S. Richardson2, G.R. Walker1, B. Barnett3, C. Daamen3, P. Davies1, R.S. Evans3, W.R.Evans4, A. Goode3, J. Pritchard2 and V. Waklawik2

September 2008 1CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide, 5064,

2Resource & Environmental Management, Adelaide, 5067,

3Sinclair Knight Merz, Melbourne, 3143,

4Salient Solutions, Canberra, 2619,AUSTRALIA.

Groundwater management unit prioritisationand assessment ranking A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project

Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project acknowledgments

The Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields project is being undertaken by CSIRO under the Australian Government's Raising National

Water Standards Program, administered by the National Water Commission. Important aspects of the work were undertaken by Sinclair

Knight Merz; Resource & Environmental Management Pty Ltd; Department of Water and Energy (New South Wales); Department of

Natural Resources and Water (Queensland); Murray-Darling Basin Commission; Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity

Conservation (South Australia); Bureau of Rural Sciences; Salient Solutions Australia Pty Ltd; eWater Cooperative Research Centre;

University of Melbourne; Webb, McKeown and Associates Pty Ltd; and several individual sub-contractors.

Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project disclaimers

Derived from or contains data and/or software provided by the Organisations. The Organisations give no warranty in relation to the data

and/or software they provided (including accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or suitability) and accept no liability (including

without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use or reliance

on that data or software including any material derived from that data and software. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be

used in breach of the privacy laws. Organisations include: Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (South Australia),

Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria), Department of Water and Energy (New South Wales), Department of Natural

Resources and Water (Queensland), Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader

is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or

actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the

extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences,

including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using

this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. Data is assumed to be correct as received from the

Organisations.

Citation

Richardson S2, Walker GR1, Barnett B3, Daamen C3, Davies P1, Evans RS3, Evans WR4, Goode A3, Pritchard J2 and Waklawik V2 (2008)

Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking. A report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-

Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. CSIRO, Australia. 33pp.

1CSIRO Land and Water, Adelaide, 5064, 2Resource & Environmental Management, Adelaide, 5067, 3Sinclair Knight Merz, Melbourne,

3143, 4Salient Solutions, Canberra, 2619, Australia.

Publication Details

Published by CSIRO © 2008 all rights reserved. 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 from CSIRO.

ISSN 1835-095X

Preface

This is a report to the Australian Government from CSIRO. It is an output of the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields

Project which assessed current and potential future water availability in 18 regions across the Murray-Darling Basin

(MDB) considering climate change and other risks to water resources. The project was commissioned following the

Murray-Darling Basin Water Summit convened by the then Prime Minister of Australia in November 2006 to report

progressively during the latter half of 2007. The reports for each of the 18 regions and for the entire MDB are supported

by a series of technical reports detailing the modelling and assessment methods used in the project. This report is one of

the supporting technical reports of the project. Project reports can be accessed at http://www.csiro.au/mdbsy.

Project findings are expected to inform the establishment of a new sustainable diversion limit for surface and

groundwater in the MDB – one of the responsibilities of a new Murray-Darling Basin Authority in formulating a new

Murray-Darling Basin Plan, as required under the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. These reforms are a component of

the Australian Government’s new national water plan ‘Water for our Future’. Amongst other objectives, the national water

plan seeks to (i) address over-allocation in the MDB, helping to put it back on a sustainable track, significantly improving

the health of rivers and wetlands of the MDB and bringing substantial benefits to irrigators and the community; and (ii)

facilitate the modernisation of Australian irrigation, helping to put it on a more sustainable footing against the background

of declining water resources.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking

Table of Contents

1 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project ..........................................................................................................2 2.2 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................................4

3 Groundwater management units........................................................................................... 5

4 Prioritisation approach............................................................................................................. 7 4.1 Prioritisation index ........................................................................................................................................................7 4.2 Assessment ranking for each groundwater management unit.......................................................................................9 4.3 Actual assessment of models .....................................................................................................................................10 4.4 Comparison of minimum and actual assessments ......................................................................................................14 4.5 Actual assessments and project objectives.................................................................................................................14

