Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
A report prepared for Department of Water W.A.
FINAL Version
15 May 2015
1 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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]
2 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
3 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
4 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
5 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
6 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
7 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
8 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
9 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
10 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
Figure 1 Location of the study area for this review relative to the Fitzroy River catchment.
12 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
13 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Figure 2 Schematic diagram showing the impacts of groundwater pumping on surface water (from
Barlow and Leake, 2012)
14 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
16 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
17 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
Figure 6 Geology and hydrogeology of the lower Fitzroy River valley in the Canning Basin.
19 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Figure 7 Generalised geological section (from Mory and Hocking (2011).
20 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
21 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
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)).
24 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
Figure 11 Current mining leases in the study area.
26 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
27 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
28 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
29 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
30 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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’
31 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
(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.
32 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
33 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
34 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
35 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
36 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
37 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
38 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
39 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
40 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
41 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
42 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
43 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
44 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
(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
Total Depth (m)
Month Drilling
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
Lithology
Classification Elevation – Base of Formation
(m AHD)
TDS
(mg/L)
Valhalla 2 Valhalla N Asgard 1
Liveringa Carbonate/
shale
Minor aquifer,
aquitard
-84 -196 -171 500-12,400
Noonkanbah Shale Aquiclude -441 -635 -579 550-800
Poole
Sandstone
Sandstone
and shale
Aquifer or
aquitard
-524 -715 -695 300
Grant Group Sandstone Aquifer -1332 -1499 -1240 800-1,000*
Reeves Sandstone Aquifer -1588 -1826 -1606
Anderson Sandstone,
siltstone,
shale
Minor aquifer,
aquitard
-1858 -2105 -1790 70,000-
100,000?
Laurel Limestone,
shale,
siltstone
and
sandstone
Minor aquifer,
aquitard
<-3350 <-3241 <-3,400 70,000-
100,000?
*TDS estimate is derived from from resistivity logs.
45 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
46 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Table 3 Estimated volume of groundwater storage in the Canning Basin (Laws, 1990 in CSIRO, 2009).
Formation Area Saturated
Thickness
Saturated
Volume
Specific Yield Stored Water*
Km2 m TL TL
Broome
Sandstone
40,000 100 4,000 0.2 800
Alexander Fm 100,000 20 2,000 0.05 100
Wallal
Sandstone
105,000 250 26,000 0.2 5,200
Erskine
Sandstone
2,800 100 280 0.2 56
Liveringa
Group
65,000 150 9,800 0.05 490
Triwhite
Sandstone
40,000 20 800 0.05 40
Poole
Sandstone
260,000 100 26,000 0.2 5,200
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.
47 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
Records
No.
bores
Date range TDS range
(mg/L)
Mean TDS
(mg/L)
Median TDS
(mg/L)
Quaternary 37 25 1965 - 1998 100 - 8970 815 248
Wallal Sst. /
Erskine Sst.
255 102 1961 - 1989 90 - 28600 1091 521
Liveringa
Group
148 102 1929 - 1987 90 - 15900 2188 1310
Poole Sst. /
Grant Group
147 93 1953 - 1987 45 - 28052 1121 390
Devonian-
Carboniferous
22 18 1939 - 1987 120 - 1230 420 373
Other /
Unknown
197 127 1909 - 1989 30 - 20000 830 370
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
48 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
(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.
Figure 16 Groundwater salinity for bores completed in each aquifer, as recorded in the WIN database.
50 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
51 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
52 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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)).
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
(K = 0.14 to 0.25 m/d)
Duchess-Paradise mine site Letter from GRM to Rey
Resources, 11 May 2011
Poole Sandstone, north and west of the Duchess and Paradise deposits
respectively (101-149 m below ground). SWL available.
110 Liveringa Station Australian Groundwater
Consultants (1971) in URS (2010)
Bore Agricon No. 1. From a brief 6 hr constant rate pump test.
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
Energy (2013)
Grant Group
Data from drill core and side-wall cores from petroleum wells
0.08 – 4
Average 0.43
Range of locations Buru Energy (2013) From summary of available data.
Some higher values (8 – 20 m/d) from pump tests at Ellendale.
Porosity (%)
11 ? Ghassemi et al. (1991) in Buru
Energy (2013)
Grant Group
Data from drill core and side-wall cores from petroleum wells.
