Waterlines Report Series No 78, March 2012
i

This paper is part of a series of works commissioned by the National Water Commission on key water issues. This work has been undertaken by RPS Aquaterra on behalf of the National
Water Commission.

© Commonwealth of Australia 2012
This work is copyright.
Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 , no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission.
Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the
Communications Director, National Water Commission, 95 Northbourne Avenue, Canberra
ACT 2600 or email bookshop@nwc.gov.au
Online/print: ISBN: 978-1-921853-88-3
A national approach for investigating and managing poorly understood groundwater systems ,
March 2012
RPS Aquaterra
Published by the National Water Commission
95 Northbourne Avenue
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: 02 6102 6000
Email: enquiries@nwc.gov.au
Date of publication: March, 2012
Cover design by: Angelink
An appropriate citation for this report is:
RPS Aquaterra 2012, A national approach for investigating and managing poorly understood
Groundwater Systems , Waterlines report, National Water Commission, Canberra
This paper is presented by the National Water Commission for the purpose of informing discussion and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Commission.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES iii

Executive summary
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of project
1.2 Project approach
1.3 Purpose of this report
2. Background
2.1 National Water Initiative
2.2 National Groundwater Action Plan
2.3 National Water Commission groundwater position statement
3. Defining and classifying poorly understood groundwater systems
3.1 Definition of poorly understood groundwater systems
3.2 Additional definitions and terminology
3.3 Classification of poorly understood groundwater systems
4. Current jurisdictional policy and case studies
4.1 Current jurisdictional policy relating to poorly understood groundwater systems
4.2 Case studies
5. A framework for managing and investigating poorly understood groundwater systems
5.1 Overview
5.2 Stage 1 – Identification of a poorly understood groundwater system
5.3 Stage 2 – Preliminary assessment
5.4 Stage 3 – Further investigation
5.5 Stage 4 – Management response
6. Conclusions and recommendations
Bibliography
Appendix A —Definition and approach to sustainable groundwater yield (NGC
2004)
Appendix B —Summaries of current jurisdictional policies in regard to poorly understood groundwater systems
Appendix C —Case studies of management in poorly understood groundwater systems
Appendix D —Northern Territory water allocation planning framework 2006
Appendix E —Investigation and management framework for poorly understood groundwater systems – detailed flowchart
Appendix F —Requirements for further investigations (adapted from Western
Australia’s Operational Policy no. 5.12 – hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence (Appendix A – requirements for hydrogeological assessments)
1. H1 level of investigation (desktop hydrogeological investigation)
2. H2 level of investigation (basic hydrogeological investigation)
3.
H3 level of investigation (detailed hydrogeological investigation)
68
68
69
72
Table 1: Classification system for stream – aquifer interactions (adapted from
Evans and Middlemis 2005) ............................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Current state/territory policy relating to poorly understood groundwater systems ............................................................................................................................ 12
Table 3: Overview of poorly understood groundwater system case studies ........................... 13
Table 4: Minimum data requirements for preliminary assessment of poorly understood groundwater systems .................................................................................... 19
Table 5: Matrix to determine replenishment classification....................................................... 20
Table 6: Matrix to determine robustness classification ............................................................ 21
Table 7: Characteristics of groundwater flow systems applied ............................................... 22
30
32
51
63
65
5
5
5
6
3
3
3
4
11
vii
1
1
1
2
11
11
15
15
16
18
24
25
27
29
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES iv

Table 8: Matrix to determine impact classification (adapted from Western
Australia’s Operational Policy No. 5.12
) ........................................................................... 23
Table 9: Risk assessment matrix for poorly understood groundwater systems ...................... 24
Table 1: Aquifer risk assessment guide................................................................................... 35
Table 2: Socio-economic risk assessment guide .................................................................... 37
Table 3: Matrix to determine hydrogeological reporting requirements .................................... 49
Figure 1: Project methodology overview ................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Classification framework for poorly understood groundwater systems ...................... 7
Figure 3: Locations of case studies for poorly understood groundwater systems .................. 14
Figure 4: Investigation and management framework for poorly understood groundwater systems ....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Identification of a poorly understood groundwater systems ..................................... 17
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES v

The Commission National Water Commission
GDE
GFS Framework
IDAS
NGAI
NWI
RWC
SDL
SER
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem
Groundwater Flow Systems Framework
Integrated Development Assessment System
National Groundwater Assessment Initiative
National Water Initiative
Rural Water Corporation
Sustainable Diversion Limit
Sustainable Extraction Regime
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES vi

Across Australia there are groundwater systems about which water management agencies have to make allocation decisions without adequate information or a full understanding of the systems, potentially leading to over-allocation in these systems.
Expensive and time-consuming investigations are needed to better understand these systems , but this isn’t always practical or possible. It is, however, critical to establish a national framework that will minimise the risk of over-allocation.
This report sets out a decision-support framework for investigating and managing poorly understood systems for situations where:
 there is incremental development from low to high water entitlement or use in relevant planning timeframes; and/or
 there is a major development proposal (as defined by the jurisdiction).
This project focused specifically on groundwater systems that have low levels of water entitlement or use to develop an understanding of:
 the minimum data required to investigate these systems to establish the key hydrogeological features and processes, consistent with the defined management principles
 a risk assessment approach to identify and prioritise the level of investigation required to understand and develop management responses.
The project centred on those groundwater systems with low levels of water entitlement/use that have the potential for development into high entitlement/use systems in relevant planning timeframes. We do not envisage that this methodology will be applied to undertake investigations on all poorly understood systems; this would be unnecessary and costly.
Consultation and review of literature revealed that it is hard to agree on a single definition of poorly understood groundwater systems; indeed, it was not the intent of this project to provide a definitive, nationally agreed meaning. For the purposes of this project it is considered that there are two components that contribute to a groundwater system being regarded as ‘poorly understood’:
 poor knowledge base due to limited data beyond broad classification, which in turn provides a poor understanding of how the system would respond to a significant change in use
 current low level of water entitlement/use and development.
A decision-support framework has been developed that incorporates a risk assessment approach for poorly understood groundwater systems in response to specific triggers. The framework is informed by the risk factors (key combinations of hydrogeological conditions and
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES vii

potential consequences) identified during the development of a classification framework, as well as knowledge gained from current jurisdictional policy and case studies.
The framework design is simple to use and understand in light of the limited data available.
It can be broken down into four stages:

Stage 1: Identification of a poorly understood groundwater system that requires assessment – based on a hierarchical flowchart to establish whether a groundwater system is considered to be ‘poorly understood’, followed by the provision of a management and investigation trigger such as incremental development from low to high water entitlement/use or a proposed ‘major’ development.

Stage 2: Preliminary assessment (incorporating risk assessment) – a risk framework that incorporates an evaluation of the aquifer replenishment and robustness risk factors (to establish the likelihood factor) and the potential user impacts of taking the groundwater (to establish the consequence factor).

Stage 3: Prioritisation of requirements for and undertaking of further investigations – four categories of investigation aligned to the risk assessment outcomes support jurisdictions in determining the level of further investigation and minimum data required, based on Western Australia’s Operational Policy No. 5.12
(2009).

Stage 4: Management response by the jurisdiction – the level of management response required is a jurisdictional policy decision that depends on the perceived level of risk to the groundwater system. At a minimum, we recommend an appropriately scaled monitoring program be implemented as part of an adaptive management approach.
While this project focused on poorly understood and low use groundwater systems, there is an opportunity to develop a decision-support framework for better understood/high use systems that builds on the framework presented in this report. The use of these frameworks in combination could provide a consistent approach for managing and investigating all groundwater systems nationally.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES viii

Australia has groundwater systems in which, due to development pressures, water management agencies are making allocation decisions without adequate information or a full understanding of the system. Lack of funding and prioritisation mean it isn't always possible to carry out expensive investigations to better understand these systems and to set robust extraction limits; nevertheless, in an attempt not to overallocate systems it is necessary to make decisions about groundwater use on the basis of risk.
The objective of this project was to provide a decision-support framework for investigating and managing these poorly understood systems where:
 there is incremental development from low to high water entitlement (if detailed) or water use in relevant planning timeframes; and/or
 there is a major development proposal (as defined by the jurisdiction).
What constitutes an incremental development is discussed further in Section 5.2.2.
The project focused specifically on groundwater systems that have low levels of water entitlement or use, to develop an understanding of:
 the minimum data needed to investigate these systems to establish the key hydrogeological features and processes, consistent with the defined management principles
 a risk assessment approach to identify and prioritise the level of investigation needed to understand and develop management responses.
This project focused only on poorly understood groundwater systems with low levels of water entitlement or use that have the potential for development into high entitlement or use systems. We do not envisage that this framework will be applied to undertake investigations on all poorly understood systems (that is, where little or no additional use is proposed) as this would be unnecessary and costly. The purpose of the project is to aid the management of resources, not the pursuit of scientific research.
The project consisted of five stages and involved consultation with the Project Steering
Committee, which comprised representatives from:

Western Australian Department of Water

New South Wales Office of Water

South Australian Department for Water

Northern Territory Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport

Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment

Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

Australian Bureau of Meteorology
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 1

An overview of the project methodology is provided in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Project methodology overview
First, a working definition of what constitutes a poorly understood groundwater system was established and a framework developed to categorise these systems at a national level. The framework was critical for selecting a diverse group of case studies for the next stage as well as to inform risk factor elements of the eventual decision-support framework.
Second, a number of case studies of groundwater systems – considered to be poorly understood prior to jurisdictional investigation – were selected. These case studies, along with relevant jurisdictional policy, were analysed in terms of investigative and management responses to the development of poorly understood groundwater systems.
Third, recommendations for minimum datasets and levels of investigation needed for these systems were developed with input from the Commission and the Project Steering
Committee. These recommendations were based on the outcomes from the analysis of current jurisdictional policy and case studies. They incorporate a risk assessment approach to identify and manage poorly understood groundwater systems.
The purpose of this Waterlines report is to present the current status of jurisdictional policy relating to poorly understood groundwater systems, supported by a number of case studies. It also presents a decision-support framework for managing and investigating poorly understood groundwater systems to enable better decision-making to avoid over-allocation and over-use.
The framework also provides guidance in regards to minimum data requirements to enable appropriate investigative and management decisions to be made in the context of poorly understood groundwater systems.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 2

Australia has many groundwater systems where there is little knowledge about the resource.
This is partly because current use and development for many of these systems is low (due to factors such as remoteness, poor water quality and low yields) and partly because jurisdictions have directed their efforts and resources to more highly competitive systems.
Accordingly, management is often ad hoc rather than the outcome of a comprehensive watersharing plan.
The Commission is seeking to bring all groundwater systems under a nationally consistent water-planning framework, with specific arrangements for managing incremental and/or major development growth in poorly understood systems. There is consequently a need to:
 provide a decision-support framework to determine the minimum data requirements to adequately investigate systems with low levels of use
 guide the level of investigation needed in these areas so understanding is improved and management responses can be developed for the resource.
One of the responsibilities of the Commission is to drive progress toward the sustainable management and use of Australia's water resources under the National Water Initiative (NWI),
Australia’s blueprint for water reform.
The overall objective of the NWI is to achieve a nationally compatible market, regulatory and planning-based system of managing surface water and groundwater resources for rural and urban use that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes (NWC 2011).
Jurisdictions across Australia have agreed on action to achieve a more concerted national approach to the way Australia manages, measures, plans for, prices, and trades water.
The NWI requires a number of issues associated with groundwater to be dealt with as key actions. With increasing groundwater use across Australia and the cyclical occurrence of drought often depleting surface water availability, the need to better manage groundwater and connected resources has become critical.
The NWI acknowledges that unless a concerted national agenda is developed to deal with current groundwater issues effectively, these resources are likely to become increasingly over-exploited. ‘This means that flows from groundwater to surface water may decrease or even reverse ’ (NWC 2011). The NWI recognises the connectivity between surface water and groundwater systems, and the need for improved understanding of groundwater and management of groundwater-surface water interactions.
In 2007, a National Groundwater Action Plan was initiated by the Commission to enable investment in projects to address groundwater knowledge gaps and to progress the groundwater reforms agreed to under the National Water Initiative (NWC 2008).
One of the three major components of the Plan is the National Groundwater Assessment
Initiative (NGAI), which was developed to improve understanding of groundwater resources and support NWI implementation, to harmonise groundwater terminology and to encourage best practice management.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 3

The NGAI funds hydrogeological investigations to help overcome critical groundwater knowledge gaps, such as the management and investigation of poorly understood groundwater systems.
There are eight priority investment themes in the NGAI, the first of which is ‘harmonisation of groundwater definitions and standards, and improved governance and management practices.
’
The scope of this project falls predominantly under this investment theme. More specifically, it falls under sub-theme 1B , ‘Improved governance and management practices of Australia's groundwater resources ’, which incorporates the examination of management frameworks to facilitate better outcomes for groundwater.
In June 2008, the National Water Commission released a position statement on groundwater.
In the Commission’s view; ‘groundwater is neither understood nor managed as well as it needs to be if this valuable resource is to be sustained into the future ’ (NWC 2008). It also states that groundwater is a critical component of the water cycle and one that needs greater effort to ensure its sustainable planning and management.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 4

This section outlines what constitutes a poorly understood groundwater system, taking into consideration the project objectives and scope outlined in Chapter 1. Further groundwater management-related definitions used throughout the report are also provided. The section also details the classifications developed to inform the decision-support framework itself (see
Chapter 5), noting that the subsequent case studies (in Chapter 4) cover a range of groundwater system types (and thus cover a range of classifications).
Consultation and desktop research revealed that it is hard to agree on a single definition of what constitutes a poorly understood groundwater system; indeed, it is not the intent of this project to provide a definitive nationally agreed meaning.
For the purposes of this project there are two components that contribute to a groundwater system being regarded as poorly understood:
 poor knowledge base due to limited data beyond broad classification, which in turn provides a poor understanding of how the system would respond to a significant change in use
 current low level of water entitlement (if detailed) and/or use and development, which may be determined from the ratio of water use versus water entitlement, water entitlement versus sustainable yield, water use versus recharge, or another appropriate method applied by the relevant jurisdiction (see Section 3.2 for definitions).
A number of groundwater management-related phrases and terms are used in this document:

Adequate investigation/minimum data requirements – enough to quantify risk and commensurate with the proposed level of development and/or importance of existing groundwater system values; that is, economic, social, cultural and environmental
(including Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems)

Aquifer robustness – the ratio of aquifer storage volume to sustainable yield or recharge
(Evans and Middlemis 2005)

Low use – predominantly stock and domestic use or small-scale irrigation or industrial use

Management response – identification of investigation and monitoring requirements and policy response following application of risk assessment process

Recharge – the infiltration of water into an aquifer from the surface (rainfall, streamflow, irrigation and so on) (Aquaterra 2011)

Sustainable yield – the groundwater extraction regime, measured over a specified planning timeframe, that allows acceptable levels of stress and that protects dependent economic, social and environmental values (National Groundwater Committee 2004)

Water entitlement – the specific volume of water a licence holder is authorised to take on an annual basis in accordance with a particular legislative system (amalgamated from
Aquaterra 2011)
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 5


Water use – actual take of water (Aquaterra 2011)
The National Groundwater Committee ’s (2004) definition of sustainable yield provided here is normally accompanied by two pages of explanatory notes on extraction regime, acceptable levels of stress, storage depletion and protecting dependent economic, social and environmental values (see Appendix A for details).
It is internationally recognised that sustainable yield is a fundamental principle for effective groundwater management (Sophocleous 2002). National alignment on this term is critical to successfully managing national groundwater resources, particularly as there is a current movement away from the generic term ‘sustainable yield’ toward ‘long-term average sustainable diversion (extraction) limit’ (SDL) 1 . Most notably the term was used in the
Proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan (the Plan) released in November 2011 as part of a three-stage process (No.1 – Guide, No. 2 – Proposed Plan and No. 3 – the Basin Plan). The
National Groundwater Working Group is promulgating the similar term of ‘sustainable extraction regime’ (SER). Discussion of the most appropriate terminology for continued groundwater management is outside the scope of this work, but further discussions are detailed in other NWC project reports such as Aquaterra (2011).
A pragmatic decision-tree approach to classification of poorly understood groundwater systems was developed to provide a robust and practical guide to selecting appropriate case studies. Figure 2 presents the classification framework, which involves a simple desktop analysis of a variety of factors to categorise poorly understood groundwater systems during the case study process.
The classification provides a quick, systematic way of identifying the key combinations of hydrogeological conditions and potential consequences or ‘risk factors’. These risk factors informed the subsequent decision-support framework for managing and investigating poorly understood groundwater systems (outlined in Chapter 5).
1 Long-term average sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) represent the maximum long-term annual average quantities of water that can be taken on a sustainable basis from the water resource. The Water Act requires that this reflect an environmentally sustainable level of take (MDBA 2011).
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 6