5 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 16

6 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 17

7 References .............................................................................................................................. 18

8 Appendix I............................................................................................................................... 19

Tables

Table 4-1. Method for assigning minimum levels of assessment for groundwater management units ............................................10 Table 4-2. Description of numerical groundwater models used in the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project .................11 Table 4-3. The top 20 priority groundwater management units and their region, calculated index, priority rank, minimum assessment and actual assessment ..............................................................................................................................................13 Table 8-1. Current (2004/05) and predicted (2054/55) groundwater extraction, groundwater entitlement or allocation, groundwater extraction limit or sustainable yield and surface–groundwater connectivity for each GMU subdivided into region...........................19 Table 8-2. Groundwater management units ranked by normalised composite prioritisation index with proportion of total groundwater extraction and subsequent impacts on streamflow (2004/05) ....................................................................................23 Table 8-3. Priority and minimum levels of assessment for Murray-Darling Basin groundwater management units .........................26 Table 8-4. Comparison of minimum and actual assessments...........................................................................................................1

Figures

Figure 2-1. Map of the regions of the Murray-Darling Basin .............................................................................................................3 Figure 3-1. Location of groundwater management units in the Murray-Darling Basin .......................................................................6 Figure 4-1. Prioritisation of groundwater management units...........................................................................................................12

Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

1 Abstract Groundwater extraction is highly variable across the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) with 84 percent occurring within six

valleys and the majority of that from a small area of alluvial aquifer in each valley. Accurate groundwater modelling to

assess sustainable extraction limits requires detailed data and considerable effort. It is probably only justified for

aquifers where there is significant groundwater extraction. A prioritisation scheme is thus appropriate and one has

been developed for the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project based on groundwater management units

(GMUs). It enables an appropriate level of effort to be focussed on 20 of the 96 GMUs that account for more than 75

percent of the groundwater use in the MDB. For each priority class, there is a minimum expected assessment

standard.

This prioritisation scheme has guided the application, adaptation and development of models for this project, largely

using existing models. Nonetheless, many of the models do not meet the minimum standard suggested by the criteria

in the prioritisation scheme. This has not prevented the attainment of project objectives, but does mean that some of

the conclusions related to sustainable extraction may have lower reliability than desired. There are inconsistencies

between the models in relation to calibration and assumptions that make a basin-wide comparison of response to

climate difficult. The prioritisation and assessment framework may have wider application than the Murray-Darling

Basin Sustainable Yields Project, including the identification of knowledge gaps required to meet future policy and

management requirements for groundwater in the MDB.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 1

2 Introduction

2.1 Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project

Australia is the driest inhabited continent on Earth, and in many parts of the country – including the

Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) – water resources for rural and urban use are comparatively scarce. In the future,

climate change and other risks (including catchment development) are likely to exacerbate this situation and hence

improved water resource data, understanding, planning and management are of high priority for Australian

communities, industries and governments.

On 7 November, 2006, the Prime Minister of Australia met with the First Ministers of Victoria, New South Wales,

South Australia and Queensland at a water summit focussed primarily on the future of the MDB. As an outcome of the

Summit on the Southern Murray-Darling Basin, a joint communiqué called for ‘CSIRO to report progressively by the

end of 2007 on sustainable yields of surface and groundwater systems within the MDB, including an examination of

assumptions about sustainable yield in light of changes in climate and other issues’.

The subsequent Terms of Reference for what became the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project

specifically asked CSIRO to:

• estimate current and likely future water availability in each catchment and aquifer in the MDB considering:

o climate change and other risks

o surface–groundwater interactions

• compare estimates of current and future water availability with the current levels of extractive use.

The Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project is reporting progressively on each of 18 contiguous regions that

comprise the entire MDB. These regions are primarily the drainage basins of the Murray and the Darling rivers –

Australia’s longest inland rivers, and their tributaries. The Darling flows southwards from southern Queensland into

New South Wales west of the Great Dividing Range and then into the Murray River in southern New South Wales. At

the South Australian border the Murray turns southwesterly eventually winding to the mouth below the Lower Lakes

and the Coorong. The regions for which the project assessments are being undertaken and reported are the Paroo,

Warrego, Condamine-Balonne, Moonie, Border Rivers, Gwydir, Namoi, Macquarie-Castlereagh, Barwon-Darling,

Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Murray, Ovens, Goulburn-Broken, Campaspe, Loddon-Avoca, Wimmera and Eastern Mount

Lofty Ranges (Figure 2-1).