15 - 25
Average 18
Range of locations Buru Energy (2013) From analysis of a range of data
54 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
55 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
area
Buru Energy (2013) Grant Group
Palm Spring No. 1 bore
2,000 Ellendale Lindsay and
Commander (2005)
500 Fitzroy Crossing Lindsay and
Commander (2005)
Town Water Supply
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
– 2,000
Lindsay and
Commander (2005)
Lowest on the northern
margin.
56 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
< 200 Fitzroy Crossing Fitzroy River Lodge
(Global Groundwater,
2005)
190-313 Fitzroy Crossing WaterCorp (2013) Grant Group.
324 - 640 Duchess Paradise
mine site
Rey Resources (2014) Poole Sandstone
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
Homestead bore
Allen (1985) in URS
(2010)
Sample collected in
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
57 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
58 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
59 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
60 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
61 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
62 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
63 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
64 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
RIVERRIVER SAND
LOOSE BROWN SAND
BROWN CLAY
HARD YELLOW AND BROWN CLAY
SAND SILT AND STONESCOARSE SAND AND STONES
NOONKANBAH FORMATION
HORIZONTAL SCALE
100m500
30
35
40
45m AHD
TOP OF BARRAGE
(m AHD)
0 1 km CLAY/SANDY-CLAY
MAINLY SAND/GRAVEL
LIVERINGA GROUP
-20
-30
-40
-50
WEST
MEDIUM-COARSESANDY-CLAY
100
90
80
70
60
No.
10
No.
14
No.
19
No.
17
No.
20
No.
15
No.
4
No.
5 No.
6
SILTY-CLAY
(m AHD)
020004000 metres from origin
SILTS AND SILTY CLAY
SAND AND GRAVEL0 1 km
COARSE SANDAND GRAVEL
SILT SILT
SAND
SILT
SILT
GRAVEL
SILTSTONE
WHITE SILTGRANT
SWL (1958)
SAND +SILT
SANDAND
CLAY
SILT +CLAY-SILT
SILT+
CLAYSILT + SILTSTONE
SAND +SILTSILT +
CLAY
COARSESAND +GRAVEL
HORIZONTAL SCALE
HORIZONTAL SCALE
GENERALISED SECTION AT THE BARRAGE
HYDROGEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION AT WILLARE
FITZROYRIVER
GRANT FM
GRANTFM
GRANTFM
NOTE:See Fig 4 for locationof sections.
HYDROGEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION AT GOGO
HR238/FIG 11
NORTH WESTNORTH WEST
DH
M 7
A
DH
M 8
A
SANDY CLAY
CLAY
3200 mg/L
0
-10
10
2330 mg/L
FINE SAND
FINE-MEDIUMSAND
COCKATOO
BRIDGE
MINNIE
RIVER
COARSE SAND
COARSESAND
DH
M 6
A
DH
M 5
A
(m AHD)
SWL640 mg/L
EAST
FINE SAND/CLAY
MEDIUM-COARSESANDY-CLAY
FINESAND
SANDYCLAY
COARSESAND - HARD LAYERS
COARSE SANDSOMEQUARTZITE
7420 mg/L
FITZROY
RIVER
TD
SKI
LAKE
COARSESAND
?
NORTH SOUTH
65 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
66 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
67 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
68 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
(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.
69 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
70 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
71 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
72 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
73 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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).
74 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
Figure 22 Distribution of current groundwater and surface water licensed allocations at 31st March 2015.
76 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
77 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
78 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.,
79 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
80 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
81 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
82 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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;
83 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
- 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.
84 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
85 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
86 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
87 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
88 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
89 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
90 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
91 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
92 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
93 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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)
94 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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;
95 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
96 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
97 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
98 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
99 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
100 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
<http://www.track.org.au/showcase/seasonal-calendars>.
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.
101 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
102 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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
103 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
104 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
105 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
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.
106 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Water Corporation (2013). Fitzroy Crossing Groundwater Monitoring Review 2013. June
2013.
Water Corporation (2014). Camballin Groundwater Monitoring Review 2013. June 2014.
107 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Appendix A FitzCAM DRAFT Asset Table 29-10-09 (FitzCAM, 2009). Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
1 King Leopold,
Mueller and Durack
Ranges
Geological,
biodiversity
Internationally significant geological sites including the Egan Formation
(exceptionally well preserved record of early evolution), Goat Paddock (crater), and
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
Geike Gorge
Geological,
biodiversity
This Devonian Reef System is one of the best preserved examples of its type in the
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
floodplain area
(Le Lievre Swamp
System)
Vegetation/
Agriculture
biodiversity
Referred to locally as “frontage” or “flood plain country”, with or without scattered
trees and shrubs. The principal grasses are ribbon grass (Chrysopogon fallax), blue
grass (Dichanthium spp.) and Mitchell grass (Astrebla spp.). The area is regarded as
one of the richest grazing areas of the Kimberley region. Migratory birds.