Figure 2: Classification framework for poorly understood groundwater systems
Groundwater systems across Australia can be distinguished by risk factors such as groundwater flow system, confinement, surface water connectivity and recharge, as outlined in Figure 2. All these factors will affect the potential impacts of any proposed development of a particular system to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the conditions. The categorisation of groundwater systems therefore needed to be comprehensive enough to cover the wide range of system types, but not too complex for national and practical (sitespecific) application.
3.3.1 Groundwater flow system frameworks
Several largely consistent frameworks on groundwater flow systems have been developed over recent years from which elements were drawn to design a classification system for poorly understood systems.
The starting point to developing an understanding of an area that hasn ’t been well studied in a hydrogeological sense should be the disaggregation of the area of concern into component groundwater systems (Pain et al.
2011, as part of the project A consistent approach to groundwater recharge determination in data-poor areas , funded by the Commission ) .
Attempts should then be made to build conceptual models for each system, based on local geological and geomorphic concepts and knowledge drawn from similar, well-studied groundwater systems elsewhere.
The Groundwater Flow Systems (GFS) Framework (Walker et al.
2003) was established under a salinity risk and integrated catchment management initiative by the Murray-Darling
Basin Commission in 2003. The GFS Framework had the following classification:
 regional unconfined – unconfined sedimentary rocks
 regional confined – confined sedimentary rocks
 fractured rock – low porosity but highly fractured sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic rocks
 local alluvial – alluvial or coastal sands
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 7

These categories were adopted in the initial classification framework (outlined in Figure 2) to determine case studies for this project, and carried through to the decision-support framework detailed in Chapter 5.
The GFS Framework classifies how groundwater movement at local to regional scales is governed by the geological and geomorphic structure of a catchment and the hydraulic properties and processes of landscapes and aquifers. The framework has been used for a range of groundwater planning and management actions, especially in data-poor areas or for high-level studies.
In contrast, the NSW Office of Water developed a groundwater system classification referred to as geological aquifer types (NOW 2011):
 porous rock aquifers – including large sedimentary basins of sandstone with inter-bedded siltstone, shale and coal and ‘consolidated’ sands with dual porosity characteristics
 fractured rock aquifers – including large tectonic fold belts consisting of metamorphic and igneous rocks, basalt caps and calcareous formations
 alluvial aquifers (coastal and inland) – including unconsolidated sand, silt, clay and gravel associated with rivers and streams, usually larger alluvial deposits with a mapped extent
 coastal sands aquifers, including sand, silt, shells and clay
The NOW classification system incorporates similar categorisation to the GFS Framework, and has been used as part of the development and implementation of Macro Water Sharing
Plans for groundwater across NSW (NOW 2011).
3.3.2 Confinement
At a most basic level aquifers are generally classified as being confined or unconfined, with semi-confined as a transitional state between the two classifications.
Confined aquifers refer to systems overlain by an impermeable or semi-permeable layer that limits vertical groundwater movement into and out of the aquifer, and with a piezomeric level above the base of the confining layer (in other words, a pressurised system). Recharge is generally indirect (that is, from lateral flow) and can be extremely slow (groundwater ages often hundreds to thousands of years). Confined systems exhibit low storage volumes as water is released from storage as a change in pressure (elastic storage).
Unconfined aquifers refer to systems where there is no confining layer present between it and the surface, so it is generally the shallowest aquifer at a given location. Recharge usually occurs through direct infiltration via rainfall and surface water. Unconfined systems typically exhibit large storage volumes compared with confined systems of the same spatial scale.
3.3.3 Surface water connectivity
The NSW Macro Water Sharing Plans define highly connected systems as ‘ systems where
70% or more of the groundwater extraction volume is derived from surface water within an irrigation system ’ (NOW 2011) or where there is a known presence of Groundwater
Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs). This definition was adopted in the initial classification framework (outlined in Figure 2) for the purpose of determining case studies.
According to Brodie et al. 2007, there are a number of approaches to categorising surface water-groundwater connectivity, reflected in the wide range of terms used to describe connectivity. In general, surface water-groundwater connectivity can be classified on the basis of four key aspects (Brodie et al. 2007):
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 8

 contiguity – whether or not the groundwater system is in direct hydraulic contact with the surface water feature
 direction of seepage – whether or not the stream is a gaining, losing or variable system
 conductance – the ability of the geological material to transmit water
 impact – potential on the combined water resource and its use and management
Evans and Middlemis (2005) present a stream-aquifer classification system that sets the context for understanding the hierarchy of complexity in flow and quality processes as well as the conceptualisation of groundwater and surface water interaction. An adapted version of the stream-aquifer classification system is presented in Table 1.
T he term ‘contiguous’ is being proposed as part of one of the Commission’s projects on surface water and groundwater inter-connectivity; a new term such as non-contiguous is needed to avoid the misleading term ‘disconnected’ or perched/unsaturated, on the basis that all groundwater systems are connected to the surface in some way. At the time of this report, the proposed terminology was yet to be endorsed.
Table 1: Classification system for stream – aquifer interactions (adapted from Evans and
Middlemis 2005)
Contiguity Seepage direction
Synonyms Potential impact of groundwater on surface water
Potential impact of surface water on groundwater
Contiguous Gaining
Contiguous Losing
Contiguous Underflow
Perched Losing
Contiguous Fluctuating
Effluent
Upwelling
Groundwater-fed aquifer discharge
Influent
Down-welling
Stream-fed aquifer recharge
Disconnected
High
Medium
Low
Very low (not none)
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Contiguous Throughflow
Variable
Gaining/losing
Seasonal
Flowthrough Medium Medium
3.3.4 Recharge
As outlined in Section 3.2, recharge in the context of this report is considered to be the infiltration of water into an aquifer from the surface (rainfall, streamflow, irrigation and so on)
(Aquaterra 2011). Because the groundwater systems of interest are poorly understood we assume that recharge from human-induced sources such as irrigation would be negligible and climatic conditions will be the key driver. The influence of climatic conditions is discussed further in Section 5.3.2.
Recharge is often the starting point of a water balance and one of the most sensitive factors to determine. The NSW Office of Water uses a broad, precautionary approach when determining recharge to overcome difficulties associated with the estimation of recharge due to variations in geology, rainfall distribution and varying sources of recharge (NOW 2011).
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 9

Bearing this in mind a broad, simplified approach based on climatic conditions has been applied for the classification framework:
 high – temperate
 episodic – cyclonic or monsoonal
 low – arid or semi-arid.
3.3.5 Existing users
The type, magnitude and extent of the existing users may influence the level of impact the proposed development will have on the groundwater system and its dependents. A basic understanding of the nature of current development is needed to enable an initial evaluation of potential consequences.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 10

This section outlines current jurisdictional policy relating to poorly understood groundwater systems to gain an understanding of what (if any) management and investigation approaches are in place across Australia. It also details the case studies developed following the application of the classification framework outlined in Section 3.3 and used to inform the decision-support framework outlined in Chapter 5.
Jurisdictions are often bound by legislation and sometimes limited in their powers to act preemptively in the face of rapid development.
Current policies relating to management and investigation of poorly understood groundwater systems formed a significant part of the discussions held with jurisdictional staff. The policy summaries are provided in Appendix B while an overview of each jurisdiction’s current policy is presented in Table 2.
Jurisdictional policies indicated that while progress is being made, particularly in Western
Australia and New South Wales, policy relating specifically to poorly understood groundwater systems is still generally nebulous and these systems are often managed through the licensing process, with the level of investigations required at the discretion of licensing officers.
The five cases selected from nominations put forward by Western Australia, New South
Wales, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania further demonstrated the undeveloped nature of specific policy relating to poorly understood groundwater systems in the various jurisdictions. An overview of the cases and the associated risk factors used to classify their groundwater systems (see Section 3.3) are provided in Table 3, and their locations are shown in Figure 3.
These case studies helped demonstrate a range of approaches for investigating and managing poorly understood groundwater systems and contributed to the development of a national approach. The case study summaries are provided in Appendix C.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 11

Table 2: Current state/territory policy relating to poorly understood groundwater systems
Jurisdiction
New South
Wales
Relevant legislation
Water Act
1912
Current management policy relating to poorly understood groundwater systems
Informal approach to management; licence to extract groundwater and a water supply work approval required (with the exception of stock and domestic)
Process relating to assessment and investigation
State may request an impact assessment be undertaken (at the cost to the applicant), the level of which is at the discretion of the state
Northern
Territory
Water Act
1992
Queensland
South
Australia
Tasmania
Victoria
Western
Australia
Water Act
2000 and
Sustainable
Planning Act
2009
Natural
Resources
Management
Act 2004
Water
Management
Act 1999
Water Act
1989
Rights in
Water and
Irrigation Act
1914
80:20 guidelines (see
Appendix D), determined by the geographic locality of the system.
Groundwater extraction licences are required for bores
>15L/s used for agriculture, aquaculture, public water supply or industry
Taking or interfering with groundwater is managed differently across the state depending on the location and whether the water is artesian or sub-artesian
No specific management and investigation framework in place (with the exception of mining development) outside
Prescribed Wells Areas or
Prescribed Water Resources
Areas
No specific management or licensing of groundwater in place; well works permit required to drill bores
No defined management plans or management rules for
Unincorporated Areas.
Bore construction licences are required by all users, take and use licences are required by all users with the exception of stock and domestic
No groundwater use licence is required in an unproclaimed groundwater area, as long as the water is not drawn from an artesian aquifer
Based on the 80:20 guidelines, a groundwater extraction licence application may require that scientific research into groundwater dependent ecosystem and cultural requirements or hydrological modelling be undertaken by the proponent
Integrated Development
Assessment System (IDAS) process is used to assess and approve development applications for water-related development
For mining development – proponent undertakes a hydrogeological investigation
(at the proponent’s cost) and the state assesses the potential risks in an informal approach.
For all other development – no formal process
Well works permit – informal risk assessment process by the state, allows for the request of additional investigations to be undertaken by the proponent
(at the prop onent’s cost)
Rural Water Corporations
(RWCs) are responsible for assessing licence applications.
Proponents may be required to undertake investigations, based on the volume applied for (at the discretion of the
RWC)
The state undertakes a preliminary licence assessment incorporating determination of the level of hydrogeological assessment required by the proponent (at the proponent’s cost) based on an impact assessment matrix tool
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 12

Table 3: Overview of poorly understood groundwater system case studies
Name State jurisdiction Existing users Management trigger
Western Murray
Porous Rock
Howard East
New South
Wales
Northern
Territory
Stock and domestic, sand mining, salt interception schemes
Horticulture, water supply and irrigation
Legislative requirement to develop a Water
Sharing Plan.
Peake, Roby and
Sherlock
South Australia
Gradual horticultural development; increase in use due to rural subdivision; new technology
Major uncontrolled development of groundwater supplies for irrigation
Scottsdale
La Grange
Tasmania
Western
Australia
Stock and domestic, town water supplies, as well as sustaining wetlands and cultural values
Stock and domestic, highly connected
Ramsar-listed wetland
Pastoral, tourism and mineral exploration, as well as sustaining wetlands and cultural values
Proposed major irrigation development
Major irrigated agriculture
(cotton) development proposal
Groundwater flow system
Porous rock
Coastal sedimentary
Porous rock
Porous rock
Coastal sedimentary
Confinement
Confined and unconfined systems
Unconfined
Surface water connectivity
Less highly connected
Recharge/ climatic setting
Low arid
– arid/ semi-
Highly connected system
Episodic
– wet/dry tropics
Confined and unconfined systems
Unknown
(unconfined) and no connectivity
(confined)
Low – semi-arid
Unconfined
Unconfined
Highly connected system
High
– temperate
Highly connected system
Episodic
– cyclonic climate
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 13

Figure 3: Locations of case studies for poorly understood groundwater systems
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 14

Recommendations have been developed for a decision-support framework that incorporates a risk assessment approach for poorly understood groundwater systems in response to specific triggers. The decision-support framework is informed by the risk factors integrated into the classification framework outlined in Section 3.3, as well as the case studies provided in Section 4.2. A schematic of the overarching framework is provided in Figure 4, with a more detailed flowchart outlining the process provided in Appendix E. The framework adopts a precautionary approach to the management of poorly understood groundwater systems while giving governments and proponents some guidance on investigation and development requirements.
Figure 4: Investigation and management framework for poorly understood groundwater systems
The framework is designed to be simple to use and understand in the face of the limited data available. The framework is adaptable and should be viewed as a guide for jurisdictions; it provides a level of flexibility in its application, so if aspects of specific groundwater systems do not fit into the framework the jurisdictions can adjust as appropriate.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 15

The framework can be broken down into four stages:
 identification of a poorly understood groundwater system that requires assessment
 preliminary assessment (incorporating risk assessment)
 prioritisation of further investigations
 management response
These elements are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
5.2.1 System identification
As outlined in section 3.1, for the purposes of this project two components are considered to contribute to a groundwater system being regarded as ‘poorly understood’:
 poor knowledge base due to limited data beyond broad classification, which in turn provides a poor understanding of how the system would respond to a significant change in use
 current low level of water entitlement (if detailed) and/or use and development, which may be determined from the ratio of water use versus water entitlement, water entitlement versus sustainable yield, water use versus recharge, or another appropriate method applied by the relevant jurisdiction (see Section 3.2 for definitions).
Based on this broad definition, a hierarchical flowchart has been developed to help identify a poorly understood groundwater system. The flowchart is presented in Figure 5 and is underpinned by a series of questions:
 is there more than five years of metered extraction data that incorporates more than 50 per cent of users?
 is there an established sustainable yield?
 is there an established water balance?
 are the measureable elements of the water balance known within an order of magnitude and/or the difference error between input and output volumes less than 20 per cent?
 is the level of water entitlement or metered water extraction relative to sustainable yield greater than 30 per cent?
An answer of ‘no’ to any of these questions (asked in sequential order) leads to the conclusion that the system may be considered poorly understood.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 16

Figure 5: Identification of a poorly understood groundwater systems
Note: Five years is an indicative timeframe only – one that is often used for water planning timeframes. Similarly, 30 per cent is an indicative value only – considered to represent a conservative estimate based on the precautionary principle. Both values can be altered by the relevant jurisdiction as it sees fit.
5.2.2 Management and investigation trigger
This project does not intend to implement a decision-support framework for classifying and assessing each individual poorly understood groundwater system in Australia; this would impose an unnecessary resource and financial burden on jurisdictions. A reason is therefore needed to trigger investigation and management of a particular groundwater system identified as poorly understood, such as:
 an incremental development from low to high water entitlement (if detailed) or water use within relevant planning timeframes; and/or
 a proposed ‘major’ development (which may incorporate staged development, in which case the potential total volume of water required over the entire project life should be taken into account) as defined by the jurisdiction.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 17

The need to investigate and manage development of an incremental nature may arise when:
 the volume of water entitlements across the system [AUTHOR: changes?] relative to the sustainable yield; and/or
 the total metered extraction across the system relative to the long term average recharge rate will exceed 30 per cent (this is a conservative, indicative estimate only, based on a precautionary approach to suggest that further investigation is warranted to acquire information that would enable appropriate and timely responses to manage allocation and use).
Where data are unavailable to provide this determination, the management framework outlined in this report should be applied for any development proposed aside from stock and domestic.
The particular trigger will affect who (jurisdiction, existing users or proponent) undertakes and funds further investigations following the preliminary assessment. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.4.2.
5.3.1 Risk framework
This project has developed a risk framework to assess the potential risk an incremental or major development may pose to a groundwater resource in a poorly understood system. The framework is a structured and transparent way of identifying and evaluating risk factors associated with a particular action; in this case, risk factors refer to possible negative changes to the groundwater resource condition including groundwater level changes (both increasing and decreasing) and salination, and if the action is increasing the demand on the groundwater resource from low to high (incrementally or in relation to a major development).
Risks are determined by the likelihood and consequence of an impact. As outlined in Figure
4, the jurisdiction undertakes a preliminary assessment that incorporates evaluating the aquifer replenishment and robustness risk factors (to establish the likelihood factor) and the potential user impacts of taking the groundwater (to establish consequence). This predefined, multi-step desktop process, outlined in the subsequent sections, can be applied by the proponent (at the discretion of the jurisdiction) depending on the determined level of risk.
The framework maintains a design that is adaptable and should be viewed as a guide for jurisdictions; it enables a level of flexibility in its application so if aspects of the specific system of concern do not fit into the framework, jurisdictions may adjust it as appropriate.
The classification system provided in Chapter 3, as well as the analysis of the case studies outlined in Chapter 4, helped inform identification of the minimum data requirements needed for jurisdictions to undertake the initial preliminary assessment. Table 4 presents the minimum information needed to assess poorly understood groundwater systems before undertaking any further investigations and management decisions (if warranted).
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 18