2 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

Figure 2-1. Map of the regions of the Murray-Darling Basin

As part of the terms of reference, CSIRO was asked to develop a transparent, consistent and robust methodology for

determining the extent of available water resources in each major catchment/aquifer, and the MDB as a whole. Given

the large number of aquifers and their administration through groundwater management units (GMUs), it is not

feasible to analyse each GMU in the same fashion, without compromising the analysis of important GMUs. In this

report, a prioritisation scheme is used in order to provide a consistent and robust methodology for groundwater

analysis at the GMU scale.

Groundwater extraction for the MDB in 2004/05 is estimated to be approximately 1700 GL/year, not including that

from the confined aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin and those areas not subject to groundwater management

plans in Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Eighty-six percent of this extraction occurs

in six river valleys: Murrumbidgee (24.4%), Lachlan (18.5%), Namoi (14.2%), Macquarie-Castlereagh (10.9%), Murray

(10.3%) and Condamine-Balonne (8.5%). Even within these valleys, extraction is far from uniform with most occurring

in a small fraction of the valley associated with the major alluvial valleys. Because of the history of development in

these areas, there are often good data and tools for assessing groundwater, whereas for the remaining parts of the

MDB, data are often sparse and appropriate tools do not exist. Within the limited time of this project, a uniform

analysis of groundwater across the MDB (as has been done with the river modelling) would lead to lower confidence

in results in those areas where the most groundwater use occurs. Therefore, it is sensible to prioritise areas in order

to focus efforts and it is best that this can be done in an objective and transparent fashion. Within the context of the

Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, the priority is related to the size of the groundwater resource, the

level of groundwater use and its connection to the river system. Such an approach would also be useful for managers

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 3

of groundwater resources over large areas, although the priorities might vary slightly. This paper describes the

development of an approach with specific application to the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.

The assumption in the development of the prioritisation scheme is that each priority class requires a minimum level of

assessment. While a low priority area may be analysed using a simple method with low confidence without affecting

the main project results, high priority areas would require a thorough method of analysis with high confidence. It also

needs to be recognised that while a method may be fit for purpose for this project, a more thorough analysis may be

required for local management or other purposes. The prioritisation scheme can be used to match the minimum level

of effort in the GMU-specific assessments with the degree of threat posed by groundwater extraction.

2.2 Objectives

The objectives of the work described in this report are to:

• obtain consistent information (e.g. extraction, connectivity and entitlements) characterising GMUs across the

MDB

• develop a GMU prioritisation method with criteria and weightings that reflect the objectives of the project

• prioritise all GMUs in the MDB according to an agreed method

• assign assessment rankings to each GMU.

This report provides the base data and outputs from the prioritisation process. A brief discussion of the comparison

between the assigned assessment rankings and the assessment approach used in the project is also provided.

4 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

3 Groundwater management units

The basic unit used for prioritisation is the groundwater management unit (GMU). A GMU was defined by the 2000

National Land and Water Resources Audit as a ‘hydraulically connected groundwater system that is defined and

recognised by Territory and State agencies’. Groundwater extraction in many of the GMUs is controlled through a

range of planning mechanisms. There are 96 GMUs located across the MDB (Figure 3-1), with major differences in

the definitions and sizes of these GMUs. For example, across New South Wales, all areas are within at least one

GMU, while other states have large unincorporated areas for which GMUs do not exist. The definition and extent of

GMUs may change in time as the need and policy changes. GMUs are also three-dimensional in nature and are often

associated with a particular geological formation or aquifer. They may overlie one another. Several of the large New

South Wales GMUs lie across more than one MDB catchment (or region). In these instances, the GMU has been split

and the analysis undertaken for each part of the GMU that lies within the region.