Failed irrigation projects.
Agricult., tourism,
bird-watching
Poor Manag.
Fire
Feral animals
6 The Fitzroy River
floodplain
Vegetation/
agriculture
Vegetated by Eucalyptus microtheca savanna with fringing woodland composed of
eucalypts, acacias and wild figs.
7 The Fitzroy River
Catchment
Biodiversity One of the few large remaining natural areas on earth – the tropical savannas of
Northern Australia
8 Riparian vegetation
along the Fitzroy
River
Biodiversity Generally good condition and contained several priority species, but areas of high
stock access were affected by bank degradation and weed invasion. Condition in a
declining trend due to fire, erosion and feral herbivores
Cattle access,
weeds
9 Aquatic
invertebrate fauna
along river
Biodiversity Assessed using the AusRivAS protocol - reported to be in good ecological “health”.
10 Fish fauna along Biodiversity Diverse, containing some species endemic to the Kimberley and to the Fitzroy
108 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
river
11 Waterbirds on
floodplains,
particularly
Camballin
Biodiversity At least 67 species of waterbirds recorded on the Camballin floodplain. Considered
sufficiently important for areas to meet listing under the Ramsar (Wetlands of
International Importance) Convention, and many of the waterbird species are listed
under international agreements (e.g. JAMBA/CAMBA).
12 The Margaret River
(and catchment)
Biodiversity,
agriculture
Cultural sites
of Goonyandi
people
Assessed as in a worse condition than the remainder of the catchment, with heavy
grazing resulting in bare, eroded areas, and a wide riverbed flanked by sand
deposits
Contains bush fruits, medicines, turkey, dingo, goanna, emu, kangaroo
Bush fires
Weeds
Excessive grazing
Bank erosion
13 Lake Gladstone
West of Anne River
Biodiversity,
Food and
water source
Circular, freshwater lake. - largest permanent freshwater wetland in Central
Kimberley bioregion providing refuge for vulnerable species, and of outstanding
historical and cultural value
Water bird site,
some threat’nd
and rare species
Recreation
Pollution
Erosion
Fires
Over-grazing
Ferals
14 Rainforest patches,
various locations
Biodiversity Particularly important to invertebrates such as Camaenid land snails and annelids.
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
Sanctuary
Biodiversity home to at least 600 plant species including at least 10 rare or threatened species
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
Cultural
Large, virtually un-regulated except for Camballin barrage. Probably one of the
more important habitats for Magpie goose and Whistling-duck.
Wetlands of the Camballin floodplain are of national importance for Plumed
whistling-duck, and important in a Western Australian context for Pacific heron,
High ecol. Value,
Pastoral,
Tourism
Conserv’n
Unmang. Access
Mining
Ferals
Over-grazing
109 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
Great egret, Intermediate egret, Glossy ibis, Magpie goose and Wood sandpiper.
Cultural value = living water - creation story
River contains 35 of the 43 species of fish from the region.
Dams
18 Mijirrikan
Point that divides
river
Cultural Secret sacred places, no public access Theft sacred objects,
Fire,
Ferals, weeds, human
impact
19 Livingbirri Upper
Liveringa
Cultural Underground water stream,
“Living water” Important water source (bore)
Water source,
Heritage value
20 Ooloobudah Cultural Songs & stories, Emu dreaming site High cultural
value
Needs to be protected
Jarlmadangah Mt.
Anderson
Cultural Lrge. Mountain, living water. Caves. Sacred area, burial grounds Tourism, Cultural
and conserv’n.
Currently good
condition
21 Mudflats at mouth
of the Fitzroy River
Biodiversity Sometimes support moderately high numbers of waterbirds.
22 Permanent pools –
various locations –
e.g. Telegraph Pool
Biodiversity During the dry season, permanent pools form important refugia for aquatic species,
as do the few billabongs that remain on the floodplain. For example, Telegraph Pool
is a well known fishing spot and also refuge for the EPBC listed threatened species
Freshwater Sawfish Pristis microdon
23 Freshwater springs
such as Udialla
Springs and
Honeymoon
Springs
Biodiversity Found throughout the lower Fitzroy catchment
24 Mallallah and
Sandhill Swamp
Biodiversity North of Noonkanbah - regarded as potentially important waterbird habitat.