Table 4: Minimum data requirements for preliminary assessment of poorly understood groundwater systems
Minimum data (information) requirements
 surface water connectivity (losing, gaining or fluctuating/variable system)
 climatic conditions for dominant recharge source (temperate, tropical/cyclonic or arid/semi-arid)
 groundwater flow system classification (regional unconfined, regional confined, fractured rock or local alluvial) OR storativity and scale of groundwater system
 volume proposed for development
 level of existing allocation in groundwater management unit
 existing salinity in groundwater management unit
5.3.2 Aquifer robustness assessment
Aquifer robustness has been defined as the ratio of aquifer storage volume to sustainable yield or recharge (Evans and Middlemis 2005). This is a useful measure of risk as it provides a good indication of aquifer capability to buffer impacts and takes into account system requirements. The robustness provides insight into the likelihood of impact and helps prioritise the level of investigation/management; for example, a more robust aquifer may be assessed using a less complex approach and managed adaptively with confidence as the risk of failure is generally lower.
The overall aquifer robustness assessment in the proposed framework is a risk factor assessment that uses aquifer robustness in several formulations that consider key elements of the system. Its qualitative nature allows for poorly understood conditions because the usual robustness parameters such as recharge, storage and sustainable yield can be difficult to confidently quantify with minimal data.
As shown in Figure 4, the qualitative aquifer robustness assessment consists of a two-stage risk classification approach that takes into account the key elements of the aquifer system.
These include:
 surface water connectivity (in terms of replenishment)
 dominant climatic conditions
 groundwater flow system
 confinement
The two stages (replenishment and robustness classification) are outlined in the sections below.
The replenishment classification process is designed to take into consideration the factors that influence the recharge to the system from rainfall and surface water sources only. The matrix used to guide the ranking of the system’s replenishment (as low, moderate or high) is provided in Table 5.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 19

Table 5: Matrix to determine replenishment classification
Surface water connectivity*
Losing Fluctuating/variable
Temperate
(>500mm rainfall)
High High
Tropical/cyclonic High Moderate
Gaining
Moderate
Low
Arid/semi-arid
Moderate Low Low
(<500mm rainfall)
* Connectivity in the aquifer replenishment context is considered in terms of flow from surface water to groundwater
For the purposes of this framework, surface water connectivity has a replenishment context based on direction of seepage (Brodie et al . 2007), taking into account the potential for recharge of the system via surface water features:
 losing system – discharge from surface water features contributes to recharge in the aquifer system
 fluctuating/variable system – the system alternates between losing and gaining, either spatially or temporally
 gaining system – discharge from the aquifer system contributes to surface water baseflow
Connectivity is also considered under the impacts (consequence) assessment part of the framework (for example, potential for impacts on streams due to extraction), refer to section
5.3.3.
The scale of the aquifer needs to be taken into consideration when assessing the dominant climatic condition of the system. In a localised groundwater system the direct climatic conditions will often determine the level of recharge to the system (in other words, an arid climate will produce a low recharge rate.), but in a regional confined aquifer system the point of recharge may be some distance from the area of interest with potentially throughflow from an indirect climatic region. The dominant climatic source of recharge to the system should prevail when undertaking the classification.
The robustness classification process is designed to take into consideration a combination of the replenishment classification described above and the storage potential of the system (that is, consistent with the original robustness concept). The matrix used to guide the ranking of the system replenishment (as low, moderate or high) is provided in Table 6. The outcome of the robustness classification is then used to inform the risk assessment outlined in Section
5.3.4.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 20

Table 6: Matrix to determine robustness classification
Storage potential
Regional unconfined
Regional confined
Fractured rock
High High High Moderate
Moderate High Moderate Low
Low Moderate Low Low
Local alluvial
Low
Low
Low
Storage potential categories provided in the robustness classification matrix (Table 6) are those classifications provided in the Groundwater Flow Systems (GFS) Framework (Walker et al.
2003). The GFS established a framework for classifying how groundwater movement at local to regional scales is governed by the geological and geomorphic structure of a catchment, and the hydraulic properties and processes of landscapes and aquifers. These classifications are relative to each other; individually, a low storage potential may be extremely important at a local level.
According to the GFS Framework, spatial scale is an important factor in the initial differentiation of groundwater systems because it contextualises the system responses to changes in recharge and discharge. Generally, larger systems are slower to respond to changes in recharge and discharge (indicating greater level of robustness). For some systems, regional aquifers may take hundreds to thousands of years to respond to changes in groundwater recharge or discharge. This can have serious implications for priority planning on proposed water use.
The storage potential takes into consideration storativity (incorporating confinement) and scale of the system. We recognise that there may be some groundwater systems across
Australia that do not fit easily into one of the four categories provided in the matrix; where this occurs we envisage that an appropriate category can be chosen to best ‘represent’ the system, based on general characteristics outlined in Table 7.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 21

Table 7: Characteristics of groundwater flow systems applied
Groundwater flow system
Regional unconfined
Storativity
High (>0.01)
Scale of system
Regional (>50km)
Regional confined
Fractured rock
Local alluvial
Moderate (0.0001 –
0.001)
Low (<0.001)
High (>0.01)
Regional (>50km)
Local to Regional
(<5 to >50km)
Local (<5km)
Example systems
Unconfined sedimentary
Unconfined porous rock
Confined sedimentary
Confined porous rock
Low porosity but highly fractured
Sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic rocks
Alluvial coastal sands
5.3.3 Impact assessment
The impact assessment classification is designed to take into consideration the impact incremental or proposed major developments may have on the groundwater system users
(including the environment), in terms of existing and potential future beneficial users; that is, the ‘consequences’ of development.
The matrix used to determine the impact classification for the system is based on a points system as outlined in Table 8. It is adapted from Table 1 Decision table for hydrogeological assessment in Western Australia’s Operational Policy No. 5.12 – Hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence (2009). The matrix incorporates the following consequential aspects to consider:
 volume requested – indicator of development scale
 level of allocation (percentage of sustainable yield) – across the management unit; indicator of sustainability and surrogate indicator of cumulative impacts
 potential for unacceptable effects on other groundwater users, surface water and groundwater dependent ecosystems – consideration of the likelihood and/or consequence of relevant impacts such as groundwater level changes, accessibility, water quality
(salination) and so on are judged by the relevant jurisdiction based on the attributes and values of the system
 current salinity – surrogate indicator of future beneficial use
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 22

Table 8 : Matrix to determine impact classification (adapted from Western Australia’s
Operational Policy No. 5.12
)
Volume requested
(ML/year)
Level of allocation
(licensed, exempt and community use)*
Potential for unacceptable impacts**
Other groundwater users
Surface water users
Groundwater dependent ecosystems
Current salinity
(mg/L)***
<10
(0 points)
0 < 30%
(0 points)
Impacts unlikely/ low consequences
(0 points)
Impacts unlikely
(0 points)
Impacts unlikely
(0 points)
Fresh <500 mg/L
(4 points)
10
–50
(2 points)
30 < 70%
(1 point)
Impacts possible/ manageable consequences
(2 points)
Impacts possible
(2 points)
Impacts possible
(2 points)
Marginal
TDS 501
–
1500 mg/L
(3 points)
50 –250
(4 points)
70 < 100%
(3 points)
Brackish
TDS 1,501
–
5000 mg/L
(2 points)
250
–500
(6 points)
Impacts likely/ significant consequences
(5 points)
Impacts likely
(5 points)
Impacts likely
(5 points)
Saline
TDS 5,001
–
50 000 mg/L
(1 points)
500
–1000
(8 points)
>/= 100%
(5 points)
1000
–2500
(15 points)
Hypersaline
>50 000 mg/L
(0 points)
>2500
(20 points)
* If sustainable yield has not been defined, use the % of current extraction volume to estimated long-term average recharge volume
** ‘Unacceptable’ as determined by the relevant jurisdiction
*** Salinity categories obtained from the National Land and Water Resources Audit 2002 –2008
The concept of ‘unacceptable impacts’ (including associated timeframes) is rather subjective because it depends on the nature of the system and its economic, social, cultural and environmental values; as such it is also a policy issue for jurisdictions to determine.
Depending on the system values identified, trade-offs may also need to be taken into consideration; for example, a low-level impact to the community may be considered acceptable compared with long-term economic gains, especially where an appropriate mitigation strategy can be implemented to reduce risk. A judgement as to whether an impact is acceptable, based on probable likelihood and consequences over a determined timeframe, will need to be made by the jurisdictional staff undertaking the assessment; it may require input from other agencies and should consider community views.
The potential for unacceptable impacts is judged against three criteria that help identify impacts across the applicable system values (economic, social, cultural and environmental):
 other groundwater users – existing bore owners (that is, communities and various industries) that may be directly affected by changes in water levels (rising, falling or regime changes) and water quality, including in other aquifers that may be potentially affected (for example, through vertical leakage)
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 23

 surface water users – local downstream surface water users (excluding environmental) that may be affected by changes in direction of seepage and water quality
 groundwater dependent ecosystems, which may be affected by changes in water levels
(rising, falling or regime changes) and water quality
For each proposed development, points are assigned for each column in the table and summed to give a score that is then is used to inform the risk assessment outlined in Section
5.3.4.
5.3.4 Risk assessment
Overall risk is defined in terms of the effect of uncertainties on objectives, whereby an effect is a deviation (positive and/or negative) from the expected (AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009). Risk is often expressed in terms of a combination of the consequences of an event and the likelihood. In this framework, likelihood refers to the aquifer robustness assessment ranking
(Table 6) while consequence refers to the impact assessment score (Table 8). Based on these components, the matrix used to guide the ranking of the system risk (as negligible, low, moderate or high) is provided in Table 9. The outcome of the risk assessment is subsequently used to prioritise the level of further investigations required, as outlined in Section 5.4.
Table 9: Risk assessment matrix for poorly understood groundwater systems
Impact assessment (score from Table 8 impact classification matrix)
0
–7
8
–12
13
–19
>19
High Negligible Low Moderate Moderate
Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High
Low Moderate Moderate High High
Based on the risk assessment matrix, the incremental or proposed major development will be categorised into:
 high risk – demand for the groundwater resource caused by increased development is almost certain to have a significant impact on users
 moderate risk – demand for the groundwater resource caused by increased development could potentially or possibly have a significant impact on users
 low risk – demand for the groundwater resource caused by increased development is unlikely to have a significant impact on users, at least in a typical adaptive management framework timeframe of 5 –10 years
 negligible – demand for the groundwater resource caused by increased development is unlikely to have any impact on users
5.4.1 Requirements for further investigation
To support jurisdictions in determining the level of further investigation (and hence minimum data) required, four categories of investigation aligned to risk assessment outcomes have been developed:
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 24

 negligible risk – no further investigation required
 low risk – H1 (desktop hydrogeological investigation)
 moderate risk – H2 (basic hydrogeological investigation)
 high risk – H3 (detailed hydrogeological investigation)
The h ydrogeological investigation classification system is adapted from Western Australia’s
Operational Policy No. 5.12 – Hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence (2009). The three levels of investigation and data requirements are:

H1 – desktop hydrogeological investigation that incorporates analysis of climate/rainfall, hydrogeology, existing groundwater use, assessment of potential impacts and proposed management approach

H2 – basic hydrogeological investigation that incorporates drilling, test pumping, geophysical logging and chemical analyses in addition to the components of an H1 investigation

H3 – detailed hydrogeological investigation that incorporates the application of a groundwater model in addition to the components of an H2 investigation
The requirements for undertaking further investigations in regard to poorly understood groundwater systems are based on Appendix A from Western Australia’s Operational Policy
No. 5.12 – Hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence . The adapted requirements for each level of investigation have been provided in Appendix F.
While these provide a guideline to the level of investigation and minimum data required, the local knowledge and expertise of the jurisdictional hydrogeologists should also be taken into consideration and the determining criteria should allow for some level of flexibility if circumstances justify it.
5.4.2 Responsibility for further investigations
As mentioned in Section 5.2.2, the nature of the development within the poorly understood groundwater system affects who is responsible for undertaking further investigations.
Where there is a proposed ‘major’ development there is potential that the cost and responsibility of undertaking any additional work will be borne by the proponent (through the jurisdiction’s licensing approvals system); however, complications arise where an incremental development from low to high water entitlement/use occurs. In this instance it may be necessary for the jurisdictions to undertake the work and potentially bear the cost, or to use a levy system from users to help with costs. Ultimately, how this is resolved is a jurisdictional policy decision outside the scope of these guidelines.
To finalise the framework process the jurisdiction needs to take into consideration the findings from the hydrogeological investigation, together with any relevant additional information, before making a final decision on whether to:
 allow the proposed ‘major’ development to go ahead (with potential conditions attached to mitigate any potential risks identified); or
 in the case of incremental development, impose an appropriate management regime in the system
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 25

The level of the management response required is at the discretion of the jurisdiction and depends on the perceived level of risk to the groundwater system. For an unincorporated area, if the perceived risk is great the jurisdiction may decide that the system warrants inclusion into the appropriate formal planning process; that is, by declaration of a proclaimed area, prescribed wells area, water control district and so on. In this case management would be under existing statutory requirements, which may include developing a management plan such as a water allocation plan or water resource plan.
For an incorporated area, where a management plan already exists and if the perceived risk is great, the jurisdiction may decide that it is necessary to review the current management plan. This review may focus on the stated objectives and outcomes of the plan, its licensing policies and rules, and underpinning concepts. The outcome of the review may be an amendment to the document to reflect the most up-to-date understanding of the groundwater system.
Where the perceived risk is not great and therefore does not warrant a response involving the formal planning process, we recommend implementing an adaptive management approach that incorporates the installation of an appropriately scaled monitoring scheme, including a monitoring bore network, surface water monitoring and user surveys (including groundwater dependent ecosystems) as required. This would enable continued reviews of the system condition every five years to assess potential impacts, and to ensure that the management practices are appropriate.
Again, how particular management responses are decided on and implemented is a jurisdictional policy decision outside the scope of these guidelines.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 26

The purpose of this report was to present:
 the current status of jurisdictional policy relating to the management and investigation of poorly understood groundwater systems, supported by a number of case studies
 a pragmatic approach to investigation and management of these systems
This report has developed and met the objective of providing a decision-support framework for investigating and managing poorly understood systems when there is incremental development from low to high water entitlement (if detailed) or water use, and/or a major development proposal. The framework also provides guidance in regard to minimum data requirements to enable appropriate investigative and management decisions in poorly understood groundwater systems.
Discussions and review of relevant literature revealed that the definition of a ‘poorly understood groundwater system’ is far from clear, but for the purposes of this study a groundwater system is considered to be poorly understood where there is a poor knowledge base due to limited data beyond broad classification, which in turn provides a poor understanding of how the system would respond to a significant change in use; and the current level of water entitlement (if detailed) and/or use and development is low.
The recommended decision-support framework presented incorporates a risk assessment approach for poorly understood groundwater systems in response to specific triggers. The framework is informed by these risk factors integrated into a classification framework as well as information from jurisdictional policy and case studies.
The recommended framework design is simple to use and understand, in the face of limited data availability. It can be broken down into four stages:
 identification of a poorly understood groundwater system that requires assessment – based on an hierarchical flowchart to establish whether a groundwater system is considered to be poorly understood, followed by the provision of a management and investigation trigger such as incremental development from low to high water entitlement/use or a proposed ‘major’ development
 preliminary assessment (incorporating risk assessment) – a risk framework that incorporates evaluation of the aquifer replenishment and robustness risk factors (to establish the likelihood factor) and the potential user impacts of taking the groundwater
(to establish the consequence factor)
 prioritisation of requirements for and undertaking of further investigations – four categories of investigation aligned to the risk assessment outcomes that support jurisdictions in determining the level of further investigation and minimum data required, based on Western Australia’s Operational Policy no. 5.12
(2009)
 management response by the jurisdiction – the level of management response needed is a jurisdictional policy decision that depends on the perceived level of risk to the groundwater system; at a minimum, we recommend an appropriately scaled monitoring program be implemented as part of an adaptive management approach
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 27

This framework provides a nationally consistent approach to investigating and managing poorly understood groundwater systems. It is designed to encourage adoption and should be viewed as a guide for jurisdictions. We recognise that there may be circumstances where aspects of a specific groundwater system do not fit well into the framework, and flexibility in its application is required. In these circumstances jurisdictions should ensure alterations to the suggested approach are transparent and the reasons clearly articulated.
While this project has focused on poorly understood and low use groundwater systems, there is an opportunity to develop a decision-support framework for better understood/high use systems building on the framework presented in this report. The use of these frameworks in combination could provide a consistent approach for the management and investigation of all groundwater systems nationally.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 28

