Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review

A report prepared for Department of Water W.A.

FINAL Version

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 1

How to cite this report:

Harrington, G.A. and Harrington, N.M. (2015). Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review. A report prepared by Innovative Groundwater Solutions for Department of Water, 15 May 2015.

Disclaimer

This report is solely for the use of Department of Water WA (DoW) and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or for other uses. Any reliance on this report by third parties shall be at such parties’ sole risk.

The information in this report is considered to be accurate with respect to information provided by DoW at the time of investigation. IGS has used the methodology and sources of information outlined within this report and has made no independent verification of this information beyond the agreed scope of works. IGS assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions. No indications were found during our investigations that the information provided to IGS was false.

Innovative Groundwater Solutions Pty Ltd. 3 Cockle Court, Middleton SA 5213 Phone: 0458 636 988 ABN: 17 164 365 495 ACN: 164 365 495 Web: www.innovativegroundwater.com.au Email: [email protected]

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 2

Executive Summary Water for Food is a Royalties for Regions initiative that aims to lift agricultural productivity and encourage capital investment in the agricultural sector in a number of regions across Western Australia. In the West Kimberley region, the lower Fitzroy River valley is seen as a priority area where water resources can be developed to support pastoral diversification.

This report presents the findings of a review into the groundwater resources of the region, beginning with a synthesis of the results of recent hydrogeological, ecological and cultural investigations. In short, these studies have confirmed the ecological significance of the Fitzroy River and the strong ties that local Aboriginal people have with the river and its floodplain for cultural and heritage purposes. The nature of surface water – groundwater interactions in the catchment is extremely complex, and there is insufficient knowledge of the potential ecological response to altered hydrological regimes. This applies to surface water levels and flows, as well as groundwater levels and fluxes.

The level of existing knowledge for the different aquifer systems in the lower Fitzroy River valley is generally poor as there have been no previous catchment-scale investigations that have collected and assimilated consistent hydrogeological data. However, isolated knowledge of aquifer thicknesses, bore yields, groundwater quality and monitoring records does exist around water supplies for towns such as Fitzroy Crossing and Camballin, and Aboriginal communities. Similar information and knowledge has also been acquired as part of the exploration and regulatory processes for mining and unconventional gas activities.

The review has identified the regional Canning Basin aquifers as offering the greatest opportunities for large scale groundwater development in the lower Fitzroy River valley; the combined Poole Sandstone and Grant Group aquifers, as well as the Devonian limestone, are seen as particularly prospective resources. Groundwater in these aquifers is generally of low-moderate salinity and bore yields are suitable for sustaining large developments. There are two main advantages of developing the regional aquifers over the shallow alluvial aquifers that follow the main rivers. Firstly, they have large volumes of groundwater in storage and can therefore withstand the effects of short-term climate variability on recharge rates. Secondly, they will generally be less connected to groundwater-dependent assets of ecological and cultural significance at the ground surface. However, previous studies in the region have already shown that this assumption does not always hold, as part of the

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 3

Fitzroy River is thought to be sustained by discharge from the deep Poole Sandstone during the dry season.

Despite the opportunities offered by the regional aquifers, there are a number of significant knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in order to give potential investors confidence of groundwater resource availability, and to enable the determination of sustainable extraction limits. It must be stressed that the determination of extraction limits requires considerable hydrogeological process understanding and stakeholder involvement, and the volume of water that can be pumped sustainably is only a fraction of the total volume of water in storage.

There is a need to map extents of the main aquifers and their relationships to adjacent aquitards; to understand and quantify groundwater recharge processes; to map groundwater flow directions and to estimate residence times. There is also a need to better define potential constraints. While a lot of the water-dependent ecological and cultural assets of the region have already been mapped, it is unknown which of these – besides the Fitzroy River – are groundwater dependent. There is also limited understanding of environmental water requirements and the potential changes to ecology that could arise under an altered hydrological regime.

A comprehensive technical work program has been recommended to address the knowledge gaps that have greatest bearing on future groundwater development opportunities. This program includes a regional airborne geophysics survey, the establishment of a meaningful and enduring groundwater monitoring network, a regional-scale groundwater recharge and flow investigation of the most prospective aquifers, focused investigations at sites identified for targeted development, and an assessment of the level of groundwater dependence of known water-related assets. It is also recommended that the WIN database be updated with the large volume of historical information on water level monitoring and water quality analyses that currently reside in technical reports and thus cannot be easily analysed.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 4

Contents

Executive Summary 2 Contents 4

List of Figures 6

List of Tables 8

1. Introduction 10 1.1 Potential Constraints on Developing Water Resources 10 1.2 Scope and Objectives 14

2. The Fitzroy Catchment 15 2.1 Physical Description and Climate Conditions 15 2.2 Geological and Hydrogeological Setting 16 2.4 Land Use and Cultural Values 21 2.5 Surface Water Hydrology 24 2.5.1 Surface Water Flows 24 2.5.2 Control Structures 26 2.5.3 Surface Water Salinity 27 2.6 Ecology 27 2.7 History of Proposals to Use Water Resources of the Fitzroy River Valley 30

3. Overview of Recent Work 32 3.1 Hydrogeological Investigations 32 Northern Australia Sustainable Yields (2008-09) 32 Fitzroy River integrated ground and surface water hydrology assessment (2008- 11) 33 Surface water – groundwater interactions in the lower Fitzroy River, WA (2008- 11) 34 Regional AEM Survey 36 3.2 Ecological 36 Northern Australia Sustainable Yields (2008-09) 36 Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment (2008-12) 37 Northern Australia Aquatic Ecological Assets Project (2011) 39 3.3 Cultural ties to water resources 40 Indigenous socio-economic values and river flows (2008-10) 41 Comparison of Knowledge Bases 42

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 5

4. Knowledge of the Groundwater Systems 43 4.1 Regional Aquifers 43 4.1.1 Overview 43 4.1.2 Devonian Limestone 47 4.1.3 Fairfield Group 50 4.1.4 Poole Sandstone and Grant Group 51 4.1.5 Noonkanbah Formation 54 4.1.6 Liveringa Group 56 4.1.7 Wallal Sandstone / Erskine Sandstone /Alexander Formation 60 4.2 Alluvial Aquifer 61 Data Availability 61 Groundwater Recharge 62 Groundwater Flow and Discharge 62 Groundwater Residence Times 64 Aquifer Properties 64 Estimated Groundwater Storage 64 Bore Yields and Groundwater Salinities 64 4.3 Surface Water-Groundwater Interactions 65 4.3.1 Regional Context 65 4.3.2 Detailed Understanding for the Lower Fitzroy River 66 4.3.3 Broader-Scale Insights from the AEM Survey 70 4.3.4 Potential Impacts of Future Groundwater Pumping on River Flow 70

5. Existing and Potential Future Groundwater Users 73 5.1 Licensed Allocations 73 5.1.1 Overview 73 5.1.2 Town and Community Water Supplies 75 5.2 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 75 5.2.1 Identified Ecological Values 75 5.2.2 Groundwater Dependence of Ecological Values 77 5.2.3 Identifying Likely Impacts of Changes in Groundwater Levels to GDEs 78 5.3 Cultural and Heritage Values 79 5.4 Mining and Unconventional Gas 80

6. Development Opportunities and Constraints 83 6.1 Prospective Groundwater Resources 83 Poole Sandstone / Grant Group 83 Devonian Limestone 84

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 6

Alluvial Aquifer 84 6.2 Managed Aquifer Recharge 85 6.3 Targeted Development Areas 86

7. Critical Knowledge Gaps 88 7.1 Knowledge Required to Facilitate Allocation of the Alluvial Aquifer 88 7.2 Knowledge Required for Regional Aquifers 89 7.2.1 To Better Understand Development Opportunities 89 7.2.2 To Better Understand Development Constraints 89

8. Recommendations for work to address knowledge gaps 91 8.1 Update the WIN Database 92 8.2 Regional geophysics survey 92 8.3 Establish a representative monitoring network 93 8.4 Groundwater dependence of water-related ecosystems 95 8.5 Regional groundwater resource investigation 95 8.6 Technical investigations in targeted areas 96 8.7 Modelling tools and assessments 97

9 References 98

Appendix A FitzCAM DRAFT Asset Table 29-10-09 (FitzCAM, 2009). 106

Appendix B Recommended priority areas for an airborne geophysical (AEM) survey 120

List of Figures Figure 1 Location of the study area for this review relative to the Fitzroy River catchment...... 11

Figure 2 Schematic diagram showing the impacts of groundwater pumping on surface water (from Barlow and Leake, 2012) ...... 13

Figure 3 The Physiographic regions of the Fitzroy catchment (from Lindsay and Commander, 2005)...... 15

Figure 4 Long-term annual rainfall at Fitzroy Crossing (from CSIRO, 2009)...... 16

Figure 5 Location and major tectonic sub-divisions of the Canning Basin (from Mory and Hocking, 2011) ...... 17

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 7

Figure 6 Geology and hydrogeology of the lower Fitzroy River valley in the Canning Basin...... 18

Figure 7 Generalised geological section (from Mory and Hocking (2011)...... 19

Figure 8 Regional hydrogeological sections (from Lindsay and Commander (2005))...... 21

Figure 9 Aboriginal communities and pastoral stations in the Lower Fitzroy River valley...... 22

Figure 10 Approximate positions and names of ‘special places’ along the lower Fitzroy River, named by Traditional Owners (reproduced from Lawford et al. (1988) by Storey et al. (2001))...... 23

Figure 11 Current mining leases in the study area...... 25

Figure 12 Summary of modelled groundwater discharge fluxes into the Fitzroy River, and a schematic hydrogeological cross-section interpreted from the AEM survey (from Harrington et al. 2013)...... 35

Figure 13 Example of interpreted AEM depth section ‘12a-12b’ through Mount Anderson, showing highly contrasting conductivities for different stratigraphic units (Source: Fitzpatrick et al. 2011)...... 37

Figure 14 Development and loss of pools in the Fitzroy River through three different dry seasons (from Close et al. 2012). X-axis represents calendar day of the year, and dashed lines represent wet season discharge at Fitzroy Barrage...... 39

Figure 15 The Bayesian Network developed to integrate expert Gooniyandi ecological knowledge with western scientific hydrogeological knowledge (from Liedloff et a., 2013)...... 42

Figure 16 Groundwater salinity for bores completed in each aquifer, as recorded in the WIN database...... 49

Figure 17 Cross sections through the alluvial aquifer at (a) Willare, (b) Camballin Barrage and (c) Gogo (from Lindsay and Commander, 2005). Refer to source for cross-section locations...... 63

Figure 18 Longitudinal river water tracer profiles for (a) May 2008 and (b) May 2010 (from Harrington et al. (2011)) Yellow and grey triangles mark the locations of the

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 8

confluence with the Cunningham Anabranch and the nested piezometers on Noonkanbah Station, respectively...... 67

Figure 19 Surface water sampling locations (A), environmental tracer concentrations (B and C) and interpreted AEM section along the Fitzroy River (from Harrington et al., 2013)...... 69

Figure 20 Interpreted AEM sections from approximately Looma (west) along the southern boundary of Liveringa Station (from Fitzpatrick et al., 2013). See source for exact locations...... 71

Figure 21 Stream depletion as a function of continuous pumping time, presented for different bore set-back distances and different aquifer types (from Turnadge et al., 2013)...... 72

Figure 22 Distribution of current groundwater and surface water licensed allocations at 31st March 2015...... 74

Figure 23 Recommended technical work program to address the hydrogeological objectives of the Water for Food project in the lower Fitzroy valley...... 91

List of Tables Table 1 Buru Energy suspended petroleum wells in the Yulleroo and Paradise- Valhalla area (from Buru Energy, 2013)...... 44

Table 2 Formation characteristics and elevations in the Buru Energy petroleum wells in the Paradise-Valhalla area (Buru Energy, 2013)...... 44

Table 3 Estimated volume of groundwater storage in the Canning Basin (Laws, 1990 in CSIRO, 2009)...... 46

Table 4 Range of typical groundwater salinities in the Canning Basin aquifers (CSIRO, 2009; after Lindsay and Commander, 2005)...... 46

Table 5 Summary of the groundwater salinity data included in the WIN database. . 47

Table 6 Summary of aquifer property data for the Grant Group and Poole Sandstone...... 53

Table 7 Summary of bore yield and salinity data for the Poole Sandstone and Grant Group aquifers...... 55

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 9

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 10

1. Introduction The water resources of northern Australia are becoming increasingly attractive supply options for irrigated agriculture to support escalating global food demand and Australia’s export market. Such development is also seen to be critical for improving social and economic conditions for the Aboriginal Traditional Owners in the regions, through providing new and sustainable employment and business opportunities.

Water for Food is a Royalties for Regions (Government of Western Australia) initiative that aims to lift agricultural productivity and encourage capital investment in the agricultural sector in a number of regions across Western Australia. The Department of Water (DoW) has been funded through Water for Food to deliver a landscape scale investigation to confirm groundwater availability in the lower Fitzroy River valley (Figure 1). The objective is to identify where water resources can be developed to support pastoral diversification.

This requires (a) a synthesis of the recent work to identify the level of understanding of the various potential water sources in the Fitzroy Valley, (b) identification of potential development sites based on existing knowledge, and (c) detailed hydrogeological investigations to define water availability at potential development sites.

1.1 Potential Constraints on Developing Water Resources The development of water resources in any region clearly requires an understanding of how much water is available, taking into account the volume of water in storage as well as the inputs and outputs of the system. The degree of confidence required for this understanding generally depends on the level of existing water use and the risk of undesirable impacts due to future development. However, long-term management of water resources also requires a detailed understanding of constraints, including environmental factors and operational requirements. For groundwater resources these constraints typically include water level or flow impacts to groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and water quality degradation due to reduced aquifer through-flow or enhanced inter-aquifer leakage.

15 May 2015

Figure 1 Location of the study area for this review relative to the Fitzroy River catchment. Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 12

In northern Australia, and particularly around perennial river systems such as the Fitzroy River, the largest potential constraint to water resource development is undoubtedly impacts to the ecological (and associated cultural) values of dry season flows and/or permanent pools. While this constraint may seem obvious for surface water diversion or extraction, it is often overlooked for groundwater extraction.

Pumping from any groundwater system that is connected to a ‘gaining river’ – that is, a river into which groundwater is discharging – will have an impact on the level or flow in the river, as depicted in Figure 2. Initially, groundwater pumping causes drawdown of the water table locally around the bore. Over time, the drawdown cone spreads and begins to decrease the rate of groundwater discharge into the river. Ultimately however, if pumping proceeds long enough for the drawdown cone to intersect the river, the hydraulic gradient reverses and the river loses water to the aquifer. This process is called Stream Flow Depletion and there are several existing tools that can be used to predict the likely impacts for different aquifer geometries and pumping regimes (see Chapter 5).

While the example of stream flow depletion shown in Figure 2 is for a shallow, unconfined aquifer, such as the alluvial aquifers in the Fitzroy River valley, the same process applies to deeper, confined aquifers that are connected to the river. Therefore, pumping these deeper aquifers also has the potential to reduce the rate of groundwater discharge to the river, or the persistence of in-stream pools. In addition, pumping groundwater from aquifers can also cause stream flow depletion from a ‘losing river’ – that is, a river that naturally discharges into the aquifer, providing a source of recharge. This occurs because the rate of leakage from a losing river increases as the depth to water table increases, until a depth beyond which the river and groundwater become completely disconnected (Brunner et al., 2009).

Another potential constraint to developing groundwater resources in northern Australia is related to the high inter-annual variability of rainfall and therefore recharge (CSIRO, 2009). This is likely to be most problematic for shallow, alluvial aquifers as the deeper, regional aquifers have large storage and thus can withstand the effects of short-term climate variability.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 13

Figure 2 Schematic diagram showing the impacts of groundwater pumping on surface water (from Barlow and Leake, 2012)

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 14

1.2 Scope and Objectives Innovative Groundwater Solutions Pty Ltd. (IGS) was engaged by the Department to undertake a desktop review of the hydrogeological knowledge of the lower Fitzroy River region, commencing with the seminal work of Lindsay and Commander (2005). The study area is from Willare to about 100 km north of Fitzroy Crossing (Figure 1).

The objectives of the review were to define the current extent of knowledge, identify areas with potential for development, outline critical gaps in knowledge and provide recommendations for work to address these gaps. A particular focus was to review the supply potential for targeted development at Mount Anderson, Fitzroy Crossing, GoGo Station and Mount Pierre.

This report presents the findings of the desktop review, including

1. Discussion of the aquifers that occur in the Fitzroy Valley, including connectivity, and whether there are geological or geographical boundaries that could be used to define management areas; 2. Analysis and discussion of the available information for each aquifer; 3. Analysis and discussion of potential yields and any factors that limit extraction; 4. Analysis and discussion of any potential risks to groundwater dependent ecosystems and permanent pools from extraction induced changes in river hydrology; 5. Recommend a representative monitoring program to improve the understanding of the system hydrology; 6. A bibliography of all hydrogeological reports, papers and other relevant sources information included in the review; 7. Identification of critical knowledge gaps in our understanding of the system hydrogeology; 8. A comprehensive set of recommendations on work required to address item 7; and 9. Comments on the yield potential and supply reliability for targeted development areas at Mt Anderson, Fitzroy Crossing, GoGo Station and Mt Pierre.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 15

2. The Fitzroy Catchment

2.1 Physical Description and Climate Conditions The Fitzroy River catchment is located in the Kimberley region of northwest WA and covers an area of almost 94,000 km2 (Figure 1). The catchment can be thought of as comprising three major physiographic provinces: the Fitzroy Plains, the Fitzroy Floodplain and Ranges provinces (Beard, 1979, in Lindsay and Commander (2005)) (Figure 3).

Figure 3 The Physiographic regions of the Fitzroy catchment (from Lindsay and Commander, 2005).

The climate in the Fitzroy region is arid to semi-arid, with a historical mean average annual rainfall of about 560 mm (Figure 4), and mean annual areal potential evapotranspiration (APET) of 1980 mm (CSIRO, 2009). Rainfall is extremely variable on an annual basis, with the 10th percentile of annual rainfall being 963 mm/yr and the 90th percentile being 363 mm/yr, and also extremely seasonal, with 93% occurring during the wet season (Nov-April), and a very high dry season (May-Oct) APET.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 16

Figure 4 Long-term annual rainfall at Fitzroy Crossing (from CSIRO, 2009).

The region has high rainfall intensities and there is a strong north-south rainfall gradient of about 1.8 mm/km, decreasing to the south (CSIRO, 2009). Since APET is greater than rainfall, and rainfall only exceeds APET for short periods during the wet months, the Fitzroy region is considered to be water-limited. The region has very high summer temperatures, with a mean November minimum of 24.2°C, and a maximum of 40.5°C at Fitzroy Crossing, compared to a July minimum of 10.7°C and a maximum of 29.6°C.

2.2 Geological and Hydrogeological Setting The following information is summarised from Lindsay and Commander (2005).

The study area lies mainly within the Fitzroy Trough subdivision of the northern Canning Basin (Figure 5). The Fitzroy Trough is the most prominent structural feature in the area, and consists of a north-west trending graben, bounded on the northeast by the Pinnacle Fault System and to the southwest by the Fenton Fault system (Crowe and Towner, 1981, in Lindsay and Commander (2005)). The Fitzroy Trough is in-filled with Devonian to Jurassic sediments, intruded by narrow volcanic plugs of Mesozoic lamproite (Middleton, 1990, in Lindsay and Commander (2005)). The sediments themselves consist predominantly of sandstones and shales of shallow water marine, deltaic and fluvial origin.

The Lennard Shelf occurs to the northeast of the study area (Figure 5), and is an area of relatively shallow basin in-filled with Devonian reef and other early Palaeozoic rocks. To the southeast of the Fitzroy Trough is the Barbwire Terrace (Figure 5), a platform with up to 3,000 m of sediments, with younger Jurassic sediments at the surface. To the east are the rugged King Leopold Range and Mueller Range, which are formed by uplifted and exposed igneous and metamorphic rocks (Figure 1).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 17

Figure 5 Location and major tectonic sub-divisions of the Canning Basin (from Mory and Hocking, 2011)

The oldest rocks outcropping in the study area are the late Devonian reef complexes, in the northeast (Figure 6 and Figure 7). These are overlain by the late Carboniferous limestones, siltstones, minor sandstones and shales, collectively known as the Fairfield Group, which also only outcrop in the northeast of study area (Figure 6). The Fairfield Group is unconformably overlain by the Grant Group, which is dominated by sandstones, often with fine-grained facies in the middle (Figure 7). The Grant Group rocks mainly outcrop in the anticlinal structures and form some of the ranges, such as the Grant Range near Liveringa, and the St George Ranges southeast of Noonkanbah (Figure 1 and Figure 6). The Permian Poole Sandstone unconformably overlies the Grant Group, and is lithologically very similar. The Poole Sandstone can be observed as a prominent range of hills on top of the Grant Range, near Liveringa Homestead (Figure 1 and Figure 6). Together, the Poole Sandstone and Grant Group comprise one of the most significant aquifers in the region (see Section 4.1.3).

15 May 2015

Figure 6 Geology and hydrogeology of the lower Fitzroy River valley in the Canning Basin.

Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 19

Figure 7 Generalised geological section (from Mory and Hocking (2011).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 20

The late Permian Noonkanbah Formation comprises predominantly siltstone and shale, and therefore acts as an aquitard. It underlies part of the Fitzroy River but it is poorly exposed at the surface (Lindsay and Commander, 2005) (Figure 6). Most information on it comes from coal and oil exploration bores.

The Liveringa Group is the next most important aquifer, being up to 900 m thick and comprising sandstone and siltstone with lenses and minor beds of claystone and shale. It is the unit that most extensively underlies the Fitzroy River (Figure 6). The Blina Shale overlies the Liveringa Group and is around 200 m thick. This is overlain by the Triassic Erskine Sandstone, which ranges in thickness from 30 m in the Erskine Ranges to 269 m near Derby (Figure 7). It outcrops in a wide area to the east of Willare (Figure 6). There is a major unconformity between the Erskine Sandstone and the overlying late Jurassic Wallal Sandstone (Figure 7). The latter outcrops extensively to the south of Willare and east of Derby and is a laminated pink and white, very fine to very coarse grained sandstone with minor siltstone, conglomerate and lignite (Figure 6). The overlying Barbwire and Alexander Formations are similar in lithology but variable in thickness, with a maximum combined thickness of about 95 m. They consist of sandstone, siltstone and minor conglomerate. The Wallal and Alexander Formations are considered to be good aquifers.

The Jarlemai Siltstone conformably overlies the Alexander Formation and is overlain by the Cainozoic sediments of the Warrimbah Conglomerate and the Fitzroy Alluvium. The former is an approximately 10 m thick layer of cobble and pebble conglomerate, limited to within about 15 km of the Fitzroy River, and may represent a previous course of the Fitzroy River. The Fitzroy River alluvium underlies the floodplain (Figure 6) and is 30 - 40 m thick, comprising a basal sand and gravel overlain by up to 10 m of silt/clay.

The Permian to Jurassic rocks are all faulted and gently folded, with the most prominent anticlines forming the Grant and St George Ranges, which trend west- northwesterly (Figure 1). The Fitzroy River flows around the ranges formed by these anticlines and the area is further cross cut by numerous north-northwesterly trending transverse faults, creating a “trellised” drainage system (Crowe and Towner, 1981; Gibson and Crowe, 1982, in Lindsay and Commander (2005)) (Figure 8). The major aquifers described above underlie the alluvial aquifer and discharge into it (Figure 8).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 21

Figure 8 Regional hydrogeological sections (from Lindsay and Commander (2005)).

