 0.54 0.0026 0.0007 0.0019 0.005 0.60906_BIO309_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.16 0.0079 0.0012 1.70906_BIO310_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.26 0.51 0.87 0.36 0.0017 0.0004 0.0017 0.003 0.50906_BIO310_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.25 0.0049 0.0012 1.50906_BIO311_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.23 0.45 1.01 0.56 0.0012 0.0003 0.0017 0.004 0.30906_BIO311_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.22 0.0067 0.0014 1.70906_BIO320_A_180403 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.28 0.52 0.91 0.40 0.0061 0.0017 0.0069 0.013 0.50906_BIO320_B_180403 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.23 0.022 0.0052 1.70906_BIO321_A_180403 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Edible portion (individual) 0.16 0.29 0.48 0.19 0.0012 0.0002 0.0006 0.002 0.50906_BIO321_B_180403 Murrumbidgee Golden Perch Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.13 0.0034 0.0004 1.5

1 of 2

Location description Biota type Sample type analysed Portion Weight (kg) Total Weight Lab (kg) Total weight Field (kg) Difference in Weight (kg)

PFOS + PFHxS Concentration in Portion

(mg/kg)

Amount of PFOS + PFHxS in Portion (mg)

Amount of PFOS + PFHxS in Individual

(mg)

PFOS + PFHxS Concentration in Individual (mg/kg)

Concentration Factor (Concentration in Portion/Concentration in Individual)

0906_BIO204_A_180403 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.18 0.48 1.31 0.84 0.0082 0.0015 0.0087 0.018 0.50906_BIO204_B_180403 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.30 0.024 0.0072 1.30906_BIO214_A_180404 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.36 0.74 2.67 1.93 0.0034 0.0012 0.0058 0.008 0.40906_BIO214_B_180404 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.38 0.012 0.0046 1.50906_BIO238_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.23 0.67 0.95 0.29 0.0043 0.0010 0.0046 0.007 0.60906_BIO238_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.43 0.0083 0.0036 1.20906_BIO255_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.21 0.35 0.92 0.57 0.0031 0.0006 0.0015 0.004 0.70906_BIO255_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.14 0.0063 0.0009 1.40906_BIO265_A_180409 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.84 1.79 2.75 0.96 0.0029 0.0024 0.0119 0.007 0.40906_BIO265_B_180409 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.95 0.01 0.0095 1.50906_BIO287_A_180409 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.46 0.94 1.83 0.88 0.0036 0.0017 0.0042 0.005 0.80906_BIO287_B_180409 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.48 0.0054 0.0026 1.20906_BIO296_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.07 0.23 0.26 0.03 0.0015 0.0001 0.0010 0.004 0.40906_BIO296_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.16 0.0054 0.0009 1.30906_BIO297_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.28 0.50 1.22 0.71 0.0036 0.0010 0.0037 0.007 0.50906_BIO297_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.22 0.012 0.0026 1.60906_BIO306_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.33 0.91 1.22 0.31 0.0031 0.0010 0.0052 0.006 0.50906_BIO306_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.57 0.0073 0.0042 1.30906_BIO307_A_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.08 0.22 0.28 0.06 0.001 0.0001 0.0004 0.002 0.60906_BIO307_B_180406 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.14 0.0021 0.0003 1.20906_BIO330_A_180404 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.10 0.29 0.65 0.36 0.0019 0.0002 0.0012 0.004 0.50906_BIO330_B_180404 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.19 0.0054 0.0010 1.30906_BIO331_A_180404 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Edible portion (individual) 0.06 0.13 0.31 0.18 0.0023 0.0001 0.0007 0.005 0.50906_BIO331_B_180404 Murrumbidgee Murray Cod Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.08 0.0071 0.0006 1.4

0906_BIO245_A_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.00068 0.00001 0.0002 0.002 0.30906_BIO245_B_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.07 0.00301 0.00020 1.20906_BIO246_A_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.02 0 0.00000 0.0001 0.002 0.00906_BIO246_B_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.06 0.0022 0.00014 1.40906_BIO247_A_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.00193 0.00003 0.0005 0.004 0.40906_BIO247_B_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.10 0.0049 0.00047 1.10906_BIO248_A_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.03 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.0013 0.00004 0.0005 0.005 0.30906_BIO248_B_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.07 0.0062 0.00046 1.30906_BIO249_A_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.02 0.09 0.12 0.03 0.00083 0.00002 0.0003 0.003 0.30906_BIO249_B_180407 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.07 0.0041 0.00028 1.30906_BIO277_A_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.00056 0.00001 0.0001 0.002 0.30906_BIO277_B_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.04 0.002 0.00009 1.20906_BIO278_A_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.0022 0.00003 0.0003 0.004 0.60906_BIO278_B_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.06 0.00396 0.00023 1.10906_BIO279_A_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.0019 0.00002 0.0002 0.003 0.60906_BIO279_B_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.04 0.0038 0.00015 1.10906_BIO280_A_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.0009 0.00000 0.0000 0.003 0.30906_BIO280_B_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.01 0.0036 0.00002 1.30906_BIO281_A_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.00031 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.40906_BIO281_B_180410 Farm Dams Kyemba Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.07 0.001 0.0001 1.2

0906_BIO282_A_180410 Farm Dams Gregadoo Creek Yabby Edible portion (individual) 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.00491 0.0001 0.0009 0.021 0.20906_BIO282_B_180410 Farm Dams Gregadoo Creek Yabby Non‐edible portion (individual) 0.03 0.0274 0.0008 1.3

2 of 2

Biota type Non‐Edible Portion Concentration Factor

Edible Portion Concentration Factor

Golden Perch 1.8 0.5Golden Perch 1.7 0.5Golden Perch 1.7 0.4Golden Perch 1.1 0.8Golden Perch 1.2 0.6Golden Perch 1.2 0.7Golden Perch 1.4 0.4Golden Perch 1.1 0.8Golden Perch 1.7 0.6Golden Perch 2.0 0.5Golden Perch 1.6 0.6Golden Perch 1.9 0.4Golden Perch 1.5 0.5Golden Perch 1.7 0.6Golden Perch 1.5 0.5Golden Perch 1.7 0.3Golden Perch 1.7 0.5Golden Perch 1.5 0.5

min 1.1 0.3max 2.0 0.8

average 1.6 0.595% UCL 1.7 0.6

Murray Cod 1.3 0.5Murray Cod 1.5 0.4Murray Cod 1.2 0.6Murray Cod 1.4 0.7Murray Cod 1.5 0.4Murray Cod 1.2 0.8Murray Cod 1.3 0.4Murray Cod 1.6 0.5Murray Cod 1.3 0.5Murray Cod 1.2 0.6Murray Cod 1.3 0.5Murray Cod 1.4 0.5

min 1.2 0.4max 1.6 0.8

average 1.4 0.595% UCL 1.4 0.6

Yabby 1.2 0.3Yabby 1.4 0.0Yabby 1.1 0.4Yabby 1.3 0.3Yabby 1.3 0.3Yabby 1.2 0.3Yabby 1.1 0.6Yabby 1.1 0.6Yabby 1.3 0.3Yabby 1.2 0.4Yabby 1.3 0.2

min 1.1 0.0max 1.4 0.6

average 1.2 0.395% UCL 1.3 0.4

1 of 1


Appendix K Desktop Ecological Assessment

RAAF Base Wagga PFAS Investigation - Desktop review of threatened species and ecological communites

IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 1

Desktop revi ew of threatened speci es and ecological communitesRAAF Base Wagga PFAS InvestigationClient Name

1. Introduction The Department of Defence (Defence) commissioned Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Jacobs) to undertake a Comprehensive Investigation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) conditions at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Wagga (the Base) in New South Wales (NSW).

A Detailed Site Investigation (DSI) has been undertaken (Jacobs, 2018a) and concentrations of PFAS in soil and surface water were compared to guideline level for ecological protection published in the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) (HEPA, 2018). This screening assessment identified the following potential risks to ecological receptors:

a) Concentrations of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) in soil samples from PFAS source areas on Base exceeded the PFAS NEMP guideline values for terrestrial ecology – direct exposure and indirect exposure (bioaccumulation and secondary poisoning).

b) Concentrations of PFOS in soil samples from off-Base areas were below the PFAS NEMP guideline value for terrestrial ecology – direct exposure.

c) Concentrations of PFOS in soil exceeded the PFAS NEMP guideline value for terrestrial ecology – indirect exposure.

d) Concentrations of PFOS in surface water samples in farm dams and the Marshalls Creek drainage pathway exceeded the PFAS NEMP guideline value for surface water – freshwater aquatic ecology 95% species protection.

e) Concentrations of PFOS in Marshalls Creek indicated a risk for bioaccumulation of PFAS in aquatic biota. Furthermore, biota sampling in Marshalls Creek and the Murrumbidgee River (Jacobs, 2018b) identified PFAS uptake in biota and therefore a risk for indirect exposure to aquatic and terrestrial ecology through bioaccumulation and secondary poisoning in these areas.

There is limited information available on the effects of PFAS on ecology. A screening level Ecological Risk Assessment is being undertaken as part of the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) for the project. The screening level ERA focusses on off-Base areas. Jacobs has conducted a desktop assessment of potential threatened species and ecological communities within areas identified to have PFAS impacts off-Base. This document provides the result of this assessment.