Aquaterra 2011, Stocktake of groundwater definitions and management concepts , Waterlines report series no. 39, National Water Commission, Canberra.
AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 2009, Risk management – principles and guidelines, Standards
Australia and Standards New Zealand.
Brodie R, Sundaram B, Tottenham R, Hostetler S and Ransley T 2007, An adaptive management framework for connected groundwater-surface water resources in
Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Evans R and Middlemis, H 2005, Developing the guiding principles for sustainable groundwater management in the Murray-Darling Basin – Project 8. Guide for estimating sustainable groundwater yield, Report prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin
Commission, Canberra. MDBA (2011) Plain English summary of the proposed Basin
Plan — including explanatory notes , Murray –Darling Basin Authority, Canberra.
National Groundwater Committee 2004, Definition and approach to sustainable groundwater yield – Annex A, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
NOW 2011, Macro water sharing plans – the approach for groundwater. A report to assist community consultation, NSW Office of Water, Sydney.
NWC 2008, National Water Commission groundwater position statement, National Water
Commission, Canberra. http://www.nwc.gov.au/resources/documents/Grounwater-PS-
240608.pdf
NWC 2011, National Water Initiative, National Water Commission website, 3 May 2011 update. http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/117-national-water-initiative.asp
Pain CF, Gow LJ, Wilford JR and Kilgour P 2011, Mapping approaches to recharge and discharge estimation and associated input datasets, Report prepared for CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship, Canberra.
Sophocleous MA 2002, ‘Water resources sustainability and its application in Kansas’ in:
Gerhard, L.C., Leahy P.P., and Yannacone, V.J. Jr. (eds), Sustainability of energy and water through the 21 st century. Proceedings of the Arbor Day farm conference , October
8-11, 2000. Kansas Geological Survey in association with AAPG and the AAPG
Division of Environmental Geosciences, Special Publication, pp. 115-124.
WA Department of Water 2009, Operational Policy no. 5.12 – hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence , Western Australia Department of Water,
Perth.
Walker G, Gilfedder M, Evans R, Dyson P and Stauffacher M 2003, Groundwater flow systems framework – essential tools for planning salinity management. Report prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 29

Definition and approach to sustainable groundwater yield:
Sustainable groundwater yield is defined as:
‘The groundwater extraction regime, measured over a specified planning timeframe, that allows acceptable levels of stress and protects dependent economic, social and environmental values.
’
This definition is based on adopting the following approach to its implementation:
Extraction regime
Sustainable groundwater yield should be expressed in the form of an extraction regime, not just an extraction volume. The concept is that a regime is a set of management practices defined in a specified time (or planning period) and space.
Extraction limits may be expressed in volumetric quantity terms and may further specify the extraction or withdrawal regime by way of accounting rules and/or rates of extraction over a given period and/or impact, water level or quality trigger rules. The limits may be probabilistic and/or conditional.
An often used means of defining the extraction regime has been by way of a maximum volume that may be taken in any single year. In cases where draw beyond the rate of recharge may be acceptable, it may be only for a specified period, after which the rate may be less than the rate of recharge to compensate. In some cases and under specific circumstances (for example, high or low rainfall years) the amount of water that may be taken may be greater or less than the longer-term value and the conditions for this can be specified.
Acceptable levels of stress
The approach recognises that any extraction of groundwater will result in some level of stress or impact on the total system, including GDEs.
The concept of acceptable levels of stress as the determining factor for sustainable yield embodies recognising the need for trade-offs to determine what is acceptable. How these are made is a case- and site-specific issue and a matter for individual states to administer. Tradeoffs will often involve balancing between environmental, social and economic needs. In some cases, the stress may be temporary as the system adjusts to a new equilibrium.
The definition should be applied in recognition of the total system. That is, it should recognise interactions between aquifers and between surface and groundwater systems and associated water dependent ecosystems. The definition implies that integrated management decisions must be taken to fully satisfy its spirit.
A precautionary approach must be taken in calculating sustainable yield, with estimates being lower where there is limited knowledge. Applying the calculated sustainable yield as a limit on extractions must be through a process of adaptive management involving monitoring impacts
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 30

of extraction. Sustainable yields should be regularly reassessed and may be adjusted in accordance with a specified planning framework to take account of any new information, including improved valuations of dependent ecosystems.
Storage depletion
The approach recognises that extraction of groundwater over any timeframe will result in some depletion of groundwater storage (reflected in a lowering of water levels or potentiometric head). It also recognises that extracting groundwater in a way that results in any unacceptable depletion of storage lies outside the definition of sustainable groundwater yield.
Where depletion is expected to continue beyond the specified planning timeframe the likely acceptability of that continuation must be assessed, and whether intervention action might be necessary to reduce extraction. If intervention is likely to be necessary, planning for that action should be undertaken so it can be implemented at the end of the specified timeframe.
Major considerations in determining the acceptability of any specific level of storage depletion should be ‘inter-generational equity’ and a balance between environmental matters identified in the National Principles for Provision of Water for Ecosystems , social and economic values.
Protecting dependent economic, social and environmental values
The definition recognises that groundwater resources have multiple values, some of which are extractive while others are in situ (such as associated water-dependent ecosystems) and all have a legitimate claim on the water resource.
In considering trade-offs in resource values, due recognition should be given to environmental dependencies, the risk of irreversible impacts and any decisions shall be made in accordance with the principles of ecological sustainable development.
NOTE: When this definition is reproduced, it should be accompanied with the above explanatory notes to maximise understanding of the definition.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 31

NSW is in a transitional period in regard to water management policy; some groundwater systems fall under the Water Management Act 2000 while others still fall under the Water Act
1912 .
Water access licences and approvals to take and use water from groundwater systems governed by declared Water Sharing Plans (WSPs) (at present, generally non-poorly understood groundwater systems) are granted according to the Water Management Act 2000 .
If a proponent wishes to take groundwater that is managed by a WSP, the Water
Management Act 2000 requires them to hold:
 a water access licence to take the water (unless the water is to be taken to use under a basic landholder right)
 a water supply work approval to construct a bore, well or spear point under a domestic and stock right
 a water use approval to use the water (unless the water is for use under a basic landholder right)
In areas where WSPs have not begun (generally incorporating poorly understood groundwater systems) the issue of licences to take water from groundwater sources and, generally, to install a bore, is still governed by the Water Act 1912 . If a proponent wishes to take groundwater that is not managed by a WSP, the Water Act 1912 requires landholders to hold:
 a groundwater licence to extract groundwater using any type of bore, well, spearpoint or groundwater interception scheme for all purposes except to take water from an aquifer under a basic landholder right
 a water supply work approval to construct a bore, well or spear point if the groundwater is to be taken to use for domestic consumption and stock watering under a domestic and stock right (under the Water Management Act 2000)
To date, the approach for management of poorly understood groundwater systems has generally been ad hoc ; proponents have been asked to prove what they need and to prove that they can gain access to it.
Proponents must complete an Application for a Groundwater Licence . The state may request the clarification of the nature and purpose of the proposed works. Potential i mpacts on the sub-catchment and other water users are subsequently assessed by the state. The Water Act
1912 does not contain specific provisions in regard to GDEs.
Under the provision of the Water Act 1912 , the state may request an impact assessment be undertaken by the proponent (the level of which is at the discretion of the state) based on the
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 32

potential sensitivity of the area, size of proposal and so on; for example, the Cadia gold mine proposal near Orange.
If the application is approved the state will issue a licence, often with a condition statement listing requirements to be fulfilled; for example, the Condition Statement for Groundwater Bore
(for Mining) in Western Porous Rock Aquifer .
Macro Water Sharing Plan (WSP) process (adapted from Macro water sharing plans –
the approach for groundwater, a report to assist community consultation, NOW 2011)
In 2001 NSW began developing WSPs for surface water and groundwater systems under the
Water Management Act 2000 . The first round of WSPs was finalised between 2004 and 2008.
These WSPs cover all the major regulated river systems, their associated major aquifers and a number of unregulated systems. The aquifers covered by these WSPs are considered to be non-poorly understood systems due to their intensive management for many years, as they are high-yielding and have high levels of extraction by water users.
The plans in development for the remaining major aquifers in NSW cover much larger areas than each of the first round plans. These are calle d ‘macro’ WSPs. The aquifers covered in each of these plans are divided into ‘water sources’.
The macro planning process is designed to develop WSPs that cover most of the remaining water sources across NSW. Each macro plan covers a large river basin rather than a single sub-catchment; or in the case of a groundwater system, covers a particular type of aquifer
(such as fractured rock) in the river basin. These macro plans generally apply to catchments or aquifers where there is less intensive water use (such as poorly understood groundwater systems) compared with the areas covered by plans in 2004.
All WSPs, individual system or macro, aim to:
 clarify the rights of the environment, basic landholder rights users, town water suppliers and other licensed users
 define the long-term average annual extraction limit (LTAAEL) for water sources
 set rules to manage impacts of extraction
 facilitate the trading of water between users
Calculating recharge and the risk assessment methodology as part of the Macro Water
Resource Plan process (Appendix 6, NOW 2011)
For less highly connected systems a macro risk assessment approach is applied to define environmental water and the LTAAEL. As the amount of data available for each groundwater source varies, the risk assessment allows for input of as much information as possible. Where information is limited, state officers apply their local knowledge and technical expertise.
The assessment involves the following steps:
1. Estimation of recharge
2. Reservation of recharge as planned environmental water in high conservation areas
3. Assessment of aquifer risk (considered the risk that groundwater extraction places on the groundwater source and its high priority GDEs)
Precise assessment of risks is not generally possible at the scale needed for the development of macro plans. Accordingly, the process uses simple assessments to
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 33

indicate different levels of risk -- ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’. An example of an aquifer risk assessment guide is provided in Table 1.
The assessment is completed for identified risks to three major aquifer assets – ecological, water quality and aquifer integrity. The overall risk to the aquifer is the highest score attained by any asset; in other words, there is no ranking or weighting of assets in this process to remove subjectivity.
4. Assessment of socio-economic risk (assesses the dependence of local communities on groundwater extraction in terms of the risk to financial and social assets)
The analysis in this assessment is based on current licensed entitlement, which is greater than actual usage in most groundwater sources. Usage data is not available for the many poorly understood groundwater systems in NSW. Where usage data is available it is used, but where usage data is not available, local technical knowledge and professional expertise of state staff guided assessments.
Each risk is rated as high, medium or low. An example of a socio-economic risk assessment guide is provided in Table 2. The maximum risk rating becomes the risk valuation for the overall water source. Consideration is also given to the likelihood that the community will increase its dependence on groundwater extraction, for example, through town water supplies or aquifer interference.
5. Identification of risk mitigation actions
6. Determination of the sustainability factor
7. Determination of the long-term average annual extraction limit
8. Stacked aquifers
New South Wales – in summary
 relevant legislation – Water Act 1912 (poorly understood groundwater systems)
 groundwater license to extract groundwater and a water supply work approval – required for all proponents outside Water Sharing Plan areas (with the exception of stock and domestic)
 ad hoc approach to management of poorly understood groundwater system – potential impacts on the sub-catchment and other water users are assessed by the State

State may request an impact assessment be undertaken to the proponent (at the cost to the latter), the level of which is at the discretion of the former
 license conditions – condition statement listing requirements to be fulfilled

Macro Water Sharing Plan process – incorporated qualitative assessments of aquifer and socio-economic risk to define environmental water and long-term annual average extraction limits
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 34

Table 10: Aquifer risk assessment guide
Geological type:
Groundwater source name:
GWMA number:
High
Risk
Moderate
What will be the risk of a change in groundwater levels on
GDEs?
Reduction in groundwater level(s) or piezometric pressure beyond established trigger levels or seasonal variation, resulting in permanent loss of defined habitat type
What will be the risk of a change in the timing of groundwater level fluctuations on GDEs?
Fluctuation in groundwater level(s) or piezometric pressure beyond established trigger levels or seasonal variation, resulting in permanent loss of defined habitat type
What will be the risk of changing base flow conditions on GDEs?
Permanent reversal of base flow conditions.
Reduction in groundwater level(s) or piezometric pressure beyond established trigger levels or seasonal variation, resulting in temporary loss of defined habitat type
Fluctuation in groundwater level(s) or piezometric pressure beyond established trigger levels or seasonal variation, resulting in temporary loss of defined habitat type
Temporary reversal of base flow conditions exceeding seasonal variation.
Low
Ecological asset
No change to habitat type
No change to habitat type
No change to habitat type.
What is the risk of changing the chemical
Permanent change in pH, temperature and/or
Temporary change in pH, temperature and/or
Water quality asset
Negligible change
(<5%)
Method and source
Check GDS database.
Use hydrographs if available or point source data
Check GDS database.
Use hydrographs if available or point source data
Check GDS database.
Use hydrographs if available or point source data
Check contaminated sites and Triton
Mitigation action
For example, hot spots modelling
For example, hot spots modelling
For example, hot spots modelling
For example, local impact rules
Relevant plan rules
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 35

Geological type:
Groundwater source name:
GWMA number:
High conditions of the water source? turbidity
What is the risk on the water source by a change in the freshwater/salt water interface?
What is the likelihood of a change in beneficial use of the water source
Permanent change in location or gradient of salt/freshwater interface
Reduction in water quality beyond designated BU category
(for identified trigger parameters)
Permanent destruction the of aquifer matrix
Risk
Moderate turbidity
Low
Temporary change in location or gradient of salt/freshwater interface
No change or not applicable
Reduction in water quality within designated BU category
(for identified trigger parameters)
Negligible change for identified triggers
(<5%)
Temporary adjustment to the aquifer matrix
Aquifer integrity asset
No change
Method and source databases.
Check Triton database.
Check contaminated sites and Triton databases.
Check DMR data sources
Mitigation action
For example, local impact rules
For example, local impact rules
For example, GW modelling
What is the risk of substrate compaction?
Risk valuation
Mitigation effect on sustainability factor
Risk High, Moderate or Low
Relevant plan rules
Add reason for mitigation and other comments as needed
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 36

Table 11: Socio-economic risk assessment guide
Geological type:
Groundwater source name:
GWMA number:
What is the risk to security of access from extraction?
No option for alternative water supply (source)
Risk
Moderate
Method and source Other Management tools
High
Large volume of groundwater extracted in proportion to total licensed (>70%)
Large Volume of groundwater licensed for TWS in proportion to total licensed extraction (>70%)
What is the risk to dependence on groundwater related activities (irrigation, industry)?
What is the risk to investment in agriculture/ industry?
Average volume of groundwater extracted in proportion to total licensed (30-70%)
Average Volume of groundwater licensed for
TWS in proportion to total licensed extraction
(30-70%)
Large volume of groundwater extracted in proportion to total licences (>70%)
Significant investment in activities requiring groundwater (%GDP of
Council area)
Low
Financial asset
Limited options for alternative water supply
(source)
Alternative water supply readily available (able to extract all entitlement at all times of the year)
Use Departmental metered or card entry data where available
Check Departmental
LAS database,
Council maps. Other sources include reticulated surface water
Ensure metering installed and monitored
Small volume of groundwater extracted in proportion to total licensed (<30%)
Small Volume of groundwater licensed for TWS in proportion to total licensed extraction
(<30%)
Average volume of groundwater extracted in proportion to total licences (30-70%)
Moderate investment in activities requiring groundwater (%GDP of
Council area)
Check Departmental
LAS database, Urban
Water Management and State Water data
Small volume of groundwater extracted in proportion to total licences (<30%)
Little investment in activities requiring groundwater (%GDP of Council area)
Allow for population growth during term of plan. Identify planning needs in Strategy document
Check Departmental
LAS database, DPI advice
Bureau of Statistics
Census data, DPI advice
What is the risk to continuing groundwater usage?
What is the risk to dependence on town water supply?
Define public irrigation districts if growth envisaged during plan term
Define public irrigation districts if growth envisaged during plan term
Relevant plan rules
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 37

Geological type:
Groundwater source name:
GWMA number:
What is the risk to employment in agriculture or industry?
Risk valuation
Risk
Majority of local population employed in associated activities
(>70%)
High
High, Moderate or Low
Risk
Moderate
Average proportion of local population employed in associated activities (30-70%)
Low
Sociological asset
Minor proportion of local population employed in associated activities (
<30%)
Method and source
Check DPI data sources and Bureau of Statistics Census data
Other Management tools
Relevant plan rules
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 38

In the Northern Territory the Water Act 1992 provides for the investigation, allocation, use, control, protection, management and administration of water resources, except in regard to the extraction of surface water and groundwater for mining and petroleum activities (which are subject to an interagency memorandum of understanding ensuring that water resources are used within sustainable limits).
Water Control Districts (WCD) can be declared in areas where there is enough current or potential competing demand for water to warrant water allocation planning and licensing. Legislation in WCDs covers all aspects of sustainable water resource management, including investigation, use, control, protection and allocation. Statutory declaration of water allocation plans (WAPs) and the widest application of extraction licensing controls is only possible in WCDs. The Minister may declare a WAP in respect of a WCD (or part thereof). Water resource management in a WCD (or part thereof) is in accordance with the WAP.
WAPs are being developed on a priority basis in areas where there are competing demands for human consumptive needs and/or where natural aquatic ecosystems have significant ecological or social values. They are developed through detailed technical and scientific assessments as well as extensive community participation and consultation. As such, groundwater systems with a corresponding WAP can be considered to be non-poorly understood groundwater systems.
The current default position in regard to the management of poorly understood groundwater systems revolves around guidelines provided in the Northern Territory Water Allocation Planning Framework.
These guidelines are based on the idea that in the absence of directly related research, contingent allocations are made for environmental and other public benefit water provisions and consumptive use in the following way:

Top End (northern one-third of the Northern Territory) – at least 80% of annual recharge is allocated as water for environmental and other public benefit water provision. Extraction for consumptive uses is not to exceed 20% of annual recharge.
Where the current and/or projected consumptive use exceeds the 20% threshold, new groundwater extraction licences will not be granted unless supported by either:
scientific research into GDE/cultural requirements; or
hydrological modelling that confirms total groundwater discharge will not be reduced by more than 20%

Arid Zone (southern two-thirds of the Northern Territory) – there will be no deleterious change in groundwater discharges to GDEs, and total extraction over a period of at least 100 years will not exceed 80% of the total aquifer storage at start of extraction.
Where the current and/or projective consumptive use exceeds the 80% threshold or groundwater discharges to GDEs are affected, new groundwater extraction licences will not be granted unless supported by scientific research into GDE/cultural requirements.
These guidelines are applied if a request for water use in a poorly understood system is made. It is acknowledged by agency staff that the policy is flawed due to its simplicity, and there is a preference for a more robust framework. Northern Territory currently does not have a risk assessment process for compliance and assessment but is looking to develop one.
Groundwater extraction licenses are issued in areas, generally coinciding with WCDs, where there is a need for enhanced management to avoid stressing groundwater resources. The government may
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 39

grant a licence to take water from a bore, subject to terms and conditions specified in the licence.
Licensing conditions for monitoring are generally only applied ad hoc to large users.
A groundwater extraction licence is not required anywhere in the Northern Territory when using water for the purposes of stock, domestic, irrigation of a crop of an area less than 0.5 ha, road construction and maintenance or a mining or petroleum activity.
A groundwater extraction licence is required anywhere in the Northern Territory if the bore is capable of pumping at a greater rate than 15L/s and is using the groundwater for one of the following purposes:
 agriculture
 aquaculture
 public water supply
 industry
In making a water extraction licence decision, the Act states that the government must take into account the following factors where relevant to the decision:
 the availability of water in the area in question
 any water allocation plan applying to the area in question
 the existing and likely future demand for water for domestic purposes in the area in question
 any adverse effects likely to result from activities under the permit, licence or consent on the supply of water to which any person other than the applicant is entitled under the Act
 the quantity or quality of water to which the applicant is or may be entitled from other sources
 the designated beneficial uses of the water and the quality criteria pertaining to the beneficial uses; and
 the provisions of any agreement made by or on behalf of the Territory with a State of the
Commonwealth concerning the sharing of water
Northern Territory – in summary
 relevant legislation – Water Act 1992
 poorly understood groundwater systems are those that lie outside declared Water
Allocation Plan areas
 management of these systems is based on 80:20 guidelines, determined by the geographic locality of the system (Arid Zone vs Top End)
 groundwater extraction licence – required for bores greater than 15L/s used for agriculture, aquaculture, public water supply and industry, with assessment, based on a number of factors, undertaken by the state
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 40

The water resource planning process in Queensland is governed by the Water Act 2000 . While the state is at various stages of preparation or implementation of water resource plans (WRPs) for all but a few of its catchments, there are still significant groundwater resources not incorporated into WRPs.
The WRPs are developed through detailed technical and scientific assessment as well as extensive community consultation.
Generally water resource development has been greatest in the state’s southern and coastal catchments, so these areas have had plans developed first. Priority groundwater areas, where resources are most at risk, are being progressively incorporated into WRPs.
Regulated groundwater areas have been established to protect the state’s groundwater resources; these are areas identified in the Water Regulation 2002 , a WRP or a wild river declaration. In regulated areas management requirements for groundwater exist and authorisation is required to gain access to and/or construct works to take groundwater for identified purposes.
Licensing of groundwater extraction occurs under the Water Act 2000 , whereas a development permit for the construction of works for groundwater take is authorised under the Sustainable Planning Act
2009.
The management of taking or interfering with groundwater depends on the location and whether the groundwater is artesian or subartesian. The management and licensing requirements for artesian and subartesian water are considered in different ways:
 artesian water - under the Water Act 2000 and Water Regulation 2002, both a water licence and a development permit are required to take or interfere with artesian water anywhere in the state
 subartesian water - an authorisation to take subartesian water is required only in regulated groundwater areas declared under the Water Regulation 2000 or in groundwater management areas (GMAs) established under a WRP, or other specific cases. In GMAs, the respective WRP defines the area-specific water licensing and development permit requirements. As a rule a water authorisation, usually a licence, is required to take subartesian water for all uses other than for stock or domestic uses. A development permit is also generally required to construct works that take groundwater other than for stock or domestic purposes
Approvals for water-related development (including works that take or interfere with water in a spring or aquifer) are dealt with under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 . The Integrated Development
Assessment System (IDAS) is the process used for assessing and approving development applications for water-related development under this Act. Under the Water Regulation 2002, assessable water-related development includes:
 artesian bores anywhere in the state
 subartesian bores used for stock or domestic purposes in certain declared subartesian areas
 subartesian bores used for purposes other than stock or domestic use in declared subartesian areas
Queensland – in summary
 relevant legislation – Water Act 2000, Water Regulation 2002 and Sustainable
Planning Act 2009
 taking or interfering with groundwater is managed differently across the state depending on the location and whether the water is artesian or subartesian
 the Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) is the process used for assessing and approving development applications for water-related development
 the State assesses proponents against applicable codes and policies
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 41

Groundwater systems in South Australia can generally be divided into two categories; those that lie in designated Prescribed Wells Areas (PWA) or as part of a designated Prescribed Water Resources
Area (PWRA), and those that do not. The latter are generally considered to fall in the category of poorly understood groundwater systems. Where a water system is prescribed, the Natural Resources
Management Act 2004 (NRM Act) requires that a Water Allocation Plan (WAP) be prepared by the relevant Natural Resources Management Board (NRM Board).
WAPs set the principles or rules under which consumptive pools, entitlements and allocations are developed. They also set out the water affecting activities that require a permit or approval, such as drilling a bore. Regional NRM plans, developed for the eight NRM regions in South Australia, also set out principles relating to water affecting activities. The state helps NRM Boards in the preparation of
WAPs (this can be a very lengthy process) by providing hydrogeological and hydrological data and advice about licensing, permits, legislation, policy and inter-governmental agreements. Typically, groundwater systems managed within a WAP are not considered to be poorly understood.
For groundwater systems that lie outside PWAs or PWRAs, there is no specific management and investigation framework in place. Water licences are required only for prescribed regions of the State.
Permits or water resources works approvals are required for investigation wells and well construction, but the construction, maintenance or sealing of a well require a permit that specifies only the conditions that need to be met in undertaking the activity.
There is no policy in place to manage potential impacts prior to a development trigger in a poorly understood system, and the legislative framework allows for assessment and management only postimpact. This may take the form of a notice of restriction or prohibition on the taking of water by the affecting party, followed by the declaration of a PWA or PWRA and preparation of a WAP.
In some instances, such as managed aquifer recharge, the Environmental Protection Authority may stipulate certain requirements that protect the quality of groundwater. This occurs under the
Environment Protection Act 1993 . The exception to this occurs when a mining development is proposed, in which case the framework to assess the potential impacts falls under the Mining Act
1971 .
Detailed documentation on the proposed mining operations is required to assess a mining lease application. This documentation identifies the major risks to the system associated with the proposed mining operators. As part of this process the proponent provides documentation of hydrogeological investigations undertaken at a cost to them. The state assesses lease applications on a case-by-case basis (there is no formal process), to ensure that the level of investigation is adequate (additional monitoring may be requested) and that appropriate environmental standards for operation have been provided. Under the Mining Act 1971 , a high level of management control is available in the form of the implementation of a Mining and Rehabilitation Program (MARP), which must be approved prior to mining commencement.
Potential risks associated with mining proposals are managed by setting terms and conditions for the lease appropriate to the assessed risks. Conditions relating to impacts on groundwater resources are given based on the following broad principles (as well as specific requirements relating to the site itself), which could easily apply to development in poorly understood groundwater systems:
 there will be no change to the highest end use category (ANZECC definition) for all water resources due to mining operations
 there will be no significant impact to groundwater dependant ecosystems due to mining operations
 the quality and quantity of water supply to existing users during and after mining will be maintained to meet reasonable requirements
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 42

 there will be no continuing impacts on water resources resulting from mining operations after closure of the mine, and
 there will be no net continuing liability to the Government related to controlling these impacts.
South Australia – in summary
 relevant legislation – Natural Resources Management Act 2004
 poorly understood groundwater systems are those that lie outside Prescribed Wells
Areas (PWAs) or Prescribed Water Resources Areas (PWRAs)
 no specific management and investigation framework in place outside PWAs or
PWRAs; water licences are required only within PWAs or PWRAs
 legislative framework only allows for assessment and management post-impact
 mining development, assessed under the Mining Act 1972 , enables management of potential risks by setting terms and conditions. Proponents undertake hydrogeological investigations at their own cost, the state assesses the potential risks on a case-by-case basis
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 43

According to the Water Management Act 1999 in Tasmania there exists a general right for an owner or occupier of land to take groundwater from the land for any purpose without a water licence, unless: a) the land is situated in a Groundwater Area appointed by the Minister and a licence is required in that Groundwater Area b) the land is situated in a water management plan area and a licence is required by the Water
Management Plan; or c) the taking would cause, either directly or indirectly, material environmental harm or serious environmental harm
No Groundwater Areas or Water Management Plan areas have been declared to date, hence no licensing of groundwater currently occurs.
The state is developing a regulatory framework for groundwater management (Groundwater
Management Policy Framework) to ensure its groundwater resources are developed and used in an orderly, equitable and sustainable manner. The state is currently developing the required policy documents and administrative systems, based on a risk assessment approach, to put these new arrangements into place.
Well works permits (for construction purposes) were introduced in 2009 to help manage groundwater resources. During the well works permits application assessment process, the proposed site and volume of water take are assessed to determine whether the risk to the environment or other users is acceptable. An application is considered to be ‘high risk’ where there are likely to be measurable impacts on the aquifer, environment or other users, and where the possibility of mitigating such impacts would be limited or very expensive.
Depending on the individual application, a well works p ermit application may be considered ‘high risk’ if a proposed well is sited:
near a national park, environmental reserve or protected water body
within the boundary of a Groundwater Area
close to or in towns/communities with domestic water sourced largely or solely from groundwater
fewer than 300 metres from any waterway, irrigation channel or other water body
fewer than 300-500 m from any other bore, including domestic and stock bores or licensed bores
close to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
close to environmentally or culturally significant sites
where groundwater development is already high
where interference between existing bores is known
near a site with the potential to be a point source of groundwater contamination such as a rubbish tip, service station or industrial site
When undertaking the assessment, the state considers the risks based on the estimated volume requirements and the quality of the groundwater extracted from a newly constructed bore. If an application is assessed as presenting a high risk, the state may require the proponent to undertake technical work to demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely affect existing authorised groundwater users and the environment (to date this has not been instigated). This technical work may include hydrogeological assessments and potentially more detailed site investigations incorporating pump tests (costs of which are borne by the proponent).
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 44

Tasmania – in summary
 relevant legislation – Water Management Act 1999
 all groundwater systems in Tasmania are currently considered to be poorly understood
 no licensing of groundwater currently occurs as no Groundwater Areas or Water
Management Plan areas have been declared
 a State Groundwater Management Policy Framework is currently in development
 well works permit – case-by-case risk assessment process by the State; allows for the request of additional investigations to be undertaken by proponents at their own cost
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 45

In 1998, groundwater management arrangements were put in place across Victoria on the recommendation of the State Groundwater Council. Based on these arrangements, the principal management unit for groundwater in Victoria is the groundwater management unit (GMU). A GMU can be:
 a Water Supply Protection Area (WSPA) - an area declared under the Water Act 1989 to protect the groundwater or surface water resources through the development of a management plan.
Permissible consumptive volumes (PCVs) are set to prevent the resource being depleted or any adverse impacts occurring
 a Groundwater Management Area (GMA) - an area where groundwater has been intensively developed or has the potential to be. GMAs have boundaries defined for the purposes of management. PCVs are set to prevent the resource being depleted or any adverse impacts occurring
 an Unincorporated Area (UA) - an area where limited development or use of groundwater has occurred. This is typically because the resource is low yielding, its quality has limited its use, or there is limited information about resource availability. Unincorporated areas currently do not have defined PCVs.
PCVs represent the maximum volume of water that can be allocated in the area. Many GMAs and
WSPAs are already allocated to their PCV limit and new licences cannot be issued in these areas.
When an area is declared a WSPA, a management plan must be developed and implemented to ensure groundwater resources are managed equitably and sustainably. In GMAs, where a management plan is not required but the resource needs to be carefully managed, management rules are developed. They describe the resource, management objectives and specific rules for restrictions in times of shortage, carryover and trade, and so on.
Access to poorly understood groundwater systems is increasingly being sought in UAs. With this increased demand, if part of an UA is identified as being at risk of over-extraction, a GMA can be declared and a specified management regime developed to ensure the level of groundwater extraction remains sustainable.
Groundwater levels in all GMUs are monitored quarterly through the Department of Sustainability and
Environment’s (DSE) State Observation Bore Network. This network monitors groundwater levels and quality at about 2500 sites across the state. The data generated through regular monitoring provides essential information for future sustainable management.
The Victorian Water Allocation Framework provides the basis for the way groundwater is allocated and licensed. Licensing is the main way of managing groundwater extraction under the Water Act
1989 .
A bore construction licence is required by all persons wishing to drill for groundwater. Unless the resource is intended for domestic and stock use, groundwater users must apply to a Rural Water
Corporation (RWC) for a take and use licence in addition to a bore construction licence.
RWCs are responsible for assessing licence applications, deciding whether to issue licences and the terms and conditions on which a licence is issued. When making a licence application, proponents may be required to undertake investigations commensurate with the volume applied for (at the discretion of the RWC). These investigations may include pumping tests and environmental impact reports to ensure the extraction will have no adverse effects.
The RWC considers a range of matters when assessing groundwater licence applications, including:
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 46

 the existing and projected availability and quality of groundwater in the area
 the permissible consumptive volumes (PCV)
 any restrictions required by an approved management plan for any groundwater supply protection area
 any adverse effect that the allocation or use of groundwater might have, such as impacts on existing authorised users; a waterway or aquifer, the drainage regime or the environment
 any water the applicant is already entitled to; and
 the purposes for which the water is to be used
Both a take and use licence and a bore construction licence can be refused by the RWC on the grounds that they may adversely affect existing users, the environment, water reserve, drainage or a waterway/aquifer.
Licences are issued with conditions relating to the exact location and depth from which groundwater can be extracted, the annual volume of water that can be pumped and the rate at which pumping can occur. Licences are issued with conditions to ensure:
 the bore is constructed to protect the groundwater resource
 information and data obtained in relation to the bore is recorded for future reference; and
 the bore is located to minimise extraction interference with other users or the environment
Victoria – in summary
 relevant legislation – Water Act 1989
 poorly understood groundwater systems are those that lie within Unincorporated
Areas

Unincorporated Areas do not have defined management plans/rules or permissible consumptive volumes
 the Victorian Water Allocation Framework provides the basis for the allocation and licensing of groundwater
 bore construction licence required by all groundwater users
 take and use licence required by all groundwater users (excluding stock and domestic)

Rural Water Corporations are responsible for assessing licence applications, the issuing of licences and their terms and conditions
 proponents may be required to undertake investigations based on the volume applied for (at the discretion of the RWC)
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 47