2.4 Land Use and Cultural Values Aboriginal people have occupied the Fitzroy Catchment for tens of thousands of years. The Fitzroy River was probably a focus of population during dry periods, and acted as a physiographic and cultural divide between desert clans to the south and clans from the ranges in the north and east (Purcell, 1984; O’Connor, 1995; McConnell and O’Connor, 1997, in Lindsay and Commander (2005)). Scattered aboriginal communities occur throughout the area (Figure 9). The largest is at Noonkanbah, on the edge of the Fitzroy River, with a population of 250. The continued presence and use of the land by numerous aboriginal people is an important feature of the Fitzroy catchment (Storey et al., 2001). Permanent pools in the Fitzroy River system are considered to be “living water” by the traditional owners and a list of “special places” along the lower river system provided by a Traditional Owner was detailed in a book ‘Raparapa’ (Lawford et al., 1988). These places are shown in Figure 10. Storey et al. (2001) describe the cultural value of the Fitzroy River ecology to the Traditional Owners, as providing sources of food, medicine, dye, raft-building materials, and Dreamtime stories, as well as triggers for migration and cultural activities.

15 May 2015

Figure 9 Aboriginal communities and pastoral stations in the Lower Fitzroy River valley.

Figure 10 Approximate positions and names of ‘special places’ along the lower Fitzroy River, named by Traditional Owners (reproduced from Lawford et al. (1988) by Storey et al. (2001)).

Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 24

By the 1890s, most of the land in the Fitzroy Catchment was covered by pastoral leases. High sheep and cattle numbers led to a decrease in vegetation density, compacted soil and large areas of erosion, especially around the rivers (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). Reductions in livestock numbers since 1978, establishment of watering points away from the river and improved fencing are now reducing these impacts. Figure 9 shows the locations of current pastoral leases in the study area.

Mining is also a significant land use in the Fitzroy Catchment, with a number of current and pending mining leases scattered across the region (Figure 11). Past, current and proposed mining activities include coal, lead and zinc, tight gas and diamonds.

2.5 Surface Water Hydrology

2.5.1 Surface Water Flows The Fitzroy River has its source in the King Leopold Ranges and flows 733 km to its discharge point in King Sound on the Timor Sea (Figure 1). The lower reaches of the Fitzroy River are influenced by tidal activity, with a diurnal range of 8-10 m at Derby, near the river mouth. During the wet season, the Fitzroy River can be up to 15 km across, and the alluvial sediments cover an area of 32,000 km2. Runoff within the Fitzroy River catchment is highly variable, being as low as 50 mm/yr on the permeable sands of the southern plains, and up to around 150 mm/yr in the northern Ranges areas (Ruprecht and Rodgers, 1998 in Storey et al. (2001) and Lindsay and Commander (2005)).

River flow is highly seasonal, with flooding occurring in the wet season from December to March, contracting to pools with very low flows from June to October (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). The annual discharge at Fitzroy Crossing, as measured between 1958 and 2014 ranges from 140 GL (1992) to 38,000 GL (1976), with a mean of about 7,300 GL (DoW, pers. comm. May 2015).

Flows at Noonkanbah are similar. Harrington et al. (2013) report the annual discharge at Noonkanbah as ranging from about 1,000 GL (2010) to 33,000 GL (2011) with a mean of about 10,000 GL. However, a more recent analysis of the data by DoW result in values ranging from 820 GL (2005) and 23,000 GL (2011), with an average of 76,000 GL (DoW, pers. comm., May 2015).

15 May 2015

Figure 11 Current mining leases in the study area.

Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 26

Most hydrographic gauging and recording has been focused on flood warning and the estimation of potential surface water yields (Kimberley Water Resources Development Office, 1993). At the time of the CSIRO (2009) study, all gauging stations in the study area had less than 10 years of measured data, with the exception of the station at Fitzroy Crossing. There was no good low-flow data for Camballin Floodplain (confidence in the results was poor) and dry season flows were generally poorly understood for the Fitzroy River. There was better confidence in low- and high-flow results at Geikie Gorge and in high-flows at Camballin Floodplain.

Harrington et al. (2011) also reviewed the surface water data available for the Fitzroy River. They found that there were six open (i.e. actively monitored) gauging stations in the Upper Fitzroy (upstream of Fitzroy Crossing), and seven open gauging stations in the lower Fitzroy with five on the main river. They provide a map of gauging stations and a table showing the period/frequency and status of rating curves. The reliability of flow rating curves had been limited, due to the volume of flows, the extent and complexity of floodplain flows and the difficulties with obtaining reliable measurements during major flows. However, a number of reaches were surveyed in 2008-2010, and new rating curves were developed. This has resulted in new river flow data recently becoming available, including 23 years (1992-present) of flow data for the Camballin Barrage (also known as the Fitzroy Barrage) (DoW, pers. comm., May 2015). An additional four rating curves for parts of the Fitzroy River Catchment are being reviewed. These are on the Margaret River, Mt Wynn Creek, Christmas Creek and Watery River (DoW, pers. comm., May 2015). Even once developed, the rating curves for low-flows on the lower Fitzroy (except at the Camballin Barrage) are susceptible to annual change due to sand bar migration, and therefore need to be surveyed and potentially re-gauged every dry season.

2.5.2 Control Structures The only dam on the Fitzroy River is the Camballin Barrage, located 150 km upstream of the tidal zone (CSIRO, 2009) (Figure 1). It was built in the 1950s and opened in 1962 to support large-scale irrigation of rice and other crops. Water was diverted from the barrage up Uralla Creek to Seventeen Mile Dam (capacity 5 GL). The irrigation scheme failed and was abandoned in 1983 due to the impacts of wet season flooding on crops and infrastructure, and a lack of water in the dry season. It was sold to Liveringa Station in 1995, and water is still diverted down Uralla Creek to support irrigated fodder crops (CSIRO, 2009). Now, the water travels through a series of modified pools to the Inkarta irrigation channel, where it supplies several centre pivots. The offtake from the main Fitzroy River at Uralla Creek has a sill that

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 27

is permanently set at a level that regulates the amount of water diverted and maintains environmental water requirements for the Fitzroy River.

There are other small weirs on tributaries of the Fitzroy, but no major structures. In 1965, the Geological Survey of Western Australia conducted a geotechnical drilling survey at Gogo for a proposed dam site (Swarbrick, 1965). The risk of leakage under the dam and possible failure of the abutments was considered too great for that project to go ahead.

2.5.3 Surface Water Salinity Salinity of the Fitzroy River surface waters is not currently measured on a routine basis. Lindsay and Commander (2005) describe some records being available from five stations between 1996 and 2005. Wet season salinity levels are less than 250 mg/L and dry season salinities range up to 900 mg/L (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). In terms of spatial patterns in salinity, the river is fresh (<500 mg/L) between Fitzroy Crossing and Noonkanbah, marginal (500-1,000 mg/L) between Noonkanbah and Myroodah, and fresh from Myroodah to Willare. It is widely understood that the dry season salinities of the river water reflect groundwater salinities as dry season river flows are supported by baseflow. The river water salinity often exceeds the desirable potable water limit of 500 mg/L in the dry season, limiting its use as a potable water supply.

2.6 Ecology The majority of the available ecological information on the Fitzroy River Floodplain originates from a “preliminary assessment of the ecological values within the Fitzroy River system” carried out by Storey et al. (2001). This project was commissioned by the then Water and Rivers Commission in light of proposed developments that could potentially result in regulation or damming of the Fitzroy River. It was the first study aimed at determining Ecological Water Requirements (EWRs) of the Fitzroy River and sought to evaluate the potential effects of altering the river flow regime on the river ecology. The study consisted of (1) an intensive field assessment, carried out at selected sites, in conjunction with Aboriginal people, during the dry season of November 2000; (2) a desktop study to collate existing information on the distribution and structure of riverine, floodplain and estuarine ecological communities; and (3) an assessment of hydrological data and discharge modelling to understand the temporal variability of surface water flows and the potential effects of these flow scenarios on identified ecological values. The majority of the more recent studies described in the current report, including that of Lindsay and

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 28

Commander (2005), rely heavily on Storey et al. (2001) for information on the ecological values of the Fitzroy River and the majority of the information provided below is derived from that study.

Storey et al. (2001) found that the ecological diversity and health of the Fitzroy riverine ecosystem was good, despite unrestricted stock access. They describe in some detail the vegetation assemblages of the various botanical regions of the Fitzroy catchment. The vegetation in the area adjacent the Kimberley Basin had been described and mapped by Beard (1990), but this predominantly focused on dryland species. The paucity of information on the river vegetation has been highlighted by Sutton (1998) and Storey et al. (2001). At the time of the study of Storey et al. (2001), there had been no detailed botanical survey around the Fitzroy River. They state that there is little known about the number and distribution of “priority taxa” in the riparian vegetation of the Fitzroy River.

The wetlands and permanent pools along the Fitzroy Rver support a diverse ecology, including 35 species of fish and 67 species of waterbird. Of the fish, about 18 species are Kimberley endemics and at least three are regional endemics (Storey et al., 2001). The Northern River Shark and Freshwater Sawfish, which are listed as threatened, are also found in the river (Storey et al., 2001 and Morgan et al., 2005, in CSIRO (2009)).

Waterbird usage of floodplains, particularly at Camballin, is considered to be sufficient for Ramsar listing. Storey et al. (2001) summarise the various bird surveys undertaken within the Fitzroy catchment. At least 67 species of birds have been recorded on the Camballin floodplain, with 19 of these listed under the Japan- Australia or China-Australia Migratory Birds Agreements. Total bird numbers recorded on the Camballin floodplain were 38,553 in May 1986 and 21,840 in March 1988. The Fitzroy River is probably one of the most important habitats in the region for Magpie goose and Whistling-duck (SA Halse, Dept. CALM, pers. Comm., in Storey et al. (2001)). In terms of numbers of birds, the Camballin floodplain is of national importance for Plumed whistling-duck, and of Western Australian importance for Pacific heron, Great egret, Intermediate egret, Glossy ibis, Magpie goose and Wood sandpiper. Even in drier years, the floodplain supports more than 20,000 waterbirds, meeting Ramsar criteria. Although the Camballin floodplain has been the focus of most studies, the floodplain is also extensive to the north of Noonkanbah, where the major wetlands are Mallallah and Sandhill Swamp. This area appears to provide similar habitat to the Camballin floodplain, although it has

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 29

been less well studied, and therefore should be considered as potentially important waterbird habitat (Storey et al., 2001). Other waterbird habitat includes numerous small wetlands on the floodplain, such as Lake Daley, south of Camballin (Storey et al., 2001).

Aquatic macroinvertebrates are considered to be particularly good indicators of ecosystem health. However, Storey et al. (2001) state that there is little known about the aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna of the Kimberley region in general, and even less of the Fitzroy River system. This knowledge gap was improved by the establishment of the Monitoring River Health Initiative (MRHI) in 1993, which developed a system of models for macroinvertebrate assemblages, known as the Australian River Assessment Scheme (AusRivAS), to be used to assess and monitor the ecological health of Australia’s rivers (Smith et al., 1998, 1999; Marchant et al., 1997). Samples of macroinvertebrates were collected from 188 reference (minimally disturbed) sites throughout Western Australia between 1994 and 1996. Twenty of these were in the Kimberley (Kay et al., 1999). In 1997, the First National Assessment of River Health (FNARH) collected macroinvertebrate data from across Australia to assess river health using the AusRivAS models. This sampled 14 sites within the Fitzroy River catchment, which are listed in Storey et al. (2001). This data provided a basis upon which to compare the Fitzroy River catchment with other catchments in the Kimberley and Pilbara regions, based upon the number of families recorded. However, Storey et al. (2001) assert that a more detailed survey conducted at the species level is required to determine the “distinctiveness” of the Fitzroy River macroinvertebrate fauna.

In terms of environmental disturbance, the construction of the barrage at Camballin has had significant environmental impacts due to alteration of natural flows and Morgan et al. (2005) showed that the Camballin Barrage presents a considerable barrier to fish migrations; a fishway was subsequently proposed to mitigate this problem.

The current status of knowledge of the specific ecological values of the Fitzroy River system, and the understanding of the role of groundwater in sustaining these are described in Section 5.2.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 30

2.7 History of Proposals to Use Water Resources of the Fitzroy River Valley The water resources of the Fitzroy River catchment (Figure 1) have received considerable attention since the 1950s as a potential water source to support various development opportunities (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). The Fitzroy Plan, prepared by the Public Works Department in 1964, was the earliest formal documentation of potential dam sites and overview of the irrigation potential of the Fitzroy Valley (in WAWA, 1993). The focus from the 1950s to 1980s was on the possibility of damming or diverting surface water for agriculture and hydro- electricity. The Camballin (or Fitzroy) Barrage (Figure 1) was constructed in the 1950s and opened in 1962 to support a large-scale rice irrigation scheme, and fodder crops, sorghum, oats and cotton were also trialed (see Section 2.5.2).

Further major interest in the water resources of the Fitzroy River came from Western Agricultural Industries Pty Ltd (WAI) in the late 1990s (Fitzroy Sub-region working discussion paper – March 2009). WAI proposed a dam on the Fitzroy at Dimond Gorge, as well as dams on the Margaret and Leopold Rivers. The proposal was to irrigate 225,000 ha of land south east of Broome to grow cotton. Strong opposition from the West Kimberley community to further impoundment of the Fitzroy River or its tributaries, and to broad scale irrigation of genetically modified cotton led WAI to abandon the proposal. WAI explored an alternative option to develop off-river storage and use groundwater. Again, strong opposition to the proposal, particularly from Traditional Owners who did not grant access for drilling, caused the proposal to be abandoned. The proposal generated a large amount of community concern about large scale developments and this continues to be a contentious issue in the Kimberley (Fitzroy Sub-region working discussion paper – March 2009). There have been an increasing number of proposals for diversification of pastoral lands in the Fitzroy Region, including development of small and medium-scale irrigated cattle fodder, timber plantations, horticultural crops, aquaculture, and small to medium scale tourism enterprises (Fitzroy Sub-region working discussion paper – March 2009).

Water resources of the Kimberley region have also attracted attention as a potential water supply for Perth (Allen et al., 1992; Pollard, 1993). An estimate of Allen et al. (1992) that the Fitzroy alluvium along the 50 km stretch of river valley upstream of Willare could yield 25 GL/yr, along with yield estimates for underlying Canning Basin aquifers, led to the conclusion that the Fitzroy valley contained “substantial reserves of groundwater”. The most recent proposal, ‘Kimberley water for Perth’

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 31

(Appleyard et al., 2006), proposed to transport water from the Fitzroy River via a canal or pipeline to Perth. An expert panel investigated various transport options and rejected all based purely on economic feasibility.

The interest in development led to the immediate area around Camballin being proclaimed a Groundwater Area in 1973 and incorporated into the Canning- Kimberley Groundwater Area in 1996 (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). The perceptions of a robust water resource, along with an identified lack of available information on the groundwater resources of the alluvial aquifer, led to a desktop study of the potential of the Fitzroy alluvium to supply between 50 and 200 GL/yr of water (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). Considerable work has been done in recent years that builds on this work and improves our understanding of the river hydrology, ecology and cultural ties to water resources, as described in subsequent chapters.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 32

3. Overview of Recent Work As discussed previously, Lindsay and Commander (2005) presented an evaluation of the water supply potential of the Fitzroy Alluvium. Their report also provided a synthesis of existing knowledge (at the time) of the regional hydrogeology and surface water – groundwater interactions. Considerable research has been completed since the study of Lindsay and Commander (2005), and this chapter outlines the most significant knowledge acquisition projects in chronological order. Key outcomes of these projects are summarized in the following sections and technical details are presented in later chapters of this report.

3.1 Hydrogeological Investigations

Northern Australia Sustainable Yields (2008-09) The Northern Australia Sustainable Yields (NASY) project was the second in a series of regional-scale water availability assessments in Australia, led by CSIRO with significant input from local experts. The geographical extent of the NASY project was all north-draining catchments from Broome to Cairns. Accordingly, these assessments were conducted at the drainage basin scale and provided regional estimates of surface water and groundwater availability under a range of potential future climate and water resource development scenarios.

For the Fitzroy region, in the Timor Sea Drainage Division, the NASY project provided an assessment of historical, recent and potential future climate, surface water availability and groundwater availability (CSIRO, 2009). It also identified key environmental assets and risks to their future water requirements. To assess groundwater availability and demand, the project collated contextual groundwater information including aquifer types, salinities, bore yields and current levels of allocation, some of which will be repeated in later sections of this report. Generally, the project found there was insufficient historical groundwater monitoring data and detailed hydrogeological investigations to make quantitative estimates of groundwater development potential. The report did however identify some constraints to development, most notably the potential for depletion of dry season river flows and permanent pools due to groundwater extraction from adjacent aquifers.

The project also modelled groundwater recharge rates under historical, recent and future climate scenarios (Crosbie et al. 2009). Results were reported as recharge scaling factors relative to simulated recharge under a historical climate scenario. For

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 33

several areas across northern Australia these rates were calibrated to existing field- based estimates of recharge, however this was not possible for the Fitzroy region due to a paucity of such data. Under future climate, the majority of the 45 simulated climate sequences resulted in predictions of an increase in recharge in 2030 relative to the historical record (1930-2007). There is a predicted increase in temperature and daily rainfall intensity, leading the modelling results to predict increased recharge under many future climate scenarios, even some that predicted a reduction in mean annual rainfall. This modelling assumed current vegetation cover, even though it is recognized that higher temperatures may result in changes to vegetation, which will impact recharge.

The NASY project also developed a new, but highly-simplified, numerical groundwater flow model for the Fitzroy alluvium, based on the conceptual model presented in Lindsay and Commander (2005) and the MODFLOW model developed therein. The purpose of the new model, which represented the river as a straight line, was to provide estimates of exchange fluxes between the river and alluvial aquifer and between the deeper Canning Basin aquifers and the alluvial aquifer. Due to a paucity of data, limited knowledge of processes, and the large number of simplifications and assumptions, the authors suggested the results of the numerical modelling had high uncertainty. This led to use of an analytical solutions to undertake hypothetical assessments of potential stream flow depletion and bore interference due to pumping (see section 4.3.4).

Fitzroy River integrated ground and surface water hydrology assessment (2008-11) This project was led by the Department of Water with funding provided by National Water Commission under the Raising National Water Standards (RNWS) program. The project provided a baseline water resources assessment of the Fitzroy River floodplain, focusing on surface water – groundwater interactions. It also enabled two other major projects to run in parallel, providing complementary datasets and improved knowledge. Both of these parallel projects were led by CSIRO, and are discussed subsequently.

One of the earliest achievements of the DoW/RNWS project was the construction of nine shallow monitoring bores (piezometers) in three nested locations near the Fitzroy River on Noonkanbah Station. Although these bores were only monitored and sampled during the course of the project, such dedicated monitoring infrastructure is otherwise rare in the region. Therefore they provide an opportunity for future monitoring and investigation.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 34

Another valuable output from the DoW/RNWS project was an independent bore database, which was developed from multiple sources including the Department’s WIN and licensing database, field visits to several pastoral stations, and hard copy reports provided by Kimberley Regional Service Providers (KRSP) (L. Stelfox, pers. comm. April 2015). In addition, numerous published reports on water supply bores in aboriginal communities were obtained from the Global Groundwater website. Despite the collation of some new information in this database, it had not been incorporated into the WIN database at the time of preparing this report.

Surface water – groundwater interactions in the lower Fitzroy River, WA (2008-11) A suite of field-based groundwater research projects was initiated in early 2008, initially to provide a hydrogeological framework for a major Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) project on indigenous values and river flows (see section 3.3). A reconnaissance water chemistry sampling campaign was undertaken by CSIRO – under the auspices of TRaCK – along the Fitzroy River in May 2008 (Doble et al. 2010) to shed light on the spatial variability of groundwater discharge to the river. In the following year, the same CSIRO project collaborated with the Department through their DoW/RNWS project to install the nine nested piezometers on Noonkanbah Station. These bores were designed to allow better characterisation of the hydrochemistry of the shallow groundwater systems, as well as enable monitoring of groundwater levels in response to flood flows during the wet season. The new insights provided by these preliminary investigations led the way for a CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship funded project to resample the river in significantly more detail in May 2010. It also collected and analysed groundwater samples from regional bores. The final component of this suite of research projects was a collaborative effort between CSIRO and the DoW/RNWS project to acquire and interpret an airborne electromagnetic (AEM) survey (summarised below).

The methods, results and interpretations from these surface water – groundwater investigations are described in detail in Harrington et al. (2011), which is the key reference used for section 4.3.2 of this report. However the main findings that are relevant to the current Water for Food project can be summarised as follows. Dry season river flows and, by inference, the persistence of in-stream pools along the Fitzroy River are controlled almost entirely by groundwater discharge. The spatial and temporal variability and mechanisms of groundwater discharge are complex. While bank storage return flow is likely to be important immediately following high river flow events, regional groundwater discharge is thought to be responsible for sustaining flows long into the dry season. In the main river reach studied, which was

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 35

between Jubilee Downs and Liveringa stations, two major groundwater discharge zones were identified. The first zone is around the confluence with the Cunningham Anabranch, where river water chemistry and the AEM survey support a conceptual model of more saline regional groundwater flow in the Liveringa Group on-lapping the less permeable units of the Liveringa Group and the Noonkanbah Formation and rising into the river (Figure 12). The second zone is through Noonkanbah Station upstream of Yungngora Community. Again, river water hydrochemistry and the AEM survey provided critical information on the mechanism of this discharge, with the deep Poole Sandstone aquifer being the most probable source of very old, low- salinity groundwater discharge that enters the river via large geological faults.

Figure 12 Summary of modelled groundwater discharge fluxes into the Fitzroy River, and a schematic hydrogeological cross-section interpreted from the AEM survey (from Harrington et al. 2013).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 36

Modelling of river water chemistry indicated that groundwater discharge over the 100 kilometre study reach was about 102 ML/day, comprising about 3.7 ML/day from the regional aquifers (Harrington et al., 2013). Whilst the regional contribution seems minor, it accounted for almost 30% of total discharge in some reaches (Figure 12b).

Future groundwater management in the lower Fitzroy River valley needs to protect the river flows from the start to middle of the dry season, as well as the persistence of in-stream pools towards the end of the dry season. The series of research projects outlined above has shown that the nature of surface water-groundwater connectivity in this region is complex and therefore further knowledge is required to underpin the sustainable development and meaningful management of both the surface water and groundwater resources.

Regional AEM Survey An airborne geophysical survey was conducted in the lower Fitzroy River valley in October 2010 (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011). The survey comprised a total 274 line kilometres, and flight lines focused mainly along the course of the Fitzroy River downstream of Fitzroy Crossing to just upstream of Willare (Figure 6). The primary objectives of the survey were to map the extent and salinity of alluvial aquifers, and to obtain improved knowledge of the deeper geological structure. The results were extremely informative, particularly for conceptualising regional groundwater flow and surface water-groundwater interactions along the river, as highlighted in the previous project overview and shown by way of example in Figure 13.

3.2 Ecological

Northern Australia Sustainable Yields (2008-09) The NASY project described in Section 3.1 included an assessment of changes to flow regimes at shortlisted environmental assets under future climate scenarios. The shortlisted wetlands were taken from a list of Wetlands of National Significance (Environment Australia, 2001). The environmental assets that were shortlisted within the study area of the current project were Camballin Floodplain (Le Lievre Swamp System) and Geikie Gorge. The other Wetland of National Significance that was located within the current study area was Tunnel Creek.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 37

Figure 13 Example of interpreted AEM depth section ‘12a-12b’ through Mount Anderson, showing highly contrasting conductivities for different stratigraphic units (Source: Fitzpatrick et al. 2011).

Although some predictions were made about the changes to flows at Camballin Floodplain and Geikie Gorge under future climate, CSIRO (2009) assert that the ecological water requirements of these assets are yet to be determined and that many environmental assets depend on triggers as well as flows and duration for reproduction or migration (i.e. the rate of change of flow). Additionally, some environmental assets depend on events that occur less frequently than annually.

Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment (2008-12) The Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment (NAWFA) was a five-year multi- disciplinary project that developed “an enduring knowledge base” of the water resources of northern Australia and the associated water requirements of key ecosystems, community and cultural assets (Close et al., 2012). It synthesized existing knowledge and incorporated new data and interpretation to identify risks of climate change and future development on these water-dependent assets. The geographical extent of NAWFA was the same at that of NASY, although the Fitzroy River catchment was not one of the 15 focus catchments. The focus was on all types of aquatic ecological assets. However, in its conclusions, the study emphasizes (a) the importance of groundwater to northern Australian aquatic ecosystems, through its dry-season maintenance of baseflow in perennial rivers (e.g. the Daly River, NT), and permanent refuges on floodplains and river channels of ephemeral systems (e.g. the

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 38

Fitzroy River), and (b) the role of groundwater recharge as ecological triggers in northern Australia is largely unknown.