2. Approach Environmental database searches were undertaken to identify records of Commonwealth and State listed threatened species, populations and ecological communities and migratory species which may occur around RAAF Base Wagga. Searches focussed on the Murrumbidgee River, Marshalls Creek and the Gumly Gumly Wetland which have been identified as waterbodies affected by PFAS contamination (Study Area). This is a desktop assessment only, although opportunistic (and qualitative) observations of species sighted during aquatic biota sampling completed by Jacobs earlier in 2018 has also been taken into consideration.

The following databases were searched:

• Fisheries Spatial Data Portal (Department of Primary Industries (DPI) 2018). Provides indicative distributions of threatened freshwater fish and a course indication of the condition of the freshwater fish community.

• Protected Matters Search Tool (Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy 2015). This lists the matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It is indicative only. Three searches were run – one search for the Murrumbidgee River approximately between Wirradjuri Reserve and Kyaemba Creek, one for Gumly Gumly Wetland and one for Marshalls Creek. Each search was run with a 1km buffer (minimum possible search area). The search results are attached to this document.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 2

• Bionet Atlas Search (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 2018) – 10 kilometre search radius (minimum possible grid size). This database was used to identify records of threatened species, endangered populations and ecological communities under both Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and EPBC Act.

• Interpretation of regional vegetation mapping including the State Vegetation Type Map: Riverina Region (Version v1.2 - VIS_ID 4469) (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, 2016) was examined to guide the assessment of Plant Community Types for identifying threatened species habitat and ecological communities.

The searches focussed on identifying and listing the threatened flora and fauna species, populations and ecological communities previously recorded within the locality. After collation of database records and species and community profiles, a ‘likelihood of occurrence’ assessment was prepared with reference to the broad

habitats contained within the Study Area. The criteria for the assessment is outlined in Table 1. State and nationally listed threatened species were considered in terms of their likelihood to occur in the assumed habitats present within the Study Area and their habitat requirements.

This information, along with additional knowledge (where known) such as species’ home ranges1, residence times within the habitat, regional movements (e.g. migration), foraging behaviour and diet, was taken in to account to identify a shortlist of the species and communities with the largest potential susceptibility to elevated PFAS concentrations. In taking this approach, some assumptions were made about the exposure pathway and risk to biota in the absence of rigorous scientific data about the uptake and bioaccumulation of PFAS at all stages of the food web. Further investigation would be required to elucidate uncertainties. Species with a moderate to high likelihood of occurring in the area but with insufficient information to evaluate the risk of PFAS exposure were also included in the shortlist as a precautionary approach.

Table 1: The criteria to determine the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species

Likelihood of

Occurrence

Criteria

Unlikely Species not recorded during field surveys and fit one or more of the following criteria: • Species’ distribution is highly restricted to certain geographical areas not within the

Study Area • Specific habitat requirements are not present in the Study Area

Low Species not recorded during field surveys and fit one or more of the following criteria: • Have not been recorded previously in the Study Area/surrounds and for which the

Study Area is beyond the current distribution range

• Exclusively use specific habitats or resources not present in the Study Area

• Are a non-cryptic perennial flora species that were specifically targeted by surveys and not recorded.

Moderate Species not recorded during the field surveys that fit one or more of the following criteria: • Have infrequently been recorded previously in the Study Area/surrounds

• Use specific habitats or resources which are present in the Study Area but these habitats are in a poor or modified condition

• Are unlikely to maintain sedentary populations, however may seasonally use resources within the Study Area opportunistically or during migration

1 home range is the area a species uses on a day to day basis to survive and is separate to seasonal migratory movements


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 3

Likelihood of

Occurrence

Criteria

• Are cryptic flowering flora species that were not seasonally targeted by surveys and that have not been recorded.

High Species recorded during the field surveys or species not recorded that fit one or more of the following criteria: • Have frequently been recorded previously in the Study Area/surrounds

• Use habitat types or resources that are present in the Study Area that are abundant and/or in good condition within the Study Area

• Are known or likely to maintain resident populations surrounding the Study Area

• Are known or likely to visit the site during regular seasonal movements or migration.

Present A species recorded in the Study Area during the field surveys.

It is noted that the City of Wagga Wagga Council website has a list of threatened species, populations and ecological communities found in the Wagga Wagga Local Government Area (City of Wagga Wagga Council, undated). The list notes that it was developed using generally the same databases as Jacobs has used. However the list is undated and does not appear to be current. For example, the Purple Spotted Gudgeon is noted as endangered. However, DPI fisheries information indicates that the Purple Spotted Gudgeon population is now confined to small remnant populations in the Macquarie, Gwydir and Border Rivers catchments and captive-bred fish in the Castlereagh Catchment (DPI 2017a). The Council list also includes the Eel-tailed Catfish. However remaining populations may only exist in Temora and higher ranges of the Murrumbidgee near Yass. Eel-tailed Catfish is now rare or absent from many rivers and creeks in its previous distribution, including the Murrumbidgee River (DPI 2015). There are no recorded sightings in Wagga Wagga in BioNet Atlas or on the DPI Fisheries database. Therefore, this list has not been considered further.

3. Results Shortlisted threatened species considered at potential risk of elevated PFAS concentrations are listed below. The complete list of threatened species which may inhabitant the region, their distribution, habitat, likelihood of occurrence and reason for why they were or were not shortlisted is provided in Table 2.

The threatened species and communities at potential risk are:

• Bird: Australian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus)

• Bird: White-fronted Chat (Epthianura albifrons)

• Bird: Australian Painted Stripe (Rostratula australis)

• Bird: Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii)

• Bird: Little Eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides)

• Mammal: Eastern Bentwing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

• Mammal: Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

• Fish: Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii)

• Fish: Trout Cod (Maccullochella macquariensis)

• Fish: Silver Perch (Bidyanus bidyanus)

• Fish: Murray Crayfish (Euastacus armatus)

• Frog: Sloane’s Froglet (Crinia sloanei)


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 4

• Frog: Southern Bell Frog (Litoria raniformis)

• Endangered Population: Squirrel Glider in the Wagga Wagga Local Government Area (Petaurus

norfolcensis)

• Ecological Community: Lower Murray River aquatic ecological community

• Ecological Community: White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

4. References Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy (2015). Protected Matters Search Tool http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf Updated 2015

Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy (2018). Species Profiles and Threats Database; http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66633

City of Wagga Wagga Council, not dated. Threatened species, populations and ecological communities found in the Wagga Wagga Local Government Area, available on the City of Wagga Wagga Council website http://www.wagga.nsw.gov.au/city-of-wagga-wagga/environment/biodiversity2

HEPA, 2018. PFAS National Environmental Management Plan, prepared by the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand dated January 2018.

Jacobs, 2018. Comprehensive Investigation of Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) at RAAF Base Wagga. Detailed Site Investigation. Report prepared for Department of Defence by Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd dated 5 June 2018.

New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage (2018) Bionet Atlas Search, available at; https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/atlaspublicapp/UI_Modules/ATLAS_/AtlasSearch.aspx

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (2015). Primefact: Eel-tailed Catish population in the Murray Darling Basin, Tandanus tandanus. Available at: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/635918/primefact-eel-tailed-catfish-population-in-the-murray-darling-basin.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2018.

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (2017). Protecting Macquarie Perch – a guide for fishers and land managers. Available at: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/747379/protecting-macquarie-perch-a-guide-for-fishers-and-land-managers.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2018.

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (2017b). Primefact: Southern Purple Spotted Gudgeon – Mogurnda adspersa. Available at: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/635290/Primefact-1275-Southern-Purple-Spotted-Gudgeon-Mogurnda-adspersa.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2018.

New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (2018). Fisheries Spatial Data Portal. Available at:https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/about-us/science-and-research/spatial-data-portal.

http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf%20Updated%202015

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66633

http://www.wagga.nsw.gov.au/city-of-wagga-wagga/environment/biodiversity2

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/747379/protecting-macquarie-perch-a-guide-for-fishers-and-land-managers.pdf.%20Accessed%2031%20October%202018

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/747379/protecting-macquarie-perch-a-guide-for-fishers-and-land-managers.pdf.%20Accessed%2031%20October%202018

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/635290/Primefact-1275-Southern-Purple-Spotted-Gudgeon-Mogurnda-adspersa.pdf

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/635290/Primefact-1275-Southern-Purple-Spotted-Gudgeon-Mogurnda-adspersa.pdf

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/about-us/science-and-research/spatial-data-portal


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 5

Table 2: Likelihood of occurrence for threatened species, populations, and communities in the Study Area

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act

Distribution and habitat

PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Actitis hypoleucos Common

Sandpiper

M - Found along all coastlines of Australia and in many areas

inland, the Common Sandpiper is widespread in small

numbers. The species utilises a wide range of coastal wetlands

and some inland wetlands, with varying levels of salinity, and is

mostly found around muddy margins or rocky shores and rarely

on mudflats. Forages in water feeding on invertebrates.

Listed - Moderate No. In associated wetland and open floodplain

habitats. More common along coastlines. Only

forages in Australia and likely pauses briefly at

inland habitats during migration.