Operational policy no. 5.12 – hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence
(2009) outlines the s tate’s policy regarding the management and investigation of groundwater systems. The following paragraphs outline sections of Operational Policy no. 5.12 as they relate to poorly understood groundwater systems.
In all proclaimed areas of the state (the vast majority of the state), groundwater use must be licensed under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (the Act), with the exceptions of stock and domestic.
The licence prescribes annual water entitlements and conditions with which the licensee must comply.
These conditions may relate to the use of the water, monitoring the impact of abstraction, and reporting of monitoring results to the state. Water can be taken in unproclaimed groundwater areas without a licence so long as it is not drawn from an artesian aquifer.
Before a groundwater well licence is issued the state undertakes a preliminary assessment that incorporates an evaluation of the potential impacts of taking the groundwater.
On some occasions the state may request additional information from proponents. In these cases, proponents may be asked by the state to undertake a hydrogeological assessment at their own cost.
These assessments address the potential impacts of the proposed groundwater abstraction on the water resource, the environment and on other water users. The state will determine the level of assessment that is needed, using Table 1 as a guide.
For each application, points are assigned for each column in the table and totalled to give a score that provides a guide to the level of assessment needed.
0-7 points
8-12 points
12-18 points
> 19 points
Generally no assessment needed, unless other knowledge of risks indicates that H1 level assessment is warranted
H1 level of assessment (desktop hydrogeological assessment). However, low volume applications with low risk of impacts may not warrant an assessment.
These cases would be discussed with the s tate’s hydrogeologists
H2 level of assessment (basic hydrogeological assessment including drilling and test pumping)
H3 level of assessment (detailed hydrogeological assessment including drilling, test pumping and a groundwater model
The structure of these assessments and the issues that need to be addressed are included in
Appendix A of the Operational Policy no. 5.12 documentation. The State considers the hydrogeological assessment report before making a final determination on whether to grant a groundwater licence application.
The State may also include licence conditions requiring the licensee to submit regular groundwater monitoring reports. These groundwater monitoring reports are needed to assess the impacts of the taking and use of groundwater on the environment, other users, and the resource itself.
Regional water resource assessments that are undertaken by licence applicants are not covered by this policy, as the requirements for such assessments are very specific; for example, the South West
Yarragadee water resource assessment for a large volume application, undertaken by the Water
Corporation.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 48

Table 12: Matrix to determine hydrogeological reporting requirements
Volume requested
(kL/year)
Level of allocation
(licensed, exempt and community use) +
Potential for unacceptable impacts
Other users GDEs
<10,000
(0 points)
0 < 30%
(0 points)
Impacts unlikely
(0 points)
Impacts unlikely
(0 points)
10,001
– 50,000
(2 points)
250,001
–
500,000
(6 points)
30 < 70%
(1 point)
50,001 – 250,000
(4 points)
70 < 100%
(3 points)
>/= 100%
(5 points)
Impacts possible
(2 points)
Impacts likely
(5 points)
Impacts possible
(2 points)
Impacts likely
(5 points)
500,001 –
1,000,000
(8 points)
1,000,001
–
2,500,000
(15 points)
>2,500,000
(20 points) a = points assigned in this column b = points assigned in this column c= points assigned in this column d = points assigned in this column
* Salinity categories were obtained from the National Land and Water Audit.
+ do not apply points if drawing from a fractured rock aquifer.
Current salinity
(mg/L) *
Fresh
<500 mg/L
(4 points)
Marginal
TDS 501
– 1,500 mg/L
(3 points)
Brackish
TDS 1,501 –
5,000 mg/L
(2 points)
Saline
TDS 5,001
–
50,000 mg/L
(1 points)
Brackish
>50,000 mg/L
(0 points) e = points assigned in this column
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 49

Western Australia – in summary
 relevant legislation – Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 ; Operational policy no 5.12 – hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence
 groundwater use license – required for all groundwater users (with the exception of stock and domestic) in a proclaimed groundwater area
 a licence is not required in an unproclaimed groundwater area, as long as the water is not drawn from an artesian aquifer.

State undertakes preliminary license assessment incorporating a determination of the level of hydrogeological assessment required by the proponent based on an impact assessment matrix tool
 potential levels of assessment required by proponents at their own cost:
none
desktop hydrogeological assessment
basic hydrogeological assessment including drilling and test pumping
detailed hydrogeological assessment including drilling, test pumping and a groundwater model

License conditions – may relate to the use of water, monitoring the impact of abstraction, and reporting of monitoring results
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 50

System Name WESTERN MURRAY POROUS ROCK
Location
New South Wales - in the Murray Basin, extending from the boundary with the Adelaide and Kanmantoo Fold Belts in the north to the Murray River in the south
Groundwater flow system
Porous rock aquifer
Renmark Group - confined
Confinement
Murray Group Limestone - confined
Loxton-Parilla Sands - unconfined
Calivil Formation - confined
SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Surface water connectivity
Recharge
Less highly connected, with some superficial connectivity to River Murray and Darling
Rivers
Low - arid/semi-arid
Existing users
Stock and domestic, sand mining, salt interception schemes (Murray River)
The saline groundwater system support a number of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
(GDEs), however there are no identified high-priority GDEs within the water source boundary
Low water use due to high salinity Reasons for consideration as poorly understood
Further description of system
The water source incorporates the Renmark Group and Calivil Formation in the east, which grade into the Murray Group Limestone and Loxton-Parilla Sands to the southwest
TRIGGER
Trigger for assessment/ management response
Legislative requirement to develop a Water Sharing Plan for the NSW Murray-Darling
Basin Porous Rock Groundwater Sources
INVESTIGATION
A Groundwater Source Report Card was developed for the Western Murray Porous Rock
Groundwater Source to help the consultation process for developing its macro water sharing plan
The groundwater source/management zone description section provides a description of groundwater source and where relevant, management zone boundaries, geology, water supply work (for example, bore) characteristics and any proposed management zones
Average Annual Recharge = Area of Aquifer x Average Annual Rainfall x Infiltration Rate; the % of rainfall recharge generated over 'high environmental value areas' was also calculated separately
The volume of groundwater proposed to be reserved for the environment was calculated.
The method used is dependent on geology and connectivity of the aquifer with surface water, and in this case = 100% recharge generated over high environmental/conservation value areas + 50% of recharge generated over remaining aquifer area
Investigations and methodology undertaken
Sustainability index approach to the long-term average annual extraction limit (LTAAEL)
The LTAAEL was calculated as the recharge volume multiplied by the sustainability factor due to the system being considered ‘less highly connected’
Data from existing stock and domestic licenses were used to calculate the volume of groundwater set aside to meet all existing basic landholder rights
Unassigned water was calculated as the volume of water currently not allocated within the
LTAAEL
2010 State of the Catchment report identified that there is a high data confidence in regards to regional groundwater levels, aquifer integrity; medium data confidence in regard to landscape condition, local groundwater levels, % use to the LTAAEL; low data confidence in regards to GDE condition and groundwater quality
Key data sets used
There are significant knowledge gaps in relation to groundwater quality and the location and condition of GDEs, especially terrestrial, wetland and base flow GDEs
Data on the number of licences and volume of entitlements have been used. This includes all access licences, including local water utilities, aquifer interference, stock and domestic access licences and general purpose (industrial, irrigation and recreation)
Risk assessment process and consideration of system robustness
Risk assessments were done for the recharge volume calculated for the non highconservation value areas. These risk assessments classified the water source and produced a sustainability factor, which was used to calculate the % of recharge reserved as planned environmental water and the % of recharge that makes up the LTAAEL
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 51

This classification included assessment of the following risks:
- the risk that groundwater extraction places on the groundwater source and its high priority
GDEs
- local community dependence on groundwater extraction
- identification of actions that could be implemented to mitigate the risk to the groundwater source from extraction
The Report Card contains a section titled ‘Background information from risk assessment’ that outlines the nature of the groundwater source with respect to the inherent water related values (environmental, social, economic) and the level of risk water extraction may create upon those values. This risk assessment was used to determine a sustainability factor for the water source
The risk assessment was based on the best available information (unspecified) collated by the State. Where information was not available or was very limited, local knowledge or other information was used to make a subjective judgement (unspecified as to when this occurred)
The groundwater source was given a comparative rating of high, moderate or low for the factors relating to:
1) risk to aquifer from groundwater extraction (aquifer risk)
2) Community dependence on groundwater extraction (socio-economic risk)
Current status of investigation
Proposed use None proposed
No history of requiring assessments for license application in this case study area
Proposed rules for the Western Murray Porous Rock Groundwater Source have been provided in the Report Card, which relate to:
System management
- limits to the availability of water (assessment of average annual extraction against the
LTAAEL)
- limits to the availability of water (available water determinations)
- rules for granting access licences
- rules for managing access licences (water allocation account management rules)
- rules for water supply works approvals (rules to minimise interference between bores)
- rules for water supply works approvals (rules to protect groundwater dependent culturally significant sites)
- rules for water supply works approvals (rules for bores located near contamination)
- rules for water supply works approvals (rules for bores located near sensitive environmental areas)
- rules for water supply works approvals (rules for the use of existing bores located within restricted distances)
- rules for water supply works approvals (rules to manage local impacts)
MANAGEMENT
- trading rules into the Groundwater Source
- trading rules within the Groundwater Source
- trading rules resulting in change of category
- trading rules between states
Water sharing plans are developed under the WMA 2000, which requires the plans to:
- share water between all water users and the environment
Management objectives
- improve the health of the rivers
- provide security of access for water users
Process driver
- meet the social and economic needs of regional communities
- facilitate water trading
Water sharing plans are one of the final components of the State's comprehensive overhaul of NSW water management strategies
Assistance with rationalising the bore system (to streamline the process) as there are resource and budget constraints
Unassigned Water policy is underdeveloped due to lack of demand/salinity; at some stage there is going to be competition and would like assistance as to potential ways to allocate
Lessons learnt/support Need resolution in terms of the conflict between water conservation and salinity management. Relates to the licensing of SIS and incorporation into plans. SIS exists to protect a surface water course but draws on water that could otherwise be used; so treated as a hazard or a resource?
Issues relating to % of available drawdown/water test; off-set from streams; property boundary; disposal of water
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 52

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 53

System Name HOWARD EAST AQUIFER
Location
Groundwater flow system
Northern Territory - centred on the Howard River catchment around 20km south east of
Darwin
Coastal sedimentary
Confinement Unconfined
Surface water connectivity
Highly connected system
SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Recharge
Existing users
Episodic - wet/dry tropics
Horticulture, water supply and irrigation
Howard Springs, discharging from the Lower Proterozoic Koolpinyah Dolomite, is located in the Howard Springs Nature Park about 35 km east of Darwin
TRIGGER
INVESTIGATION
Reasons for consideration as poorly understood
Very little data for what was understood to be a complex aquifer system
Further description of system
The area is characterised by 30-50m of Cretaceous age layered sedimentary formations overlying an extensive area of metamorphosed dolomite
Groundwater supplies have been derived from various aquifers: shallow laterised zones, sand-rich layers in the Cretaceous sequence, and the transitional zone between the
Cretaceous and the dolomite
Trigger for assessment/ management response
Gradual horticultural development; increase in use due to small (rural) subdivisions (private bores); new technology (ground penetrating radar); Howard East Borefield expansion up to full allocation
A numerical model representing the McMinns/Howard East groundwater system was developed by the State to confirm the hydrogeological concepts presented in previous studies as well as to analyse flow regimes in detail and enable the components of the highly dynamic water balance to be quantified in ‘bulk’ estimate terms. Different scenarios from natural conditions to different levels of development were investigated
The hydrology and geology of the region have been intensively studied. In 1975, the effects of geology, geomorphology and soil distribution, groundwater and natural drainage and seismic activity on Darwin East urban development were reported
Extensive seismic and resistivity surveys were conducted by the government in the 1980s; subsequent ground penetrating radar survey was undertaken in 1995
Investigations and methodology undertaken
Federal government undertook drilling works to groundproof flyover data undertaken
A monitoring network has been established by the State, with 48 bores being monitored (but there are more than 2700 private bores that are unregulated)
Investigations to quantify the effect of groundwater pumping on vegetation health (Eucalypyt savanna and paperbark swamp ecosystems) were undertaken by PWC, NT University and
CSIRO
Queensland University of Technology and TRaCK have developed a 3D model of the Howard
East Aquifer system. The model uses data from NRETAS and information from local drillers, councils, rural residents, growers and stakeholder representatives
The model shows cross sections of the Aquifer and includes short animations that illustrate the changes in water levels over time
The development and application of the 3D visualisation model was aimed at providing management support, refinement of the conceptual model, enabling the stakeholders to understand the system, and also appreciate the location of their own bore in the area
The main objectives specifically were to:
- provide an independent, scientific and educational tool that improves community understanding of the groundwater resources in the Howard East aquifer system
- assist stakeholders and community understanding in the impact of bore extraction on groundwater resources so that they can then make informed decisions on the management of the system in forthcoming water allocation planning
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 54

Key data sets used
The Groundwater Visualisation System (GVS) was developed to satisfy the requirements for a product that was easy to distribute, did not require commercial licensing and is relatively simple to install and use. The GVS software allows animation of the water levels and surfaces. The model provides an effective tool by which water planners, department officials, community members and other stakeholders can better appreciate the structure and functioning of the total system. It gives individuals the ability to interrogate the data to view facets of the system that are of particular interest to them
Geological, drill hole and water data for the 3D model project area were available from various sources. The State has a well organised database with drill logs, bore information and monitoring records, plus some stream gauge data. PWC has good records of water supply extraction from their bores. Different surface data layers were also available
Informal, round-the-table process - high level of experience available, therefore formal process often considered to be not needed
Risk assessment process and consideration of system robustness
MANAGEMENT
Current status of investigation
Proposed use
System management
Management objectives
The State has appointed members to the Howard East Water Advisory Committee (HEWAC).
The HEWAC is currently identifying issues, reviewing information and providing advice to the
State throughout the development of a Howard East Aquifer Water Allocation Plan
Horticulture and water supply (including rural subdivisions)
No formalised management in place prior to investigations being undertaken
Howard East case study area lies in the Darwin Rural Area Water Control District. Water
Control Districts (WCD) are proclaimed in areas where there is a need for close management of water resources. Legislation in Water Control Districts covers all aspects of sustainable water resource management including the investigation, use, control, protection and allocation. For example, a permit must be obtained before a bore can be drilled in a Water
Control District
A Water Allocation Plan for Howard East is in progress
None identified
Process driver
Lessons learnt/support
Sustainability and community comfort (trade-offs needed)
Perception that water use was/is damaging the environment
Growing concern that PAW (i.e. government) was/is using the community's water
Resources were spread too thin; more targeted data collection needed - data available in areas that are considered unimportant yet data are lacking in areas of potentially high value resources
It takes a long time and extensive amount of resources to understand a system fully, particularly given the episodic nature of the recharge setting -- currently in a historically highlevel rainfall period -- so there is a large risk involved with the unknown impacts associated with low-level rainfall periods
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 55

System Name Peake, Roby and Sherlock Prescribed Wells Area (PWA)
South Australia
– in the Murray-Darling Basin, about 140 km south-east of Adelaide
Location
Groundwater flow system
Sedimentary
Confinement
Surface water connectivity
Recharge
Existing users
Unconfined (shallow) - Quaternary Limestone, Loxton-Parilla Sands, Murray Group Limestone
Confined - Buccleuch Group, Renmark Group
Unconfined - saline wetlands in the south-west of the case study area; their level of dependence on underground water is not known
Confined - no connectivity
Low - semi-arid
The unconfined aquifers are recharged predominantly locally by rainfall (infiltrated through the soil profile), as well as from lateral underground water flow through the aquifer system. The timing of the local vertical recharge varies with depth of underground water
The confined aquifers are recharged via lateral inflow of groundwater from south-western
Victoria
Minor extraction for stock, domestic and town water supplies (to a lesser extent commercial/industrial and recreational use) and cultural water (unquantified at this time)
Saline wetlands have been identified in the Coastal Plain region in the south-west that are likely to be hydraulically connected to the saline unconfined aquifer. There is little known of the value of these wetlands and their level of dependence on groundwater
SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Reasons for consideration as poorly understood
TRIGGER
Low water use/development; prior to declaration of Prescribed Wells Area (PWA), outside planning process
Trigger for assessment/ management response
The unconfined aquifer is continuous across the PWA but can be divided into two main regions
- the low lying Coastal Plain and the Mallee Highlands, each with different hydrogeological characteristics:
- beneath the Coastal Plain, the groundwater lies at shallow depths within an unconfined limestone aquifer of Quaternary age. Groundwater movement flows under a very low gradient at very slow rate (~1 m/yr). High groundwater salinities over 15 000 mg/L has resulted in no current use of the resource
- beneath the Mallee Highland, low salinity groundwater (2-3000 mg/L) lies at depth (40-50m) in the Tertiary Murray Group Limestone aquifer. This groundwater, which is mostly used for stock and domestic purposes, also moves slowly
Further description of system
The confined aquifer comprises both the Buccleuch Group and the underlying Renmark Group:
- the Buccleuch Group is the most widely used aquifer, which consists of a consolidated bryozoal limestone that lies at depth (90-100m) and varies in thickness from 5-25 m. Most stock and domestic wells, some irrigation wells, and the Peake town water supply well target this aquifer
- the Renmark Group consists of sand layers at a depth of about 130 m. There are very few wells in this area that target this sand aquifer, which attains a thickness of up to 25 m
Although the confined aquifers are separated by sandy clays, there will be leakage between them on a regional scale over a time frame of months to years. This leakage will be enhanced by extractions from either aquifer
Confined aquifer salinities show a steady increase towards the west (1500-14 000mg/L)
Concerns raised about the future sustainability of the groundwater resource, with the development of groundwater supplies for irrigation
INVESTIGATION
Investigations and methodology undertaken
As part of the WAP development process, the State undertook an assessment of the needs of groundwater dependent ecosystems was undertaken
As part of the WAP development process, the assessment of the effect on other water resources were considered for the following situations:
- the impact taking groundwater from both the Unconfined and Confined Aquifers may have on each aquifer
- the impact taking groundwater from both the Unconfined and Confined Aquifers may have on adjacent water resources, prescribed or not
- the impact taking groundwater from adjacent water resources (prescribed or not), may have on the water resources of the Peake, Roby and Sherlock PWA
- the impact taking groundwater from both the Unconfined and Confined Aquifers may have on the Murray River
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 56