Table A-1 (Appendix I) lists all GMUs within the MDB and available data that underpins GMU prioritisation. Several of

the large New South Wales GMUs that are administered under the Macro Groundwater Sharing Planning framework

lie across more than one region. In these instances the GMU has been split and data is provided for the part of the

GMU that lies within each region.

Data was taken from the following sources:

• Estimates of the degree of surface–groundwater connectivity were sourced from the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission (2007).

• New South Wales data were obtained from water sharing plans and macro groundwater sharing plans.

• Border Rivers data were obtained from the Border Rivers Commission and the remaining Queensland data

were obtained from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2007) in consultation with Queensland Natural

Resource Management.

• Victorian data were obtained from the State Water Report incorporating updates from the Department of

Sustainability and Environment.

• South Australian data were provided by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

• Australian Capital Territory data were sourced from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2007).

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 5

Figure 3-1. Location of groundwater management units in the Murray-Darling Basin

6 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

4 Prioritisation approach

4.1 Prioritisation index

GMUs were initially ranked according to an index ( I , equation 1) based on normalised current groundwater

extraction (2004/05), the fraction of groundwater allocation currently extracted (2004/05), the fraction of

sustainable yield currently extracted (2004/05), a potential growth index and an index of the predicted future

impact of groundwater extraction on surface water flow.

0.2 1 4max. max.

f fc c c

c c f

E E CE E EI

E A SY E E C

×= × × × × + ×

Equation 1

cE Current (2004/05) groundwater extraction for individual GMU [GL/year]

fE Predicted future (2054/55) groundwater extraction for individual GMU [GL/year]

A Groundwater allocation for individual GMU [GL/year]

SY Sustainable yield for individual GMU [GL/year]

C Surface water – groundwater connectivity for individual GMU %

max. Maximum parameter across all MDB GMUs

Data from the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project has been used to estimate these indices for GMUs

within the MDB. In the case of GMUs in the New South Wales macro groundwater sharing plan areas the term

SY has been replaced with the long-term average extraction limit (LTAEL). The LTAEL is estimated from an

assumed rate of rainfall recharge and a ‘sustainability index’. The sustainability index is the percentage of rainfall

recharge that is set aside for the environment. For the other GMUs, SY is as specified by the groundwater

sharing plan or as provided by the relevant state agency.

Five levels of priorities were then assigned: very high, high, medium, low and very low (Table 4-1). Insufficient

information was available to rank three GMUs (Peake, Roby and Sherlock Prescribed Wells Area; Noora GMU;

and South Australia/Victoria Border WSPA); however, these were considered very low priority. Each of these

priority levels would demand a minimum standard, with higher priorities requiring a higher level of assessment.

Table 2 (Appendix I) presents ranked GMUs subdivided into regions based on the normalised prioritisation index,

the percentage of MDB-wide groundwater extraction that occurred in each GMU (2004/05) and the percentage of

MDB-wide groundwater extraction-induced impacts on streamflow in each GMU due to groundwater extraction

during 2004/05.

The results are generally consistent with expectations in that the top 20 ranked GMUs account for more than 75%

of the current extraction in the MDB. Many of these top 20 GMUs also have been a priority for the states through

the development of water sharing/management plans. Two relatively small GMUs (Cudgegong Valley Alluvium,

N10; and the Belubula Valley Alluvium, N21) have been assigned a relatively high priority on the basis that

current extraction is much larger than the LTAEL (by a factor of 18 for Cudgegong Valley and 5 for Belubala

Valley) and because the alluvial aquifers are assumed to be highly connected to the river system.

Katunga (V39) and Campaspe (V42) Water Supply Protection Areas (WSPAs) have been ranked highly in

previous investigations of groundwater management issues within the MDB (e.g. MDBC, 2007). However, within

this prioritisation process Katunga and Campaspe are ranked lower at 18th and 20th respectively. This occurs

mainly because the current extraction is low relative to the entitlement. However, the seasonal allocation is a

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 7

more realistic reflection of the availability of groundwater in these GMUs than entitlement is and the ranking of

these two GMUs would have been higher had the ratio of current extraction to seasonal allocation been used in

the prioritisation process.