Bird Anthochaera

Phrygia

(Xanthomyza

phrygia)

Regent

Honeyeater

CE CE The Regent Honeyeater that has a patchy distribution between

south-east Queensland and central Victoria. It mostly inhabits

inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range, in areas of low to

moderate relief with moist, fertile soils. It is most commonly

associated with box-ironbark eucalypt woodland and dry

sclerophyll forest, but also inhabits riparian vegetation such as

sheoak (Casuarina spp) where it feeds on needle-leaved

mistletoe and sometimes breeds. It sometimes utilises lowland

coastal forest, which may act as a refuge when its usual habitat

is affected by drought. It also uses a range of disturbed habitats

within these landscapes including remnant patches in farmland

and urban areas and roadside vegetation. It feeds primarily on

the nectar of eucalypts and mistletoes and, to a lesser extent,

lerps and honeydew; it prefers taller and larger diameter trees

for foraging. It is nomadic and partly migratory with its

movement through the landscape being governed by the

flowering of select eucalypt species. There are four known key

breeding areas: three in NSW and one in Victoria. Breeding

varies between regions,and corresponds with flowering of key

eucalypt and mistletoe species. It usually nests in horizontal

branches or forks in tall mature eucalypts and Sheoaks.

Listed - Moderate No. Nomadic. Assumed short residence times

within area.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 6

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Ardea ibis Cattle Egret M - - Widespread and common according to migration movements

and breeding localities surveys. Occurs in tropical and

temperate grasslands, wooded lands and terrestrial wetlands.

Often seen in large numbers forging with Cattle.

- - High Nomadic. Assumed short residence times

within area.

Bird Artamus

cyanopterus

cyanopterus

Dusky

Woodswallow

- V The Dusky Woodswallow has two separate populations. The

eastern population is found from Atherton Tableland,

Queensland south to Tasmania and west to Eyre Peninsula,

South Australia. The other population is found in south-west

Western Australia. The Dusky Woodswallow is found in open

forests and woodlands, and may be seen along roadsides and

on golf courses.

- Present High No. Nomadic. Assumed short residence times

within area. Habitat at location not optimal.

Bird Botaurus

poiciloptilus

Australasian

Bittern

E E Occurs from south-east Queensland to south-east South

Australia, Tasmania and the south-west of Western Australia.

The Australasian Bittern’s preferred habitat is comprised of

wetlands with tall dense vegetation, where it forages in still,

shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or

waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep

water. It favours permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats,

particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and reeds (e.g.

Phragmites, Cyperus, Eleocharis, Juncus, Typha, Baumea,

Bolboschoenus) or cutting grass (Gahnia) growing over a

muddy or peaty substrate

Listed (2017 record

at

Marrambidya

Wetland)

Moderate Yes. Sedentary.

Preferred habitat includes wetlands with tall

dense vegetation, where it forages in still,

shallow water often at the edges of pools or

waterways. It favours permanent and

seasonal freshwater habitats, particularly

those dominated by sedges, rushes and

reeds.

Bird Calidris

acuminata

Sharp-tailed

Sandpiper

M - The Sharp-tailed Sandpiper spends the non-breeding season in

Australia with small numbers occurring regularly in New

Zealand. Most of the population migrates to Australia, mostly to

the south-east and are widespread in both inland and coastal

locations and in both freshwater and saline habitats. Many

inland records are of birds on passage. Prefers muddy edges of

shallow fresh or brackish wetlands, with inundated or emergent

sedges, grass, saltmarsh or other low vegetation.

Listed Moderate No. Migratory and not likely to be at the

location for sustained periods.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 7

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Calidris

ferruginea

Curlew

Sandpiper

CE, M E In Australia, Curlew Sandpipers occur around the coasts of all

states and are also quite widespread inland, though in smaller

numbers. They occur in Australia mainly during the non-

breeding period but also during the breeding season when

many non-breeding one year old birds remain. Curlew

Sandpipers mainly occur on intertidal mudflats in sheltered

coastal areas, such as estuaries, bays, inlets and lagoons, and

also around non-tidal swamps, lakes and lagoons near the

coast, and ponds in saltworks and sewage farms. They are also

recorded inland, though less often, including around ephemeral

and permanent lakes, dams, waterholes and bore drains,

usually with bare edges of mud or sand. They generally roost

on bare dry shingle, shell or sand beaches, sandspits and islets

in or around coastal or near-coastal lagoons and other

wetlands, occasionally roosting in dunes during very high tides

and sometimes in saltmarsh and in mangroves.

Listed Present Moderate No. Less commonly recorded inland. Location

not suitable for roosting. Migratory and not

likely to be at the location for sustained

periods.

Bird Calidris

melanotos

Pectoral

Sandpiper

M - In New South Wales (NSW), the Pectoral Sandpiper is

widespread, but scattered. Records exist east of the Great

Divide, from Casino and Ballina, south to Ulladulla. West of the

Great Divide, the species is widespread in the Riverina and

Lower Western regions. Prefers shallow fresh to saline

wetlands. The species is found at coastal lagoons, estuaries,

bays, swamps, lakes, inundated grasslands, saltmarshes, river

pools, creeks, floodplains and artificial wetlands.

Listed - Moderate No. Migratory and not likely to be at the

location for sustained periods. Forages for a

short time.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 8

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Callocephalon

fimbriatum

Gang-gang

Cockatoo

- V In summer, occupies tall montane forests and woodlands,

particularly in heavily timbered and mature wet sclerophyll

forests with an acacia understorey. Also occur in subalpine

Snow Gum woodland and occasionally in temperate or

regenerating forest. In winter, occurs at lower altitudes in drier,

more open eucalypt forests and woodlands, particularly in box

ironbark assemblages, or in dry forest in coastal areas,

occasionally feeding on exotic plant species on urban fringe

areas. Favours old growth forest and woodland attributes for

nesting and roosting. Nesting occurs in Spring and Summer

with nests located in hollows that are 10 cm in diameter or

larger and at least 9 m above the ground in eucalypts.

- Present Moderate No. Assumed short residence times within

area. Habitat at location not optimal.

Bird Chthonicola

sagittata

(Pyrrholaemus

sagittatus)

Speckled

Warbler

- V The Speckled Warbler lives in a wide range of Eucalyptus

dominated communities that have a grassy understorey, often

on rocky ridges or in gullies. Typical habitat would include

scattered native tussock grasses, a sparse shrub layer, some

eucalypt re-growth and an open canopy. Large, relatively

undisturbed remnants are required for the species to persist in

an area. Pairs are sedentary and occupy a breeding territory of

about ten hectares, with a slightly larger home-range when not

breeding. The rounded, domed, roughly built nest of dry grass

and strips of bark is located in a slight hollow in the ground or

the base of a low dense plant, often among fallen branches and

other litter. A side entrance allows the bird to walk directly

inside.




IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 9

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Circus assimilis Spotted

Harrier

- V The Spotted Harrier occurs throughout the Australian mainland,

except in densely forested or wooded habitats of the coast,

escarpment and ranges, and rarely in Tasmania. Individuals

disperse widely in NSW and comprise a single population.

Occurs in grassy open woodland including Acacia and mallee

remnants, inland riparian woodland, grassland and shrub

steppe. It is found most commonly in native grassland, but also

occurs in agricultural land, foraging over open habitats

including edges of inland wetlands.

- Present High No. Assumed short residence times within


Bird Climacteris

picumnus

victoriae

Brown

Treecreeper

(eastern

subspecies)

- V Endemic to eastern Australia and occurs in eucalypt forests

and woodlands of inland plains and slopes of the Great Dividing

Range. It is less commonly found on coastal plains and ranges.

Found in eucalypt woodlands (including Box-Gum Woodland)

and dry open forest of the inland slopes and plains inland of the

Great Dividing Range; mainly inhabits woodlands dominated by

stringybarks or other rough-barked eucalypts, usually with an

open grassy understorey, sometimes with one or more shrub

species; also found in mallee and River Red Gum (Eucalyptus

camaldulensis) Forest bordering wetlands with an open

understorey of acacias, saltbush, lignum, cumbungi and

grasses; usually not found in woodlands with a dense shrub

layer; fallen timber is an important habitat component for

foraging; also recorded, though less commonly, in similar

woodland habitats on the coastal ranges and plains. Hollows in

standing dead or live trees and tree stumps are essential for

nesting.




IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 10

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Epthianura

albifrons

White-fronted

Chat

- V The White-fronted Chat is found across the southern half of

Australia, from southernmost Queensland to southern

Tasmania, and across to Western Australia as far north as

Carnarvon. Found mostly in temperate to arid climates and very

rarely sub-tropical areas, it occupies foothills and lowlands up

to 1000 m above sea level. In NSW, it occurs mostly in the

southern half of the state, in damp open habitats along the

coast, and near waterways in the western part of the state.

Along the coastline, it is found predominantly in saltmarsh

vegetation but also in open grasslands and sometimes in low

shrubs bordering wetland areas. Gregarious species, usually

found foraging on bare or grassy ground in wetland areas,

singly or in pairs. They are insectivorous, feeding mainly on

flies and beetles caught from or close to the ground. Have been

observed breeding from late July through to early March, with

'open-cup' nests built in low vegetation. Nests in the Sydney

region have also been seen in low isolated mangroves. Nests

are usually built about 23 cm above the ground (but have been

found up to 2.5 m above the ground).