25 Wetlands near
Derby
Biodiversity Provide seasonal habitat for a wide variety, and sometimes, high number of
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,
110 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
north of Australia, are present in the Fitzroy River sytem. Freshwater prawns are
likely to be of high ecological significance, providing an important link in the food
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.
Limited knowledge
of life history
27 Threatened fish
species (including
Freshwater
Sawfish)
Biodiversity A number of fishes that are listed as threatened by the IUCN, including the
Northern River Shark (Glyphis sp. C) (Critically Endangered), Freshwater Whipray
(Himantura chaophraya) (Vulnerable), Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon)
(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
groundwater
resources
Aquifer Previous exploratory and geotechnical drilling across the floodplain at Willare,
Fitzroy Barrage and Gogo had confirmed the presence of an alluvial aquifer
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
resource
Water
resources
There are approximately 25 current groundwater licences in the catchment, with an
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
111 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
resources resources allocation being approximately 6GL per year at Liveringa Station for irrigation of
fodder crops
32 Marine species
(including northern
river shark)
Biodiversity Species include the northern river shark (Glyphis sp. C), the milk shark
(Rhizoprionodon acutus), the winghead shark (Eusphyra blochii), the dwarf sawfish
(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
knowledge
Cultural The river travels through the traditional countries of many language groups, and
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
112 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
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
Gooniyand
Cultural Located along limestone ranges, rich with underground springs. Mimbi represents
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,
Tourism
Important
community
cultural site
Traditional Bunuba country, provides strong evidence of Indigenous cultural logic
and affiliations to land and water. The area around the large midstream rock
formation is where, in the Dreamtime, a blind Aboriginal elder drowned, after
leaving the tribe to go wandering. The old man sighed and sneezed before he
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.
Cultural, wildlife,
fish.
Good condition but
threatened by weeds,
cattle, pigs
41 Brooking Gorge Cultural,
recreation
Community
cultural site
Cultural site for Bunuba people Tourism,
recreation
fish
Weeds,
Pandanus palms,
nutrients
42 Kapoda springs
About 10km E. FX
Cultural -
community
Well preserved springs with good water quality. Used by community – caves,
paintings
Wildlife, fossils Litter, feral species
mining
43 Diamond gorge –
Junction F.R. and
King Leopold
Range
Recreational
Biodiversity
aesthetic
Steep gorge carved through King Leopold Range, Important aquatic and
escarpment habitat for range of species
tourism Dam
Reduc’n water quality
Over use
113 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
44 Goola Goolaboo cultural Burial site Indig. cultural,
Pastoral
Overgraz.
Broadacre
farming
45 Marngarda Geeguly
Creek
Cultural,
biodiversity
Cultural values for community Tourism potential Currently good
condition
46 Paradise Hot
Springs
Cultural
recreational
Cultural site associated with many stories, camping spot tourism Currently good
condition
Threat -coal mining
47 Oongalkada Udialla
Spring & Mangel
Creek
Cultural High community social values Tourism
Training centre
Currently good
condition
48 Yigi Yigi Springs Cultural Cultural place – songs & stories Commui’yuse Needs to be fenced
49 O’Donnel valley
Lumbarty Gorge
Juljuljuar water hole
Blue Bush Junction
Cultural
Recreation
Food
Bush tucker
Bush
medicines
Cultural places for community, paintings in gorge, recreational places (camping)
Gidamore spring,
Ngalinggi (on
Margaret river),
Ngulumarra
waterhole,
Mungingoa water
hole,
Wurraangi
Cultural,
Recreation,
Fishing,
dreaming,
Various locations with similar values, recreation, fishing, bush tucker, medicines,
social places, cultural values, meeting places
Over use by humans,
mining, ferals, over-
grazing
50 Tiya Tiya Cultural
Biodiversity
Big hill, cultural significance, mud lark habitat
51 Kajina Hill Cultural Natural statue of man, Sacred site
52 Jintangu Cultural
Recreation
One hot spring, and some cold springs Hunting, good
water source
Cattle, wild dogs
53 Pulany Cultural Sacred massacre site Sacred site plus cattle
114 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
On Georges River good perennial
water source
54 Winurru Cultural
(personal)
Burial site
55 Pulkartrijarti Cultural Dreamtime spider site Fire
56 Bangangoo Cultural Lizard site – mark of lizard on large rock Fire
57 Parnany hill
At entrance to
Yakanarra
community
Dreamtime
site
Lage rock outcrop – home of rock pigeon Fire
58 Moanampi Swamp
80Km S.W. of FX
Cultural Site made by snake. Food area for humans and animals. Need to cut new road
so that road through
moanampi can be
fenced off
59 Parakapun Cultural
Biodiversity
Burial site,
Special fishing site
Meeting place
Too many people
affect cultural values
60 Lumpu lumpu
Southern boundary
of catchment on
Cherrabun Station
Cultural Break in ranges where desert people enter Cherrabun station
Perm. Water,
Emu,
Bilby,
Hill kangaroo
Camels
Cattel
Ferals
Fire
Rubbish
61 Logue Creek
Edgar range
Biodiversity Unique species – Pandanus palm Small colony, few
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
inundation
Cultural,
ecological
Considered a significant event by the Aboriginal groups
115 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
64 The Freshwater
Sawfish
Cultural,
ecological
Culturally significant species. It is not only an important food source, but is
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,
Ecological,
food
Examples include - Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Melaleuca leucodendra and M. argentea. All
three species were used as either utensils for food preparation and presentation, or
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
mangrove
Food Used to capture fish from the river and waterholes. The Aboriginal people pulverise
the stem and throw the pulp into the water to remove oxygen and so enable fish to
be collected.