The prioritisation approach does not include the unincorporated areas of the MDB since the required data is

generally not available. However, the unincorporated areas have been assigned low to very low priority which

required a simple to minimal assessment. Important management issues do exist within some of the

unincorporated areas, but within the context of this project these areas were considered to be a lower priority.

8 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

4.2 Assessment ranking for each groundwater management

unit

Levels of minimum assessment were defined by considering what the minimum standard required for different

priorities was and hence levels of confidence in the outputs. In considering the minimum standard, it is necessary

to consider the potential results of any groundwater analysis within the context of groundwater resources across

the MDB as well as any specific issues relating to the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. For the

numerical modelling used in this project, the protocols require that the numerical groundwater models be run for

over 200 years in line with the river modelling in order to estimate surface–groundwater fluxes under different

scenarios. These long simulations require that the boundaries be sufficiently distant from groundwater extraction

so as not to lead to artificial inflows. It is also important that models are calibrated under steady-state conditions

so that any long-term trends can be attributed to physical processes rather than the calibration. Some of the early

results of several of the numerical models showed that the current spatial pattern of extraction could not be

sustained as it caused continually falling groundwater levels. This has immediate management implications and it

is important that models are assessed for their reliability for this purpose, taking into account the importance of

the resource as given by the prioritisation. This leads to a higher expectation of model standards. For this reason,

the minimum assessment standards used in this project represent a longer term view of complexity and rigour in

the GMU-specific analysis. In many cases it is likely this standard will only be reached with further investment

beyond the life of this project.

The following six criteria support the development of the assessment ranking:

• complexity of any numerical modelling used and whether it modelled the key processes which are

operating

• nature of, and confidence in, any extraction data used

• distribution of observed data both in space and time

• estimate of connectivity between surface water and groundwater

• availability of independent data to support parameterisation

• peer review.

The following assessment standards have been used:

Very thorough – This would be the highest standard of analysis and would entail assessment using at least a

medium complexity numerical groundwater model. If the GMU was connected to surface water systems, then

some modelling of surface–groundwater interactions would be required. The model would be based on: observed

data that was recorded over a long period of time and covered the entire spatial extent of the GMU and

surrounding aquifers; groundwater levels measured from nested piezometers near rivers; and a large number of

piezometers in upper and lower aquifers where applicable. Connectivity should be verified by independent

assessment and available at a scale useful for the modelling. Extraction data for the GMU would be metered over

a long period of time and the hydrogeological parameters used are derived from sufficient field measurements. It

would also be likely that the level of extraction over the calibration period of the model would be at a level of

stress commensurate with the various scenarios intended to be run. The calibration period for the model should

also be long enough to capture the major changes in hydraulic conditions within the model domain. In essence,

the longer the calibration period the better. It is also expected that such a model would have been externally peer

reviewed.

Thorough – This second level of assessment would still have a numerical model but at a slightly lower standard

than ‘very thorough’ in one or two of the key inputs. This lower standard might be due to a less complex

groundwater model based on less rigorous data or less complex conceptual model. It may be due to lower quality

of extraction data, or to low levels of confidence related to stream–groundwater connectivity in an area that was

assessed as having a high degree of connection. It may also be due to poor calibration brought about by low

levels of stress during the calibration period, or by poor spatial distribution of water level observations.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 9

Moderate – This next level of assessment would entail analysis of a lower standard due to at least three or four of

the key inputs being deficient. For instance, there may be no numerical model and groundwater extraction data

are estimated rather than metered. Alternatively, the spread of data may be poor both spatially and temporally,

leading to uncalibrated model outputs and doubtful non-unique solutions.

Simple – This would entail simple (e.g. spreadsheet based) calculation of impacts and performance using data

which is developed at a broad scale and may have a lower level of confidence. There would be no numerical

model and most of the important parameters could be based on simple estimates. Connectivity would also be

estimated based on numerous assumptions and typically limited data. Such an assessment may be limited to an

overview of the hydrogeological setting and extraction regime.