- Present High Yes. Sedentary. Widespread (spatially) in

NSW and likes wetland areas and waterways

in the western part of the state, however the

only record in Bionet is old. Habitat may be

present at the location.

Bird Falco subniger Black Falcon - V Widely, but sparsely, distributed in New South Wales, mostly

occurring in inland regions. Some reports of ‘Black Falcons’ on

the tablelands and coast of New South Wales are likely to be

referrable to the Brown Falcon. In New South Wales there is

assumed to be a single population that is continuous with a

broader continental population, given that falcons are highly

mobile, commonly travelling hundreds of kilometres (Marchant

& Higgins 1993). The Black Falcon occurs as solitary

individuals, in pairs, or in family groups of parents and

offspring.

- Present High No. Nomadic. Assumed short residence times



IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 11

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Gallinago

hardwickii

Latham's

Snipe

M - Recorded along the east coast of Australia from Cape York

Peninsula through to south-eastern South Australia. Occurs in

permanent and ephemeral wetlands up to 2000 m above sea-

level.

Listed High No. Assumed short residence times within

area. Only forages in Australia during

migration.

Bird Glossopsitta

pusilla

Little Lorikeet - V In NSW it is found from the coast to the western slopes of the

Great Dividing Range, extending westwards to the vicinity of

Albury, Parkes, Dubbo and Narrabri. The species forages

primarily in the canopy of dry open eucalypt forest and

woodland but also utilises paperbark (Melaleuca sp.)

dominated forests. Riparian habitats are particularly used, due

to higher soil fertility and hence greater productivity. Isolated

flowering trees in open country (e.g. paddocks, roadside

remnants) and urban trees also help sustain viable populations

of the species. Nests in proximity to feeding areas if possible,

most typically selecting hollows in the limb or trunk of smooth-

barked eucalypts. Entrance is small (3 cm) and usually high

above the ground (2–15 m). These nest sites are often used

repeatedly for decades, suggesting that preferred sites are

limited; riparian trees are often chosen, including non-eucalypt

species such as she-oaks.

Present Moderate No. Assumed short residence times within


Bird Grantiella picta Painted

Honeyeater

V V The Painted Honeyeater is nomadic and occurs at low densities

throughout its range. The greatest concentrations of birds, and

almost all breeding, occur on the inland slopes of the Great

Dividing Range in NSW, Victoria and southern Queensland.

During the winter it is more likely to be found in the north of its

distribution. Inhabits Boree, Brigalow and Box-Gum Woodlands

and Box-Ironbark Forests. A specialist feeder on the fruits of

mistletoes growing on woodland eucalypts and acacias. Prefers

mistletoes of the genus Amyema.

Listed - Moderate No. Assumed short residence times within

area.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 12

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Hieraaetus

morphnoides

Little Eagle - V The Little Eagle is found throughout the Australian mainland

excepting the most densely forested parts of the Dividing

Range escarpment. It occurs as a single population throughout

NSW. Occupies open eucalypt forest, woodland or open

woodland. Sheoak or Acacia woodlands and riparian

woodlands of interior NSW are also used. Feeds on insects,

birds, mammals and reptiles.

- Present High Yes. May forage and nest in the area.

Bird Lathamus

discolor

Swift Parrot CE E The swift parrot breeds in Tasmania during the summer and the

entire population migrates north to mainland Australia for the

winter. Whilst on the mainland the swift parrot disperses widely

to forage on flowers and psyllid lerps in eucalypt species, with

the majority being found in Victoria and NSW. In NSW they

forage in forests and woodlands throughout the coastal and

western slopes regions each year. Coastal regions tend to

support larger numbers of birds when inland habitats are

subjected to drought. Non-breeding birds preferentially feed in

inland box-ironbark and grassy woodlands, and coastal swamp

mahogany (E. robusta) and spotted gum (Corymbia maculata)

woodland when in flower; otherwise often in coastal forests. On

the mainland they occur in areas where eucalypts are flowering

profusely or where there are abundant lerp (from sap-sucking

bugs) infestations. Favoured feed trees include winter flowering

species such as Eucalyptus robusta, Corymbia maculata, C.

gummifera, E. sideroxylon, and E. albens. Commonly used lerp

infested trees include E. microcarpa, E. moluccana and E.

pilularis.




IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 13

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Melithreptus

gularis gularis

Black-

chinned

Honeyeater

(eastern

subsp.)

- V Extends south from central Queensland, through NSW, Victoria

into south eastern South Australia, though it is very rare in the

last state. In NSW it is widespread, with records from the

tablelands and western slopes of the Great Dividing Range to

the north-west and central-west plains and the Riverina.

Occupies mostly upper levels of drier open forests or

woodlands dominated by box and ironbark eucalypts,

especially Mugga Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), White Box

(E. albens), Inland Grey Box (E. microcarpa), Yellow Box (E.

melliodora), Blakely's Red Gum (E. blakelyi) and Forest Red

Gum (E. tereticornis). Also inhabits open forests of smooth-

barked gums, stringybarks, ironbarks, river sheoaks (nesting

habitat) and tea-trees.

- Present Moderate No. Nomadic. Assumed short residence times


Bird Neophema

pulchella

Turquoise

Parrot

- V Range extends from southern Queensland through to northern

Victoria, from the coastal plains to the western slopes of the

Great Dividing Range. Lives on the edges of eucalypt woodland

adjoining clearings, timbered ridges and creeks in farmland.

- Present Moderate. No. Assumed short residence times within


Bird Numenius

madagascariensis

Eastern

Curlew

CE, M - Within Australia, the Eastern Curlew has a primarily coastal

distribution. The species is found in all states, particularly the

north, east, and south-east regions including Tasmania. The

Eastern Curlew is most commonly associated with sheltered

coasts, especially estuaries, bays, harbours, inlets and coastal

lagoons, with large intertidal mudflats or sand flats, often with

beds of seagrass.




IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 14

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Petroica boodang Scarlet Robin

- V The Scarlet Robin lives in dry eucalypt forests and woodlands.

The understorey is usually open and grassy with few scattered

shrubs. This species lives in both mature and re-growth

vegetation. It occasionally occurs in mallee or wet forest

communities, or in wetlands and tea-tree swamps. This

species’ nest is built in the fork of tree usually more than 2

metres above the ground; nests are often found in a dead

branch in a live tree, or in a dead tree or shrub.



Bird Petroica

phoenicea

Flame Robin - V The Flame Robin ranges from near the Queensland border

to south east South Australia and also in Tasmania. In NSW, it

breeds in upland areas and in winter, many birds move to the

inland slopes and plains. It is likely that there are two separate

populations in NSW, one in the Northern Tablelands, and

another ranging from the Central to Southern Tablelands.

Breeds in upland tall moist eucalypt forests and woodlands,

often on ridges and slopes. Prefers clearings or areas with

open understoreys. The groundlayer of the breeding habitat is

dominated by native grasses and the shrub layer may be either

sparse or dense. Occasionally occurs in temperate rainforest,

and also in herbfields, heathlands, shrublands and sedgelands

at high altitudes.




IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 15

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Bird Polytelis

swainsonii

Superb

Parrot

V V Found throughout eastern inland NSW. On the South-western

Slopes their core breeding area is roughly bounded by Cowra

and Yass in the east, and Grenfell, Cootamundra and Coolac in

the west. Inhabit Box-Gum, Box-Cypress-pine and Boree

Woodlands and River Red Gum Forest. In the Riverina the

birds nest in the hollows of large trees (dead or alive) mainly in

tall riparian River Red Gum Forest or Woodland. On the South

West Slopes nest trees can be in open Box-Gum Woodland or

isolated paddock trees. Species known to be used are Blakely’s

Red Gum, Yellow Box, Apple Box and Red Box. Nest in small

colonies, often with more than one nest in a single tree.

Listed - High Yes. Will nest in river red gum hollows on the

Murrumbidgee River.

Bird Rostratula

australis

Australian

Painted

Snipe

E, M E Most records are from the south east, particularly the Murray

Darling Basin, with scattered records across northern Australia

and historical records from around the Perth region in Western

Australia. Prefers fringes of swamps, dams and nearby marshy

areas where there is a cover of grasses, lignum, low scrub or

open timber. Nests on the ground amongst tall vegetation, such

as grasses, tussocks or reeds.

Listed - Moderate Yes. Many records from the Murray Darling

Basin. Likes swamps and marshy areas.

Bird Stagonopleura

guttata

Diamond

Firetail

- V Found in grassy eucalypt woodlands, including Box-Gum

Woodlands and Snow Gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora) Woodlands.

Also occurs in open forest, mallee, Natural Temperate

Grassland, and in secondary grassland derived from other

communities. Often found in riparian areas (rivers and creeks),

and sometimes in lightly wooded farmland. Nests are globular

structures built either in the shrubby understorey, or higher up,

especially under hawk's or raven's nests. Birds roost in dense

shrubs or in smaller nests built especially for roosting.




IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 16

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Fish Maccullochella

peelii

Murray Cod V - - The Murray Cod occurs naturally in the waterways of the

Murray-Darling Basin (ACT, SA, NSW and Vic) and is known to

live in a wide range of warm water habitats that range from

clear, rocky streams to slow flowing turbid rivers and

billabongs. It is highly territorial and tends to stay within a home

range of 100m to 1km for several years. The species tends to

move upstream ins spring and summer and downstream in

Winter. The upper reaches of the Murray and Murrumbidgee

Rivers are considered too cold to contain suitable habitat.

Some translocated populations exist outside the species'

natural distribution in impoundments and waterways in NSW

and Vic which are maintained by the release of hatchery bred

fish.

Listed - Present

Recorded

during surveys

Yes. Known to occur at the location. Highly

territorial and remain within a restricted home

range for several years

Fish Maccullochella

macquariensis

Trout Cod E E The Trout Cod is endemic to the southern Murray Darling river

system, including the Murrumbidgee River. Trout Cod prefer

areas with large woody debris which provides habitat for each

stage of the life cycle. The species prefer to remain in one

location with limited home ranges. Trout Cod prey on

crustaceans and aquatic insects, as well as other fishes. Trout

Cod are often found in faster flowing water with rocky and

gravel bottoms, as well as slower flowing, lowland rivers. The

historical distribution of Trout Cod coincides with the

Murrumbidgee River at Wagga Wagga and there are numerous

Trout Cod stocking sites upstream and downstream of Wagga

Wagga.

- - Present

Recorded

during surveys

Yes. Known to occur at the location and

recorded during field surveys. Small home-

range.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 17

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Fish Macquaria

australasica

Macquarie

Perch

E E Listed The Macquarie Perch is a riverine species that prefers clear

water and deep, rocky holes with abundant cover such as

aquatic vegetation, large boulders, debris and overhanging

banks. In Victorian parts of the Murray-Darling, only small

natural populations remain in the upper reaches of the Mitta

Mitta, Ovens, Broken, Campaspe and Goulburn Rivers;

translocated populations occur in the Yarra River and Lake

Eildon. In NSW, natural inland populations are isolated to the

upper reaches of the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee Rivers.

Populations of the eastern form are confined to the

Hawkesbury-Nepean and Shoalhaven river systems.

Translocated populations in NSW are found in the Mongarlowe

River, Queanbeyan River upstream of the Googong Reservoir

and in Cataract Dam. In the ACT, it is restricted to the

Murrumbidgee, Paddys and Cotter Rivers

Listed - Low No.

Study area is beyond current indicative

distribution range (DPI 2017b).

Fish Bidyanus

bidyanus

Silver Perch V Silver Perch were once widespread through the Murray-Darling

river system. They are now successfully bred for aquaculture

and conservation and small numbers have been stocked into

rivers in the Murray Darling Basin although in most cases they

have not established reproducing populations. Silver Perch

prefer fast flowing, open waters, especially where there are

rapids and races. They are omnivorous, feeding on aquatic

insects, molluscs, worms and algae. Adults migrate upstream

in spring and summer to spawn. Juveniles sometimes move

upstream in response to rising water temperatures and levels.

- - Moderate

Yes. The species prefers fast flowing, open

waters, especially where there are rapids and

races. Large home range as adults migrate

upstream in spring and summer to spawn.

They are omnivorous, feeding on aquatic

insects, molluscs, worms and algae.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 18

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Fish Euastacus

armatus

Murray

Crayfish

V Murray Crayfish are found in the Murrumbidgee and Murray

Rivers and their tributaries. They can be found in a variety of

habitats including pasture-lands, sclerophyll forests and in a

range of stream sizes and altitudes. They are tolerant of

temperatures to 27 degrees Celsius and moderate salinities but

intolerant of low dissolved oxygen. Murray Crayfish are

opportunistic feeders and feed on decaying plant matter as well

as dead fish and other animals. They occupy very small home

range and have low dispersal abilities and are therefore

vulnerable to environmental or human impacts, with limited

ability to recolonise.

- - Present

Sighted during

field surveys

Yes. Known to occur at the location. They

occupy a very small home range and have low

dispersal abilities and are therefore vulnerable

to environmental or human impacts, with

limited ability to recolonise. Known to occur in

highly variable habitats. They feed on

decaying matter insitu.

Fish Galaxias rostratus Flathead

Galaxias

CE CE This species is endemic to southern tributaries of the Murray-

Darling river system including the Murrumbidgee river and its

tributaries. Very few individuals have been recorded over the

past two decades and the last specimen recorded in the

Murrumbidgee was in 1971 so it is thought it be locally extinct.

They are schooling fish generally found midwater in still and

gently moving waters of small streams, lakes, lagoons,

billabongs and backwaters. Preferred habitat is coarse sand,

mud, and aquatic vegetation. They feed on aquatic insects and

crustaceans.

Listed - Moderate No.

Not recorded for several decades in the

Murrumbidgee.

Frogs Litoria raniformis Southern Bell

Frog

V E The species is currently widespread throughout the Murray

River valley and has been recorded from six Catchment

Management Areas in NSW: Lower Murray Darling,

Murrumbidgee, Murray, Lachlan, Central West and South East.

Found mostly amongst emergent vegetation, including Typha

sp. (bullrush), Phragmites sp. (reeds) and Eleocharis

sp.(sedges), in or at the edges of still or slow-flowing water

bodies such as lagoons, swamps, lakes, ponds and farm dams.

Listed - Moderate Yes. Long residence time and small home

range. Habitat requirements available in the

region. Found mostly amongst emergent

vegetation, including Typha sp. (bullrush),

Phragmites sp. (reeds) and Eleocharis

sp.(sedges), in or at the edges of still or slow-

flowing water bodies such as lagoons,

swamps, lakes, ponds and farm dams.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 19

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Frogs Crinia sloanei Sloane's

Froglet

- V Sloane's Froglet has been recorded from widely scattered sites

in the floodplains of the Murray-Darling Basin, with the majority

of records in the Darling Riverine Plains, NSW South Western

Slopes and Riverina bioregions in New South Wales. It is

typically associated with periodically inundated areas in

grassland, woodland and disturbed habitats.

Moderate Yes. Historical records and potential habitat.

Mammals Miniopterus

schreibersii

oceanensis

Eastern

Bentwing-bat

- V Occurs on east and north west coasts of Australia. Caves are

the primary roosting habitat, but also use derelict mines, storm-

water tunnels, buildings and other manmade structures.

- Present High Yes. Roost and forage in riverine habitats and

feed on insects supported by the

Murrumbidgee River.

Mammals Nyctophilus

corbeni

Corben’s

Long-eared

Bat

V

V Overall, the distribution of the south eastern form coincides

approximately with the Murray Darling Basin with the Pilliga

Scrub region being the distinct stronghold for this species.

Inhabits a variety of vegetation types, including mallee, bulloke

Allocasuarina luehmannii and box eucalypt dominated

communities, but it is distinctly more common in

box/ironbark/cypress-pine vegetation that occurs in a north-

south belt along the western slopes and plains of NSW and

southern Queensland. Roosts in tree hollows, crevices, and

under loose bark.




IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 20

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Mammals Petaurus

norfolcensis

(endangered

population)

Squirrel

Glider in the

Wagga

Wagga Local

Government

Area

- V,

EP

The species is widely though sparsely distributed in eastern

Australia, from northern Queensland to western Victoria.

Inhabits mature or old growth Box, Box-Ironbark woodlands

and River Red Gum forest west of the Great Dividing Range

and Blackbutt-Bloodwood forest with heath understorey in

coastal areas. Prefers mixed species stands with a shrub or

Acacia midstorey.

The extent of the endangered population is legally defined by

the boundaries of the Wagga Wagga LGA. The distribution of

the Squirrel Glider and its known or potential habitats within, or

linked across, this boundary is not well defined. However,

potential habitat occurs at low densities and is patchily

distributed on public lands (TSRs, NPWS reserves, Bush

Heritage Trust reserves), private lands and roadside corridors

with remnant vegetation. Inhabits a wide range of open forest,

woodland and riverine forest habitats. Utilise remnants of

various sizes, including small remnants and even small stands

of trees within Travelling Stock Reserves, roadside reserves or

private land. Often utilise linear remnant vegetation along

roadsides or rivers and streams. Eucalypt species known to

provide suitable denning and foraging resources include (but

are not restricted to): Blakely’s Red Gum (Eucalyptus blakelyi),

Grey Box (E. microcarpa), Red Box (E. polyanthemos), Mugga

Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis),

White Box (E. albens) and Yellow Box (E. melliodora).

- Present High Yes. Nests in river red gums on the

Murrumbidgee River.

Mammals Phascolarctos

cinereus

Koala V V In NSW it mainly occurs on the central and north coasts with

some populations in the west of the Great Dividing Range.

Inhabit eucalypt woodlands and forests. Feed on the foliage of

more than 70 eucalypt species and 30 non-eucalypt species,

but in any one area will select preferred browse species.

Listed Present Low No. Limited suitable habitat.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 21

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Mammals Pteropus

poliocephalus

Grey-headed

Flying-fox

V V Generally found within 200 km of the eastern coast of Australia,

from Rockhampton in Queensland to Adelaide in South

Australia. In times of natural resource shortages, they may be

found in unusual locations. Occur in subtropical and temperate

rainforests, tall sclerophyll forests and woodlands, heaths and

swamps as well as urban gardens and cultivated fruit crops.