Despite the Fitzroy River catchment not being a focus in NAWFA, two new knowledge projects were undertaken in this region. The first of these used a remote sensing approach to study the formation, persistence and loss of in-stream pools, which are obviously important as ecological refugia and have significant cultural values. The approach used a combination of LiDAR, LandSat and Ikonos data to map pools as they started to form during the dry season, providing important insights to the number and size of pools. The same methodology was applied to the Daly River (NT) and Mitchell River (QLD). Not surprisingly, the authors found that the size of the preceding wet season had an impact on the rate at which pools formed in the Fitzroy River (Figure 14). However, the number of pools late in the wet season was independent of wet season flows, which reemphasizes the importance of groundwater discharge for maintaining these pools (Close et al., 2012).

The second aspect of NAWFA that provided new knowledge for the Fitzroy River was the development of a hydrodynamic model to understand the nature and timing of floodwater connectivity between the main river and up to thirty wetlands. This study found that the duration of river-wetland connectivity ranges from 1-40 days per flood, and is mainly a function of topography and distance from the river. The authors also found a relationship between connectivity and duration of floodplain inundation (Close et al., 2012).

Despite the Fitzroy not being a focus catchment for the NAWFA project, there were a number of general findings in terms of the potential impacts on riverine ecological assemblages due to changes in surface water flows and groundwater levels that would be applicable to the Fitzroy River.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 39

Figure 14 Development and loss of pools in the Fitzroy River through three different dry seasons (from Close et al. 2012). X-axis represents calendar day of the year, and dashed lines represent wet season discharge at Fitzroy Barrage.

Northern Australia Aquatic Ecological Assets Project (2011) This project, summarized by Kennard (2011), was also undertaken as part of NAWFA and was specifically tasked with identifying key aquatic ecological assets in northern Australia. The three phases of the project were:

Phase 1. Contributions to the Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review (2009): This assessed the impact of development alternatives on northern Australian aquatic ecosystems and aquatic biodiversity. Some broad conclusions were that (a) there is a range of key threats to aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia, including groundwater extraction for irrigation and domestic / urban uses; (b) environmental drivers for aquatic ecosystems is a critical knowledge gap; (c) most ecological studies to date have considered singular pressures on ecosystems, but environmental problems are often the cumulative effects of multiple stressors, and climate change should be considered as one of these; (d) there is a lack of detailed knowledge of the spatial distribution of risks and threats to ecological assets in northern Australian rivers; and (e) there is an urgent need for scientific field studies that investigate cause-and-effect relationships, including multiple stressors.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 40

Phase 2. Broad-scale assessment and prioritization of aquatic ecological assets across northern Australia: This aimed to identify key aquatic ecological assets in northern Australia and trialed a draft framework to identify High Conservation Value Aquatic Ecosystems (HCVAEs). Geodatabases containing aquatic ecosystem mapping, classifications, all HCVAE attributes, metadata and attribute tables were produced for the Australian Government (DSEWPaC). Several planning units in the Fitzroy River Basin were identified as HCVAEs. These planning units included the following named hydrosystems: Jordan Pool, Lake Alma, Lake Skeleton, Lulika Pool, Minnie River, Tragedy Pool, Snake Creek, Nine Mile Pool, Six Mile Creek, Loongadda Pool, Six Mile Pool, Troy’s Lagoon, Mount Wynne Creek, Coogabing Pool, Rocky Hole and the Fitzroy River itself. As part of the current review, the locations of these hydrosystems have been transferred to a Google Earth framework to provide an understanding of their spatial distribution. The planning unit containing Jordan Pool, Lake Alma, Lake Skeleton, Lulika Pool, Minnie River and the Fitzroy River itself was listed as a HCVAE of potential national significance. This planning unit is located just upstream of Willare.

Phase 3. Fine-scale assessment and prioritization of regional aquatic ecosystem assets: This consisted of a series of workshops across the study area, including the Kimberley portion of the Timor Sea Drainage Division, to identify Natural Heritage Values of wetlands in northern Australia. Fine-scale assessments were carried out in key focal regions or catchments to identify high priority ecological assets and ecological thresholds. Sixteen high conservation assets were identified in the Fitzroy Catchment through this process, including mid and upper catchment spring-fed tributaries and wetlands, large permanent dry season refugia on the Fitzroy main channel, and floodplain water holes and swamps.

3.3 Cultural ties to water resources Indigenous people have strong social and cultural ties to the Fitzroy and Margaret rivers, as well as numerous creeks and billabongs. They have always valued the rivers for supplying bush foods and medicines, as well as being important cultural and heritage features of the landscape. More recently, the indigenous people of the lower Fitzroy River valley recognise the potential of the Fitzroy River and underlying groundwater resources to support future water-related business and employment opportunities (Poelina and Perdrisat, 2011).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 41

Indigenous socio-economic values and river flows (2008-10) This TRaCK project was undertaken between 2008-2010 in parallel with many of the other projects synthesized in this chapter. A number of interrelated activities were undertaken including indigenous aquatic resource use mapping, household surveys of aquatic resource harvesting and consumption, recording indigenous social stories and cultural values, and capturing ecological knowledge through the development of seasonal calendars (Jackson et al., 2011). The project team worked in both the Fitzroy River and Daly River (NT), however only the outcomes for the Fitzroy component of the project are reported here. In the Fitzroy catchment, this involved working with residents from the communities of Bayulu, Bungardi, Darlgunya, Junjuwa, Ngurtuwarta, Muludja and Noonkanbah. This represented engagement with Bunuba, Gooniyandi, Walmajarri and Nyikina-Mangala language groups.

River-use mapping revealed that harvesting trips were spread along the rivers, and that more than 70% of all trips throughout the year were to the main river channel. The remainder of trips were to creeks and billabongs, most of which tend to dry up during the dry season. At the height of the wet season, Fitzroy residents tend to focus on catching Barramundi and Catfish from the river at locations where flooding creeks run in to the main channel. Across all seasons, the five most commonly harvested species were Bony Bream, Spangled Perch, Black Bream, Catfish and Cherabin (freshwater prawn). In all cases, the quantity consumed by each household was always less than the harvested quantity, reflecting the customary tradition of sharing catch with other households and communities. Hence, there is a strong social dependence on species availability.

The economic value of aquatic resource harvesting by indigenous communities is difficult to estimate as none of the species are currently traded in a market. However, in the surveyed households the estimated replacement value for the resources consumed equated to 2.9% of the median household income. This further emphasizes the need for indigenous communities to maintain a customary economy, particularly if future water resources development has a detrimental impact on species availability.

Seasonal calendars are based on indigenous knowledge of plants and animals that become available and are harvested in different seasons of the year. Seasonal indicators including temperature, wind direction and river flows, as well as ecological clues such as flowering or fruiting plants, signal when fishing or hunting for specific species should commence. Ecological and hydrogeological knowledge of

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 42

expert Gooniyandi Aboriginal language speakers was recorded over an 18 month period via small meetings on country during hunting, gathering or fishing trips. This knowledge was collated into a seasonal calendar, relating aquatic species to their preferred habitats over the annual seasonal climate cycle (Davis et al. 2011).

Comparison of Knowledge Bases One of the key challenges facing water resources management in northern Australia is how to incorporate indigenous ecological knowledge, in particular the knowledge that relates aquatic species availability and condition to hydrological conditions and habitat. Liedloff et al. (2013) developed a novel approach to integrate the seasonal eco-hydrological knowledge of a group of expert Gooniyandi Aboriginal language speakers, as captured in their seasonal calendar, with the hydrogeological knowledge gained through the suite of projects described in section 3.1 of this report. Using a Bayesian Network approach, the study found that potential future changes to the flow regime of the Fitzroy River due to surface water diversion or groundwater extraction may have significant and variable impact on the ability to catch different aquatic species (Figure 15). For example, such development may reduce the ability to catch high value aquatic food species such as Barramundi and Sawfish toward the end of the dry season, but improve the ability to catch Black Bream at the start of the dry/cold season.

Figure 15 The Bayesian Network developed to integrate expert Gooniyandi ecological knowledge with western scientific hydrogeological knowledge (from Liedloff et a., 2013).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 43

4. Knowledge of the Groundwater Systems This section summarises the current state of knowledge about the groundwater systems in the study area.

4.1 Regional Aquifers

4.1.1 Overview

Data Sources Lindsay and Commander (2005) provide a range of references that comprise a history of investigations into the regional aquifers of the Canning Basin. The Noonkanbah Map sheet (Crowe and Towner, 1981) also provides a good reference for the geology of the region. A recent update to the geological map is a slight change to the extent of the Liveringa Formation in the vicinity of the Fitzroy River near the confluence with the Cunningham Anabranch (Harrington et al., 2011).

One of the first regional groundwater surveys in the region consisted of a census of pastoral bores during the development of the first regional geological map (various references in Lindsay and Commander (2005)). Other sources of information on the groundwater system include drilling activities carried out for dam site investigations, drilling for groundwater supplies at Fitzroy Crossing, Noonkanbah, and other small communities, and a diamond mine at Ellendale (see Lindsay and Commander (2005) for references). The regional aquifers are used for the municipal water supplies at the major centres of Derby, Fitzroy Crossing and Broome, and drilling at these locations has provided some of useful information on the regional hydrogeology. The DoW/RNWS project identified over 300 bores in the lower Fitzroy valley that are used for stock and Aboriginal Community water supplies (DoW, 2012). Several consultants’ reports provide insight to the hydrogeology around these water supplies and have been used to provide contextual information in the relevant sections below. Bores are generally shallow and so only penetrate to the tops of aquifers where they are unconfined, limiting the amount of information available on the regional aquifers (CSIRO, 2009). There are a number of dedicated monitoring bores in the study area, as described in the following sections. However, these are currently not being actively monitored by the DoW. The only long-term monitoring bores in the region are associated with Broome’s water supply and lie outside the study area.

More recently, Buru Energy (2013) carried out detailed hydrogeological investigations in the Yulleroo (approx. 80 km west of Willare) and Valhalla-Asgard

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 44

(see Figure 11) areas. This work included measurements of water levels in four suspended exploration wells (Table 1) and numerous WIN bores plus the use of existing data from the WIN database. The petroleum wells penetrate to the Laurel Formation (Figure 7), but most monitoring bores intersected the Liveringa and Noonkanbah Formations, with two in the Poole Sandstone and a few wells in the Blina Shale. Stratigraphic information from geological logs of the suspended petroleum wells (Table 2) was used to create two dimensional cross sections of the aquifer. The results of the hydrogeological investigation are presented in Appendix D-1 of Buru Energy (2013).

Table 1 Buru Energy suspended petroleum wells in the Yulleroo and Paradise-Valhalla area (from Buru Energy, 2013).

Well Site Easting Northing Existing Well Month Drilling Total Depth (m) Completed Yulleroo Area Yulleroo 3 488510 8026425 3,712 June 2012 Yulleroo 4 487081 8028803 3,846 March 2013 Valhalla and Asgard Area Valhalla North 1 683112 8006105 3,344 Feb 2012 Asgard 1 714726 7981294 3,524 Oct 2012

Table 2 Formation characteristics and elevations in the Buru Energy petroleum wells in the Paradise- Valhalla area (Buru Energy, 2013).

Formation Dominant Classification Elevation – Base of Formation TDS Lithology (m AHD) (mg/L) Valhalla 2 Valhalla N Asgard 1 Liveringa Carbonate/ Minor aquifer, -84 -196 -171 500-12,400 shale aquitard Noonkanbah Shale Aquiclude -441 -635 -579 550-800 Poole Sandstone Aquifer or -524 -715 -695 300 Sandstone and shale aquitard Grant Group Sandstone Aquifer -1332 -1499 -1240 800-1,000* Reeves Sandstone Aquifer -1588 -1826 -1606 Anderson Sandstone, Minor aquifer, -1858 -2105 -1790 70,000- siltstone, aquitard 100,000? shale Laurel Limestone, Minor aquifer, <-3350 <-3241 <-3,400 70,000- shale, aquitard 100,000? siltstone and sandstone *TDS estimate is derived from from resistivity logs.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 45

Recharge and Discharge In a very broad regional sense, the Canning Basin aquifers are thought to be recharged following extended periods of intense rainfall in the Great Sandy Desert, to the south of the study area, with this occurring most effectively where the units sub-crop or outcrop. Locally, rainfall in the Fitzroy region is highly variable and decreases away from the coast (CSIRO, 2009). Rainfall recharge is therefore thought to occur less frequently in inland areas of the Fitzroy region than near the coast, and is likely to only occur following very large rainfall events that result in pooling of water (to overcome soil moisture deficit). This would probably occur in depressions or along drainage lines and again be most effective where units subcrop or outcrop (CSIRO, 2009). Fresher groundwater salinities do occur at shallow depths in the vicinity of the Fitzroy Alluvium and it is thought that the floodwaters that recharge the alluvial aquifers may penetrate some of the Canning Basin aquifers (CSIRO, 2009).

The Fitzroy alluvium is likely to be a significant discharge zone for the regional aquifers (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). Larger scale through-flow and discharge to the Indian Ocean is also likely.

Aquifer Connectivity and Storage Most of the aquifers in the study area can be either confined or unconfined, depending on their location. Both upward and downward leakage is thought to occur between aquifers, with artesian conditions believed to occur along the coast (Laws, 1990). Horizontal and vertical gradients between the aquifers and rivers are likely to be reversed in the wet season compared with the dry season (CSIRO, 2009). Table 3 summarises the only previous estimate of groundwater storage for the Canning Basin aquifers.

Groundwater Quality Groundwater salinities in the Canning Basin aquifers are highly variable, and dependent on recharge conditions, geology, distance along flow path, etc (Table 4). Salinities are generally lower where units outcrop or subcrop and where they are recharged by high river levels (CSIRO, 2009). Groundwater salinity generally increases with depth (Laws, 1990).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 46

Table 3 Estimated volume of groundwater storage in the Canning Basin (Laws, 1990 in CSIRO, 2009).

Formation Area Saturated Saturated Specific Yield Stored Water* Thickness Volume Km2 m TL TL Broome 40,000 100 4,000 0.2 800 Sandstone Alexander Fm 100,000 20 2,000 0.05 100 Wallal 105,000 250 26,000 0.2 5,200 Sandstone Erskine 2,800 100 280 0.2 56 Sandstone Liveringa 65,000 150 9,800 0.05 490 Group Triwhite 40,000 20 800 0.05 40 Sandstone Poole 260,000 100 26,000 0.2 5,200 Sandstone Grant Group 350,000 1,000 350,000 0.1 35,000 Total 46,446 * Note that the volume of water available for sustainable abstraction is likely to be a small fraction of the total volume of water in storage in the aquifer.

Table 4 Range of typical groundwater salinities in the Canning Basin aquifers (CSIRO, 2009; after Lindsay and Commander, 2005).

Aquifer Salinity Range (mg/L) Wallal Sandstone (unconfined) < 1,000 Wallal Sandstone (confined) 2,000 Wallal Sandstone (west of Willare) 2,800 – 3,800 Blina Shale (Willare Bridge Roadhouse) 1,100 Blina Shale (regional) 7,000 – 10,000 Liveringa Group 500 – 3,000 Liveringa Group (west towards Willare) 7,000 Noonkanbah Formation >1,000 Grant Group and Poole Sandstone (Ellendale) 300 Grant Group and Poole Sandstone (regional) 500 – 2,000

Crowe and Towner (1981) provide a table of groundwater salinities for bores completed in different aquifers on each station. Although that table is missing geographical coordinates for the bores, this information would be a useful addition to the WIN database if the bore locations could be identified.

CSIRO (2009) provide a map of groundwater salinity for the Fitzroy Region, providing a broad spatial overview. However, the value of this map is limited in that it doesn’t indicate what aquifers the salinity measurements relate to.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 47

This review has collated all groundwater salinity records stored in the WIN database, summarizing the results in Table 5 and displaying the data spatially in Figure 16 for each aquifer. These data demonstrate that the number of bores recorded in WIN as having salinity information is insignificant compared to the total number of 2046 known bores in the region. As will be shown in the remainder of this report, there are multiple sources of additional information on groundwater chemistry and salinity for each of the main aquifers, many of which post-date the range indicated in Table 5. Nevertheless, the basic statistics on salinity provide insights as to the general characteristics of each aquifer, and the data presented in Figure 16 shows the spatial variability.

Recently, full chemical analyses have been carried out on ten bores in the Valhalla- Paradise area by Buru Energy (2013), including major and trace chemistry, organics, physical parameters, bacteria, hydrocarbons, and radionuclides on selected bores. The results of this investigation are included in Appendix II of Appendix D-1 in Buru Energy (2013).

Table 5 Summary of the groundwater salinity data included in the WIN database.

No. No. Date range TDS range Mean TDS Median TDS Records bores (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Quaternary 37 25 1965 - 1998 100 - 8970 815 248 Wallal Sst. / 255 102 1961 - 1989 90 - 28600 1091 521 Erskine Sst. Liveringa 148 102 1929 - 1987 90 - 15900 2188 1310 Group Poole Sst. / 147 93 1953 - 1987 45 - 28052 1121 390 Grant Group Devonian- 22 18 1939 - 1987 120 - 1230 420 373 Carboniferous Other / 197 127 1909 - 1989 30 - 20000 830 370 Unknown

4.1.2 Devonian Limestone The Devonian limestone mainly occurs in north-east of the study area, on the Lennard Shelf (Figure 6). Most notable outcrops of this formation occur at Winjana and Geikie Gorges. There have been several geological studies of the limestone (e.g. Playford and Lowry, (1966)). The total thickness of the Devonian Reef complexes below the Fairfield Group is greater than 2,000 m (Crowe and Towner, 1981). The Devonian Limestone contains a number of limestone and dolomite members that are interbedded with siltstones and have varying degrees of karst development

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 48

(Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd, 2011). Monitoring in various mining areas suggests that the groundwater system in the upper karstic limestone is laterally continuous (Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd, 2011). The majority of the information on the Devonian Pillara Limestone comes from Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd (2011), who report on monitoring of the decommissioned Pillara Lead and Zinc Mine, which is located in this aquifer just to the south east of Gogo Station. In particular, they provide standing water level data for monitoring wells.

Groundwater Recharge Recharge to the Devonian Limestone is thought to be dominated by rainfall entering solution features at the surface and possibly throughflow from adjacent fractured rock aquifers (CSIRO, 2009). Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd (2011) support the theory of rapid recharge to the aquifer via direct infiltration of rainfall-runoff, describing the results of ongoing monitoring of standing water levels in monitoring bores in the Cadjebut area. The monitoring confirms that significant rainfall recharge occurs as a result of heavy rainfall events, which have occurred historically about every two years and result in recharge of up to 40% of rainfall.

Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd (2011) suggest that the Permian sandstone, when in hydraulic contact with the limestone, may provide groundwater storage for this recharge because of its higher primary porosity.

Groundwater Flow and Discharge There is little information available on groundwater flow and discharge in the Devonian Limestone, besides the fact that regional discharge occurs towards the south-west, with local discharge to Fitzroy River (CSIRO, 2009). It is thought that the aquifer discharges to the Fitzroy River throughout the dry season in most years (CSIRO, 2009).

Groundwater Residence Times There is no information available on groundwater residence times in the Devonian limestone. One groundwater sample collected from the vicinity of the decommissioned Pillara Mine by Harrington et al. (2011) was analysed for 14C and

SF6, but the results of these analyses are considered to be unreliable as an indicator of groundwater age due to the recent flooding of mine shafts.

15 May 2015

Figure 16 Groundwater salinity for bores completed in each aquifer, as recorded in the WIN database.

Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 50

Aquifer Properties The Devonian limestone is known to contain karstic features, so aquifer characteristics are likely to be highly variable. However, this has not been investigated in detail (CSIRO, 2009). Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd (2011) provide long-term records of dewatering rates and drawdowns and recoveries during operation, plus long term recovery of water levels following cessation of mine dewatering 28 July 2008. A rise in groundwater level of approximately 750 m occurred between the cessation of dewatering in July 2008 and August 2010.This could be used to obtain aquifer properties. Results of water level monitoring in 9 regional bores around the mine operation are also provided.

Bore Yields and Salinities Besides the small amount of groundwater salinity data available in the WIN database (Table 5), there is little data on the Devonian limestone. The only information identified through this study was as follows:

(1) GoGo Station Production Bores Usage Reports (March 2013 and May 2012), which reported that 249 ML had been pumped from the aquifer (one bore) between Jan 2012-Jan 2013. The reports provide full water chemistry analyses, with EC reported to be 307-421 mg/L (n=4). Results of groundwater level monitoring of 13 bores between July 2009 and March 2013 are given. Bores range in depth from 20 m to 145 m and the depths to water in these bores ranged between about 1 m and 15 m, with water levels rising by approximately 1-5 m over the measurement timeframe. The exception was the bore at 145 m depth, in which the water level rose by approximately 20 m. (2) Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd (2011) provide some good water quality data from the Pillara Mine, including the underground workings, tailings storage facility (TSF) and a potable water supply, sampled in November 2010 and May 2011. Groundwater TDS around the TSF ranged from 6,800 mg/L to 15,300 mg/L. The TDS of water discharging from the underground mine workings (as the groundwater level has increased following cessation of mine dewatering) ranges from 1,900 mg/L to 4,500 mg/L in 2011.

4.1.3 Fairfield Group The only useful information that this review has identified for groundwater flow characteristics or aquifer properties of the Fairfield Group is for the Valhalla-Asgard area being targeted by Buru Engery. Rockwater (2013) provides a synthesis of the existing knowledge and recently acquired data, including water chemistry analyses

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 51

for all aquifers at the project sites. The bores drilled by Buru Energy target the Laurel Formation in the Fairfield Group, which is located below 2000 m depth. Standing water levels in these bores are between 72 m and 95 m below ground. The Laurel Formation is reported as being hyper-saline in this area (70,000 – 100,000 mg/L TDS), which is perhaps not surprising given that it is found beyond 2000 m depth, however, measured salinities in the bores range between 950 mg/L and 2,500 mg/L, probably because the bores are completed across multiple formations.

4.1.4 Poole Sandstone and Grant Group The Poole Sandstone lies directly above the Grant Group and the two are considered to be hydrogeologically similar, regarded as good aquifers because of their combined thickness and widespread distribution. They are found in anticlinal structures and towards the east of the study area, at Gogo and Fitzroy Crossing (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). The Grant Group consists of three aquifers (youngest to oldest): the fine and medium to coarse sandstone Carolyn Formation, the Winifred Formation siltstone, and the fine to coarse sandstone Betty Formation (Ghassemi et al., 1991).

According to Apak (1996), “There is a marked contrast in the Upper Grant Group between the western and Southern parts of the St George Ranges. In the western part, sandstones are more common whereas in the southern area finer sediments including shale and siltstone occur.”

The Poole Sandstone has two members: the Nura Nura Member, and the overlying Tuckfield Member (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). The Nura Nura Member comprises fine sandstone with minor mudstone in the middle section. It is observed most extensively in the anticlinal structures of the Grant Range and the St George Ranges (Figure 1). The Nura Nura Member thins out to the east. The Tuckfield Member also comprises mostly thinly bedded fine sandstone. It forms rounded hills and is a good aquifer (Lindsay and Commander, 2005).

Buru energy geophysical logs for petroleum wells in the Valhalla-Paradise area (Figure 11) indicate that there is interbedded shale and sandstone in the Poole Sandstone, and that the Grant Group is much thicker than the Poole Sandstone in that location. The Poole Sandstone is also the most significant groundwater-bearing unit in the area of the proposed Duchess Paradise coal mine (Rey Resources, 2014) (Figure 11). There, it comprises fine-grained, well sorted and poorly cemented quartz sandstone. The Duchess Paradise coal mine project proposes to meet some of its site water requirements by extracting from the Poole Sandstone.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 52

Groundwater Recharge Recharge to the Grant Group aquifers is inferred to take place in outcrop areas of the Grant and St George Ranges, and on the northern margin of the Canning Basin, as well as from the Fitzroy River (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). The total size of these areas is relatively small, so recharge is probably fairly low (Buru Energy, 2013). Elsewhere, the aquifers are confined by the Noonkanbah Formation. It is likely that there is recharge from these to the Grant Group in some areas and discharge in others. Runoff from the Devonian Limestone of the Oscar Range may also provide recharge to the Grant Group in some areas, such as Ellendale (Buru Energy, 2013).