Minimal – This would involve a description of the hydrogeological setting and presentation of basic extraction and

entitlement data, if available.

Although not explicitly described in the classifications there is also a need to rank assessment efforts on the basis

of how much of the available data has been used. It would be expected that all available data has been accessed

and scrutinised before being used in the calibration of any models. Table 4-1 shows the linkage between priority,

minimum assessment levels and the nature of that assessment. Note that the minimum levels of assessment are

regarded as the assessment required to match the level of priority for any given GMU.

Table 4-1. Method for assigning minimum levels of assessment for groundwater management units

Rank Priority Minimum assessment Description of assessment

1 to 7 Very high Very thorough Peer-reviewed model with good monitoring network and good assessment of connection to streams

8 to 12 High Thorough Numerical model with minimal peer review and adequate monitoring

13 to 20 Medium Moderate Minimally calibrated numerical model

21 to 89 Low Simple Simple water balance or analytical approach

90 to 123 Very low Minimal Description of hydrogeological setting and extraction rates

4.3 Actual assessment of models

The preliminary priority assessments were used as the basis for selecting and adapting models in order to have

numerical models for medium to high priority GMUs. The models used within the project are listed in Table 4-2.

The simple analyses undertaken for low and very low priority GMUs included an estimate of the ratio of extraction

to rainfall (diffuse) recharge and hydrogeological description for each GMU. Connectivity mapping was also

undertaken in some areas. These analyses highlighted that some were higher priority than their initial

classification.

For the major river systems, the groundwater fluxes to and from streams were estimated and mapped in order to

describe relative surface–groundwater connectivities. These systems included Condamine-Balonne, Border

Rivers, Namoi, Gwydir, Macquarie-Castlereagh, Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Murray (down to Swan Hill), Ovens,

Goulburn-Broken, Loddon and Campaspe.

In general, the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project used the water sharing plan models. Some

modifications were usually required to run the required long duration and to allow surface–groundwater modelling.

In some cases, more significant modifications were required while in three cases, new models were developed.

As new data arrived, particularly with respect to extraction, some new GMUs were included in the higher priority

classes. Unfortunately, this occurred too late to allow changes to the selection of models and hence these areas

were not modelled.

10 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

Table 4-2. Description of numerical groundwater models used in the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project

Model Author (reference) Relevant higher priority GMUs

Significant modifications

Upper Condamine Barnett (CSIRO, 2008d)

Condamine CGMA SA 3 A numerical groundwater flow (SKM, 2002) was modified to include a simpler recharge module and boundary condition changes (to provide upper limits to head-dependent recharge fluxes).

Border Rivers Chen (2003) Border Rivers Alluvium

Upper Namoi MacNeilage (2006) Upper Namoi Alluvium

Lower Namoi Merrick (2001a) Lower Namoi Alluvium

Mooki Merrick/ New South Wales government/ Merrick (2001b)

Upper Namoi

Lower Gwydir Bilge (2002) Lower Gwydir Alluvium

Lower Macquarie Bilge (2006) Lower Macquarie Alluvium

Upper Lachlan Barnett (CSIRO, 2008a) Upper Lachlan Alluvium New model

Lower Lachlan DNR (in prep) Lower Lachlan Alluvium

Lower Murrumbidgee DNR (2005) Lower Murrumbidgee

Mid-Murrumbidgee Goode, Daamen (CSIRO, 2008c)

Mid-Murrumbidgee Alluvium

Combination of two existing groundwater models (O’Neill, 2007; DWE, in prep) at differing levels of completion: a fully constructed and well-calibrated model used for water resource planning of the Wagga Wagga town water supply and a preliminary zone 3 model in its early phases of construction when this project began.

Southern Riverine Plain Model

Goode, Barnett (CSIRO, 2008b)

Lower Murray, Katunga, Shepparton, Campaspe Deep Lead, Mid-Loddon WSPA

New model

These models were classified according to the minimum expected assessment. Since a number of the criteria

relate to having appropriate data, particularly metered extraction data and long-term monitoring data, the absence

of such data implies that even with the best of intentions, it may not be feasible to build a model that meets the

minimum standards. For these and other reasons, existing models used for water sharing plans may not meet

these standards. It is important to identify such models, as the results will need to include caveats to their

application. Also, these regions may need further work to bring the models up to appropriate standards.