Roosting camps are generally located within 20 km of a regular

food source and are commonly found in gullies, close to water,

in vegetation with a dense canopy. Individual camps may have

tens of thousands of animals and are used for mating, and for

giving birth and rearing young.

Listed - High Yes. A colony is known to occur in Wagga

Wagga on the Murrumbidgee River.

Reptiles Aprasia

parapulchella

Pink-tailed

Legless

Lizard

V V The Pink-tailed Legless Lizard is only known from the Central

and Southern Tablelands, and the South Western Slopes.

There is a concentration of populations in the Canberra /

Queanbeyan Region. Other populations have been recorded

near Cooma, Yass, Bathurst, Albury and West Wyalong. This

species is also found in the Australian Capital Territory. Inhabits

sloping, open woodland areas with a predominantly native

grassy groundlayer, particularly those dominated by Kangaroo

Grass (Themeda australis). Sites are typically well-drained, with

rocky outcrops or scattered, partially-buried rocks. Commonly

found beneath small, partially-embedded rocks and appear to

spend considerable time in burrows below these rocks; the

burrows have been constructed by and are often still inhabited

by small black ants and termites.

Listed - Moderate No. Habitat at location not optimal.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 22

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Reptiles Delma impar Striped

Legless

Lizard

V V The Striped Legless Lizard occurs in the Southern Tablelands,

the South West Slopes and possibly on the Riverina.

Populations are known in the Goulburn, Yass, Queanbeyan,

Cooma and Tumut areas. Also occurs in the ACT, Victoria and

south-eastern South Australia. Found mainly in Natural

Temperate Grassland but has also been captured in grasslands

that have a high exotic component. Also found in secondary

grassland near Natural Temperate Grassland and occasionally

in open Box-Gum Woodland. Habitat is where grassland is

dominated by perennial, tussock-forming grasses such as

Kangaroo Grass Themeda australis, spear-

grasses Austrostipa spp. and Poa tussocks Poa spp., and

occasionally wallaby grasses Austrodanthonia spp. Sometimes

present in modified grasslands with a significant content of

exotic grasses. Sometimes found in grasslands with significant

amounts of surface rocks, which are used for shelter.

Listed - Moderate No. Habitat at location not optimal.

Plants Caladenia

arenaria

Sand Hill

Spider-orchid

E E The Sand-hill Spider Orchid is currently only known to occur in

the Riverina between Urana and Narranderra

Listed Low. No. Not known to occur in the region.

Plants Cullen parvum Small Scurf-

pea

- - The Small Scurf-pea is known in NSW from only two herbarium

collections; one from Wagga Wagga in 1884 and the other from

Jindera (near Albury) in 1967. A small population was recently

reported from near Jerilderie (although it has not been

relocated). In recent years, two populations have been

recorded in travelling stock reserves south-west of Wagga

Wagga, and a population reputedly exists on a roadside near

Galong. Another population has recently been discovered on

private land near Young. Large populations have been

recorded in grassy gaps in the Red Gum Woodlands of Barmah

State Park, just across the border in Victoria. Extensive suitable

habitat probably occurs across the border in NSW.

- - Low No. Habitat not thought to be suitable at the

location.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 23

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Plants Swainsona recta Small Purple-

pea

E E Small Purple-pea was recorded historically from places such as

Carcoar, Culcairn and Wagga Wagga where it is probably now

extinct. Populations still exist in the Queanbeyan and

Wellington-Mudgee areas. Over 80% of the southern

population grows on a railway easement. Before European

settlement Small Purple-pea occurred in the grassy

understorey of woodlands and open-forests dominated by

Blakely’s Red Gum Eucalyptus blakelyi, Yellow Box E.

melliodora, Candlebark Gum E. rubida and Long-leaf Box E.

goniocalyx. Grows in association with understorey dominants

that include Kangaroo Grass Themeda australis, poa tussocks

Poa spp. and spear-grasses Austrostipa spp.

- - Moderate No. Habitat not thought to be suitable.

Plants Prasophyllum

petilum

Tarengo

Leek Orchid E E Natural populations are known from a total of five sites in NSW.

These area at Boorowa, Captains Flat, Ilford, Delegate and a

newly recognised population c.10 k SE of Muswellbrook. Grows

in open sites within Natural Temperate Grassland at the

Boorowa and Delegate sites. Also grows in grassy woodland in

association with River Tussock Poa labillardieri, Black Gum

Eucalyptus aggregata and tea-trees Leptospermum spp. at

Captains Flat and within the grassy groundlayer dominated by

Kanagroo Grass under Box-Gum Woodland at Ilford (and Hall,

ACT).

Listed Low. No. Habitat not thought to be suitable.

Ecological

Community

Lower Murray

River aquatic

ecological

community

EEC The EEC includes all native fish and aquatic invertebrates

within all natural creeks, rivers and associated lagoons,

billabongs and lakes of the regulated portions of the

Murrumidgee and Tumut Rivers as well as their tributaries. It

includes 23 native fish and over 400 invertebrates.

- - High Yes. Encompasses all native fish and

invertebrates in natural waterways on the

Murrumbidgee.


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 24

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Ecological

Community Grey Box

(Eucalyptus

microcarpa)

Grassy

Woodlands

and Derived

Native

Grasslands

of South-

eastern

Australia

E E Grey Box Woodland includes those woodlands in which the

most characteristic tree species, Eucalyptus microcarpa (Inland

Grey Box), is often found in association with E. populnea

subsp. bimbil (Bimble or Poplar Box), Callitris glaucophylla

(White Cypress Pine), Brachychiton populneus (Kurrajong),

Allocasuarina luehmannii (Bulloak) or E. melliodora (Yellow

Box), and sometimes with E. albens (White Box). Shrubs are

typically sparse or absent, although this component can be

diverse and may be locally common, especially in drier western

portions of the community. A variable ground layer of grass and

herbaceous species is present at most sites. At severely

disturbed sites the ground layer may be absent. The community

generally occurs as an open woodland 15–25 m tall but in

some locations the overstorey may be absent as a result of

past clearing or thinning, leaving only an understorey.

Listed Moderate No

Ecological

Community Weeping

Myall

Woodlands

E E This ecological community is scattered across the eastern parts

of the alluvial plains of the Murray-Darling river system. The

community is also known as Boree particularly in the southern

part of its distribution. Typically, it occurs on red-brown earths

and heavy textured grey and brown alluvial soils within a

climatic belt receiving between 375 and 500 mm mean annual

rainfall. The structure of the community varies from low

woodland and low open woodland to low sparse woodland or

open shrubland, depending on site quality and disturbance

history. The tree layer grows up to a height of about 10 metres

and invariably includes Acacia pendula (Weeping Myall or

Boree) as one of the dominant species or the only tree species

present. The understorey includes an open layer of chenopod

shrubs and other woody plant species and an open to

continuous groundcover of grasses and herbs.

Listed Low No


IA147400-003-NP-MEM-012-Rev1 25

Type of

animal

Species

name

Common

name

EPBC

Act

BC

Act

FM

Act


PMST

Search

Bionet

Search

Likelihood

of

occurrence

Shortlisted?

Ecological

Community

White Box-

Yellow Box-

Blakely's Red

Gum Grassy

Woodland

and Derived

Native

Grassland

CE E White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland

(commonly referred to as Box-Gum Woodland) is an open

woodland community (sometimes occurring as a forest

formation), in which the most obvious species are one or more

of the following: White Box Eucalyptus albens, Yellow Box E.

melliodora and Blakely's Red Gum E. blakelyi. Intact sites

contain a high diversity of plant species, including the main tree

species, additional tree species, some shrub species, several

climbing plant species, many grasses and a very high diversity

of herbs. The community also includes a range of mammal,

bird, reptile, frog and invertebrate fauna species.

Listed High Yes. Occurs in area, adjacent to floodplains

and transitions zones. The plant community

type (PCT) Yellow Box - River Red Gum tall

grassy riverine woodland of NSW South

Western Slopes Bioregion and Riverina

Bioregion supports some of the listed

threatened species.

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other mattersprotected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in thecaveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines,forms and application process details.

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

Acknowledgements

Buffer: 2.0Km

Matters of NES

Report created: 19/10/18 15:28:26

Coordinates

This map may contain data which are©Commonwealth of Australia(Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

CaveatExtra Information

DetailsSummary

http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-assessments

Summary

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or mayrelate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can beaccessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have asignificant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider theAdministrative Guidelines on Significance.

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities:

Listed Migratory Species:

3

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:

Wetlands of International Importance:

Listed Threatened Species:

None

21

None

None

National Heritage Places:

Commonwealth Marine Area:

World Heritage Properties:

4

None

10

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken onCommonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of aplace are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of aCommonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found athttp://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated.Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land,when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken onCommonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing totake an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatenedspecies or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member ofa listed marine species.