Groundwater Flow and Discharge Harrington et al. (2011) identified groundwater discharge from the Poole Sandstone to the Fitzroy River, probably via the alluvial aquifer, just south east of Noonkanbah. Here, the aquifer is artesian, with around 2-3 m head difference between the Poole Sandstone and the overlying river and alluvial aquifer. There is also a series of north- south trending faults at the location of the inferred discharge (Fitzpatrick et al., 2011), providing preferential pathways for the deep, regional groundwater from the Poole Sandstone to discharge upwards. This is discussed further in Section 4.3.

Groundwater Residence Times Harrington et al. (2011) provide apparent groundwater ages, derived from 14C activities, between 21,353 yrs and 31,014 yrs for three groundwater bores screened in the Poole Sandstone (bores 1_96, San Miguel and Big Moana). One sample collected from the Grant Formation at Jarlmadangah Burr had an apparent age of 10,691 yrs.

Aquifer Properties There is a range of information on aquifer properties of the Grant Group and Poole Sandstone, scattered through various reports (Table 6). At Fitzroy Crossing, the sandstone unit of the Grant Group is strongly cemented and generally has low permeability. Reasonable yields can only be obtained from bores that intersect fractures and joints (DoW, 2008, in Buru Energy (2013)).

15 May 2015

Table 6 Summary of aquifer property data for the Grant Group and Poole Sandstone.

Estimated Value Location Source Comment Transmissivity (m2/d) <152 (K < 25 m/d) Fitzroy River Lodge Global Groundwater (2005) Grant Group 115-525 Fitzroy Crossing Water Corporation bores Grant Group. Several bores. 6 – 10.5 Duchess-Paradise mine site Letter from GRM to Rey Poole Sandstone, north and west of the Duchess and Paradise deposits (K = 0.14 to 0.25 m/d) Resources, 11 May 2011 respectively (101-149 m below ground). SWL available. 110 Liveringa Station Australian Groundwater Bore Agricon No. 1. From a brief 6 hr constant rate pump test. Consultants (1971) in URS (2010) K of approx. 10 – 15 m/d, Ss = 0.001. Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d) 1.2 – 20 (average=8) Ellendale mine site Buru Energy, 2013 Grant Group. These values are associated with primary porosity. 0.3 Duchess-Paradise mine site Rey Resources (2014) Poole Sandstone. Fine-grained, poorly cemented quartz sandstone. Confined by Noonkanbah Fm (KH 9 x 10-4 m/d) Permeability (m/d) 0.1 ? Ghassemi et al. (1991) in Buru Grant Group Energy (2013) Data from drill core and side-wall cores from petroleum wells

0.08 – 4 Range of locations Buru Energy (2013) From summary of available data. Average 0.43 Some higher values (8 – 20 m/d) from pump tests at Ellendale. Porosity (%) 11 ? Ghassemi et al. (1991) in Buru Grant Group Energy (2013) Data from drill core and side-wall cores from petroleum wells. 15 - 25 Range of locations Buru Energy (2013) From analysis of a range of data Average 18

Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 54

Bore yields and salinities A number of town and Community water supply bores are completed in the Poole Sandstone and Grant Group, all providing data on bore yields, historical groundwater abstraction, hydrographs, salinities and other water quality data. Bore yield and salinity data identified through this current review are summarized in Information collected during drilling at the proposed Duchess Paradise coal mine site (Figure 11) suggests that the Noonkanbah Formation at that location has a very low hydraulic conductivity, confining the underlying Poole Sandstone and isolating it from the overlying Lightjack Formation in the Liveringa Group (Rey Resources, 2014). The formation comprises mainly shale with minor fine-grained sandstone at that location and is thought to be 400 to 450 m thick.

Table 7. However, overall, there are still few bores completed in the Grant Group and Poole Sandstone because the formations predominantly outcrop in rugged areas of the catchment and otherwise occur at depth.

The Camballin town water supply is from the Poole Sandstone (Water Corporation, 2014) and the community bores at Yungngora (Noonkanbah) are completed in the Poole Sandstone (PB, 2009c). The Junjuwa Community average daily abstraction from the Grant Group is 210.9 m3/day from two bores, and the Bayulu Community average daily abstraction is 358 m3/day from two bores, probably also screened in the Grant Formation. The town water supply at Fitzroy Crossing is obtained from the Grant Group, although bores with good yields are reportedly difficult to find in that area (DoW, 2008). Here, three production bores have a licensed allocation of 300 ML/yr (Water Corporation, 2013). A fourth bore was decommissioned in November 2009 due to dieldrin contamination. Water Corporation (2013) provide data from 2008 to 2013, including: the recommended and average pump rates for the 2012-13 water year, bore water levels, which show little change throughout the year, and full chemistry monitoring data. Water Corporation (2008) contains graphs of water level and salinity in production bores at Fitzroy Crossing from 1998-2008.

Information on the Fitzroy River Lodge water supply, also obtained from the Grant Group, is provided by Global Groundwater (2005). They provide drilling and pump test analyses for the Fitzroy River Lodge bores, as well as bore details, salinities and full chemistry data.

In general, groundwater in the Grant Group and Poole Sandstone has low salinity (Lindsay and Commander, 2005; Information collected during drilling at the

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 55

proposed Duchess Paradise coal mine site (Figure 11) suggests that the Noonkanbah Formation at that location has a very low hydraulic conductivity, confining the underlying Poole Sandstone and isolating it from the overlying Lightjack Formation in the Liveringa Group (Rey Resources, 2014). The formation comprises mainly shale with minor fine-grained sandstone at that location and is thought to be 400 to 450 m thick.

Table 7). Geophysical logs of oil exploration wells indicate that these low salinities persist with depth.

4.1.5 Noonkanbah Formation The Noonkanbah Formation is generally thought of as an aquitard, comprising siltstone, limestone and minor sandstone, 310-415 m thick (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). It has a wide distribution but is poorly exposed. It does outcrop in the river at Noonkanbah Crossing, where it comprises fine sandstone, siltstone and shale. A few pastoral bores produce from it, but the groundwater is predominantly brackish to saline.

Information collected during drilling at the proposed Duchess Paradise coal mine site (Figure 11) suggests that the Noonkanbah Formation at that location has a very low hydraulic conductivity, confining the underlying Poole Sandstone and isolating it from the overlying Lightjack Formation in the Liveringa Group (Rey Resources, 2014). The formation comprises mainly shale with minor fine-grained sandstone at that location and is thought to be 400 to 450 m thick.

Table 7 Summary of bore yield and salinity data for the Poole Sandstone and Grant Group aquifers.

Value Location Source Comment Bore Yields (m3/d) 655 Valhalla-Paradise Buru Energy (2013) Grant Group area Palm Spring No. 1 bore 2,000 Ellendale Lindsay and Commander (2005) 500 Fitzroy Crossing Lindsay and Town Water Supply Commander (2005) 3,180 to 9,085 Liveringa Station URS (2010) Four bores, bore details provided in URS (2010). Salinity (TDS) (mg/L) < 400 Water Authority (1990) 300 Ellendale Lindsay and Commander (2005) Usually between 500 Lindsay and Lowest on the northern – 2,000 Commander (2005) margin.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 56

< 200 Fitzroy Crossing Fitzroy River Lodge (Global Groundwater, 2005) 190-313 Fitzroy Crossing WaterCorp (2013) Grant Group. 324 - 640 Duchess Paradise Rey Resources (2014) Poole Sandstone mine site 295 - 425 Liveringa Station URS (2010) Four bores, bore details provided in URS (2010). Two major ion analyses available, showing groundwater is sodium- bicarbonate type. 1,300 Liveringa Allen (1985) in URS Sample collected in Homestead bore (2010) 1973.

4.1.6 Liveringa Group The Liveringa Group consists of interbedded sandstones, siltstones and shales. It is considered to be a minor aquifer for this reason (Smith, 1992). The major units of the Liveringa Group are the Hardman (youngest) and Lightjack (oldest) Formations, which are separated by the Condren Sandstone (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). The Condren Sandstone is the best aquifer of the Group although its distribution is limited to the western part of the study area.

The thickness of the Liveringa Group varies from 319 m in the bore East Yeeda-1 (Bridge, 1986) to almost 900 m (Crowe and Towner, 1981), but it is usually about 600 m thick in the central part of the catchment area as intersected by coal exploration drillholes. The surface extent of the Liveringa Group has been recently revised in the vicinity of the confluence of the Fitzroy River and the Cunningham Anabranch (Harrington et al., 2011). This minor revision had major implications for the understanding of surface water-groundwater interactions.

Some information on the structure of the Liveringa Group is available at the site of the proposed Duchess Paradise coal mine (Rey Resources, 2014) (Figure 11). Here, the Hardman Formation directly overlies the Lightjack Formation and forms an aquitard that has similar characteristics to the upper, shale dominated part of the Lightjack Formation.

The Lightjack Formation comprises inter-bedded, low permeability shale and fine sandstone (Rey Resources, 2014). It includes the P1 and P2 coal seams that are the focus of the proposed Duchess Paradise mine (Rey Resources, 2014). In the Duchess Paradise area, the lower part of the formation generally has a higher proportion of

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 57

sandstone and the sandier horizons have a combined thickness of about 40 m. Shale beds occur throughout the formation, therefore vertical hydraulic conductivities are expected to be particularly low.

Monitoring bores have been proposed at six locations at the Duchess Paradise mine site, targeting the “superficial aquifer” (presumably the Liveringa Group) and the Poole Sandstone (Rey Resources 2014).

The Blina Shale, a dark grey-green shale and siltstone with minor sandy claystone, is a confining bed to the Liveringa Group (Figure 7). It has a maximum thickness of 462 m in bore Kora1 and provides a few small, generally saline supplies in the Derby area. Groundwater salinities of between 1,100 mg/L and 10,000 mg/L have been measured in the Blina Shale (Table 4).

Groundwater recharge Groundwater recharge to the Liveringa Group is believed to be mainly from rainfall on outcrop areas (Lindsay and Commander, 2005), locally from surface runoff and leakage through the alluvium in Le Lievre Swamp near the Fitzroy River east of Camballin (Figure 1). Three nests of piezometers were installed near the Fitzroy River at Noonkanbah, with three piezometers screened in the Alluvial aquifer and five in the underlying Liveringa Formation. Despite a number of problems with some of the piezometers and water level loggers, a comparison between river and groundwater level hydrographs indicated a strong connection between the river and the aquifer. In particular, a groundwater response to high river flow events was observed. This, and comparatively low groundwater salinities measured in these piezometers compared with other regional bores suggests some recharge to the aquifer by floodwaters (see subsequent section on groundwater salinity).

Groundwater Flow and Discharge In the Grant Range area, groundwater in the Liveringa Group flows west and may discharge through the alluvium to Lower Liveringa Pool (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). In the northeast, flow probably occurs in a north westerly direction and discharges into the Meda River (Figure 1).

Lindsay and Commander (2005) suggest that Liveringa Group groundwater may also discharge to the Fitzroy River alluvium south of bore DHM 7 at Willare, and that there may be upward leakage into the overlying Wallal Sandstone to the west of the Fitzroy River. Doble et al. (2010) identified a slight peak in radon-222 concentrations in the Fitzroy River at Willare, suggesting possible groundwater

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 58

discharge into the river at this point. However, there is not enough data to confirm whether this groundwater is discharging from the Liveringa Group. The subsequent 2010 longitudinal river sampling of Harrington et al. (2011) focused on areas upstream of this but the authors state that there are potential geological mechanisms for discharge in this area downstream, identified from the surface geology map, that warrant further investigation.

The longitudinal river chemistry and isotopic sampling of Harrington et al. (2011) identified discharge from the Liveringa Group to the alluvium and the Fitzroy River just upstream of the Cunningham Anabranch. Here, it is suggested that groundwater in the Liveringa Group flows towards the river and is forced upwards where it meets the less permeable mudstones of the Noonkanbah Formation. This is discussed further in Section 4.3.2.

Groundwater residence times Harrington et al. (2011) provide apparent groundwater ages for newly constructed piezometer nests at Noonkanbah, near the confluence of the Fitzroy River and Cunningham Anabranch. Five of these piezometers are screened in the sandstones and mudstones of the upper Lightjack Formation. Apparent ‘uncorrected’ ages from 14C activities in the sandstones ranged from modern to 15,600 years. However, for the oldest groundwater sample, SF6 and CFC data suggested recharge years of between 1966 and 2000, apparently conflicting with the 14C data. One possible reason for this apparent conflict was that the isotope signatures are a result of mostly old groundwater mixing with a small amount of young groundwater, either recharged from the river, or remnant drilling fluid from the construction of the bores.

Three other regional bores sampled in the Liveringa Group had the following apparent groundwater ages derived from 14C activities (Harrington et al., 2011): ‘Bore 1_89’ at Balginjirr Community was ~ 21,000 years, Global Groundwater bore ‘BG2/02- 725’ on Mount Anderson Station was ~10,000 years, and ‘#6 Panoroma’ bore on GoGo Station was ~6000 years.

Aquifer properties Some information on the hydraulic properties of the Liveringa Group aquifers is available for the Duchess Paradise mine site (Rey Resources, 2014) (Figure 11). Here, the interest is in coal deposits (black bituminous thermal coal) in the Lightjack Formation. 130 packer tests were carried out on intervals in the Hardman and Lightjack Formations on 8 diamond-drilled boreholes. These provided the following

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 59

hydraulic conductivity values for the sandstone and shale units (Letter from GRM to Rey Resources, 11 May 2011):

- Shale deposits: K = 1.83 x10-5 to 1.78 x 10-2 m/day with a mean of 9.12 x 10-4 m/day. - Sandstone horizons 3.25 x 10-5 to 9.13 x 10-2 m/d with a mean of 7.77 x 10-3 m/d (includes coal seams).

Further information provided in Rey Resources (2014) includes:

- Total measured horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the Hardman Formation and upper Lightjack Formation ranges between 5 x 10-4 and 2 x 10-3 m/d. This unit is reported to consist of shale with minor sandstone horizons, having a low hydraulic conductivity. - Total measured horizontal hydraulic conductivity for the lower Lightjack Formation, comprising the P1 sandstone, P1 and P2 coal seams and the basal sandstone, ranged between 2.7 x 10-3 and 1.3 x 10-2 m/d. This unit had a slightly higher hydraulic conductivity than the upper Lightjack Formation but is still considered to be an aquitard.

Bore yields and salinities There is little information on bore yields in the Liveringa Group. Buru Energy (2013) refer to bore yields recorded in the WIN database for the Liveringa Group in the Paradise-Valhalla being less than 100 kL/day (Buru Energy, 2013). However, the information obtained from the WIN database for the current study does not include any bore yield data. Most stock bores near the proposed Duchess Paradise mine site are believed to draw water from the Hardman Formation of the Liveringa Group. The underlying Poole Sandstone contains better quality water (324 - 640 mg/L) but is too deep to be a cost-effective resource (Crowe and Towner, 1981; in Rey Resources, 2014).

Salinities in the Liveringa Group are generally marginal to brackish (500 – 3,000 mg/L) (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). Low salinity groundwater occurs near Le Lievre Swamp possibly because of recharge of floodwaters, and groundwater salinity tends to increase to the west towards Willare (7,000 mg/L in bore DHM 8; Lindsay and Commander, 2005). In reality, salinities probably vary depending on the formation in which the bore is screened, with fresher groundwater occurring in the sandstone and more saline groundwater occurring in shales or siltstones (Lindsay and Commander, 2005).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 60

At the Duchess-Paradise proposed mine site, groundwater salinity in the Hardman and upper Lightjack Formation is reported to be 1,630-18,600 mg/L. In the lower Lightjack Formation, groundwater salinity ranges between 2,200 and 6,270 mg/L (Rey Resources, 2014). Other groundwater quality data from sampling between September 2010 and April 2011 is available in Rey Resources (2014).

Harrington et al. (2011) sampled a number of regional groundwater bores as part of the study of surface water-groundwater interactions in the Lower Fitzroy River. The three of these bores that were screened in the Liveringa Group had groundwater electrical conductivities (ECs) of 1,500 μS/cm to 8,800 μS/cm (approx. 1,000 mg/L to 5,600 mg/L TDS). Harrington et al. (2011) also provide water level and salinity data from November / December 2009 for the three piezometer nests (nine piezometers) recently drilled near the Fitzroy River, near Noonkanbah. Of these piezometers, five are screened in the Liveringa Group and had much lower groundwater salinities of 145 mg/L to 687 mg/L, presumably due to the recharge of fresh water from the Fitzroy River and floodplain.

4.1.7 Wallal Sandstone / Erskine Sandstone /Alexander Formation The Wallal Sandstone consists of sandstone with minor siltstone, conglomerate and lignite. It is in hydraulic continuity with the Alexander Formation and therefore the two are considered to be a single hydrogeological unit. The Wallal Sandstone occurs in the subsurface in the western part of the Fitzroy Catchment but outcrops only in small areas, including the west bank of the Fitzroy River at Langley Crossing. The maximum thicknesses of the Wallal Sandstone (286 m) and the Alexander Formation (219 m) occur in the Fraser River structure to the northwest of the Fitzroy River. The greatest amount of information on these units come from the Derby Town Water Supply investigations, which include a long history of drilling, pump testing and water quality sampling. The recent drilling of production and monitoring bores on Mowanjum Station as part of the Water for Food project (early 2015) will provide further knowledge on aquifer properties and water quality in due course.

A detailed investigation of the Erskine Sandstone to the east of Derby is described in Laws and Smith (1989), and the results of exploratory drilling at four sites within the Derby 1:250 000 map sheet area (outside the study area) are described by Smith (1988, 1992).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 61

Groundwater Recharge No information on recharge to the Wallal Sandstone / Alexander Formations has been identified during this study, with the exception that the notes accompanying the Derby map sheet speculate that recharge occurs largely in outcropping areas.

Groundwater Flow and Discharge Lindsay and Commander (2005) describe a “western flow system” for the Wallal Sandstone and Alexander Formation, where they are mainly confined beneath the Jarlemai Siltstone, but apparently unconfined to the southwest of the Fitzroy River (Figure 6). Here, on the low-lying silt plains bordering the coast, bores in these formations are thought to be artesian.

Groundwater Residence Times No information on groundwater residence times of the Wallal Sandstone / Alexander Formation or the Erskine Sandstone has been identified through this study.

Aquifer Properties Rockwater (1987) (in Buru Energy, 2013) report a hydraulic conductivity of 44 m/d for the Wallal Sandstone. Lower values of 0.8 m/d to 15 m/d are reported by Smith (1992) (in Buru Energy, 2013), although these were determined using slug tests, which often underestimate hydraulic conductivity.

Bore Yields and Salinities The “western flow system” provides pastoral water supplies in the area to the southwest of the Fitzroy River (Lindsay and Commander, 2005).

Groundwater salinities of western flow system are variable (Lindsay and Commander, 2005). In some areas, near Udialla Homestead, where the flow system is unconfined, salinities are below 1,000 mg/L. Where the aquifer is confined by the Jarlemai Siltstone, salinities are greater than 2,000 mg/L. To the west of Willare (Logue River), salinities of 2,800 – 3,800 mg/L are reported (Lindsay and Commander, 2005).

4.2 Alluvial Aquifer

Data Availability Few pastoral bores intersect the Fitzroy Alluvium, as the floodplain is generally inundated during the wet season. The majority of information on the alluvium therefore comes from three drill sections conducted at Willare, the Camballin Barrage

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 62

and for a proposed damsite at Gogo (Figure 17; described in Lindsay and Commander (2005)).

At Willare, four exploratory holes were drilled along the Great Northern Highway, perpendicular to the Fitzroy River, with a focus on the groundwater potential of the alluvium (Commander, 1987; Smith, 1988; Figure 17a). The cross section at Camballin Barrage is a generalized section, based on drilling carried out in 1959 and reconstructed from drawings. The original drillhole locations have been lost.

The Fitzroy Alluvium is approximately 30 m thick, with a predominantly sandy / gravelly basal section about 20 m thick, overlain by approximately 10 m of black silts and cracking clays above river bed level. These facies are consistent with the river working its way backwards and forwards across an alluvial valley, carving out older deposits of sand and silt and re-depositing them in the same sequence. Taylor (2000) studied the geomorphology of the floodplain and river, providing insight into the depositional and erosional environment of the alluvium. In the study of Lindsay and Commander (2005), the alluvial plain was considered to comprise the area covered by an ‘average’ flood as mapped by Geoscience Australia, an area of 3,200 km2.

Groundwater Recharge Recharge to the Fitzroy Alluvium occurs mainly from the Fitzroy River during the flood season. Flood water percolates downwards and laterally away from river into the aquifer. This process is only limited by available storage of the aquifer. Recharge also occurs from rainfall and floodwaters on the floodplain following overbank flows. However, this is believed to be negligible where low permeability black clay soils (vertosols) exist (about 50% of floodplain) (CSIRO, 2009). The recharge modelling of Crosbie et al. (2009) suggests that recharge in these areas is less than 0.2 mm/yr and that recharge is more significant where other Quaternary sediments occur at ground surface. Enhanced recharge may also occur at the edge of floodplains (CSIRO, 2009).

At the time of the CSIRO (2009) study, there was little data available to support an understanding of the dynamics of floodplain inundation and recharge to the Fitzroy Alluvium. Better knowledge about the river levels required to flood specific assets on the floodplain is required. Recent flood hazard mapping based on aerial and satellite imagery (http://floodmap.dli.wa.gov.au), combined with gauge height data may assist with this type of analysis (DoW, pers. comm., May 2015).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 63

The alluvial aquifer is also recharged from the regional aquifer systems of the Canning Basin, predominantly the Liveringa Group, which underlies much of the alluvium. This is likely to be greater during the dry season when the upward hydraulic gradient is greatest.

Groundwater Flow and Discharge No specific information has been identified on what are likely to be very local-scale groundwater flow and discharge processes for the Fitzroy Alluvium. However, the primary discharge mechanisms are likely to be baseflow to surface water systems and evapotranspiration by deep rooted perennial vegetation.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 64

HYDROGEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION AT WILLARE EAST A

WEST 5

A

6 M

COCKATOO

A

H

8 M

BRIDGE D

A FITZROY H

M (m AHD)

7

D

H SKI RIVER M

D MINNIE (m AHD) H LAKE

RIVER D SANDY 10 CLAY 3200 mg/L 7420 mg/L SWL 2330 mg/L 640 mg/L SANDY CLAY COARSE SAND 0 COARSE COARSE FINE SAND SAND - HARD SAND FINE-MEDIUM LAYERS SAND FINE SAND -10 COARSE SAND SOME CLAY QUARTZITE -20 COARSE SAND MEDIUM-COARSE SANDY-CLAY MEDIUM-COARSE FINE SAND/ SANDY-CLAY CLAY -30 TD ? -40 HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 1 km CLAY/SANDY-CLAY -50 MAINLY SAND/GRAVEL LIVERINGA GROUP

GENERALISED SECTION AT THE BARRAGE NORTH SOUTH BROWN CLAY LOOSE BROWN SAND m AHD 45 TOP OF BARRAGE RIVER SAND 40 RIVER SWL (1958) HARD YELLOW AND BROWN CLAY 35

30 NOONKANBAH FORMATION

COARSE SAND AND STONES SAND SILT AND STONES

HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 50 100m

HYDROGEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION AT GOGO

NORTH WEST NORTH WEST

4000 metres from origin 2000 0

6

0

4

.

1 9

1

7

4

5

.

.

5

o

1

1

0

o

.

o

1

.

.

N

.