67 Invertebrate
microfauna
Biodiversity Widespread – carbon converters – carbon sequestration, soil aeration, water
penetration
Fire
68 Pastoral
leases
Agriculture There are 44 pastoral properties within the Fitzroy catchment, with 16 of them being
Aboriginal pastoral lease holdings. Pastoralism is dominated by live cattle exports.
The value of cattle disposals from the Region was $48.0 million in 2003/04, being 9.7
per cent of the State total. This value has increased to between $60 to $70 million in
2004/05. The Department also estimates that the Kimberley herd of beef cattle is
around 600,000, representing around 30 per cent of the total State herd.
Pastoral
production
Jobs
Poor grazing
management
and fire
management
Ferals
Weeds
69 Irrigated agriculture
Agriculture The West Kimberley has more than five million hectares of soils potentially capable
of supporting irrigation. Around 200,000 hectares of land located near the Fitzroy
River floodplains and the sandplain areas south of Broome are capable of immediate
Agric. Production
Jobs
Erosion
Inadequate
Legislation
116 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
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
Jobs
Fire
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.
117 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
74 Gouldian Finch Aesthetic,
biodiversity
Threatened species of finch, significantly reduced distribution Tourism,
Bird-watching
75 Willy willy Cultural
(personal)
Family birthplace
76 Mingalkala Cultural
(personal)
Family birthplace
77 Pineapple bore
Larrawa station
Cultural
(personal)
Family birthplace
78 Bilby Biodiversity Bawoorrooga community, bilby breeding site Road kill
Fire, Tourists
79 Bohemia downs
Along
Christmas Creek
Cultural Black bream
Dreaming
erosion
80 Bulka Stn. Biodiversity Red finch breeding area fire
81 McDonald spring
Bulka Stn.
Cultural Living water Camel
Fire , Cattle
82 Darngu
Bulka Stn.
Cultural
Historical
Living water, massacre site, First sheep stn. in Kimberly Camel
cattle
83 Ngumpan Cultural Spring water,
Gathering place
Cattle
Fire , Tourist
Road work
84 Beef wood Stn. Cultural Massacre site, soak Fire , Cattle
85 Christmas Creek
Bohemia Downs
Cultural Gunadu site - dreaming Cattle
Erosion
Cabbage Leaf tree
86 Manning Gorge Cultural Living water, dreamtime, stories, paintings, birthplaces. Fish
F.W. turtles
tourism
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
87 Emu Flat on Mornington
Station
Cultural Large circular open flat at the base of a baulk face
escarpment with only one tree. Dreamtime story about 2
emus who were fighting over black bush plum
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
118 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
88 Bulgundi / Saddlers jump-
up on Tablelands Station
Cultural The end of the Fitzroy River
High point between Fitzroy and Chamberlain heads
Home of Lindsay Malay’s ancestors
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
89 Tullewa Hill Cultural Hill on Tablelands
Dreamtime story about rough tailed lizard and a curlew
competing with each other on building the hill
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
90 Wallalay / Wallaby Rock
on the Fitzroy River near
Hidden Pocket
cultural Physical point in the river that marks the limit of the
range for barramundi
important ecological knowledge
relating to the distribution of species
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
91 Cherrabun – Malitia /
Fitzroy Bluff, the sw corner
of Mornington bounded by
the Adcock and Fitzroy
Rivers
cultural Large flat topped mesa where you rub the rock to bring
cherrabun
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
92 Waldamilliga / Fitzroy
Bluff falls
Large waterfall from northern edge of the bluff
escarpment
Frilled neck lizard dancing to bring rain
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
93 Wulungunati-sparni cultural Shallow escarpment as seeps off the old Dimond road
Place where the rock python fell and broke his back and
made the seeps as he fell
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
94 Kumpuny / storm bird egg cultural Between Cadjeput and Blue Bush – you can see it on the
hill
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
95 Mornington main camp to
the west of Home Creek
cultural Old eucalypt surrounded by bauhinia and riparian
vegetation
Sammy’s birthplace
significance for Sammy’s family
96 Patariny / Nimbirrimbin cultural Fitzroy river south of Baulk face escarpment,
downstream from the little; Fitzroy junction
This is a dangerous place, you can’t fish or muck around
here. You have to be careful not to upset galaroo.