None

None

None

Listed Marine Species:

Whales and Other Cetaceans:

17

Commonwealth Heritage Places:

7

None

Critical Habitats:

Commonwealth Land:

Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial:

NoneAustralian Marine Parks:

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

None

NoneState and Territory Reserves:

Nationally Important Wetlands:

NoneRegional Forest Agreements:

Invasive Species: 30

NoneKey Ecological Features (Marine)


http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/permits-and-application-forms

Details

Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) [ Resource Information ]Name ProximityBanrock station wetland complex 600 - 700km upstreamHattah-kulkyne lakes 400 - 500km upstreamRiverland 600 - 700km upstreamThe coorong, and lakes alexandrina and albert wetland 700 - 800km upstream

Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ]Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

Regent Honeyeater [82338] Critically Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Anthochaera phrygia

Australasian Bittern [1001] Endangered Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Botaurus poiciloptilus

Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris ferruginea

Painted Honeyeater [470] Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Grantiella picta

Swift Parrot [744] Critically Endangered Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Lathamus discolor

Malleefowl [934] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Leipoa ocellata

Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis

Superb Parrot [738] Vulnerable Breeding known to occurwithin area

Polytelis swainsonii

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recoveryplans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecologicalcommunity distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used toproduce indicative distribution maps.

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities [ Resource Information ]

Name Status Type of PresenceGrey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlandsand Derived Native Grasslands of South-easternAustralia

Endangered Community likely to occurwithin area

Weeping Myall Woodlands Endangered Community may occurwithin area

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum GrassyWoodland and Derived Native Grassland

Critically Endangered Community likely to occurwithin area


Name Status Type of Presence

Australian Painted-snipe, Australian Painted Snipe[77037]

Endangered Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rostratula australis

Fish

Flathead Galaxias, Beaked Minnow, Flat-headedGalaxias, Flat-headed Jollytail, Flat-headed Minnow[84745]

Critically Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Galaxias rostratus

Macquarie Perch [66632] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Macquaria australasica

Frogs

Growling Grass Frog, Southern Bell Frog, Green andGolden Frog, Warty Swamp Frog [1828]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Litoria raniformis

Mammals

Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail Quoll, Tiger Quoll(southeastern mainland population) [75184]

Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland population)

Corben's Long-eared Bat, South-eastern Long-earedBat [83395]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Nyctophilus corbeni

Koala (combined populations of Queensland, NewSouth Wales and the Australian Capital Territory)[85104]

Vulnerable Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT)

Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or relatedbehaviour likely to occurwithin area

Pteropus poliocephalus

Plants

Sand-hill Spider-orchid [9275] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Caladenia arenaria

Tarengo Leek Orchid [55144] Endangered Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Prasophyllum petilum

Small Purple-pea, Mountain Swainson-pea, SmallPurple Pea [7580]


Swainsona recta

Reptiles

Pink-tailed Worm-lizard, Pink-tailed Legless Lizard[1665]


Aprasia parapulchella

Striped Legless Lizard [1649] Vulnerable Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Delma impar

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceMigratory Marine Birds

Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Apus pacificus

Migratory Terrestrial Species

White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Hirundapus caudacutus

Name Threatened Type of Presence

Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Motacilla flava

Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Migratory Wetlands Species

Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Actitis hypoleucos

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Calidris acuminata


Calidris ferruginea

Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris melanotos

Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii



Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceBirds


Actitis hypoleucos


Apus pacificus

Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Ardea alba

Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitatmay occur within

Ardea ibis

Commonwealth Land [ Resource Information ]The Commonwealth area listed below may indicate the presence of Commonwealth land in this vicinity. Due tothe unreliability of the data source, all proposals should be checked as to whether it impacts on aCommonwealth area, before making a definitive decision. Contact the State or Territory government landdepartment for further information.

NameCommonwealth Land -Commonwealth Land - Australian Telecommunications CommissionCommonwealth Land - Defence Housing AuthorityDefence - RAAF BASE WAGGADefence - WAGGA - WATER BORE SITE AP1Defence - WAGGA - WATER BORE SITE AP2Defence - WAGGA - WATER BORE SITE AP3


Name Threatened Type of Presencearea


Calidris acuminata


Calidris ferruginea


Calidris melanotos

Black-eared Cuckoo [705] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Chrysococcyx osculans



White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Haliaeetus leucogaster




Lathamus discolor

Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Merops ornatus


Motacilla flava


Myiagra cyanoleuca



Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato)

Extra Information

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ]Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plantsthat are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. Thefollowing feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps fromLandscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

Skylark [656] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Alauda arvensis

Mallard [974] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Anas platyrhynchos

European Goldfinch [403] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Carduelis carduelis

Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Columba livia

House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Passer domesticus

Eurasian Tree Sparrow [406] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Passer montanus

Common Starling [389] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Sturnus vulgaris

Common Blackbird, Eurasian Blackbird [596] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Turdus merula

Mammals

Domestic Cattle [16] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Bos taurus

Domestic Dog [82654] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Canis lupus familiaris

Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Felis catus

Feral deer species in Australia [85733] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Feral deer

Brown Hare [127] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Lepus capensis

House Mouse [120] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Mus musculus


Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus

Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rattus rattus

Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Vulpes vulpes

Plants

Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Florist'sSmilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473]

Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Asparagus asparagoides

Water Hyacinth, Water Orchid, Nile Lily [13466] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Eichhornia crassipes

Montpellier Broom, Cape Broom, Canary Broom,Common Broom, French Broom, Soft Broom [20126]


Genista monspessulana

African Boxthorn, Boxthorn [19235] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Lycium ferocissimum

Chilean Needle grass [67699] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Nassella neesiana

Serrated Tussock, Yass River Tussock, Yass Tussock,Nassella Tussock (NZ) [18884]


Nassella trichotoma

Prickly Pears [82753] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Opuntia spp.

Radiata Pine Monterey Pine, Insignis Pine, WildingPine [20780]

Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Pinus radiata

Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Rubus fruticosus aggregate

Willows except Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow andSterile Pussy Willow [68497]


Salix spp. except S.babylonica, S.x calodendron & S.x reichardtii

Salvinia, Giant Salvinia, Aquarium Watermoss, KaribaWeed [13665]


Salvinia molesta

Fireweed, Madagascar Ragwort, MadagascarGroundsel [2624]


Senecio madagascariensis

Silver Nightshade, Silver-leaved Nightshade, WhiteHorse Nettle, Silver-leaf Nightshade, Tomato Weed,White Nightshade, Bull-nettle, Prairie-berry,Satansbos, Silver-leaf Bitter-apple, Silverleaf-nettle,Trompillo [12323]


Solanum elaeagnifolium

- non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites

- migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers

- some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available datasupports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in makinga referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remotesensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and pointlocation data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

- seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent

Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Threatened, migratory and marine species distributions have been derived through a variety of methods. Where distributions are well known and iftime permits, maps are derived using either thematic spatial data (i.e. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, aspect, terrain, etc) together with pointlocations and described habitat; or environmental modelling (MAXENT or BIOCLIM habitat modelling) using point locations and environmental datalayers.

The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.Caveat

- migratory and

The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

- marine

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of Internationaland National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatenedecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at variousresolutions.

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants

- some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area

The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species:

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped:

Where very little information is available for species or large number of maps are required in a short time-frame, maps are derived either from 0.04or 0.02 decimal degree cells; by an automated process using polygon capture techniques (static two kilometre grid cells, alpha-hull and convex hull);or captured manually or by using topographic features (national park boundaries, islands, etc). In the early stages of the distribution mappingprocess (1999-early 2000s) distributions were defined by degree blocks, 100K or 250K map sheets to rapidly create distribution maps. More reliabledistribution mapping methods are used to update these distributions as time permits.

-35.136963 147.431955,-35.138055 147.443971,-35.144294 147.455129,-35.147959 147.453126,-35.153027 147.45036,-35.153962 147.439489,-35.150453 147.431477,-35.150453 147.431382,-35.136963 147.431955

Coordinates

-Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT-Birdlife Australia-Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme

-Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia

Acknowledgements

-Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales

-Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania

-Department of Land and Resource Management, Northern Territory-Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland

-Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria

-Australian National Wildlife Collection

-Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia

This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the followingcustodians who have contributed valuable data and advice:

-Australian Museum

-National Herbarium of NSW

Forestry Corporation, NSW-Australian Government, Department of Defence

-State Herbarium of South Australia

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert adviceand information on numerous draft distributions.