2

o

N

N

.

o

o

(m AHD) o

. o

FITZROY N

N

N

o

N N

RIVER N 100 SAND + SILT SILT + SILT SILT SILT SILT CLAY- SILTY-CLAY SILT SILT + CLAY GRAVEL SILT + SILTSTONE 90 SAND SILTSTONE COARSE WHITE SILT SAND SAND + GRANT 80 AND GRAVEL SAND + COARSE SAND CLAY SILT + SILT NOTE: AND GRAVEL GRANT CLAY FM See Fig 4 for location of sections. 70 GRANT FM SILTS AND SILTY CLAY

60 SAND AND GRAVEL HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 1 km GRANT FM

HR238/FIG 11

Figure 17 Cross sections through the alluvial aquifer at (a) Willare, (b) Camballin Barrage and (c) Gogo (from Lindsay and Commander, 2005). Refer to source for cross-section locations.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 65

Groundwater Residence Times Groundwater residence times are likely to be dependent upon the recharge mechanism (i.e. leakage of modern river water or discharge of regional groundwater), and the local connectivity of high permeability zones in the aquifer. The only data on this is available for the shallow piezometer nests recently installed near Noonkanbah (Harrington et al., 2011). Unsurprisingly, 14C data indicated that this groundwater was ‘modern’, and SF6 and CFC-12 data indicated recharge years between 1980 and 2005.

Aquifer Properties Rockwater (2011) installed monitoring bores in the Fitzroy Alluvium and the top of the Grant Group at Fitzroy Crossing, providing groundwater levels, salinities and estimates of hydraulic conductivity of 0.2 m/d to 130 m/d from slug tests (in Water Corporation (2012)). They also provide chemical and microbiological analyses of groundwater samples and the results of a MODFLOW/MT3D model of the transport of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous from the Wastewater Treatment Plant to the River.

Estimated Groundwater Storage Allen et al. (1992), in a study of the major groundwater resources in Western Australia, derived a conceptual estimate of 25 GL/yr for the yield of the Fitzroy Alluvium in the stretch of river valley extending 50 km uspstream of Willare. Lindsay and Commander (2005) compiled the existing data on the Fitzroy alluvium between Fitzroy Crossing and the estuary at King Sound. They estimated the storage of the alluvial aquifer, based on a thickness of 20 m, an area of 3,200 km2 and a porosity of 0.2 to be 13,000 GL (50 GL per km length of the river). They went on to develop a preliminary numerical groundwater flow model and used it to estimate potential borefield yields, considering environmental constraints on pumping.

Bore Yields and Groundwater Salinities Bore yields from the Fitzroy Alluvium are estimated to be between 300 m3/day and 400 m3/day (Laws, 1990, in CSIRO (2009)). The modelling of Lindsay and Commander (2005) indicated that a pumping rate of 2,000 m3/day per kilometer of river could be achieved from a line of equally spaced bores on the alluvial plan, with a drawdown of 0.5 m at the river bed. Whilst this level of drawdown is likely to be unacceptable in terms of impacts to dry season flows and the associated aquatic ecology in the river, this volume equates to a yield of 200 GL/yr for the stretch of alluvium between Willare and Fitzroy Crossing.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 66

Groundwater salinity in the alluvial aquifer appears to be low close to the main river channel, with a number of processes also resulting in high groundwater salinities. Groundwater salinity measured in the investigation bores at Willare Crossing ranged between 690 mg/L in bore DHM5A, which is close to the main river channel, and 2,910 mg/L in bore DHM8C (Smith, 1992, in Lindsay and Commander (2005)). The latter bore is location near Minnie River and Cockatoo Creek, which are stagnant and possibly tidal during the dry season. Areas of the alluvium that receive inflows of higher salinity groundwater from the regional aquifers are also likely to have higher groundwater salinities. Three of the nine piezometers (3 piezometer nests) installed near the Fitzroy River near Noonkanbah by Harrington et al. (2011) were screened in the Alluvial aquifer. Groundwater salinities measured in these piezometers in November 2011 ranged between 145 mg/L and 250 mg/L.

Some indications of groundwater salinities in the Fitzroy Alluvium may be obtained from dry season river water salinities, which are higher than wet season salinities, for example from the longitudinal river water chemistry surveys carried out in May 2008 and May 2010 by Doble et al. (2008) and Harrington et al. (2011) (see river EC data presented in Section 4.3.2). However, since some reaches of the Fitzroy River have been identified to receive groundwater discharge from the regional aquifers (Harrington et al., 2011), an understanding of where these discharge processes operate is required to interpret such data.

4.3 Surface Water-Groundwater Interactions

4.3.1 Regional Context The prolonged recession of stream flow in the Fitzroy River through each dry season, and the persistence of in-stream pools during the driest of dry seasons, highlights the critical role of surface water – groundwater connectivity in this system. The indigenous communities living along Fitzroy River understand its flooding cycle and have an acute awareness that groundwater is responsible for maintaining permanent pools in the dry season (Toussaint et al., 2001; Liedloff et al., 2013).

Lindsay and Commander (2005) presented a simplified conceptual model to demonstrate how the alluvial aquifer may support dry season river flows and permanent pools in the main channel, as well as off-stream pools such as Liveringa Pool. However, they also suggested the higher river salinities that have been measured historically at Noonkanbah gauging station were most likely due to discharge of relatively saline groundwater upstream where the river crosses the

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 67

Noonkanbah Formation. Hence there are at least two potential sources of groundwater that sustain dry season flows and pools.

The NASY project proposed a third potential source of groundwater based on baseflow index (BFI) analysis (CSIRO, 2009). They showed that dry season baseflow volumes were higher at the Fitzroy Crossing and Margaret River gauges, which are situated downstream of Devonian carbonate rock areas. Hence it was proposed that higher volumes of dry season discharge were sourced from these aquifers than the fractured rock aquifers located further upstream.

4.3.2 Detailed Understanding for the Lower Fitzroy River Given the critical ecological and cultural reliance upon dry season flows and permanent pools in the Fitzroy River, a suite of recent interrelated projects have focused on better understanding the nature of surface water – groundwater connectivity between Fitzroy Crossing and Willare. The general approach was to collect river water samples for hydrochemical analysis at a regular spacing along the Fitzroy River, compare the results to groundwater chemistry from sampled bores, and then incorporate the results into a refined conceptual model underpinned by the hydrogeology interpreted from the AEM survey (Harrington et al. 2011).

Two longitudinal ‘run-of-river’ sampling campaigns were undertaken by helicopter along the Fitzroy River following very different wet seasons: the first in May 2008 and the second in May 2010. During the May 2008 campaign, surface water samples were collected between Fitzroy Crossing and Willare and analysed for electrical conductivity (EC) and radon-222 (Doble et al., 2010). The results indicated marked increases in the concentrations of both tracers between a location upstream of the confluence with the Cunningham Anabranch and Noonkanbah community (Figure 18a), consistent with the conceptual model of groundwater discharge in this zone proposed by Lindsay and Commander (2005).

Whilst EC and radon-222 are useful tracers of groundwater discharge to streams, they generally cannot be used to inform the source of the groundwater that is discharging. For this reason, the 2010 helicopter sampling campaign focused on two separate sections of the river where the 2008 survey had identified groundwater discharge (Figure 18b), and collected higher-resolution samples for full chemical analysis as well as more exotic tracers including helium-4 and strontium isotopes (Harrington el al. 2011). The main focus of the survey was the reach between Jubilee Downs Station (downstream of Fitzroy Crossing) and the eastern boundary of Liveringa Station (Figure 19).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 68

(a)

(b)

Figure 18 Longitudinal river water tracer profiles for (a) May 2008 and (b) May 2010 (from Harrington et al. (2011)) Yellow and grey triangles mark the locations of the confluence with the Cunningham Anabranch and the nested piezometers on Noonkanbah Station, respectively.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 69

This was the first time in the world that helium-4 had been trialed as a tracer of groundwater discharge to rivers, and it proved to be extremely valuable for identifying deep, regional sources of groundwater discharge (Gardner et al. 2012).

For the river water chemical and isotopic measurements to be translated into a meaningful interpretation, it was necessary to obtain groundwater samples from bores for comparison. This was achieved by sampling the nine new shallow monitoring bores (3 nests) on Noonkanbah Station and nine other regional bores completed in the different geological units of the Canning Basin (Harrington et al., 2011). All bore samples were analysed for major ion chemistry, stable hydrogen and oxygen isotopes of water, radon-222, noble gases (particularly helium-4), chlorofluorocarbons, carbon-14 and stable strontium isotopes.

The two longitudinal river sampling campaigns and the groundwater sampling identified two main zones of groundwater discharge along the 100 kilometre-long study reach (Harrington et al., 2013). Two very different discharge mechanisms were inferred from the chemical and isotopic data, which were supported by a revised understanding of the geology acquired through the AEM survey (Fitzpatrick et al., 2012).

Around the confluence of the Fitzroy River with the Cunningham Anabranch it was proposed that old regional groundwater in the Liveringa Group flows westwards towards the river before being forced upwards into the alluvial aquifer, or directly into the river when it meets the low permeability mudstones of the Noonkanbah Formation (Figure 19). The second main discharge zone is along the southern boundary of Noonkanbah Station where the Fitzroy River is thought to receive even older regional groundwater from the deep Poole Sandstone, most likely via the alluvial aquifer through a series of faults that transect the river. In both zones, discharge of a local groundwater source such as the alluvial aquifer was also shown to be important.

Modelling of river chemistry profiles from the May 2010 survey revealed that the total groundwater discharge along the 100 km study reach was around 102 ML/day, with about 3.7 ML/day coming from the regional aquifers (see Figure 12). The remainder is sourced from local groundwater flow systems in the alluvial aquifer.

The high inter-annual variability of rainfall in the Fitzroy River catchment would lead to a high temporal variability in runoff and as a result, a high temporal variability in groundwater discharge processes. Harrington et al. (2011) proposed

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 70

that wetter wet seasons cause more over-bank flow and floodplain recharge. This in turn means that, when river levels drop, groundwater discharge comes from a wider area of floodplain and persists for longer than if the previous wet season had been drier. This hypothesis was supported by higher river radon-222 concentrations in May 2008, which followed a much wetter wet season in 2007/08 than in 2009/10.

Figure 19 Surface water sampling locations (A), environmental tracer concentrations (B and C) and interpreted AEM section along the Fitzroy River (from Harrington et al., 2013).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 71

4.3.3 Broader-Scale Insights from the AEM Survey Despite the detailed process understanding for surface water – groundwater interactions between Jubilee Downs and Liveringa Stations, little is known about groundwater controls on dry season flows and pool persistence in other reaches of the lower Fitzroy River, and for that matter the Margaret River and all other groundwater-dependent surface water features.

The only reliable dataset that can offer some insights to groundwater discharge mechanisms in other reaches of the Fitzroy River is the interpreted AEM sections of Fitzpatrick et al. (2012), which extend further downstream (see Figure 6). Figure 20 presents an example of these sections, clearly revealing areas of relatively fresh (low conductivity) alluvium in certain sections. For example, the right hand side of the top panel in this figure may reveal a zone of discharge from the Poole Sandstone. Other panels reveal where more saline groundwater from the Liveringa Group may be leaking into the alluvium. Conversely, the right hand side of the middle panel reveals a zone of groundwater recharge around the Fitzroy Weir (Camballin Barrage). It should be noted, however, that this section and all of those presented in Fitzpatrick et al. (2012) require ground-truthing via drilling and/or groundwater testing to establish the reasons for zones of high and low conductivity. Nevertheless, the AEM sections do provide a useful guide to inform locations for future investigations.

4.3.4 Potential Impacts of Future Groundwater Pumping on River Flow There is a high probability that groundwater extraction near the Fitzroy River, whether it be for the purpose of irrigated agriculture, mine dewatering or any other beneficial use, will have an adverse impact on river flow and/or in-steam pool persistence. The nature of this impact could be a reduction in groundwater discharge rate to the river and/or an induced loss of river water to the aquifer (Figure 2). Such impacts will be greatest where groundwater extraction is from the alluvial aquifer immediately adjacent the river. Extraction from deeper aquifers that are disconnected from the alluvium may be possible, however this will be site specific and require localised investigations to demonstrate the degree of hydraulic connection.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 72

Figure 20 Interpreted AEM sections from approximately Looma (west) along the southern boundary of Liveringa Station (from Fitzpatrick et al., 2013). See source for exact locations.

The impacts of existing or proposed future groundwater pumping on stream flow can be predicted using various modelling approaches. Three-dimensional numerical groundwater flow models such as those presented in Lindsay and Commander (2005) and CSIRO (2009) allow representation of spatially variable aquifer properties and river geometry, as well as temporal changes in river flow/stage and groundwater extraction. However due to the high uncertainty of these models introduced through lack of reliable input data, hypothetical assessments of groundwater extraction are often just as reliable using simplified analytical models.

For example, CSIRO (2009) used the well-known Theis (1935) analytical solution for estimating drawdown impacts in an aquifer such as the Fitzroy alluvium, assuming a transmissivity of 300 m2/day and specific yield of 0.2. The modelling results indicated that groundwater pumping at a constant rate of only 0.4 ML/day for 6 months (i.e., 73 ML in total) would cause drawdown of the water table, and therefore impact surface water – groundwater interactions, up to one kilometre away from the production bore. The zone of influence, which was defined as the radius at which

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 73

groundwater level drawdown is 10 cm, was shown to be 500 m in just over 5 months, and approximately 750 m after one year.

The simple analytical model of Glover and Balmer (1954) was used by Turnadge et al. (2013) to estimate stream depletion due to groundwater pumping. The stream depletion ratio (Q/q) is defined as the proportion of groundwater extracted that is sourced from a connected stream. Modelling results for aquifers with different transmissivity showed that production bores located less than five kilometres from a connected stream would derive between 10% and 85% of the water from the stream after 200 days of continuous pumping (Figure 21). In future, these plots can be used to estimate either bore set-back distances from the river for assumed stream depletion scenarios, or bore pumping rates for known set-back distances and acceptable depletion volumes.

Figure 21 Stream depletion as a function of continuous pumping time, presented for different bore set-back distances and different aquifer types (from Turnadge et al., 2013).

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 74

5. Existing and Potential Future Groundwater Users

5.1 Licensed Allocations

5.1.1 Overview CSIRO (2009) presented a map of groundwater extraction licenses for the Fitzroy Region (20.63 GL/yr), comprising approximately 57% from the Canning-Grant aquifer, 20% from the Canning-limestone, 15% from the Canning-Broome aquifer, and the remainder distributed across other aquifers. Surprisingly, only 0.4% was allocated from the Fitzroy alluvium.

This review has interrogated the Department’s licensing database to provide an updated account of current allocations at 31st March 2015 (Figure 22). There is currently approximately 23.5 GL/yr of groundwater allocated in the region shown in Figure 22, comprising about 20.2 GL/yr in the Canning-Kimberly Groundwater Area and about 3.3 GL/yr in the Derby Groundwater Area, the latter of which is outside the scope of the current review. In the Canning-Kimberley area the breakdown of allocations per aquifer is as follows: Wallal ~1.7 GL (8.6%), Erskine ~0.4 GL (1.9%), Liveringa Group ~0.9 GL (4.3%), Grant Group ~ 13.6 GL (67.4%), Limestone ~3.6 GL (17.7%) and Fractured Rocks <0.02 GL (0.1%). The database contains no records of allocations from the Poole Sandstone, which is surprising given that at least one Aboriginal Community (Yungngora on Noonkanbah Station) sources their water supply from this aquifer.

The holders of the three largest groundwater allocations are Kimberley Diamond Company (11.926 GL from the Grant Group over three licenses), Mowanjum Aboriginal Corporation (1.54 GL from the Wallal Sandstone) and GoGo Station (1.5 GL from the Limestone). All other allocations are below 1 GL/yr.

For comparison, there is currently about 14.2 GL/yr of surface water allocated in the project area shown in Figure 22. The two largest allocation holders: Yeeda Pastoral Co. (8.0 GL/yr) and Clover Cattle Co. (6.15 GL/yr) account for most of this volume of water, which can be diverted from the Fitzroy River.

15 May 2015

Figure 22 Distribution of current groundwater and surface water licensed allocations at 31st March 2015.

Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 76

5.1.2 Town and Community Water Supplies Almost all of the municipal water supplies in the region are obtained from the regional Canning Basin aquifers, with a few obtained from fractured rock aquifers, and none from the Fitzroy Alluvium (CSIRO, 2009). References for each water supply are provided in CSIRO (2009).

The water supply for Fitzroy Crossing is obtained from the Grant Group, with bores screened at depths of 30 - 60 m. Here, the Grant Group occurs below the Fitzroy Alluvium. In 2006 - 2007, abstraction was 91% of the licensed allocation of 250 ML/yr. Some information on historical groundwater abstraction, water levels and water quality data from these bores is available in Water Authority (1990). In comparison, the allocation for the Camballin municipal water supply is 50 ML/yr.

Aboriginal Communities also rely on groundwater for reliable water supplies. The average daily abstraction at Junjuwa is 210.9 m3/day (77 ML/yr) from the Grant Formation, and 358 m3/day (131 ML/yr) is extracted from two bores probably screened in the Grant Formation for the Community of Bayulu.

5.2 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.2.1 Identified Ecological Values Some of the ecological values of the Fitzroy River Catchment are described in Section 2.6. One of the most comprehensive studies of aquatic ecological assets in the Fitzroy Catchment was that of Storey et al. (2001), which identified various aspects of the ecology that could be interpreted as ecological values of the river. The key assets that were considered included:

 Brooking Gorge, in the Devonian Reef system, which is considered to be significant as it contains aquatic species not represented in other parts of the ranges (Sutton, 1998; in Storey et al.; 2001). This is due to it being a smaller watercourse, where flooding is less intense. It is the only known location of Nymphaea immutabilis subsp. kimberleyensis (a type of water lily).  a new species of Acacia, A. gloeotricha, which has been identified in the vicinity of Dimond Gorge (Sutton (1998) (in Storey et al. (2001)). Its distribution outside that area was unknown and it was listed on the CALM Declared Rare and Priority Flora List as a Priority Species.  the Purple-crowned Fairy-wren Malurus coronatus (Storey et al., 2001). This is not a waterbird, but is restricted to the understorey vegetation of the riparian zone. The species is gazette as “Threatened” under the Western Australian

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 77

Wildlife Conservation Act, and its numbers on the Fitzroy River have declined dramatically over the past century.  stygofauna / cave fauna in the Fitzroy catchment (Storey et al., 2001). Records from one limited collecting trip as part of a caving expedition to Geikie Gorge are held by the Western Australian Museum. This includes a new family of stygal flabelliferan isopod (Tainisopus sp.), two species of cave cockroach (Nocticola spp.), a planthopper (Fulgoroidea), probably troglobitic and associated with deep tree roots, and a number of ostrocods and cyclopoid copepods, whose status is unknown.

The NASY project included an assessment of changes to flow regimes under future climate scenarios at shortlisted environmental assets (CSIRO, 2009). The environmental assets were taken from a list of Wetlands of National Significance (Environment Australia, 2001), and those shortlisted within the study area of the current project were: Camballin Floodplain (Le Lievre Swamp System) and Geikie Gorge. The other Wetland of National Significance that was located within the current study area was Tunnel Creek. A permanent pool on the Fitzroy River, about 13 km long and 100 m wide, was also identified as an important refuge for freshwater and marine fish (van Dam et al., 2008, in CSIRO (2009)). CSIRO (2009) emphasise that ecological water requirements are yet to be determined for these identified assets.

The Northern Australia Aquatic Ecological Assets project (Kennard, 2011) identified several planning units in the Fitzroy River Basin as High Conservation Value Aquatic Aquatic Ecosystems (HCVAEs). These planning units included the following named hydrosystems: Jordan Pool, Lake Alma, Lake Skeleton, Lulika Pool, Minnie River, Tragedy Pool, Snake Creek, Nine Mile Pool, Six Mile Creek, Loongadda Pool, Six Mile Pool, Troy’s Lagoon, Mount Wynne Creek, Coogabing Pool, Rocky Hole and the Fitzroy River itself. The planning unit containing Jordan Pool, Lake Alma, Lake Skeleton, Lulika Pool, Minnie River and the Fitzroy River itself was listed as a HCVAE of potential national significance. This planning unit is located just upstream of Willare.

A draft table of assets of the Fitzroy Catchment has been prepared by FitzCAM, which is a community group consisting of representatives from the key indigenous groups of the Fitzroy catchment, pastoralists, irrigators, recreational fishers, and catchment residents (FitzCAM, 2009). The table is included as Appendix A to this

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 78

report because it demonstrates the breadth of known ecological assets in the region, including the following water-dependent features:

 Lake Gladstone, the largest permanent freshwater wetland in the Central Kimberley bioregion, providing a refuge for vulnerable species.  Freshwater springs such as Udialla Springs and Honeymoon Springs.  Mallallah and Sandhill Swamps, which are potentially important waterbird habitat.

5.2.2 Groundwater Dependence of Ecological Values Knowledge of the groundwater dependence of environmental assets in the Fitzroy Catchment appears to be limited. The only recent work that has contributed to the understanding of the role of groundwater in maintaining ecosystems was the NAWFA study that mapped the persistence of dry season pools. An influence of groundwater inflows over the persistence of pools was evident (see Section 3.2). The role of these permanent pools as important refuges for aquatic species is well- established (Storey et al., 2001). As well as this, it is possible that permanent pools play a much greater role in providing the major source of energy that drives the food web for the system. Research in the Lake Eyre Basin showed that, in highly turbid, permanent waterholes, a “bathtub ring” of algae is the major source of energy driving the entire food web, supporting large populations of snails, crustaceans and fish (Davies and Bunn, 2000, in Storey et al. (2001)). This “bathtub ring” model had yet to be assessed for floodplain rivers in northwestern Australia at the time of the Storey et al. (2001) study. However, algae growth was evident in the shallow margins along the lower Fitzroy River and low turbidity in the dry season in the Fitzroy could potentially also allow algal growth to extend to greater depths.

Close et al. (2012) generally emphasized that groundwater is a significant feature of northern Australian aquatic ecosystems, through sustaining baseflow in perennial rivers (e.g. the Daly River, NT), and permanent pools on floodplains and in river channels of ephemeral systems (e.g. the Fitzroy River). Permanent pools support a diverse range of water dependent communities (e.g., see McJannet et al., 2009; Tomlinson and Boulton, 2010; Lamontagne et al., 2005). This knowledge is not specific to the Fitzroy Catchment but relates to all of northern Australia. It has also been identified in other areas that groundwater levels play an important role in species composition and persistence and that changes in groundwater level can result in changes in species assemblages or complete losses of species (Froend et al.,

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 79

2004, in Close et al., 2012). Close et al. (2012) also state that influence groundwater recharge has over ecological triggers in northern Australia is really unknown.

5.2.3 Identifying Likely Impacts of Changes in Groundwater Levels to GDEs Without knowledge of the groundwater dependence and ecological water requirements of ecological assets of the Fitzroy Catchment, it is impossible to predict the likely impacts of changes in groundwater levels on these assets.

The general consensus is that the dependencies are likely to be complex, i.e. many environmental assets depend on triggers (e.g., the rate of change of flow) as well as the magnitude and duration of flows for reproduction or migration, and some depend on the frequency and duration of events that occur less than annually (CSIRO, 2009).

Close et al. (2012) state that the timing and rate of rise and fall (RRF) in flows (surface water and groundwater) is known to be important to aquatic ecosystems, but state that this relationship is poorly understood. The timing and RRF of surface water flow and groundwater levels may directly influence water dependent biota by providing, for example, ecological triggers for reproductive migrations and spawning cues. They may indirectly affect factors such as physical habitat, water quality, habitat connectivity and resource availability (Bunn and Arthington, 2002, in Close et al., 2012). RRF is known to impact directly on the life history strategies of a range of organisms, including benthic microorganisms, plankton and fish. In terms of the influence of groundwater, it is thought that changes in the timing and availability of groundwater discharge may influence ecosystems by changing the availability of water at a time of the year when many organisms are highly vulnerable, resulting in changes to fauna and flora assemblages (Murray et al., 2003, in Close et al., 2012). The role of RRF of groundwater levels and their role as ecological triggers in northern Australian wetlands in general are still largely unknown (Close et al., 2012). Evidence outside northern Australia suggests that modifying groundwater RRF may significantly impact water condition and quality, alter stable environmental conditions, and change accessibility of water to terrestrial vegetation (various references, in Close et al., 2012).