Key data sets used
Risk assessment process and consideration of system robustness
Current status of investigation
As part of the WAP development process, the State undertook an assessment of the capacity of the resource to meet demands was undertaken
Assessment of Annual Allocation Volumes for each aquifer undertaken by the State
Numerical groundwater modelling undertaken by the State
Hydrograph and water quality data from observation wells
Groundwater flow direction and rate (over time)
Current and predicted extraction volumes/rates (where available)
Actual use for stock and domestic is unknown as it is unlicensed
Groundwater extraction for irrigation in the hundred of Peake has caused the development of localised drawdown (cone of depression) in groundwater levels. The occurrence of the cone of depression, as determined from available time series data, has changed the local groundwater flow direction in the PWA, also leading to an increase in the rate of lateral inflow of groundwater to the Hundred of Peake
Hydrographs from observation wells indicated that the degree of hydraulic connection between the unconfined and confined aquifers is low
It was stated in the WAP that the capacity of the resource within the confined aquifer is limited by the potential for damage to the aquifer by excessive reduction in groundwater pressure levels. The confined aquifer can be damaged by collapse of the overlying confining layer or by an increase in groundwater salinity
The potential effects that extraction from the confined aquifer has in relation to collapse of the overlying confining layer, and potential effects on groundwater salinity, have been taken into account in setting the Annual Allocation Volume. Extraction at 2,168ML/year (the assessed aquifer capacity) is not expected to cause adverse impacts to the confined aquifer resource
Draft Water Allocation Plan for the Peake, Roby & Sherlock Prescribed Wells Area was adopted by the Minister for Environment and Conservation on 2 March 2011
System Name Peake, Roby and Sherlock Prescribed Wells Area (PWA)
Proposed use
Irrigation of agricultural and horticultural products, which include cereal, hay, pasture, olives and pistachios (predominantly from the confined aquifer)
No management in place prior to the area becoming prescribed. Notice of Prohibition first place on impacting user, prior to the process of prescription and development of WAP
Management objectives
On 27 October 2005, the wells in the Hundreds of Peake, Roby and Sherlock were prescribed pursuant to section 125 of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004
MANAGEMENT
The relevant NRM Board is required under the NRM Act to prepare a WAP for the Peake, Roby and Sherlock PWA
A number of principles relating to water allocation have been set out in the WAP in regard to the management of the groundwater resource. These relate to basis of allocation, volume
System management available for allocation, effects of water use on the productive capacity of the land, effects of water taking on the underground water resource, new allocations, and divided allotments
Principles relating to the minimum distance for the construction of wells for a licensed purpose have been set out
A number of principles relating to monitoring, evaluation and reporting have been set out in the
WAP. These relate to general monitoring, evaluation and reporting, annual water use report and plan review
Cost sharing between the affecting user/Government (funds from levy) to lower stock and domestic bores of existing users (zero/low costs to affected users)
The objectives of the Plan are to:
- manage the groundwater resource of the unconfined and confined aquifers so they may continue to be available for the social, economic and environmental needs of current and future generations
- provide flexibility in the way in which groundwater water resources are managed
- maintain reasonable ability to gain access to water in the Peake, Roby and Sherlock PWA
- ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on the groundwater resource or the productive capacity of land from the taking and use of water
- promote efficient use of water
The objectives of well construction principles are to:
- minimise the effect of well location on water levels, and ensure wells are located to minimise extraction interference with other users and the environment
- maintain the integrity of aquifers
- maintain the quality of water drawn from wells, protecting the water supplies from future salination
- minimise pollution of the aquifer
The objectives of monitoring, evaluation and reporting are to:
- provide enough data to implement the policies contained in the Plan
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 57

Process driver
Lessons learnt/support
- provide enough data to enable evaluation of the condition of the groundwater resource
- provide enough data to enable evaluation of the impact of taking groundwater on users
The aim of the Plan is to ensure the sustainable use of the available groundwater resources.
Section 76(4) of the NRM Act requires that the Plan:
- provides for the allocation and use of water so that an equitable balance is achieved between environmental, social and economic needs for the water and the rate of use of the water is sustainable
- takes into account, in providing for the allocation of water, the present and future needs of the occupiers of land in relation to the existing requirements and future capacity of the land and the likely effect of those provisions on the value of the land
Would be beneficial to have all potential useable resources covered by some sort of management policy (acknowledgement that this may be an onerous process)
Limited by legislation framework and resourcing to apply it (prescription of areas)
Often a matter of managing access (confined aquifer) for existing users, as not necessarily unsustainable for resource itself but impacts other users (can also be a related water quality/salinity issue)
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 58

System Name SCOTTSDALE
Location
Tasmania - located on the northeast coast of Tasmania incorporating the township of Scottsdale, covering an area of 822 km 2
Groundwater flow system
Confinement
Sedimentary
Unconfined
Highly connected system
The deeply incised nature of streams and rivers in the upper (southern) parts of the catchment suggest they may be in close connection with the water table, potentially recharging the aquifers during low-water table periods and receiving baseflow after groundwater recharge has occurred
SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
Surface water connectivity
Recharge
Existing users
In the lower parts of the catchment, streams are again likely to be in close connection with the water table but are more likely gaining for most of the year
The main surface water feature in the catchment is the Great Forester River; this system is likely to be gaining groundwater throughout the catchment. Results of HydroTas modelling for this system reveal that on average 48% of the daily flow is derived from groundwater
High - temperate
Within the catchment it is likely that recharge will be greater in sandy, flat or cleared areas, particularly those that are irrigated. Less recharge will occur in areas of weathered basalt in the central part of the catchment or in areas of native vegetation or plantation forestry. Superimposed on these differences is rainfall, which varies from 700 mm (coast) to 1400 mm (south)
Stock and domestic, highly connected Ramsar-listed wetland (Little Waterhouse Lake) is downgradient to the north of the catchment
Reasons for consideration as
Historical groundwater use is minimal. No licensing of groundwater across the catchment poorly understood
Fractured basement rocks, Tertiary basalts and Quaternary deposits all provide small, localised groundwater supplies but the Tertiary deep leads sediments host the primary aquifer in the catchment
The thickness of the Tertiary deep lead sediments is generally 60-70 m in the south, but much less in the north
Further description of system
A zone of higher well yields in the north-central part of the catchment suggests higher permeability in this area, with lower well yields to the south of Scottsdale indicating lower permeability
The Tertiary aquifers also provide very good quality groundwater, with salinities typically <500 mg/L
Of the entire catchment 18% is used for irrigated agriculture sourced from surface water supplies, for cropping, pasture growing, horticulture or vegetable and herb production. By far the largest single land use in the catchment is forestry, which accounts for around 35%
TRIGGER
Trigger for assessment/ management response
Proposed major irrigation development (incorporating groundwater)
The Tertiary deep lead sediments fill the Scottsdale basin and are one of the more prospective areas for groundwater development in the State
Consultants hired by the State undertook:
- development of conceptual model based on known meteorological, geological and hydrogeological data, and anecdotal information
Investigations and methodology undertaken
- groundwater level survey of 12 existing bores
- groundwater use survey
- installation of 2 new monitoring bores
- performance of recovery tests
- investigation of surface-groundwater interactions
- development of a surface water and groundwater numerical model to evaluate regional water balance and system robustness related to potential future changes in use and climate
INVESTIGATION
- meteorological: rainfall, pan evaporation
- groundwater: level, salinity, hydraulic parameters
- surface water: monitoring station - level and flow
- water usage/extraction: approximated from land use and survey data
Key data sets used
- geology: regional geology maps, lithological logs from new bores
- ecological (GDEs): surface-groundwater investigation
- social: land use, usage survey
Risk assessment No formal risk assessment process, based on potential resource development process and consideration of system
System robustness considered through a numerical model and estimates of recharge versus usage
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 59

robustness
Current status of
None being undertaken investigation
Proposed use
None specified at present, but most likely irrigation as the capping of surface water allocations and development of costly, large irrigation (pipeline) schemes drive users to groundwater resources
MANAGEMENT
System management
Management objectives
Nil at present, investigations to provide planning information to develop groundwater licensing system
To provide knowledge and information to aid in water planning, including:
- sustainable allocation and management
- assessment of environmental flows
- monitoring impact of land use changes
- identify and conserve freshwater conservation values
Process driver None at present
Lessons learnt/support
Limited resources/capacity to undertake groundwater investigation, and hence require a management approach that takes into account this issue
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 60

System Name
SYSTEM
BACKGROUND
TRIGGER
MANAGEMENT
LA GRANGE (north and south subareas)
Location
Western Australia - in the Kimberley region just south of Broome, about 1440 km north of
Perth
Groundwater flow system
Confinement
Surface water connectivity
Recharge
Existing users
Coastal sedimentary - superficial Broome Sandstone aquifer (uppermost aquifer -- fresh)
The deeper Wallal Sandstone aquifer is impractical to reach due to depth and high salinity and is not considered in the La Grange Groundwater Allocation Plan (the Plan)
Unconfined
Highly connected - nine wetland zones of significance occur in the area - springs, playas, mounding of fresh water, soaks or expressions of linear seepage that support the wetlands
Coastal saltwater interface is maintained by throughflow within the aquifer from the east towards the coast
Episodic - cyclonic climate
Pastoralism, tourism and mineral exploration, as well as sustaining wetlands and cultural values
Ecologically significant sites that depend on groundwater including Ramsar-listed Eighty Mile
Beach wetland system, Mandora Marsh wetland system and Roebuck Bay wetland system
Reasons for consideration as poorly understood
Low water use (6.7 GL; ~13% allocation limit) and knowledge of the system (due to lack of monitoring network)
The Broome Sandstone aquifer begins on the Plan area's eastern edge and reaches its greatest thickness at the coast
Further description of system The Wallal Sandstone aquifer sits beneath the impermeable Jarlemai Siltstone. This siltstone layer prevents connectivity between the two aquifers
Trigger for assessment/ management response
Major irrigated agriculture (cotton) development proposal in the late 1990s
Strong interest in using the La Grange groundwater resources for horticulture and mining development. This is expected to increase in the future
Water demand has the potential to increase as a result of pastoral diversification, expansion of the mining industry and Indigenous economic development
The available hydrogeological information (unspecified) was considered adequate for the
Plan's purposes. The Plan acknowledges that water users and mineral and petroleum explorers may hold useful hydrogeological information in the form of bore logs and pump test data. An action to request bore logs and pump test data from bore owners was stated, as well as the need to contact holders of mineral and petroleum bore logs
Investigations and methodology undertaken
The State contracted a consultant to undertake a review and assessment of the region's wetlands. The work also described the range of hydrogeological mechanisms that support the wetlands and their associated groundwater-dependent species
INVESTIGATION
The State contracted a consultant to undertake a study of the area's cultural values and the links with ecological features
Community engagement process with local stakeholders was managed through the La
Grange Groundwater Committee (community reference group)
Key data sets used
Current licensing records and a groundwater-use survey conducted in 1999 showed that water abstraction is distributed along the coast and highway. The information gained from the records and the survey has enabled the State to assess the potential impacts of pending applications to take water, as well as cumulative impacts along the coastal strip
Risk assessment process and consideration of system robustness
In the absence of site-specific ecological water requirements, the State manages the impacts on the environment through a risk-based assessment of water licences and inclusion of appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements to minimise impacts
Current status of investigation
The La Grange Groundwater Allocation Plan has been implemented, including the risk-based approach to deciding on the level of hydrogeological assessment needed by a new proponent
Proposed use Horticulture and mining development
System management/policy
An allocation plan for the water resources in the La Grange groundwater areas was released in February 2010
The Plan contains new allocation limits that define water availability for groundwater in the plan area
In accordance with Operational Policy no. 5.12 - hydrogeological reporting associated with a groundwater well licence , the State will require proponents to provide hydrogeological information as part of the licence assessment process at a level appropriate to the volume of use and risk to the resource
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 61

Management objectives
Process driver
Lessons learnt/support
To manage the ecologically significant sites, the State has established management zones with additional rules to protect the identified groundwater-dependent values
The State has set allocation limits to minimise the impacts of the annual groundwater abstraction regime on the resource, its dependent ecosystems and its social and cultural values
Allocation policies were developed to support the principles and objectives of the Plan. They aim to protect all groundwater use and as such cover ecological, social and economic aspects, as well as water quality and quantity
Licensing decisions will be based on the best-available scientific knowledge, and through the decision-making process, and take into consideration local and regional scale impacts of abstraction
36 general licensing policies for the case study area have been defined under the broad headings of licensing rules and requirements; community, stock and domestic use; environment/water-dependent cultural and social values; Native Title and Aboriginal heritage; water trading and transfer; and construction of bores/wells
Management trigger (the State is approached regarding a potential application (s) for a significant proportion of the available water) - State management response = refer potential applicants to the licensing process and the policy section of this plan; recommend that all issues, including those beyond the scope of a water licence, be addressed in alignment
WA is currently reviewing and updating its legislation for the State's water resources. Any significant changes to the legislation that may affect this Plan will trigger a review of the Plan.
The review may include replacing it with a statutory Plan
To ensure that the water needs of the community and the environment are protected while providing users with secure water supplies
Resource objectives:
1 - Maintain the saltwater/freshwater interface to avoid impacts on existing near-coastal water users, water-dependent values and community water supplies
2 - Manage groundwater allocation to avoid impacts on Mandora Marsh and the flow at
Mandora Springs
3 - Minimise the impact of water abstraction on all water-dependent values
Management Objectives:
4 - Manage new licence applications to avoid impacts on reliability of water supply to current users
5 - Conduct the licence assessment process in recognition of native title holder's rights
The following principles guided the State in developing the Plan:
- water use will be managed to minimise the risk to water-dependent values and existing users
- water allocation limits will be set to meet the needs of all water-dependent values including
Ramsar sites and national wetlands of importance, as well as the region's cultural and social values
- water allocation limits and policies will provide security for community and domestic water supplies
- Aboriginal connections to groundwater will be recognised and protected in water allocation limits and licensing policies
- the importance of horticulture, agriculture and other development to the future economic needs of the region and community will be recognised
It is important to consider both localised and regional changes in water use when developing criteria and measures to avoid impacts on GDEs
To improve accounting of water, an updated survey would be needed to refine knowledge of the licensed, exempt and unlicensed water use
Social values have not been comprehensively researched
There is no regional monitoring network in the case study area, though water resource information is collected through reporting from licensees. The State will assess the need for a regional monitoring program for the area before the Plan is reviewed. This will include the extent of monitoring and a staged approach to improving the network based on trigger levels of water use. This will ensure appropriate baseline data are available for future management
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 62

All available scientific research directly related to environmental and other public benefit requirements for the water resource will be applied in setting water allocations for non-consumptive use as the first priority, with allocations for consumptive use made subsequently within the remaining available water resource.
In the absence of directly related research, contingent allocations are made for environmental and other public benefit water provisions and consumptive use. These are explained below.
Top End (northern third of the Northern Territory)
Rivers
At least 80 per cent of flow at any time in any part of a river is allocated as water for environmental and other public benefit water provision, and extraction for consumptive uses will not exceed the threshold level equivalent to 20 per cent of flow at any time in any part of a river.
In the event that current and/ or projected consumptive use exceeds the 20 per cent threshold level, new surface water licences will not be granted unless supported by directly related scientific research into environmental other public benefit requirements.
Aquifers
At least 80 per cent of annual recharge is allocated as water for environmental and other public benefit water provision, and extraction for consumptive uses will not exceed the threshold level equivalent to 20 per cent of annual recharge.
In the event that current and/ or projected consumptive use exceeds the 20 per cent threshold level, new groundwater licences will not be granted unless supported by either directly related scientific research into groundwater dependent ecosystem/ cultural requirements, or in the absence of such research, hydrological modelling confirming that total groundwater discharge will not be reduced by more than 20 per cent.
Arid Zone (southern two thirds of the Northern Territory)
Rivers
At least 95 per cent of flow at any time in any part of a river is allocated as environmental and other public benefit water provision, and extraction for consumptive uses will not exceed the threshold level equivalent to five per cent of flow at any time in any part of a river.
In the event that current and/ or projected consumptive use exceeds the threshold levels of five per cent for river flow, new surface water Licences will not be granted unless supported by directly related scientific research into environmental other public benefit requirements.
Aquifers
There will be no deleterious change in groundwater discharges to dependent ecosystems, and total extraction over a period of at least 100 years will not exceed 80 per cent of the total aquifer storage at start of extraction.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 63