-Natural history museums of Australia

-Queensland Museum

-Australian National Herbarium, Canberra

-Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria

-Geoscience Australia

-Ocean Biogeographic Information System

-Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums-Queensland Herbarium

-Western Australian Herbarium

-Tasmanian Herbarium

-Northern Territory Herbarium

-South Australian Museum

-Museum Victoria

-University of New England

-CSIRO

-Other groups and individuals-Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania

-Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory

-Reef Life Survey Australia-Australian Institute of Marine Science-Australian Government National Environmental Science Program

-Australian Tropical Herbarium, Cairns

-Australian Government – Australian Antarctic Data Centre

-Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Inveresk, Tasmania

-eBird Australia

-American Museum of Natural History

© Commonwealth of Australia

+61 2 6274 1111

Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

GPO Box 787

Department of the Environment

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/

http://birdlife.org.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/science/bird-and-bat-banding

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/

http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/

https://nt.gov.au/environment/environment-data-maps

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/home

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/Collections/ANWC

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Home

http://australianmuseum.net.au/

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Herbarium_and_resources/nsw_herbarium

http://www.forestrycorporation.com.au/

http://www.defence.gov.au/

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Science/Science_research/State_Herbarium

http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/

http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/herbarium/

http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/science/herbarium-and-resources/national-herbarium-of-victoria

http://www.ga.gov.au/

http://www.iobis.org/

http://ozcam.org.au/

http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/herbarium/

http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/plants-and-animals/wa-herbarium

http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/collections_and_research/tasmanian_herbarium

https://nt.gov.au/environment/native-plants/native-plants-and-nt-herbarium

http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/

http://museumvictoria.com.au/

http://www.une.edu.au

http://www.csiro.au/

http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/

http://www.magnt.net.au/

http://reeflifesurvey.com/reef-life-survey/rls-australia/

http://www.aims.gov.au/

https://www.environment.gov.au/science/nerp

https://www.ath.org.au/

https://data.aad.gov.au/

http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/qvmag/

http://ebird.org/content/australia/

http://www.amnh.org/

http://www.environment.gov.au/copyright-statement

http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/contact-us






Acknowledgements

Buffer: 1.0Km

Matters of NES

Report created: 26/10/18 12:23:25

Coordinates



DetailsSummary


Summary





3




None

22

None

None




4

None

10





None

None

None



17


1

None

Critical Habitats:

Commonwealth Land:



Extra Information


None








Details




Anthochaera phrygia




Calidris ferruginea


Grantiella picta


Lathamus discolor


Leipoa ocellata

















Fish



Galaxias rostratus

Murray Cod [66633] Vulnerable Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Maccullochella peelii



Frogs



Litoria raniformis

Mammals






Nyctophilus corbeni




Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable Roosting known to occurwithin area


Plants


Caladenia arenaria





Swainsona recta

Reptiles





Delma impar



Apus pacificus


White-throated Needletail [682] Species or speciesHirundapus caudacutus

Name Threatened Type of Presencehabitat may occur withinarea


Motacilla flava


Myiagra cyanoleuca



Actitis hypoleucos


Calidris acuminata


Calidris ferruginea


Calidris melanotos







Actitis hypoleucos


Apus pacificus

Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Ardea alba

Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Ardea ibis

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitatlikely to occur

Calidris acuminata


NameCommonwealth Land - Australian Telecommunications Commission


Name Threatened Type of Presencewithin area


Calidris ferruginea


Calidris melanotos










Lathamus discolor


Merops ornatus


Motacilla flava


Myiagra cyanoleuca





Extra Information





Alauda arvensis


Anas platyrhynchos


Carduelis carduelis


Columba livia


Passer domesticus


Passer montanus


Sturnus vulgaris


Turdus merula

Mammals


Bos taurus




Felis catus


Feral deer


Lepus capensis


Mus musculus




Rattus rattus


Vulpes vulpes

Plants

Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Species or speciesAsparagus asparagoides

Name Status Type of PresenceFlorist's Smilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473] habitat likely to occur within

area





Lycium ferocissimum


Nassella neesiana



Nassella trichotoma


Opuntia spp.



Pinus radiata








Salvinia molesta
















- migratory and


- marine







-35.118675 147.387954,-35.120805 147.389731,-35.124194 147.391032,-35.127583 147.393046,-35.130779 147.396242,-35.131554147.400976,-35.131069 147.40512,-35.133005 147.418379,-35.140074 147.424417,-35.141235 147.429153,-35.141138 147.429982,-35.141138147.429982

Coordinates



Acknowledgements








-Australian Museum






-Queensland Museum










-Museum Victoria


-CSIRO







-eBird Australia



+61 2 6274 1111


GPO Box 787


















































Acknowledgements

Buffer: 1.0Km

Matters of NES

Report created: 26/10/18 10:11:53

Coordinates



DetailsSummary


Summary





3




None

22

None

None




4

None

10





None

None

None



17


3

None

Critical Habitats:

Commonwealth Land:



Extra Information


None








Details




Anthochaera phrygia




Calidris ferruginea


Grantiella picta


Lathamus discolor


Leipoa ocellata

















Fish



Galaxias rostratus

Murray Cod [66633] Vulnerable Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Maccullochella peelii



Frogs



Litoria raniformis

Mammals






Nyctophilus corbeni




Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable Roosting known to occurwithin area


Plants


Caladenia arenaria





Swainsona recta

Reptiles





Delma impar



Apus pacificus


White-throated Needletail [682] Species or speciesHirundapus caudacutus

Name Threatened Type of Presencehabitat may occur withinarea


Motacilla flava


Myiagra cyanoleuca



Actitis hypoleucos

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris acuminata


Calidris ferruginea


Calidris melanotos







Actitis hypoleucos


Apus pacificus

Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitatknown to occur within area

Ardea alba

Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Ardea ibis


NameCommonwealth Land - Australian Broadcasting CorporationCommonwealth Land - Australian Telecommunications CommissionCommonwealth Land - Defence Housing Authority


Name Threatened Type of Presence

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitatmay occur within area

Calidris acuminata


Calidris ferruginea


Calidris melanotos










Lathamus discolor


Merops ornatus


Motacilla flava


Myiagra cyanoleuca





Extra Information




Alauda arvensis


Anas platyrhynchos


Carduelis carduelis


Columba livia


Passer domesticus


Passer montanus


Sturnus vulgaris


Turdus merula

Mammals


Bos taurus



Goat [2] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Capra hircus


Felis catus


Feral deer


Lepus capensis


Mus musculus





Rattus rattus

Pig [6] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Sus scrofa


Vulpes vulpes

Plants

Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Florist'sSmilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473]


Asparagus asparagoides

Water Hyacinth, Water Orchid, Nile Lily [13466] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Eichhornia crassipes





Lycium ferocissimum


Nassella neesiana



Nassella trichotoma


Opuntia spp.



Pinus radiata








Salvinia molesta







Gorse, Furze [7693] Species or species habitatlikely to occur within area

Ulex europaeus










- migratory and


- marine







-35.090926 147.354297,-35.088218 147.356666,-35.091313 147.367557,-35.09015 147.369452,-35.090926 147.372294,-35.094802 147.369925,-35.095965 147.368978,-35.102937 147.369452,-35.104487 147.376085,-35.105263 147.376558,-35.110301 147.375137,-35.113784 147.377032,-35.118434 147.381289,-35.118434 147.390291,-35.115334 147.393134,-35.113784 147.395496,-35.110689 147.39976,-35.110689 147.401182,-35.110301 147.401655,-35.111846 147.405446,-35.113009 147.404972,-35.116497 147.410177,-35.118047 147.411598,-35.12231 147.412072,-35.123467 147.413967,-35.12076 147.41681,-35.118434 147.41681,-35.116109 147.417283,-35.112234 147.418705,-35.109139 147.426278,-35.111846 147.428174,-35.115334 147.431964,-35.111458 147.434333,-35.106813 147.43149,-35.106813 147.429595,-35.102162 147.428174,-35.101387 147.433385,-35.102549 147.439064,-35.10565 147.443328,-35.108363 147.443802,-35.109139 147.446644,-35.111458 147.448066,-35.111846 147.452797,-35.109914 147.453271,-35.106426 147.454692,-35.102937 147.453744,-35.099842 147.451375,-35.095965 147.453744,-35.096353 147.456113,-35.098291 147.458008,-35.099842 147.462266,-35.101774 147.462739,-35.102937 147.463213,-35.107588 147.467477,-35.110689 147.471267,-35.110689 147.474584,-35.113396 147.479789,-35.114559 147.482158,-35.111846 147.480736,-35.111077 147.480736,-35.109914 147.484527,-35.114559 147.488791,-35.114947 147.4921,-35.114947 147.494943,-35.112234 147.500155,-35.109914 147.500628,-35.107588 147.504886,-35.104487 147.511045,-35.104487 147.51294,-35.10565 147.515309,-35.106813 147.518619,-35.108363 147.519092,-35.108751 147.520514,-35.109914 147.522883,-35.111846 147.522883,-35.112621 147.522883,-35.114947 147.52383,-35.116497 147.528568,-35.117659 147.530463,-35.116884 147.532351,-35.116884 147.535194,-35.116884 147.536616,-35.118434 147.537089,-35.121147 147.539458,-35.124242 147.541827,-35.123467 147.546084,-35.123854 147.546558,-35.121922 147.547506,-35.119597 147.551296,-35.119597 147.551296,-35.119597 147.55556,-35.124242 147.55887,-35.123854 147.561712,-35.119597 147.561712,-35.119597 147.563134,-35.119597 147.563608,-35.122692 147.564555,-35.125404 147.565977,-35.124242 147.568345,-35.121147 147.571188,-35.119985 147.574498,-35.124242 147.57355,-35.125017 147.57355,-35.126567 147.576393,-35.126567 147.577814,-35.124629 147.584447,-35.124629 147.584447

Coordinates



Acknowledgements








-Australian Museum






-Queensland Museum










-Museum Victoria


-CSIRO







-eBird Australia



+61 2 6274 1111


GPO Box 787













































Appendix D Derivation of Residential Soil Criteria€¦ · that the dermal absorption of PFOS and...

Documents

Transcript of Appendix D Derivation of Residential Soil Criteria€¦ · that the dermal absorption of PFOS and...