More information is required on ecological thresholds in the Fitzroy region and across northern Australia. There is a general lack of quantitative relationships between flow and ecological parameters, meaning that the consequences of flow changes on ecosystems cannot be predicted (McJannet et al., 2009, in Close et al., 2012). Of particular relevance to the Fitzroy, Close et al. (2012) state that more

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 80

information is required on the response of key aquatic biota to characteristics (size, depth, temperature) of in-stream disconnected pools. In particular, water temperature is identified as being the most important water quality parameter, directly influencing habitat suitability, and controlling a range of physical, chemical and biological processes. Close et al. (2012) determined some critical temperature ranges for a variety of fish and crustaceans.

5.3 Cultural and Heritage Values The Fitzroy Valley is central to the lives of the region’s Traditional owners and groundwater is viewed as a life force that supports the river (Toussaint et al., 2001). Fishing and gathering aquatic fauna is a common way of supplementing food supplies. As described in Section 2.4, permanent pools in the Fitzroy River system are considered to be “living water” by the Traditional Owners and a list of “special places” along the lower river system is shown in Figure 10 (Toussaint et al., 2001; Storey et al., 2001). Storey et al. (2001) also describe the cultural values of the Fitzroy River ecology to the Traditional Owners, as sources of medicine, dye and raft- building materials, as well as triggers for migration and cultural activities. The ecological and cultural values of specific freshwater habitats, particularly the permanent pools are strongly linked. The table of assets of the Fitzroy River Catchment, prepared by FitzCAM, appears to be one of the most comprehensive lists of places of cultural significance (Appendix A).

Recently, the Nyikina Mangala Traditional Owners along the Mardoowarra-Fitzroy River have taken steps to begin to “build sustainable livelihoods and secure the socio- economic wellbeing of their people through innovative ways of living on country” (Poelina and Perdrisat, 2011). Poelina and Perdrisat (2011) describe the details of the progress and plans to develop a hybrid economy, which draws on western as well as Aboriginal methodologies. The Nyikina Mangala people propose that this should be based on cultural and environmental assets and be self-sustaining. They assert that the lives of the Nyikina Mangala people are intertwined with their country and that they have ancestral obligations to pass on a healthy river system to future generations. Over the past thirty years, the riverside communities of Jarlmadangah Burru, Looma, Pandanus Park, Bidan, Balginjirr and Oongkalkada have increased in population as a result of these plans.

The Nyikina Mangala Aboriginal Corporation (NMAC) Strategic Plan (2011) aims to manage risks in order to promote economic and environmental sustainability. In addition to this, the Mardoowarra Wila Booroo Natural and Cultural Heritage Plan was

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 81

developed by Nyikina Mangala Traditional Owners as a partnership between the NMAC and the World Wildlife Fund-Australia (WWF). The Mardoowarra Wila Booroo Natural and Cultural Heritage Plan was developed to (Poelina and Perdrisat, 2011):

 Guide actions to protect natural and cultural values, and manage priority areas;

 Give direction for both the use and conservation of the Mardoowarra-Fitzroy River, and other important areas within Nyikina Mangala traditional lands;

 Guide decisions about future enterprise developments that ensure natural, social and cultural values are protected.

Other activities of the NMAC that represent an investment in the groundwater resources of the Fitzroy River Catchment have included (Poelina and Perdrisat, 2011):

 considering an involvement in the planning and development of a co- management strategy of the Myroodah-Luluigui Pastoral leases.

 employment and training of the Nyikina Mangala Rangers, who will target key living water systems, land and natural resource management.

 working towards mapping of traditional ecological and cultural knowledge as well as undertake some on ground works to protect significant “living water” systems such as springs and soaks.

 development of the Fitzroy Catchment Management Plan with the University of Western Australia (UWA 2010).

Overall, the likely impacts of groundwater extraction on the cultural values of the Fitzroy River Catchment are currently unknown. As described in Section 3.3, Liedloff et al. (2013) found that potential future changes to the flow regime of the Fitzroy River due to surface water diversion or groundwater extraction may have significant and variable impact on the ability to catch different aquatic species (Figure 15). For example, such development may alter the species of fish caught at different times of the year.

5.4 Mining and Unconventional Gas A map of the current and pending mining leases in the study area is shown in Figure 11. The largest current groundwater allocation for mining use is for the Kimberley

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 82

Diamond Company, which is licenced to extract 11.926 GL from the Grant Group over three licenses (Section 5.1.1). In addition, documentation on some specific mining activities was reviewed as part of this project and the information relevant to groundwater resource management is presented below.

The decommissioned Pillara Lead and Zinc Mine is located in the Devonian Pillara Limestone (Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd, 2011) (Figure 11). This mine still uses water for rehabilitation purposes, including dust suppression.

Buru Energy proposes to extract tight gas from the Laurel Formation at a depth of 2,000 – 5,000 m (Buru Energy, 2013). Two bores have been drilled in the study area (Figure 11). Bore Valhalla North 1 is located on Blina Pastoral Station, and bore Asgard 1 is on Noonkanbah Station (Figure 11). Here, the Laurel Formation is located below the Liveringa Sandstone and more than 600 m below the bottom of the Grant Group. Two bores have also been drilled at Yulleroo, approximately 80 km east of Willare, outside the study area. All of the wells have been drilled, but were suspended at the time of the Buru Energy (2013) report. Buru Energy (2013) estimate that they will use 31 ML of groundwater for a trial extraction and fracking has been proposed. The report reviewed for this study contained significant amounts of information on the hydrogeology around the four suspended wells, including geophysical logs indicating aquifer depths, and estimates of aquifer properties.

Also of interest was a proposed environmental monitoring program, to start in late 2013, comprising of:

 A near-field program: Three nests of bores at each petroleum bore site, monitored every 6 weeks. Sampling water quality (major ions, metals, gas loggers installed).  A far field program: regularly (approx. every six weeks), sampling monitoring bores and station bores within 5 km of the bore pads.

The proposed Duchess Paradise coal mine project (Figure 11) is anticipated to extract up to 28 L/s through slot-wall mining and 37 L/s for underground mining in the Lightjack Formation (Liveringa Group). The average extraction will be approximately 1 GL/yr (maximum of 1.5 GL/yr) derived from mine dewatering and extraction from the Poole Sandstone (Rey Resources, 2014). The range of potential impacts listed by Rey Resources (2014) are:

- Reduction in water supply available for stock;

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 83

- Reduction in groundwater flows with potential impact on the Fitzroy River alluvial aquifer and related ecosystem functions and heritage values; and - Reduced water availability for groundwater-dependent vegetation (suppression of the capillary fringe).

The report reviewed for this study included information from drilling and testing of monitoring bores (shallow and deep), with groundwater level and quality data also provided (Rey Resources, 2014). The report also included details of a conceptual model of the local hydrogeology around the mine site and a MODFLOW model developed to assess the impacts of the mine.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 84

6. Development Opportunities and Constraints

6.1 Prospective Groundwater Resources Both the shallow alluvial aquifers and the regional Canning Basin aquifers provide widespread opportunities for future groundwater development in the lower Fitzroy. The choice of the most suitable groundwater resources depends on the intended water requirements in terms of quality and volume, and the rate at which it needs to be extracted. In general, the Fitzroy alluvium, Margaret alluvium and other shallow alluvial deposits surrounding the larger creeks will provide small, localised supplies of variable quality. In contrast, the regional aquifers will be able to support much larger development with greater reliability and more consistent water quality.

The remainder of this section discusses the three primary groundwater resources that could be developed for irrigated agriculture, as well as any known constraints that may limit the volume, location and/or timing of their use. The constraints are generally related to either aquifer properties, water quality characteristics, or potential for groundwater extraction to impact on streamflow (refer to Figure 2).

Poole Sandstone / Grant Group The combined aquifers of the Poole Sandstone / Grant Group potentially offer the greatest opportunity for large scale groundwater development in the region. This is because they are regionally extensive, contain very good quality (i.e., low salinity) groundwater, and have several large areas of outcrop and are therefore actively recharged.

At the time of this review these aquifers are relatively undeveloped, with only about 13.6 GL/yr of licensed extraction, most of which is for Kimberley Diamonds in the north of the region. Several community water supply bores in the Fitzroy valley are completed in these aquifers (e.g., Looma?? in Grant Group, Yungngora in Poole Sst.).

Despite the vastness of these aquifers, very little is known about how and where they are recharged, how fast and in what direction does the groundwater move, and where are the natural discharge areas. Without this fundamental knowledge, it is impossible to define management areas or to estimate sustainable extraction limits. The only known constraint to development is that the Poole Sandstone is thought to be the main source of deep, old groundwater that discharges into the Fitzroy River during the dry season along the southern boundary of Noonkanbah Station (Harrington et al., 2011). It is currently unknown whether the same mechanism is responsible for supporting dry season flows along other downstream reaches of the

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 85

Fitzroy River. Other unknown constraints may include connections with other aquifers , which is important for considering potential threats to water quality and GDEs.

The knowledge required to enable a proper assessment of the development opportunities associated with the Poole Sandstone and Grant Group is outlined in Section 7.2.1.

Devonian Limestone The Devonian reef limestone hosts another regionally extensive aquifer system characterised by very good quality groundwater. The outcropping areas on the eastern and north-eastern flanks of the lower Fitzroy region will be most prospective, as the aquifer will occur at prohibitive depths across the remainder of the region.

The total current allocation from Devonian aquifers is very low (~3.6 GL/yr.). For this reason, very little is known about the processes of groundwater recharge and flow in these aquifers. The best knowledge occurs for a relatively small area coinciding with the largest historical allocation (Pillara Mine) and the largest current allocation (GoGo Station). This area is characterised by high transmissivity and very low groundwater salinity. Knowledge of the physical properties and water quality attributes of the Devonian limestone elsewhere is poor.

The Devonian limestone aquifers support a number of known and mapped groundwater dependent ecosystems, with the most iconic being Geikie Gorge on the Fitzroy River and Windjana Gorge on the Lennard River (Figure 1). It is likely there are many other unmapped GDEs in the outcropping areas that would have high ecological and cultural significance. Any groundwater development needs to consider the water requirements of these GDEs and provide sufficient buffers to negate undesirable impacts. Additionally, the role of the Devonian Limestone in recharging other connected aquifers is unknown, e.g. the Grant Group.

Alluvial Aquifer The alluvial aquifers that are associated with the Fitzroy River, the Margaret River and the numerous creeks that cross the lower Fitzroy valley provide opportunities for small-scale groundwater development. The location and scale of individual developments will be limited by variability in water quality and bore yields, and the degree of connectivity between high permeability sands and gravels.

Despite these limitations, Lindsay and Commander (2005) identified a number of favorable attributes of the Fitzroy alluvium, most notably that it has the potential to

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 86

be fully replenished each year by infiltration from the river bed during wet season flows. Using a simple numerical model the authors showed that pumping groundwater at a rate of 2 ML/day per km on one side of the river would cause a drawdown of 0.5 m at the river bed at the end of dry season. If this level of drawdown was acceptable – which is doubtful given the importance of dry season flows and permanent pools – then a total abstraction of 200 GL/year could theoretically be achieved over the 275 km length of river.

In practice only a small proportion of the above estimate of 200 GL/year could reliably and sustainably be extracted from the alluvium. In addition to the aforementioned constraints of impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems, variable bore yields and wide ranging water quality, the siting and maintenance of bores in such a dynamic floodplain environment would also be problematic.

Lindsay and Commander (2005) recommended a practical way to develop the alluvial aquifers through the siting of bores in gravelly deposits that are not well connected to the river channel but are connected to floodways so that they can be recharged in the wet season. They also suggested that bores could be sited away from the river and used to artificially maintain dry season flows and pool levels.

In order for localised development of the alluvial aquifers to proceed, a set of consistent allocation and pumping rules will presumably need to be established, in order to limit the impacts on adjacent users and groundwater dependent ecosystems. The types of information that would be required to facilitate such assessments of the alluvial aquifer is outlined in Section 8.x.

6.2 Managed Aquifer Recharge Given the abundance of fresh surface water in wet season flows of the Fitzroy River, harvesting a small fraction these flows and storing the water underground in aquifers for subsequent use in the dry season is an attractive option. This process is known as Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) or Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) and has been practiced globally with great success for centuries, particularly in areas where water availability and demand are seasonally opposed.

CSIRO (2009) suggested the shallow alluvial aquifers across northern Australia have limited artificial storage potential as they are generally full at the end of each wet season. They also suggested that in catchments such as the Fitzroy, where extensive floodplains are covered by low-conductivity black clay soils, the use of large infiltration pits or “galleries” would not be an option. Therefore any MAR scheme

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 87

would require purpose-built injection wells, which are generally cost prohibitive for irrigation purposes.

Deeper aquifers of the Canning Basin, including those highlighted in the previous section as well as the Liveringa Group, have greatest potential for MAR. However it is currently unknown where and how much surface water could be injected into these aquifers. There has also been no assessment of the operational constraints of such schemes; for example, how to remove high turbidity from the surface water to avoid physical clogging of bore screens, and how to mitigate undesirable geochemical interactions that may cause clogging or dissolution of the aquifer.

In a high level assessment of the potential feasibility of MAR in three catchments across northern Australia, Lennon et al. (2014) estimated that up to 5 ML/ha could be stored in the Fitzroy River alluvium. However, the authors also stressed the approximate nature of this estimate, and recommended site specific assessments to confirm the suitability of MAR, particularly where water could potentially flow back to the river.

6.3 Targeted Development Areas One of the requirements of this study was to review the water supply options for targeted irrigation development at Mount Anderson, Fitzroy Crossing, GoGo Station and Mount Pierre.

Around Mount Anderson Station the Poole Sandstone is likely to present the best prospects for large-scale groundwater development as it occurs at shallow depth and is characterised (generally) as having moderate bore yields and very good water quality. Given the local outcrops of the Poole Sandstone and Grant Group, there is also likely to be reliable annual recharge, although this clearly needs to be confirmed through detailed investigations. The main constraint to groundwater development on Mount Anderson is GDEs, including the need to manage impacts to water- dependent sites of cultural significance in the Grant Range, and the depletion of dry season flows in the Fitzroy River. Some information in the form of AEM survey results (Fitzpatrick et al., 2012) and river water chemistry (Harrington et al., 2011) is available to start investigating surface water-groundwater connectivity in this area, however this was not the focus area of earlier investigations that collected the data, so existing knowledge is limited.

Around Fitzroy Crossing there are several opportunities for groundwater development. To the north and south of the town, the alluvial aquifer is extensive

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 88

and could sustain small developments. However given the strong social and cultural ties to both the Fitzroy and Margaret rivers it is likely that any major development of the alluvial aquifer would have detrimental impacts on dry season flows and the persistence of permanent pools. Accordingly, the most acceptable and sustainable opportunities are likely to focus on the deeper Canning Basin aquifers, as these may be disconnected from the river. Specific targets for future exploratory drilling should include the Fairfield Group and the Grant Group. The Grant Group aquifer is currently used for the town water supply at Fitzroy Crossing, although it is known to be low yielding with groundwater flow largely controlled by jointing and fracturing (DoW, 2008).

Further south on GoGo Station the Devonian limestone is currently being used to supply water to several centre pivots irrigating fodder crops such as sorghum. At the time of writing this report it is understood that GoGo Station is planning to expand their irrigation enterprise through surface water harvesting. Regardless of whether that eventuates, there is potential to expand groundwater development from the Devonian limestone. A detailed local assessment of the hydrogeology of this aquifer could easily be achieved utilizing the bore network and long-term monitoring records for Pillara Mine. On GoGo Station the Poole Sandstone and Grant Group is also a potential future water supply option. These aquifers outcrop in several locations and occur at relatively shallow depth in the southwest (e.g., Big Moana and #6 Panoroma bores sampled by Harrington et al. 2011), however little is known about its hydrogeology in this part of the Canning Basin.

The Devonian limestone and Grant Group also offer the greatest prospects further east on Mount Pierre Station. However, there is no existing knowledge for these aquifers in this part of the basin.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 89

7. Critical Knowledge Gaps All of the recent groundwater related studies in the lower Fitzroy valley, including that of Lindsay and Commander (2005), have documented data and knowledge gaps. In essence, the gaps that have already been identified can be summarised as follows:

 lack of long-term groundwater monitoring data (levels and water quality) for all of the aquifers;  lack of reliable river flow monitoring data during low-flow conditions;  poor understanding of groundwater recharge and flow processes; and  limited knowledge of surface-water groundwater connectivity.  a lack of knowledge of the ecological relationships, dynamics and water requirements of high value aquatic ecosystems (groundwater dependent or not), limiting the ability to assess the impacts of changes in surface and groundwater flows to such systems.

Other gaps that have been identified during the course of this review include a comprehensive database of bore yields, knowledge of different water types and their suitability for irrigation purposes, and an understanding of controls on groundwater chemistry for each of the main aquifers.

The following sections put these gaps into context by specifying the types of information or knowledge that would be required to provide greater confidence of the groundwater development potential in the lower Fitzroy, both in terms of establishing management principles and mapping opportunities and constraints.

7.1 Knowledge Required to Facilitate Allocation of the Alluvial Aquifer As described in Chapter 6, the alluvial aquifer presents opportunities for small-scale water resource developments. Due to the heterogeneity of the alluvial aquifer and the likely complex connections to GDEs, a broad regional-scale assessment of the alluvial aquifer would not necessarily facilitate future development. Instead, local scale assessments of individual development proposals are recommended and should be framed around a set of site-specific allocation and pumping rules.

Development and implementation of such rules is highly reliant upon having detailed mapping of groundwater-dependent ecological and cultural assets, as well as baseline knowledge of their relationship to the groundwater system and the specific ecological water requirements.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 90

7.2 Knowledge Required for Regional Aquifers

7.2.1 To Better Understand Development Opportunities This review has found that the Poole Sandstone / Grant Group and Devonian limestone aquifers present the greatest opportunities for large-scale groundwater development for irrigated agriculture in the lower Fitzroy valley. Despite the large regional extent of the two aquifer systems, there is currently insufficient knowledge to provide confidence about resource availability, to define management areas and to estimate sustainable extraction limits.

The critical knowledge required for these purposes includes maps of the horizontal and vertical extent of the aquifers, an understanding of recharge locations and mechanisms, estimates of recharge rates and volumes, and sound knowledge of groundwater flow paths, inter-aquifer connectivity and residence times. In acquiring this knowledge it would also be beneficial to develop an understanding of both the groundwater salinity distribution and variability of aquifer physical properties.

7.2.2 To Better Understand Development Constraints One of the key advantages in targeting the deep, regional aquifers is that they are potentially less connected to surface water features than the alluvial aquifers. However, recent investigations have already shown that this premise is not always valid; the deep Poole Sandstone aquifer beneath the Fitzroy River at Noonkanbah is a significant source of groundwater discharge to the river in the dry season (section 3.1; Harrington et al., 2011). Similar mechanisms are likely to be important in other parts of the region, including the mound springs further west on the Dampier Peninsula (Close et al., 2012). Therefore mapping water-dependent ecological and cultural assets, understanding their dependence on groundwater, and characterising the types of surface water-groundwater connectivity is also critical for assessing the development potential of regional aquifers.

The sections of the Fitzroy River where surface water-groundwater interactions have been studied in detail are known to rely on both shallow/local and deep/regional aquifers to sustain dry season flows (Harrington et al., 2011). However, this knowledge has only been acquired at the start of the wet season (i.e., early May) in two different years. There remains a major knowledge gap about the temporal variability in both the mechanisms and rates of groundwater discharge to the entire Fitzroy River.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 91

Another potential constraint to developing the regional aquifers is inter-aquifer connectivity. This process can limit the volume of groundwater available for extraction due to either the entrainment of poorer quality water from adjacent aquifers and aquitards, or by inadvertently dewatering other aquifers including the overlying alluvium. A detailed assessment of the potential for natural and enhanced inter-aquifer leakage is therefore warranted.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 92

8. Recommendations for work to address knowledge gaps The following sections present a prioritisation of technical work required to address the knowledge gaps outlined in the previous chapter. Figure 23 provides a synthesis of this work program, demonstrating the dependencies and relationships between individual projects.

Figure 23 Recommended technical work program to address the hydrogeological objectives of the Water for Food project in the lower Fitzroy valley.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 93

8.1 Update the WIN Database The first recommendation to come from this review is an update of the Department’s WIN database. Several data requests during the course of the project have revealed that most of the useful historical groundwater information (e.g., water level monitoring, aquifer pumping test results and water chemistry analyses) is missing from the database. Accordingly, there is no consolidated dataset from which a rigorous analysis of trends or statistics for different aquifers can be readily undertaken.

The largest dataset that needs to be uploaded – and would be extremely useful for future investigation – is water chemistry analyses, often for the same bores on multiple occasions. These analyses exist in numerous reports that have been captured in this review, including but not limited to the following:

 Aboriginal community drinking water source protection assessments for Bayulu, Junjuwa and Yungngora (Noonkanbah) (PB, 2009a; 2009b; 2009c);  Aboriginal community water supply drilling reports (e.g., Gee (1994) for Jarlmadangah Buru, Looma, Bungardi, Parukupan);  Buru Energy reports (e.g., Rockwater, 2013; Buru Energy, 2013);  Fitzroy Crossing town water supply reports (particularly WAWA, 1990; Water Corporation, 2013);  Camballin Groundwater Monitoring Review (Water Corporation, 2014);  Fitzroy Crossing Power Station Detailed Site Investigation (ERM, 2009); and  Surface water – groundwater interactions report (Harrington et al., 2011).

The water chemistry analyses are just one example of useful information that needs to be collated into a centralized and easy-to-query database. Other key examples include the extensive records of water level monitoring data from Water Corporation (2013; 2014) and mining companies (e.g., Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd.) and aquifer pumping test results for town and community water supplies.

8.2 Regional geophysics survey A regional scale airborne electromagnetic (AEM) geophysical survey is recommended as an important next step in understanding the groundwater resources of the lower Fitzroy valley. The survey conducted in 2010 (Fitzpatrick et al., 2012) did not cover all of the lower reaches of the Fitzroy River, and only had a few short flight lines running perpendicular to the main river channel (Figure 6)

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 94

because it focused on geological controls on surface water – groundwater interactions.

A new broader scale AEM survey would help to define the geometry, extents and broad water quality characteristics of the main aquifers and aquitards in other parts of the valley. While it would be ideal to survey the entire study area shown in Figure 1, the costs of acquiring, modelling and interpreting data over this vast scale are likely to be prohibitive. Therefore, a more strategic approach is recommended in which the survey focuses on the most prospective aquifers (Poole Sandstone/Grant Group, Devonian limestone) and the targeted development areas (Mount Anderson, Fitzroy Crossing, GoGo Station). The Fitzroy River should also be surveyed downstream of the 2010 survey limit to Willare so that the entire river has been captured. Surveying this reach may also identify of the position of the saltwater interface that originates beneath King Sound.

A map showing proposed focus areas for the AEM survey is provided in Appendix B. This includes a region to the north of Willare, where the broader West Kimberley Water for Food project is investigating opportunities for water resource development around Mowanjum and Knowsley to the south of Derby, and further east within the alluvium of the May and Meda rivers.

8.3 Establish a representative monitoring network There is a dearth of historical groundwater monitoring data for the lower Fitzroy valley, other than the isolated monitoring that occurs for regulatory purposes around either mine sites (e.g., Pillara) or water supplies for towns (e.g., Fitzroy Crossing, Camballin) and Aboriginal communities. Long-term water level and salinity trends in undeveloped areas are critical for understanding groundwater recharge and discharge processes, which is required for determining sustainable extraction limits.

The establishment of a strategic and enduring groundwater monitoring network consisting of both existing bores and new, purpose-built bores is highly recommended. The locations of these bores should consider the following:

 existing bores to be used for monitoring must have complete stratigraphic logs and construction details available;  new and existing bores must be screened or slotted across a known aquifer, and have casing in good condition;

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 95

 monitoring of groundwater dynamics in outcropping areas of the main aquifers identified as having high development potential (i.e., Poole Sandstone/Grant Group and Devonian limestone).  monitoring of pre-development groundwater dynamics in areas of potential targeted development such as Mount Anderson, Fitzroy Crossing and GoGo Station; and  purpose-built monitoring infrastructure next to known or suspected groundwater dependent ecosystems, including the Fitzroy and Margaret rivers, Geikie and Windjana gorges, and the water-dependent assets identified by FitzCAM (Appendix A) and Kennard (2011) (section 3.2).