.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 11

Figure 4-1. Prioritisation of groundwater management units

12 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

Tab

le 4

-3. T

he to

p 20

prio

rity

grou

ndw

ater

man

agem

ent u

nits

and

thei

r re

gion

, cal

cula

ted

inde

x, p

riorit

y ra

nk, m

inim

um a

sses

smen

t and

act

ual a

sses

smen

t

Ran

k G

MU

C

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Nor

mal

ised

in

dex

Prio

rity

rank

M

inim

um a

sses

smen

t A

ctua

l as

sess

men

t C

omm

ent

1 N

02

Low

er M

urru

mbi

dgee

(d

owns

trea

m o

f Nar

rand

era)

M

urru

mbi

dgee

1.

03

Ver

y hi

gh

Ver

y th

orou

gh

Ver

y th

orou

gh

The

mod

el is

wel

l cal

ibra

ted

and

is b

ased

on

a le

ngth

y re

cord

of e

xtra

ctio

n.

Wou

ld b

enef

it fr

om im

prov

emen

t to

repr

esen

tatio

n of

riv

er in

tera

ctio

n.

2 N

13

Mid

-Mur

rum

bidg

ee A

lluvi

um

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

0.33

V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

T

horo

ugh

to

mod

erat

e G

roun

dwat

er e

xtra

ctio

n re

gim

e is

not

wel

l cha

ract

eris

ed w

ithin

the

mod

el.

3 N

09

Upp

er M

acqu

arie

Allu

vium

M

acqu

arie

-C

astle

reag

h 0.

29

Ver

y hi

gh

Ver

y th

orou

gh

Sim

ple

Thi

s G

MU

was

initi

ally

ran

ked

belo

w 2

0; h

owev

er a

cha

nge

to d

ata

durin

g th

e pr

ojec

t has

mea

nt th

at th

e ra

nkin

g ha

s in

crea

sed.

4 N

15

Upp

er M

urra

y A

lluvi

um

(ups

trea

m o

f Cor

owa)

M

urra

y 0.

28

Ver

y hi

gh

Ver

y th

orou

gh

Sim

ple

Thi

s G

MU

was

initi

ally

ran

ked

belo

w 2

0; h

owev

er a

cha

nge

to d

ata

durin

g th

e pr

ojec

t has

mea

nt th

at th

e ra

nkin

g ha

s in

crea

sed.

5 N

04

Upp

er N

amoi

Allu

vium

N

amoi

0.

13

Ver

y hi

gh

Ver

y th

orou

gh

Tho

roug

h to

m

oder

ate

Li

mite

d m

odel

cal

ibra

tion

due

to p

oor

conc

eptu

alis

atio

n an

d pa

ram

eter

isat

ion.

O

utpu

ts a

ffect

ed b

y so

me

mod

ellin

g ar

tefa

cts

(inst

abili

ty).

Onl

y pa

rt o

f GM

U

mod

elle

d.

6 N

10

Cud

gego

ng V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-

Cas

tlere

agh

0.12

V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

S

impl

e T

his

GM

U w

as in

itial

ly r

anke

d be

low

20;

how

ever

a c

hang

e to

dat

a du

ring

the

proj

ect h

as m

eant

that

the

rank

ing

has

incr

ease

d.

7 N

11

Upp

er L

achl

an A

lluvi

um

Lach

lan

0.12

V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

T

horo

ugh

The

ass

essm

ent i

s ge

nera

lly c

onsi

sten

t with

a th

orou

gh a

naly

sis,

but

falli

ng

shor

t of a

ver

y th

orou

gh a

naly

sis

beca

use

of li

mite

d ca

libra

tion.

The

mod

el

laye

r st

ruct

ure

prov

ides

a c

oars

e re

pres

enta

tion

of th

e ex

tent

and

sha

pe o

f the

La

chla

n F

orm

atio

n.