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
97 Springs on the Fitzroy up
from Little Fitzroy junction
Cultural and
economic
Fresh water springs and soaks – fish breeding places
Supply of fresh water for one community
Source of fresh water to supply a
community
Loss of water quality
from fire, erosion, run
119 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
off etc
98 Jurnamilija / Mt Leake cultural Mountain
There is a dreamtime story about kids who were taken
away from this place
It is ok for kids to go there now
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
99 Rock art sites from the
Hann River to the bottom
of Dimond Gorge
cultural Paintings on the steep rock faces at Sir John and Dimond
Gorges.
Nationally significant sites Damming, changes
flow regimes
100 Purungul / sugar bag
North of the Mornington
camp off Annie Creek
cultural Volcanic plug on the side of Annie Creek
Dreamtime story for sugar-bag – you rub the rocks here
to get honey
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
101 Punparringar-ri / fresh
water mussel
Officer Spring
cultural Waterfall and pool in the tributary of Annie creek
Place to find fresh water mussels
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
102 Idle Hole nth of Baulk face,
nth of junction with
Tablelands track
Cultural &
social
Deep hole in the creek surrounded by good vegetation
It is a fishing and camping place
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
Springs
cultural Seep feeding Roy Creek
Supply of fresh water while hunting ?
105 Tablelands track cultural Spring feeding holes in creek lines
Spirit tracks
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
106 West of Mornington camp Cultural Cemetery site
107 Ballaray Junction
Between the Adcock and
Cadjeput
historical A man was shot here
108 Nowingngini / Junction of
Roy Creek & Fitzroy River
cultural Place to find waterlillies – only some people can cook
them here
Information about the preparation of
locally sourced food
Cultural maintenance through handing
down stories
Loss of elders’
knowledge
109 Loris Range / through Geological Sandstone ridge / volcanic butte Fires, cattle, mining
120 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Asset
No.
Location name
or asset name
Asset type Description Value Threat
Quanbun and Jubilee
pastoral leases
and cultural
110 Alexander Island ecological Island within river boundaries / floodplain approx
100,000 acres
Breeding site for numerous bird species eg purple
crowned fairy wren
Nth ringtail possum, sawfish, eel barrramundi
A secluded area with limited access
that supports a range of significant
species
Mining, dams, over
grazing, human
activity, agriculture
111 Various soil types Geological,
ecological
and
economic
The valley has a range of soil types from light sand to
heavy clay
Most soil types support the existing
cattle industry
Several of the better soil types can
support
Fire, erosion,
concentrated cattle
activity, feral animals
(pigs and goats)
112 Water Ecological
and
economic
Rainfall, run off and sub-surface waters The sustainable use of water can be of
economic value to all those who live
within the valley, both directly and
indirectly
Global weather
changes,
unsustainable use
113 people social and
economic
Catchment residents Untapped workforce
Catchment residents identify stroingly
with the area, strong sense of place for
indigenous and non-indigenous
residents
Poor environmental
practice such as
leaving litter and
starting fires,
Poor health and
unemployment
114 Middle and upper
catchment of the Fitzroy
River
Ecological,
social,
economic
Unregulated high volume river in the tropical savannas High flow rates
Integral to the flora and fauna
underpinning the catchment
Critical habitat is in the riparian zone
for birds
Riverside vegetation folters water and
nutrient run off
Drives coastal and marine ecology via
large seasonal discharge
Mismanaged fire
Overstocking
Weeds
Regulating flow
121 Lower Fitzroy River Groundwater Review
15 May 2015
Appendix B Recommended priority areas for an airborne geophysical (AEM) survey