It is recommended that the AEM surveys (past and recommended) be used to guide the siting of monitoring of bores in the most prospective areas of all aquifers, including the alluvial aquifer. That is, high resistivity/low conductivity zones in the AEM sections that are indicative of low clay content and/or fresh groundwater.

However, it must be stressed that the drilling of any new monitoring bores should not occur until the WIN database has been updated with all of the aforementioned missing information. It would also be useful to synthesize the results of existing monitoring programs to determine if they could be used to complement the regional network. For example, long-term monitoring data already exists for Pillara Mine. Buru Energy also proposed a monitoring program to start in late 2013, including both a near-field and far-field program (Buru Energy, 2013). The near-field program had three nests of monitoring bores at each petroleum bore site, which would be monitored every six weeks and sampled for water quality (major ions, metals, dissolved gases). The far-field program was also to include sampling monitoring bores and station bores within 5 km of well pads every six weeks. This data should be captured and evaluated.

There are a number of existing bores identified in this review that could potentially be used for future monitoring to meet Water for Food hydrogeological objectives, including the aforementioned networks operated by Buru Energy and Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd. In addition, the multi-level piezometers that were installed at three sites on Noonkanbah Station as part of the DoW/RNWS project should be monitored using continuous water level loggers to provide better understanding of the importance of flood recharge to the alluvial aquifers during the wet season. Other existing bores that should be priortised for monitoring include various unused bores around Bungardi and Darlngunya communities near Fitzroy Crossing. A number of these

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 96

were visited and recorded by DoW staff in October 2010. Collecting continuous groundwater level data from these sites would provide insights to the aquifer responses to local hydrological stresses including natural river flow events and human-induced pumping from the water supply bores in the Grant Group aquifer. Similar bores are also likely to exist in the vicinity of the Camballin town water supply.

Finally, it is recommended the existing surface water monitoring infrastructure be augmented with automated salinity (as Electrical Conductivity) loggers. These relatively inexpensive devices enable continuous logging of water level and EC at any predefined frequency, and would therefore provide critical baseline information for GDEs such as the pools along Fitzroy and Margaret rivers, Liveringa Pool, Udialla Springs etc.

8.4 Groundwater dependence of water-related ecosystems Previous efforts have documented known ecological assets (FitzCAM, 2009) and high conservation value aquatic ecosystems (Kennard, 2011). However it is currently unknown which of the aquatic ecological assets – besides the main channel of the Fitzroy River – rely on groundwater input through the dry season. A field-based assessment of groundwater dependence is recommended to determine the role of hydrogeological processes, and thereby enable meaningful risk assessments of the potential impact of groundwater abstraction near these sites. Approximately 30 sites are recommended as this reflects the number of assets listed in the aforementioned references.

The approach should be multi-disciplinary and include ecological surveys, environmental tracer measurements, and hydrogeological conceptualisation. Field visits would need to occur at least two times per year (end of wet and end of dry), and the project should extend over at least two dry seasons to capture the variability in rainfall/runoff of different preceding wet seasons. The outcome of such a study would be an informed understanding of which ecological and cultural assets are groundwater dependent, which can then be used to manage groundwater development around priority assets.

8.5 Regional groundwater resource investigation A comprehensive hydrogeological investigation of the most prospective regional aquifer systems should be a high priority. This study is required to provide the baseline technical understanding that is necessary for determining reliable estimates

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 97

of groundwater availability and sustainable extraction limits. At present neither of these could be estimated with confidence. A combined approach that includes contemporary hydrogeological assessment techniques (e.g., drilling, aquifer pumping tests and water level mapping) and novel methods (e.g., environmental tracers) is recommended. These will help to provide the following outcomes:

 Maps of aquifer extents and potentiometric surfaces;  Knowledge of recharge processes and estimates of recharge rates;  Knowledge of groundwater flow directions and residence times;  Knowledge of water chemistry for different aquifers; and  Informed understanding of development potential in different areas of the lower Fitzroy valley.

8.6 Technical investigations in targeted areas In order for targeted development to occur at Mount Anderson, Fitzroy Crossing, GoGo Station, Mount Pierre Station, or anywhere else in the lower Fitzroy valley, it will be critical to evaluate the true water resource potential and map constraints at each site. Accordingly, focused technical investigations are recommended to characterise the local aquifer at each site. Bore yields and water quality are obviously key parameters for determining the feasibility of water supplies for irrigation, but it will also be critical to develop knowledge of the potential for connectivity with surface water sites of ecological and cultural significance.

At the time of writing this report, planning is already underway for exploratory drilling and aquifer pump testing on Bunuba country to the north of Fitzroy Crossing. The target formation here is the Carboniferous Fairfield Group sediments. There may also be a need to explore the resource potential of the Grant Group aquifer, as this has previously been determined to be the best resource for supplying Fitzroy Crossing. An important consideration for groundwater development in this location, regardless of aquifer, is the need to avoid pumping impacts on Fitzroy River baseflow and permanent pools. Therefore a quantitative assessment to address this risk is also warranted.

Specific details of work programs for other target area will need to be defined as planning proceeds. In any case, the focus should be on providing improved confidence around development opportunities and better definition of potential constraints.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 98

8.7 Modelling tools and assessments The proponents of any future groundwater development will need to demonstrate that their extraction will not adversely impact existing users, including groundwater dependent ecosystems. This will require site specific technical assessments that generally include some form of groundwater model. Accordingly, it would be prudent for the Department to begin collecting the types of data that these models will ultimately require. Examples include historical groundwater level and water quality monitoring records, and estimates of aquifer hydraulic properties such as hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, porosity and storage coefficient.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 99

9 References Australian Groundwater Consultants (1971). Underground Water Resources ALCCO Limited.

Allen, A.D., Laws, A.T. and Commander, D.P. (1992). A review of the major groundwater resources in Western Australia. Report to Kimberley Water Resources Development Office.

Apak, S.N. (1996). Depositional History of the Lower Permian Carolyn Formation and Poole Sandstone in the Northern Canning Basin: Implications for Hydrocarbon Potential. Geological Survey of Western Australia. Record 1996/8.

Appleyard et al. (2006). Options for bringing water to Perth from the Kimberley: an independent review, for Department of Premier and Cabinet.

Barlow, P.M., and Leake, S.A. (2012). Streamflow depletion by wells—Understanding and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1376, 84 p.

Beard, J. S. (1990). Plant life of Western Australia. Kangaroo Press, NSW., 310 pp.

Bridge (1986). East Yeeda 1 well completion report. Bridge Oil Ltd (unpublished).

Brunner, P., Cook, P. G., and Simmons, C. T. (2009). Hydrogeologic controls on disconnection between surface water and groundwater. Water Resources Research, 45(1).

Bunn, S.E. and Arthington, A.H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30: 492- 507.

Buru Energy (2013). Laurel Formation Tight Gas Pilot Exploration Program (TGS14) Environment Plan. Document Number HSE-PLN-017. 26 November 2013.

Close, P.G., Wallace, J., Bayliss, P., Bartolo, R., Burrows, D., Pusey, B.J., Robinson, C.J., McJannet, D., Karim, F., Byrne, G., Marvanek, S., Turnadge, C., Harrington, G., Petheram, C., Dutra, L.X.C, Dobbs, R., Pettit, N., Jankowski, A., Wallington, T., Kroon, F., Schmidt, D., Buttler, B., Stock, M., Veld, A., Speldewinde, P., Cook, B.A., Cook, B., Douglas, M., Setterfield, S., Kennard, M., Davies, P., Hughes, J., Cossart, R., Conolly, N. and Townsend, S. (2012). Assessment of the likely impacts of development and climate change on aquatic ecological assets in Northern Australia. A report for the National Water Commission, Australia. Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) Commonwealth Environmental Research Facility, Charles Darwin University, Darwin. ISBN: 978-1-921576-66-9. 561pp.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 100

Commander, D.P. (1987). Derby hydrogeological map—drilling proposal. Western Australia Geological Survey, Hydrogeology Report 2781.

Crosbie, R.S., McCallum, J.L., and Harrington, G.A. (2009).Diffuse groundwater recharge modelling across northern Australia. A report to the Australian Government from the Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship, Australia.

Crowe, R.W.A. and Towner, R.R. (1981). 1:250 000 Geological Series - Explanatory Notes Noonkanbah Sheet SE/51-12 International Index, Australian Government Publishing service, Canberra.

CSIRO (2009). Water in the Timor Sea Drainage Division. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Northern Australia Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia.

Davies, P.M. & Bunn, S.E. (2000). Ecological processes in turbid, arid zone rivers of Australia: “A bathtub ring concept”. Bulletin of the North American Benthological Society. 17: 175.

Davis, J., Street, M., Malo, H., Cherel, I., Woodward, E. (2011). Mingayooroo–Manyi Waranggiri Yarrangi. Gooniyandi Seasons (calendar), Margaret River, Fitzroy Valley, Western Australia. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Darwin, NT. .

Department of Water (DoW) (2008). Fitzroy Crossing Water Reserve Drinking Water Source Protection Plan. Fitzroy Crossing Town Water Supply. Report 94.

Department of Water (DoW) (2012). Surface water – groundwater interaction in the lower Fitzroy River floodplain, Western Australia. Unpublished DRAFT.

Doble, R.C., Palmer, D., Cook, P.G. and McCallum, J.L. (2010). Sampling for stream-aquifer connections by helicopter in a remote, inaccessible area, in Proceedings of Groundwater 2010: The Challenge of Sustainable Management.

Environment Australia (2001). A directory of important wetlands in Australia. Environment Australia, Canberra, Third Edition. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/wetlands/pubs/dir ectory.pdf.

Environmental Resources Management (ERM) (2009). Fitzroy Crossing Power Station detailed site investigation. Horizon Power. March 2009.

FitzCAM (2009). FitzCAM Asset Table DRAFT 29-10-2009, unpublished.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 101

Fitzpatrick, A., Munday, T.J., Cahill, K. and Stelfox, L. (2011). An interpretation of SkyTEM Airborne EM data for the Fitzroy River, Western Australia: Final report. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Technical Report No. CESRE P2010/1235.

Froend, D., Loomes, R., Horwitz, P., Bertuch, M., Storey, A. and Bamford, M. (2004). Study of Ecological Water Requirement on the Gnangara and Jandakot Mounds under Section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act, Task 2: Determination of Ecological Water Requirements. The Water and Rivers Commission, W.A.

Global Groundwater (2005). Fitzroy River Lodge 2005 Drilling and Test Pumping Analysis for Fitzroy River Lodge, December 2005.

Ghassemi, F., Ferguson, J., and Etminan, H. (1991). Hydrogeology of deep aquifers in the Canning Basin, Western Australia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Groundwater in Large Sedimentary Basins, Perth, Western Australia, 1990: Australian Water Resources Council, Conference Series no. 20, p. 59-69.

Gardner, W.P., Harrington, G.A., Solomon, D.K. and Cook, P.G. (2011). Using terrigenic 4He to identify and quantify regional groundwater discharge to streams. Water Resources Research, 47, W06523.

Gee, S.J. (1994). Aboriginal community water supplies, Groundwater exploration and completion report 1993/1, Kimberley Region. Water Authority of Western Australia.

Gibson D.L. & Crowe R.W.A. (1982). 1:250 000 Geological Series - Explanatory Notes Mount Anderson Sheet SE/51-11 International Index, Australian Government Publishing service, Canberra.

Glover, R.E. and Balmer, G.G. (1954). River depletion resulting from pumping a well near a river. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 35, 468-470. GoGo Station Production Bores Usage Reports (March 2013 and May 2012)

Harrington, G.A., Stelfox, L., Gardner, W.P., Davies, P., Doble, R. and Cook, P.G. (2011). Surface water – groundwater interactions in the lower Fitzroy River, Western Australia. Technical Report, August 2011, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country, 54 pp.

Harrington, G.A., Gardner, W.P. and Munday, T.J. (2013). Tracking groundwater discharge to a large river using tracers and geophysics. Ground Water, 52(6): 837-852.

Jackson, S., Finn, M., Woodward, E. and Featherston, P. (2011). Indigenous socio-economic values and river flows – A Summary of Research results: 2008-2010. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Darwin, NT.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 102

Kay, W.R., Smith, M.J., Pinder, A.M., Mcrae, J.M., Davis, J.A. and Halse, S.A. (1999). Patterns of distribution of macroinvertebrate families in rivers of north-western Australia. Freshwater Biology. 41(2): 299-316.

Kennard, M.J. (ed) (2011). Priorities for identification and sustainable management of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems in northern Australia. Final Report for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities and the National Water Commission. Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) Commonwealth Environmental Research Facility, Charles Darwin University, Darwin.

Kimberley Water Resources Development Office (1993). Fitzroy valley irrigation — a conceptual study. Government of Western Australia, 232 pp + appendices.

Lamontagne, S., Cook, P.G., Oʼ Grady, A. and Eamus, D. (2005). Groundwater use by vegetation in a tropical savanna riparian zone (Daly River, Australia). Journal of Hydrology, 310: 280-293.

Laws, A.T. (1990) Outline of the groundwater resource potential of the Canning Basin Western Australia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Groundwater in Large Sedimentary Basins, Australian Water Resources Council Conference Series No. 20.

Laws, A.T., and Smith, R.A. (1989). The Derby Regional Groundwater Investigation 1987: Western Australia Geological Survey, Record 1989/12.

Lennard Shelf Pty Ltd (2011). Pillara Operations. Annual Hydrogeological Monitoring Report. 1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011. September 2011.

Lennon et al. (2014). The role of managed aquifer recharge in developing northern Australia. OzWater 2014.

Liedloff, A.C., Woodward, E.L., Harrington, G.A. and Jackson, S. (2013). Integrating indigenous ecological and scientific hydro-geological knowledge using a Bayesian Network in the context of water resource development. Journal of Hydrology, 499: 177- 187

Lindsay R.P and Commander D.P. (2005) Hydrogeological assessment of the Fitzroy alluvium, Western Australia, Department of Water, Hydrogeological Record Series HG 16.

Marchant, R., Hirst, A., Norris, R.H., Butcher, R., Metzeling, L. and Tiller, D. (1997). Classification and prediction of macroinvertebrate assemblages from running waters in Victoria, Australia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 664-681.

McConnell, K. and O’Connor, S. (1997). 40,000 year record of flood plants in the Southern

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 103

Kimberley Ranges, Western Australia. Australian Archaeology 45, 20–31.

McJannet, D.L., Wallace, J.W., Henderson, A. and McMahon, J. (2009). High and low flow regime changes at environmental assets across northern Australia under future climate and development scenarios, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Canberra.

Middleton, M.F. (1990). ‘Canning Basin’, in Geology and Mineral Resources of Western Australia. Western Australia Geological Survey, Memoir 3, pp. 425–457.

Morgan, D., Thornburn, D., Fenton, J., Wallace-Smith, H. and Goodson, S. (2005). Influence of the Camballin Barrage on fish communities in the Fitzroy River, Western Australia. Department of Environment report to Land and Water Australia. Murdoch University.

Mory, A.J. and Hocking, R.M., (2011). Permian, Carboniferous and Upper Devonian Geology of the Northern Canning Basin, Western Australia – A Field Guide. Geological Survey of Western Australia. Record No. 2011/16.

Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review (2009). http://www.regional.gov.au/regional/ona/nalwt_files/337388_NLAW_Review_2009.pdf

Nyikina Mangala Aboriginal Corporation (NMAC) (2011). NMAC Strategic Plan, Madjulla Incorporated, Broome, WA.

O’Connor, S. (1995). Carpenter’s Gap rockshelter 1: 40,000 years of Aboriginal occupation in the Napier Ranges, Kimberley, Western Australia. Australian Archaeology 40, pp. 58– 59.

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) (2009a). Bayulu (GoGo) Community Drinking Water Source Protection Assessment. Department of Housing, July 2009.

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) (2009b). Junjuwa Community Drinking Water Source Protection Assessment. Department of Housing, July 2009.

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) (2009c). Yungngora (Noonkanbah) Community Drinking Water Source Protection Assessment. Department of Housing, July 2009.

Poelina, A. and Perdrisat, I. (2011), Nyikina Mangala Mardoowarra (Fitzroy River). Sustainable Livelihoods on Country Case Study. Charles Darwin University.

Purcell, P.G. (1984). ‘The Canning Basin, Western Australia’ in Proceedings of Geological Society of Australia/Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia Symposium (Ed. by P.G. Purcell), pp. 1–19. Perth, Western Australia.

Playford, P.E. and Lowry, D.C. (1966). Devonian reef complexes of the Canning Basin, Western Australia. Western Australia Geological Survey. Bulletin 188.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 104

Pollard, J. (1993). ‘Huge WA canal plan welcomed’. Sunday Times, 24 January 1993.Rey Resources 2011a

Rey Resources (2014). Duchess Paradise Project. Public Environmental Review. February 2014.

Rockwater (1987). ACP No.1 artesian bore completion report Broome, W.A. Report for Australian City Properties Pty Ltd.

Rockwater (2011). Results of Groundwater Investigations at Fitzroy Crossing WWTP. Report for Water Corporation, Jolimont.

Rockwater (2013). Hydrogeological assessment of project areas. Report prepared for Buru Energy Ltd.

Ruprecht, J. & Rodgers, S. (1998). Hydrology of the Fitzroy River. [In] AW Storey and L. Beesley (eds) Limnology of the Fitzroy River, Western Australia: A Technical Workshop. Proceedings of a workshop held on Wednesday 18th February 1998, at Claremont Conference Centre, Edith Cowan University, Claremont, WA

Smith, R.A. (1992). Explanatory notes on the Derby 1:250 000 hydrogeological sheet. Western Australia Geological Survey, Hydrogeological Series.

Smith , R.A., (1988). Derby Hydrogeological Map bore completion reports. Western Australia Geological Survey, Hydrogeology Report 1988/20.

Smith, M., Kay, W. and Halse, S. (1998). The Monitoring River Health Initiative and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Kimberley region of Western Australia [In] AW Storey and L. Beesley (eds) Limnology of the Fitzroy River, Western Australia: A Technical Workshop. Proceedings of a workshop held on Wednesday 18th February 1998, at Claremont Conference Centre, Edith Cowan University, Claremont, WA.

Smith, M.J., W.R. Kay, D.H.D. Edward, P.J. Papas, K.S.J. Richardson, J.C. Simpson, A.M. Pinder, D.J. Cale, P.H. Hprwitz, J.A. Davis, F.H. Yung, R.H. Norris, and S.A. Halse (1999). AUSRIVAS: Using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 269-282.

Storey, A.W., Davies P.M. and Froend, R.H., 2001. Fitzroy River System: Environmental Values. Report for the Water and Rivers Commission, Perth, Western Australia.

Sutton, D. (1998). Assessment of the natural environmental values of the Fitzroy River Region, WA. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission, pp 61.

Swarbrick, R.A. (1965 ). Geological Investigation of the Gogo Diversion Dam Site, Western Australia Geological Survey, Record 1965/30.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 105

Taylor, C.F.H. (2000). Flood Geomorphology of the Fitzroy River, Northwestern Australia. University of Western Australia, PhD thesis (unpublished).

Theis, C.V. (1935). The relation between the lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage. Transactions American Geophysical Union 16, 519–524.

Tomlinson, M. and Boulton A.J. (2010). Ecology and management of subsurface groundwater dependent ecosystems in Australia; a review. Marine and Freshwater Research , 61: 936-949.

Toussaint, S. Sullivan, P., Yu, S. and Mularty, M. (2001). Fitzroy Valley Indigenous Cultural Values Study (a preliminary assessment). Report for the Water and Rivers Commission.

Turnadge, C., Petheram, C., Davies, P. and Harrington, G. (2013). Water Resources. In: Grice, A.C., Watson, I. and Stone, P. (eds) ‘Mosaic Irrigation for the Northern Australian Beef Industry. An assessment of sustainability and potential. Technical Report.’ A report prepared for the Office of Northern Australia. CSIRO, Brisbane.

University of Western Australia (UWA) (2010). Fitzroy Catchment Management Plan. The University of Western Australia. Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management March 2010. 103pp.

URS (2010). Liveringa Station. Groundwater Supply Options – Scoping Study. Prepared for: Liveringa Pastoral Company. 22 January 2010. van Dam, R., Bartolo, R. and Bayliss, P. (2008). Chapter 2 – Identification of ecological assets, pressures and threats. In Ecological risk assessment for Australia’s northern tropical rivers. Sub-project 2 of Australia’s Tropical Rivers – an integrated data assessment and analysis (DET18). A report to Land & Water Australia. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research, Darwin NT, 14–161.

Water Authority of Western Australia (WAWA) (1990). Fitzroy Crossing Groundwater Scheme Review. Report no. WG 100. August 1990.

Water Authority of Western Australia (WAWA) (1993). An evaluation of dams in the Fitzroy Valley. Fitzroy Valley irrigation Concept Plan Study 232, Internal report No. WP 182.

Water Corporation (2008). Annual Statement to Water and Rivers Commission (2007-2008). 5th June 2008.

Water Corporation (2012). Fitzroy Crossing Wastewater Treatment Plan. Application for Works Approval. February 2012.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 106

Water Corporation (2013). Fitzroy Crossing Groundwater Monitoring Review 2013. June 2013.

Water Corporation (2014). Camballin Groundwater Monitoring Review 2013. June 2014.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 107

Appendix A FitzCAM DRAFT Asset Table 29-10-09 (FitzCAM, 2009). Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name 1 King Leopold, Geological, Internationally significant geological sites including the Egan Formation Mueller and Durack biodiversity (exceptionally well preserved record of early evolution), Goat Paddock (crater), and Ranges Pavement Hill (glaciated rock). Also provide habitat for a number of (fauna) species considered rare, endangered, vulnerable, priority or of special concern. 2 Geike Range and Geological, This Devonian Reef System is one of the best preserved examples of its type in the Geike Gorge biodiversity world and exhibits a range of geological and biological features which make the area significant at a regional, national and international level. Supports a large number of endemic land snail and cave dwelling invertebrates. Geike Gorge is important habitat for the Purple-crowned Fairy-wren. 3 Mimbi Caves Geological The extensive cave system of the Lawford Ranges is recognised as a rare geological feature. 4 Widespread Geological Tufa deposits 5 The Camballin Vegetation/ Referred to locally as “frontage” or “flood plain country”, with or without scattered Agricult., tourism, Poor Manag. floodplain area Agriculture trees and shrubs. The principal grasses are ribbon grass (Chrysopogon fallax), blue bird-watching Fire (Le Lievre Swamp biodiversity grass (Dichanthium spp.) and Mitchell grass (Astrebla spp.). The area is regarded as Feral animals System) one of the richest grazing areas of the Kimberley region. Migratory birds. Failed irrigation projects. 6 The Fitzroy River Vegetation/ Vegetated by Eucalyptus microtheca savanna with fringing woodland composed of floodplain agriculture eucalypts, acacias and wild figs.

7 The Fitzroy River Biodiversity One of the few large remaining natural areas on earth – the tropical savannas of Catchment Northern Australia 8 Riparian vegetation Biodiversity Generally good condition and contained several priority species, but areas of high Cattle access, along the Fitzroy stock access were affected by bank degradation and weed invasion. Condition in a weeds River declining trend due to fire, erosion and feral herbivores 9 Aquatic Biodiversity Assessed using the AusRivAS protocol - reported to be in good ecological “health”. invertebrate fauna along river 10 Fish fauna along Biodiversity Diverse, containing some species endemic to the Kimberley and to the Fitzroy

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 108

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name river 11 Waterbirds on Biodiversity At least 67 species of waterbirds recorded on the Camballin floodplain. Considered floodplains, sufficiently important for areas to meet listing under the Ramsar (Wetlands of particularly International Importance) Convention, and many of the waterbird species are listed Camballin under international agreements (e.g. JAMBA/CAMBA).