In the event that current and/ or projected consumptive use exceeds the threshold levels of
80 per cent of the consumptive pool for aquifers, or groundwater discharges to groundwater dependent ecosystems are impacted, new groundwater licences will not be granted unless supported by directly related scientific research into groundwater dependent ecosystem/cultural requirements.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 64

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 65

Management and investigation trigger

An incremental development from low to high water entitlement/use
 A proposed ‘major’ development as defined by the jurisdiction
Aquifer robustness (likelihood)
Replenishment classification
Impact assessment (consequence)
Robustness classification
Risk assessment continued over page
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 66

High
Moderate
Low
0
–7
Negligible
Score from Impact Assessment Matrix
8
–12
13
–19
Low Moderate
>19
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High

Negligible risk – no further investigation is required

Low risk – H1 (desktop hydrogeological investigation)

Moderate risk – H2 (basic hydrogeological investigation)

High risk – H3 (detailed hydrogeological investigation)

H1 – desktop hydrogeological investigation that incorporates analysis of climate/rainfall, hydrogeology, existing groundwater use, assessment of potential impacts and proposed management approach

H2 – basic hydrogeological investigation that incorporates drilling, test pumping, geophysical logging and chemical analysis; in addition to the components of an H1 investigation

H3 – detailed hydrogeological investigation that incorporates the application of a groundwater model; in addition to the components of an H2 investigation
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 67

1. H1 level of investigation (desktop hydrogeological investigation)
This level of assessment will generally be needed where there is a considered low level of risk to the groundwater system and users due to a combination of system robustness and potential impacts.
The structure of an H1 investigation report and the information to be included is outlined below:
1.1 Description of development
In this section, a description of the incremental or proposed major development (including location) should be provided.
 describe the location of the incremental or proposed major development, including groundwater management areas (if present)
 include locations plan(s) (preferably A4 size, at a commonly used scale such as 1:100
000 or 1:250 000) showing:
- map sheet name
- latitude and longitude or MGA coordinates in GDA94 datum coordinates
- basic topographic features
- locations of current and proposed production and monitoring bores (if present)
- locations and names of all other users’ bores (private and public) (where available)
- cadastral/land tenure information
- areas of current and/or proposed activities (i.e. agricultural, mining, urbanisation)
- location of potential groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) e.g. wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, caves (where available)
- other relevant information
 describe current and intended land and water use, including quantity and purpose of groundwater abstraction, crop areas, details of planned urbanisation (area, lot sizes) and so on
1.2 Climate/rainfall
This section should provide a brief discussion of the climate in the area of the proposed activity, and include relevant data such as:
 rainfall data (monthly, as well as long-term annual average)
 streamflow data (where available)
 comparison of long-term stream flow and rainfall data (where available)

other climatic factors such as evapotranspiration (where available)
1.3 Hydrogeology
This section should describe relevant details of the groundwater system, and include:
 an overview of the groundwater system of which the aquifer is part, including recharge and discharge areas, interconnection between aquifers and connection with
GDEs (where available)
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 68

 identification and description of the aquifer that is to be developed, including relevant bore data (location, elevation, depth to water, salinity, drillers ’ logs and stratigraphical details) where available
 estimates and discussion of groundwater storage and recharge potential
 analysis of local groundwater trends from hydrogeological maps and hydrographs
(where available)
 proposed bore construction
1.4 Existing groundwater use
An assessment should be made of the existing groundwater use in the system. Potential issues such as concentration of groundwater abstraction should be considered.
Other licensed and, where possible, unlicensed groundwater users (such as stock and domestic) should be identified and estimates should be provided of existing use on maps and/or tables. Other users, including GDEs, that may be affected by the incremental or proposed major development should be identified.
1.5 Assessment of potential impacts
This section should identify potential impacts on the aquifer, environment, groundwater and surface water users that may be caused by the incremental or proposed major development.
Based on relevant information and data, an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed groundwater abstraction on GDEs, other users (private and public) and the groundwater resource should be provided. The assessment should consider potential issues such as bore yield, groundwater level changes, leakage from other aquifers, salt water intrusion, acidification and water quality changes (such as nutrients or salinity) as needed.
1.6 Management approach/conclusions
Describe whether the impacts of taking the water are regarded as acceptable, manageable or unacceptable. If the impacts are identified as manageable, a management plan should outline how the taking of the water will be managed to reduce the potential impacts.
In addition, any data gaps identified during the course of undertaking the investigation should be outlined; for example, bore and hydrograph data and information relating to GDEs.
Recommendations should be made in regard to prioritisation of these data gaps and for any further actions needed.
2. H2 level of investigation (basic hydrogeological investigation)
This level of assessment will generally be needed where there is a considered moderate level of risk to the groundwater system and users due to a combination of system robustness and potential impacts.
An H2 level of investigation may require a licence and/or permit to be obtained under the relevant jurisdictional legislation to enable the construction of exploratory bores and undertaking of test pumping.
The construction of exploratory bores and the undertaking of test pumping may require an additional licence, permit and/or approval from the relevant jurisdiction.
The structure of an H2 investigation report and the information to be included is outlined below:
2.1 Description of development
In this section, a description of the incremental or proposed major development (including location) should be provided.
 describe the location of the incremental or proposed major development, including groundwater management areas (if present)
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 69

 include locations plan(s) (preferably A4 size, at a commonly used scale such as
1:100,000 or 1:250,000) showing:
- map sheet name
- latitude and longitude or MGA coordinates in GDA94 datum coordinates
- basic topographic features
- locations of current and proposed production and monitoring bores (if present)
- locations and names of all other users’ bores (private and public) (where available)
- cadastral/land tenure information
- areas of current and/or proposed activities (agricultural, mining, urbanisation)
- location of potential GDEs such as wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, caves (where available)
- other relevant information
 describe current and intended land and water use, including quantity and purpose of groundwater abstraction, crop areas, details of planned urbanisation (area, lot sizes) and so on
2.2 Climate/rainfall
This section should provide a brief discussion of the climate in the area of the proposed activity, and include relevant data such as:
 rainfall data (monthly, as well as long-term annual average)
 streamflow data (where available)
 comparison of long-term stream flow and rainfall data (where available)

other climatic factors such as evapotranspiration (where available)
2.3 Hydrogeology
This section should describe relevant details of the groundwater system. This should include:
 an overview of the groundwater system of which the aquifer is part, including recharge and discharge areas, interconnection between aquifers and connection with
GDEs (where available)
 identification and description of the aquifer that is to be developed, including relevant bore data (location, elevation, depth to water, salinity, drillers ’ logs and stratigraphical details) where available
 estimates and discussion of groundwater storage and recharge potential
 analysis of local groundwater trends from hydrogeological maps and hydrographs
(where available)
 proposed bore construction
2.4 Existing groundwater use
An assessment should be made of the existing groundwater use in the system. Potential issues such as concentration of groundwater abstraction should be considered.
Other licensed and, where possible, unlicensed groundwater users (such as stock and domestic) should be identified and estimates should be provided of existing use on maps and/or tables. Other users, including GDEs, that may be affected by the incremental or proposed major development should be identified.
2.5 Groundwater investigations
Specific requirements of a groundwater investigation may be determined in consultation with jurisdictional hydrogeologists. If necessary, the following information should be provided.
2.5.1 Drilling
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 70

Details should be provided of all production/monitoring bores drilled (bore completion reports), including:
 a diagram of each bore showing details of all casings, screens, packers, depth to water and lithology
 purpose of bore (production/monitoring)
 latitude and longitude or MGA in GDA94 datum coordinates of each bore
 surveyed level of bore (where available)
 lithological details
 geophysical logs (if applicable)
 water levels, measurement reference point (from ground, collar and so on) and date
2.5.2 Test pumping
Test pumping may be needed to adequately assess the potential long-term impacts of the proposed development to the groundwater resource, environment and other users. It can also enable assessment of water availability for a proposed development.
Test pumping should be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standards (AS 2368-1990
Test pumping of water wells).
The minimum requirements for test pumping are outlined in the guidelines Minimum construction requirements for water bores in Australia (Land and Water
Biodiversity Committee 2003).
Data provided should include aquifer parameters and bore yields, as well as a distancedrawdown analysis that covers the potentially impacted resource extent. Data should be presented in tabular and graphical form, and raw data should be included as an appendix.
2.5.3 Groundwater chemistry
A major component analysis or comprehensive analysis may be undertaken of groundwater from each aquifer investigated for incremental or proposed major development. A major components analysis is usually undertaken to characterise groundwater quality, or detect significant changes in groundwater quality. It incorporates both field and laboratory analysis elements:
 temperature (field)
 conductivity (field and laboratory)
 pH (field and laboratory)

Eh (field)
 dissolved oxygen (field)
 bicarbonate (field)
 total dissolved solids (laboratory)
 total hardness (laboratory)
 total alkalinity (laboratory)
 ions – calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, ammonia, phosphate, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulphate, nitrate, silica (laboratory)
 metals – aluminium, iron, manganese (laboratory)
 other analytes where appropriate, such as bromide, nickel and arsenic (laboratory)
A description of groundwater chemistry should be provided, including a discussion on the potential for water quality impacts likely through migration of different quality water.
2.6 Assessment of potential impacts
This section should identify any potential impacts on the aquifer, environment, groundwater and surface water users that may be caused by the incremental or proposed major development.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 71

An evaluation of the extent of the cone of depression (impact of the incremental or proposed development) should be provided, using aquifer parameters obtained from test pumping investigations or from other referenced sources.
Based on relevant information and data, an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed groundwater abstraction on GDEs, other users (private and public) and the groundwater resource should be provided. The assessment should consider potential issues such as bore yield, groundwater level changes, leakage from other aquifers, salt water intrusion, acidification and water quality changes (for example, nutrients, salinity) as needed.
2.7 Management approach/conclusions
Describe whether the impacts of taking the water are acceptable, manageable or unacceptable. If the impacts are identified as manageable, a management plan should be outlined as to how the taking of the water will be managed to reduce the potential impacts.
In addition, any data gaps identified during the course of undertaking the investigation should be outlined in this section, such as bore and hydrograph data, information relating to GDEs.
Recommendations should be made in regard to prioritisation of these data gaps, and for any further actions needed.
3. H3 level of investigation (detailed hydrogeological investigation)
This level of assessment will generally be needed where there is a considered high level of risk to the groundwater system and users due to a combination of system robustness and potential impacts.
An H3 level of investigation may require a licence and/or permit to be obtained under the relevant jurisdictional legislation to enable the construction of exploratory bores and undertaking of test pumping.
The construction of exploratory bores and the undertaking of test pumping may require an additional licence, permit and/or approval from the relevant jurisdiction.
The structure of an H3 investigation report and the information to be included is outlined below:
3.1 Description of development
In this section, a description of the incremental or proposed major development (including location) should be provided.
 describe the location of the incremental or proposed major development, including groundwater management areas (if present)
 include locations plan(s) (preferably A4 size, at a commonly used scale such as 1:100
000 or 1:250 000) showing:
- map sheet name
- latitude and longitude or MGA coordinates in GDA94 datum coordinates
- basic topographic features
- locations of current and proposed production and monitoring bores (if present)
- locations and names of all other users’ bores (private and public) (where available)
- cadastral/land tenure information
- areas of current and/or proposed activities (agricultural, mining, urbanisation)
- location of potential GDEs such as wetlands, terrestrial vegetation, caves (where available)
- other relevant information
 describe the current and intended land and water use, including quantity and purpose of groundwater abstraction, crop areas, details of any planned urbanisation (area, lot sizes) and so on
3.2 Climate/rainfall
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 72

This section should provide a brief discussion of the climate in the area of the proposed activity, and include relevant data such as:
 rainfall data (monthly, as well as long-term annual average)
 streamflow data (where available)
 comparison of long-term stream flow and rainfall data (where available)

other climatic factors such as evapotranspiration (where available)
3.3 Hydrogeology
This section should describe relevant details of the groundwater system. This should include:
 an overview of the groundwater system of which the aquifer is part, including recharge and discharge areas, interconnection between aquifers, and connection with
GDEs (where available)
 identification and description of the aquifer that is to be developed, including relevant bore data (location, elevation, depth to water, salinity, drillers ’ logs and stratigraphical details) where available
 estimates and discussion of groundwater storage and recharge potential
 analysis of local groundwater trends from hydrogeological maps and hydrographs
(where available)
 proposed bore construction
3.4 Existing groundwater use
An assessment should be made of the existing groundwater use in the system. Potential issues such as concentration of groundwater abstraction should be considered.
Other licensed and, where possible, unlicensed groundwater users (such as stock and domestic) should be identified and estimates should be provided of existing use on maps and/or tables. Other users, including GDEs, that may be affected by the incremental or proposed major development should be identified.
3.5 Groundwater investigations
Specific requirements of a groundwater investigation may be determined in consultation with jurisdictional hydrogeologists. If deemed necessary, the following information should be provided.
3.5.1 Drilling
Details should be provided of all production/monitoring bores drilled (bore completion reports), including:
 a diagram of each bore showing details of all casings, screens, packers, depth to water and lithology
 purpose of bore (production/monitoring)
 latitude and longitude or MGA in GDA94 datum coordinates of each bore
 surveyed level of bore (where available)
 lithological details
 geophysical logs (if applicable)
 water levels, measurement reference point (from ground, collar and so on) and date
3.5.2 Test pumping
Test pumping may be needed to adequately assess the potential long-term impacts of the proposed development to the groundwater resource, environment and other users. It can also enable assessment of water availability for a proposed development.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 73

Test pumping should be undertaken in accordance with Australian Standards (AS 2368-1990
Test pumping of water wells).
The minimum requirements for test pumping are outlined in the guidelines Minimum construction requirements for water bores in Australia (Land and Water
Biodiversity Committee 2003).
Data provided should include aquifer parameters and bore yields, as well as a distancedrawdown analysis that covers the potentially affected resource extent. Data should be presented in tabular and graphical form, and raw data should be included as an appendix.
3.5.3 Groundwater chemistry
A major component analysis or comprehensive analysis may be undertaken of groundwater from each aquifer investigated for incremental or proposed major development. A major components analysis is usually undertaken to characterise groundwater quality, or detect significant changes in groundwater quality. It incorporates both field and laboratory analysis elements:
 temperature (field)
 conductivity (field and laboratory)
 pH (field and laboratory)

Eh (field)
 dissolved oxygen (field)
 bicarbonate (field)
 total dissolved solids (laboratory)
 total hardness (laboratory)
 total alkalinity (laboratory)
 ions – calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, ammonia, phosphate, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulphate, nitrate, silica (laboratory)
 metals – aluminium, iron, manganese (laboratory)
 other analytes where appropriate, such as bromide, nickel and arsenic (laboratory)
A description of groundwater chemistry should be provided, including a discussion of the potential for water quality impacts likely through migration of different quality water.
3.6 Groundwater modelling
An appropriate analytical or numerical groundwater model should be used to predict the likely impacts of the incremental or proposed major development. The type and level of modelling may be determined in consultation with jurisdictional hydrogeologists. Numerical groundwater models should be developed using the Murray Darling Basin modelling guidelines (Murray-
Darling Basin Commission 2000) as a guide.
A description of the groundwater model that is used should be provided, including:
 conceptual model
 aquifer parameters used
 modelling results (including any calibration, prediction scenarios and sensitivity analysis)
 impact assessment, including (if applicable):
- identification of GDEs and quantification of potential impacts on these systems
- identification of other groundwater users of the same or connected groundwater systems, and quantification of potential impacts on these users
 model assumptions and limitations
A digital copy of the groundwater model should be submitted to the jurisdiction, together with the hydrogeological report.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 74

3.7 Assessment of potential impacts
This section should identify any potential impacts on the aquifer, environment, groundwater and surface water users that may be caused by the incremental or proposed major development.
An evaluation of the extent of the cone of depression (impact of the incremental or proposed development) should be provided, using aquifer parameters obtained from test pumping investigations or from other referenced sources.
Based on relevant information and data, an assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed groundwater abstraction on GDEs, other users (private and public) and the groundwater resource should be provided. The assessment should consider potential issues such as bore yield, groundwater level changes, leakage from other aquifers, salt water intrusion, acidification and water quality changes (for example, nutrients, salinity) as needed.
3.8 Management approach/conclusions
Describe whether the impacts of taking the water are acceptable, manageable or unacceptable. If the impacts are identified as manageable, a management plan should be outlined as to how the taking of the water will be managed to reduce the potential impacts.
In addition, any data gaps identified during the course of undertaking the investigation should be outlined in this section, such as bore and hydrograph data, information relating to GDEs.
Recommendations should be made in regards to prioritisation of these data gaps, and for any further actions needed.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 75