12 The Margaret River Biodiversity, Assessed as in a worse condition than the remainder of the catchment, with heavy Bush fires (and catchment) agriculture grazing resulting in bare, eroded areas, and a wide riverbed flanked by sand Weeds Cultural sites deposits Excessive grazing of Goonyandi Contains bush fruits, medicines, turkey, dingo, goanna, emu, kangaroo Bank erosion people 13 Lake Gladstone Biodiversity, Circular, freshwater lake. - largest permanent freshwater wetland in Central Water bird site, Pollution West of Anne River Food and Kimberley bioregion providing refuge for vulnerable species, and of outstanding some threat’nd Erosion water source historical and cultural value and rare species Fires Recreation Over-grazing Ferals 14 Rainforest patches, Biodiversity Particularly important to invertebrates such as Camaenid land snails and annelids. various locations Most have endemic earthworm species associated with them 15 Brooking Gorge Biodiversity Contains aquatic species not represented elsewhere in the ranges. This is due to it being a smaller water course, where flooding is less intense. It is the only known location of Nymphaea immutabilis subsp. kimberleyensis. 16 Mornington Biodiversity home to at least 600 plant species including at least 10 rare or threatened species Sanctuary including: Acacia gloeotricha, A. manipularis, Echinochloa kimberleyensis, Triumfetta hapala, Eucalyptus ordiana, E. mooreana, Grevillea latifolia, Jacksonia remota, Livistona victoriae, and Olax spartea, and to 33 mammal, 202 bird, 76 reptile and 22 amphibian species. There are at least 13 species of threatened wildlife including: Red Goshawk, Purple-crowned Fairy-wren, Gouldian Finch, Freshwater Crocodile, Peregrine Falcon, Grey Falcon, Australian Bustard and Northern Quoll. 17 Fitzroy River Biodiversity Large, virtually un-regulated except for Camballin barrage. Probably one of the High ecol. Value, Unmang. Access Cultural more important habitats for Magpie goose and Whistling-duck. Pastoral, Mining Wetlands of the Camballin floodplain are of national importance for Plumed Tourism Ferals whistling-duck, and important in a Western Australian context for Pacific heron, Conserv’n Over-grazing

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 109

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name Great egret, Intermediate egret, Glossy ibis, Magpie goose and Wood sandpiper. Dams Cultural value = living water - creation story River contains 35 of the 43 species of fish from the region. 18 Mijirrikan Cultural Secret sacred places, no public access Theft sacred objects, Point that divides Fire, river Ferals, weeds, human impact 19 Livingbirri Upper Cultural Underground water stream, Water source, Liveringa “Living water” Important water source (bore) Heritage value 20 Ooloobudah Cultural Songs & stories, Emu dreaming site High cultural Needs to be protected value Jarlmadangah Mt. Cultural Lrge. Mountain, living water. Caves. Sacred area, burial grounds Tourism, Cultural Currently good Anderson and conserv’n. condition 21 Mudflats at mouth Biodiversity Sometimes support moderately high numbers of waterbirds. of the Fitzroy River 22 Permanent pools – Biodiversity During the dry season, permanent pools form important refugia for aquatic species, various locations – as do the few billabongs that remain on the floodplain. For example, Telegraph Pool e.g. Telegraph Pool is a well known fishing spot and also refuge for the EPBC listed threatened species Freshwater Sawfish Pristis microdon 23 Freshwater springs Biodiversity Found throughout the lower Fitzroy catchment such as Udialla Springs and Honeymoon Springs 24 Mallallah and Biodiversity North of Noonkanbah - regarded as potentially important waterbird habitat. Sandhill Swamp 25 Wetlands near Biodiversity Provide seasonal habitat for a wide variety, and sometimes, high number of Derby waterbirds. Formed by runoff from adjacent sand dunes, with the water lasting until July or August. When full they teem with birdlife, with some species such as Australasian Grebe and Brolga noted breeding there. One site is also a refuge for a priority listed flora, Nymphoides beaglensis. 26 Freshwater prawns Biodiversity Macrobrachium prawns and Caridina shrimps (both of which are common across the Over fishing,

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 110

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name north of Australia, are present in the Fitzroy River sytem. Freshwater prawns are Limited knowledge likely to be of high ecological significance, providing an important link in the food of life history web that supports the fish fauna. The prawns likely form the majority of invertebrate biomass in the river, comprise a major component of the diet of many fish and, because they have distinct breeding migrations, also influence fish migrations. 27 Threatened fish Biodiversity A number of fishes that are listed as threatened by the IUCN, including the species (including Northern River Shark (Glyphis sp. C) (Critically Endangered), Freshwater Whipray Freshwater (Himantura chaophraya) (Vulnerable), Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) Sawfish) (Endangered), Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata) (Endangered), Greenway’s Grunter (Hannia greenwayi) (Data Deficient) and the Barnett River Gudgeon (Hypseleotris kimberleyensis) (Near Threatened/Lower Risk). Northern Australia may soon represent the only geographical region in the world where viable populations of Freshwater Sawfish persist. 28 Stygofauna Biodiversity A new species of family of stygal flabelliferan isopod (Tainisopus sp.) was recorded from Lullangarra Cave; two species of cave cockroach (Nocticola spp.), a planthopper (Fulgoroidea), and a number of ostracods and cyclopoid copepods were also recorded from caves in the Fitzroy River catchment area. 29 Alluvial aquifer and Aquifer Previous exploratory and geotechnical drilling across the floodplain at Willare, groundwater Fitzroy Barrage and Gogo had confirmed the presence of an alluvial aquifer resources composed of a basal zone of gravels and sands about 20–30 m thick, overlain by silts and clays about 10 m thick. If representative of the entire Fitzroy alluvium, the aquifer could contain a groundwater storage of 13 000 GL. 30 Ground Water Water There are approximately 25 current groundwater licences in the catchment, with an resource resources approximate allocation of less than 2 GL per year. Most of the groundwater licences are for Aboriginal community bores, some pastoral bores (for diversified activities other than livestock and domestic use), and limited horticultural activities. Unlicensed water use includes livestock and domestic bores (pastoral industry) and possibly some tourist operations and Aboriginal community bores. There is currently no allocation limit set for the catchment, as this information is not yet available or determined through an allocation planning process. 31 Surface water Water There are three surface water licences issued in the catchment, the most significant

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 111

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name resources resources allocation being approximately 6GL per year at Liveringa Station for irrigation of fodder crops 32 Marine species Biodiversity Species include the northern river shark (Glyphis sp. C), the milk shark (including northern (Rhizoprionodon acutus), the winghead shark (Eusphyra blochii), the dwarf sawfish river shark) (Pristis clavata), the lesser salmon catfish (Arius graeffei), shark mullet (Rhinomugil nasutus), king threadfin (Polydactylus macrochir), scaly croaker (Nibea squamosa) and milk-spotted toadfish (Chelonodon patoca). 33 Shorebird habitat Biodiversity King Sound is of particular note as it is the most extensive area of mudflat in the region. Although the density of birds is not as high as in Roebuck Bay, it nevertheless supports a very large number of shorebirds. 34 Mangroves Biodiversity 15 species of mangroves are found within this region, most diverse and dense stands of mangal are found near the mouth of the Fitzroy River. Unlike most mangrove systems which are aggrading, the mangroves of the Fitzroy estuary are eroding, and gradually retreating inland. This gives the system intrinsic scientific interest. 35 River country Cultural The river travels through the traditional countries of many language groups, and knowledge the complexity of cultural relationships to the river country has been further compounded by the historical relocation of desert groups on the station properties along the river. Whilst each group has distinct cultural responsibilities and articulates their relationship in varying ways, the groups are united through a system of Law that weaves together complex narratives and rituals required for the sustenance of the river country and its complex ecosystems. There is no single name for the river except marduwarra, which is a generic word for river. Rather, the river is conceptualised as series of linked narratives which arise from the many permanent pools along the riverbed which are subjected to the seasonal processes of flooding (warramba) and receding waters. The creation of the river is associated with the activities of mythical beings or serpents in the creative epoch referred to in English as the ‘Dreamtime’. In three local languages this creative epoch is variously called - Pukarrikarra (Mangala), Bukarrarra (Nyikina) and Ngarranggani (Ngarinyin). 36 Broken Wagon Pool Cultural Site considered by the Nyikina to be the origin of the Fitzroy River. According to the Nyikina and Mangala peoples the Fitzroy River was created by a snake/ serpent that

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 112

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name was speared by Wunyumbu at Mijirayikan who was fishing in the pool using the poison from the majala tree. The serpent reared up with Wunyumbu’s spear in his head and the track of his tail became the river and the mouth of the river. From Mijirayikan, Wunyumbu travelled on the serpent’s head as the snake carved out the river as he travelled upstream 37 Caves Cultural Significant in the ranges landscape are the numerous caves that provide shelter and are home to resident Wanjina, the creators and protectors of the country. Such cave sites are the religious centres for each of the clan groupings (dambun) of the Ngarinyin people 38 Mimbi Caves in Cultural Located along limestone ranges, rich with underground springs. Mimbi represents Gooniyand a key spirit centre which is also central to a distinct trading route known as wunan, and renown as a place of refuge during the last century. 39 Hann River Cultural The Ngarinyin believe that the Hann River, a source of the Fitzroy River, was created by snakes referred to as unggud/wunggurr/unggurr)... Unggud, as metaphysical serpents, are believed to live permanently in deep pools, but can leave the water, make nests to lay their eggs and travel underground. 40 Geikie Gorge Cultural, Traditional Bunuba country, provides strong evidence of Indigenous cultural logic Cultural, wildlife, Good condition but Tourism and affiliations to land and water. The area around the large midstream rock fish. threatened by weeds, Important formation is where, in the Dreamtime, a blind Aboriginal elder drowned, after cattle, pigs community leaving the tribe to go wandering. The old man sighed and sneezed before he cultural site sank to the bottom for the last time. If you sit quietly around the area, you can still hear the sighs of that old man. 41 Brooking Gorge Cultural, Cultural site for Bunuba people Tourism, Weeds, recreation recreation Pandanus palms, Community fish nutrients cultural site 42 Kapoda springs Cultural - Well preserved springs with good water quality. Used by community – caves, Wildlife, fossils Litter, feral species About 10km E. FX community paintings mining 43 Diamond gorge – Recreational Steep gorge carved through King Leopold Range, Important aquatic and tourism Dam Junction F.R. and Biodiversity escarpment habitat for range of species Reduc’n water quality King Leopold aesthetic Over use Range

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 113

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name 44 Goola Goolaboo cultural Burial site Indig. cultural, Overgraz. Pastoral Broadacre farming 45 Marngarda Geeguly Cultural, Cultural values for community Tourism potential Currently good Creek biodiversity condition 46 Paradise Hot Cultural Cultural site associated with many stories, camping spot tourism Currently good Springs recreational condition Threat -coal mining 47 Oongalkada Udialla Cultural High community social values Tourism Currently good Spring & Mangel Training centre condition Creek 48 Yigi Yigi Springs Cultural Cultural place – songs & stories Commui’yuse Needs to be fenced 49 O’Donnel valley Cultural Cultural places for community, paintings in gorge, recreational places (camping) Lumbarty Gorge Recreation Juljuljuar water hole Food Blue Bush Junction Bush tucker Bush medicines Gidamore spring, Cultural, Various locations with similar values, recreation, fishing, bush tucker, medicines, Over use by humans, Ngalinggi (on Recreation, social places, cultural values, meeting places mining, ferals, over- Margaret river), Fishing, grazing Ngulumarra dreaming, waterhole, Mungingoa water hole, Wurraangi 50 Tiya Tiya Cultural Big hill, cultural significance, mud lark habitat Biodiversity 51 Kajina Hill Cultural Natural statue of man, Sacred site 52 Jintangu Cultural One hot spring, and some cold springs Hunting, good Cattle, wild dogs Recreation water source 53 Pulany Cultural Sacred massacre site Sacred site plus cattle

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 114

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name On Georges River good perennial water source 54 Winurru Cultural Burial site (personal) 55 Pulkartrijarti Cultural Dreamtime spider site Fire 56 Bangangoo Cultural Lizard site – mark of lizard on large rock Fire 57 Parnany hill Dreamtime Lage rock outcrop – home of rock pigeon Fire At entrance to site Yakanarra community 58 Moanampi Swamp Cultural Site made by snake. Food area for humans and animals. Need to cut new road 80Km S.W. of FX so that road through moanampi can be fenced off 59 Parakapun Cultural Burial site, Too many people Biodiversity Special fishing site affect cultural values Meeting place 60 Lumpu lumpu Cultural Break in ranges where desert people enter Cherrabun station Perm. Water, Camels Southern boundary Emu, Cattel of catchment on Bilby, Ferals Cherrabun Station Hill kangaroo Fire Rubbish 61 Logue Creek Biodiversity Unique species – Pandanus palm Small colony, few Edgar range plants 62 River Floods Cultural Considered by the Aboriginal groups to “clean the country”, by the process of flushing foul water and debris from the pools. The Aboriginal people stated they did not drink the first flushing flow, but waited for the next flush which they considered “good, clean water”. Ecologically, it is known that elevated nutrient levels are associated with the initial flush as material is both transported from the catchment into the channel and mobilised from pool sediments. 63 Floodplain Cultural, Considered a significant event by the Aboriginal groups inundation ecological

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 115

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name 64 The Freshwater Cultural, Culturally significant species. It is not only an important food source, but is Sawfish ecological included in a number of stories and beliefs of the peoples of the Fitzroy River, where it is referred to as ‘galwanyi’ in Bunuba and Gooniyandi, ‘wirridanyniny’ or ‘pial pial’ in Nyikina, and ‘wirrdani’ in Walmajarri.

65 Riparian trees Cultural, Examples include - Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Melaleuca leucodendra and M. argentea. All Ecological, three species were used as either utensils for food preparation and presentation, or food other foods were recognised as being associated with them. The bark is used to cook meat in or the leaves are put inside fish and kangaroo when cooking. Bark and leaves were also considered to keep meat clean and also infuse meat with the smell of the plant (also provides some medicinal value for cleansing body). Eucalyptus camaldulensis was recognised as the host of witchetty grubs. The fruit of another riparian tree, the fig Ficus racemosa, are dried and eaten later as a sweet. The fringing Pandanus Palm produces a small edible nut but is not considered “prime tucker”. Of the other fringing plants, the Waterlily Nymphaea sp. is used as food, namely the tuber and the seeds (which are ground for flour). The tuber is roasted, while the lower white stem and the flower are eaten raw. The lower part of the stem of a tall rush with a yellow flower (not observed and identified) was also eaten raw. 66 Freshwater Food Used to capture fish from the river and waterholes. The Aboriginal people pulverise mangrove the stem and throw the pulp into the water to remove oxygen and so enable fish to be collected. 67 Invertebrate Biodiversity Widespread – carbon converters – carbon sequestration, soil aeration, water Fire microfauna penetration 68 Pastoral Agriculture There are 44 pastoral properties within the Fitzroy catchment, with 16 of them being Pastoral Poor grazing leases Aboriginal pastoral lease holdings. Pastoralism is dominated by live cattle exports. production management The value of cattle disposals from the Region was $48.0 million in 2003/04, being 9.7 Jobs and fire per cent of the State total. This value has increased to between $60 to $70 million in management 2004/05. The Department also estimates that the Kimberley herd of beef cattle is Ferals around 600,000, representing around 30 per cent of the total State herd. Weeds 69 Irrigated agriculture Agriculture The West Kimberley has more than five million hectares of soils potentially capable Agric. Production Erosion of supporting irrigation. Around 200,000 hectares of land located near the Fitzroy Jobs Inadequate River floodplains and the sandplain areas south of Broome are capable of immediate Legislation

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 116

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name development. Significant volumes of both groundwater and surface water are available in this region, and the climate is suitable for a range of crops, which includes sugar cane, cotton, tropical fruits, vegetables, pulse crops, seed and tree crops. 70 Fossil soil types Agriculture Suitable for farming of fodder – e.g. adjacent to N. side of Pillara mine site Agric. Production Fire Jobs 71 Water resources Agriculture Water resources include surface water from the Fitzroy River and groundwater resources of the Canning Basin. Large quantities of surface water are potentially available from the Fitzroy River and groundwater could be sourced from the Canning Basin. The groundwater areas with most potential for large-scale agriculture are the Broome, Derby, Wallal, La Grange, Willare and Fitzroy sub- basins with up to 700 gigalitres potentially divertible from these particular areas. The Western Australian Government undertook a feasibility study for developing irrigated agriculture in the West Kimberley and proposed large-scale irrigated agriculture to the south and east of Broome using groundwater, followed by irrigation of sandy soils south west of Fitzroy Crossing using surface water from damming the Fitzroy River at Dimond Gorge. Approximately 225 000 ha could be developed. Initially, cotton would be the main crop, but other agriculture could include sugar, leucaena, hemp, horticultural products, exotic hardwoods, freshwater aquaculture and viticulture. However, cropping ventures have not been successful. Major problems - inability to maintain constant water supply from the Fitzroy River which floods often; y birds; insects; heavy weed infestation; remoteness of the area; lack of experience and poor planning. 72 Mineral resources Mineral s Top five mineral and petroleum commodities in the Kimberley Region were diamonds, nickel, iron ore, crude oil and rock. The Region's total mineral and petroleum production was valued at $660.6 million. The Region currently contributes 2 per cent of the State's total mineral production by value. In addition, 30‐36 billion tonnes potential coal estimated. 73 Tourist sites Tourism The two-year rolling average for domestic visitor expenditure across 2004 and 2005 was estimated at $195.6 million while international visitor expenditure was estimated at $31.7 million. Indigenous tourism is on a small-scale but of importance to some individuals and communities in the Fitzroy catchment.

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 117

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name 74 Gouldian Finch Aesthetic, Threatened species of finch, significantly reduced distribution Tourism, biodiversity Bird-watching 75 Willy willy Cultural Family birthplace (personal) 76 Mingalkala Cultural Family birthplace (personal) 77 Pineapple bore Cultural Family birthplace Larrawa station (personal) 78 Bilby Biodiversity Bawoorrooga community, bilby breeding site Road kill Fire, Tourists 79 Bohemia downs Cultural Black bream erosion Along Dreaming Christmas Creek 80 Bulka Stn. Biodiversity Red finch breeding area fire 81 McDonald spring Cultural Living water Camel Bulka Stn. Fire , Cattle 82 Darngu Cultural Living water, massacre site, First sheep stn. in Kimberly Camel Bulka Stn. Historical cattle 83 Ngumpan Cultural Spring water, Cattle Gathering place Fire , Tourist Road work 84 Beef wood Stn. Cultural Massacre site, soak Fire , Cattle 85 Christmas Creek Cultural Gunadu site - dreaming Cattle Bohemia Downs Erosion Cabbage Leaf tree 86 Manning Gorge Cultural Living water, dreamtime, stories, paintings, birthplaces. Fish tourism F.W. turtles Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name 87 Emu Flat on Mornington Cultural Large circular open flat at the base of a baulk face Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ Station escarpment with only one tree. Dreamtime story about 2 down stories knowledge emus who were fighting over black bush plum

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 118

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name 88 Bulgundi / Saddlers jump- Cultural The end of the Fitzroy River Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ up on Tablelands Station High point between Fitzroy and Chamberlain heads down stories knowledge Home of Lindsay Malay’s ancestors 89 Tullewa Hill Cultural Hill on Tablelands Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ Dreamtime story about rough tailed lizard and a curlew down stories knowledge competing with each other on building the hill 90 Wallalay / Wallaby Rock cultural Physical point in the river that marks the limit of the important ecological knowledge Loss of elders’ on the Fitzroy River near range for barramundi relating to the distribution of species knowledge Hidden Pocket Cultural maintenance through handing down stories 91 Cherrabun – Malitia / cultural Large flat topped mesa where you rub the rock to bring Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ Fitzroy Bluff, the sw corner cherrabun down stories knowledge of Mornington bounded by the Adcock and Fitzroy Rivers 92 Waldamilliga / Fitzroy Large waterfall from northern edge of the bluff Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ Bluff falls escarpment down stories knowledge Frilled neck lizard dancing to bring rain 93 Wulungunati-sparni cultural Shallow escarpment as seeps off the old Dimond road Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ Place where the rock python fell and broke his back and down stories knowledge made the seeps as he fell 94 Kumpuny / storm bird egg cultural Between Cadjeput and Blue Bush – you can see it on the Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ hill down stories knowledge 95 Mornington main camp to cultural Old eucalypt surrounded by bauhinia and riparian significance for Sammy’s family the west of Home Creek vegetation Sammy’s birthplace 96 Patariny / Nimbirrimbin cultural Fitzroy river south of Baulk face escarpment, Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ downstream from the little; Fitzroy junction down stories knowledge This is a dangerous place, you can’t fish or muck around here. You have to be careful not to upset galaroo. 97 Springs on the Fitzroy up Cultural and Fresh water springs and soaks – fish breeding places Source of fresh water to supply a Loss of water quality from Little Fitzroy junction economic Supply of fresh water for one community community from fire, erosion, run

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 119

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name off etc 98 Jurnamilija / Mt Leake cultural Mountain Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ There is a dreamtime story about kids who were taken down stories knowledge away from this place It is ok for kids to go there now 99 Rock art sites from the cultural Paintings on the steep rock faces at Sir John and Dimond Nationally significant sites Damming, changes Hann River to the bottom Gorges. flow regimes of Dimond Gorge 100 Purungul / sugar bag cultural Volcanic plug on the side of Annie Creek Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ North of the Mornington Dreamtime story for sugar-bag – you rub the rocks here down stories knowledge camp off Annie Creek to get honey 101 Punparringar-ri / fresh cultural Waterfall and pool in the tributary of Annie creek Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ water mussel Place to find fresh water mussels down stories knowledge Officer Spring 102 Idle Hole nth of Baulk face, Cultural & Deep hole in the creek surrounded by good vegetation nth of junction with social It is a fishing and camping place Tablelands track 103 Umpirta / Mt Brennan cultural Mt Brennan – flat top mountain It is a burial site. There was a recent burial at this place 104 Tharringbun / Maggie cultural Seep feeding Roy Creek Supply of fresh water while hunting ? Springs 105 Tablelands track cultural Spring feeding holes in creek lines Cultural maintenance through handing Loss of elders’ Spirit tracks down stories knowledge 106 West of Mornington camp Cultural Cemetery site 107 Ballaray Junction historical A man was shot here Between the Adcock and Cadjeput 108 Nowingngini / Junction of cultural Place to find waterlillies – only some people can cook Information about the preparation of Loss of elders’ Roy Creek & Fitzroy River them here locally sourced food knowledge Cultural maintenance through handing down stories 109 Loris Range / through Geological Sandstone ridge / volcanic butte Fires, cattle, mining

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 120

Asset Location name Asset type Description Value Threat No. or asset name Quanbun and Jubilee and cultural pastoral leases 110 Alexander Island ecological Island within river boundaries / floodplain approx A secluded area with limited access Mining, dams, over 100,000 acres that supports a range of significant grazing, human Breeding site for numerous bird species eg purple species activity, agriculture crowned fairy wren Nth ringtail possum, sawfish, eel barrramundi 111 Various soil types Geological, The valley has a range of soil types from light sand to Most soil types support the existing Fire, erosion, ecological heavy clay cattle industry concentrated cattle and Several of the better soil types can activity, feral animals economic support (pigs and goats) 112 Water Ecological Rainfall, run off and sub-surface waters The sustainable use of water can be of Global weather and economic value to all those who live changes, economic within the valley, both directly and unsustainable use indirectly 113 people social and Catchment residents Untapped workforce Poor environmental economic Catchment residents identify stroingly practice such as with the area, strong sense of place for leaving litter and indigenous and non-indigenous starting fires, residents Poor health and unemployment 114 Middle and upper Ecological, Unregulated high volume river in the tropical savannas High flow rates Mismanaged fire catchment of the Fitzroy social, Integral to the flora and fauna Overstocking River economic underpinning the catchment Weeds Critical habitat is in the riparian zone Regulating flow for birds Riverside vegetation folters water and nutrient run off Drives coastal and marine ecology via large seasonal discharge

15 May 2015 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review 121

Appendix B Recommended priority areas for an airborne geophysical (AEM) survey

15 May 2015