8 N

12

Low

er L

achl

an A

lluvi

um

Lach

lan

0.10

H

igh

Tho

roug

h T

horo

ugh

The

re a

re s

ome

limita

tions

to th

e ca

libra

tion

lead

ing

to u

ncer

tain

ty.

9 N

21

Bel

ubul

a V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Lach

lan

0.08

H

igh

Tho

roug

h S

impl

e T

his

GM

U w

as in

itial

ly r

anke

d be

low

20;

how

ever

a c

hang

e to

dat

a du

ring

the

proj

ect h

as m

eant

that

the

rank

ing

has

incr

ease

d.

10

N16

Lo

wer

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(d

owns

trea

m o

f Cor

owa)

M

urra

y 0.

08

Hig

h T

horo

ugh

Tho

roug

h T

he m

odel

is a

n im

prov

emen

t on

prev

ious

mod

els

of th

e G

MU

as

it no

w

exte

nds

acro

ss th

e R

iver

Mur

ray

and

incl

udes

inte

ract

ion

with

ext

ract

ion

area

s so

uth

of th

e riv

er.

11

N01

Lo

wer

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

0.05

H

igh

Tho

roug

h T

horo

ugh

Wel

l cal

ibra

ted

and

verif

ied

mod

el. T

he m

odel

cou

ld b

e im

prov

ed b

y ad

ditio

nal

grid

ref

inem

ent.

The

mod

el d

oes

not i

nclu

de e

vapo

tran

spira

tion

nor

is th

ere

an

expl

icit

repr

esen

tatio

n of

irrig

atio

n ac

cess

ions

.

12

N08

Lo

wer

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-

Cas

tlere

agh

0.05

H

igh

Tho

roug

h M

oder

ate

to

thor

ough

S

ome

limita

tions

ass

ocia

ted

with

lack

of e

vapo

tran

spira

tion

func

tion

with

in th

e m

odel

cou

pled

with

pre

dict

ion

of r

isin

g gr

ound

wat

er le

vels

.

13

N03

Lo

wer

Gw

ydir

Allu

vium

G

wyd

ir 0.

03

Hig

h T

horo

ugh

Tho

roug

h to

m

oder

ate

H

igh

degr

ee o

f unc

erta

inty

due

to s

hort

cal

ibra

tion

perio

d (5

yea

rs),

issu

es w

ith

para

met

eris

atio

n, c

hoic

e of

mod

el b

ound

ary

cond

ition

s an

d no

ev

apot

rans

pira

tion

func

tion

with

in th

e m

odel

.

14

V43

S

hepp

arto

n W

SP

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 0.

03

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

Tho

roug

h T

his

GM

U is

loca

ted

with

in th

e S

outh

ern

Riv

erin

e P

lain

s gr

ound

wat

er fl

ow

mod

el w

hich

is w

ell c

alib

rate

d an

d in

clud

es c

oale

scin

g im

pact

s of

nei

ghbo

urin

g G

MU

s. T

he m

odel

cal

ibra

tion

may

suf

fer

from

poo

r ex

trac

tion

data

.

15

Q52

b T

oow

oom

ba S

outh

Bas

alt

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

0.

01

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

Mod

erat

e to

th

orou

gh

Use

ful f

or ‘i

mpa

ct a

sses

smen

t’, b

ut li

mita

tions

with

ext

ract

ion

data

res

ult i

n un

cert

aint

y in

the

calib

ratio

n.

16

Q59

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 3

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

0.01

M

ediu

m

Mod

erat

e M

oder

ate

to

thor

ough

A

s ab

ove.

17

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

acqu

arie

-C

astle

reag

h 0.

01

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

Sim

ple

Thi

s G

MU

was

initi

ally

ran

ked

belo

w 2

0; h

owev

er a

cha

nge

to d

ata

durin

g th

e pr

ojec

t has

mea

nt th

at th

e ra

nkin

g ha

s in

crea

sed.

18

V39

K

atun

ga

Mur

ray

0.01

M

ediu

m

Mod

erat

e T

horo

ugh

Loca

ted

with

in th

e S

outh

ern

Riv

erin

e P

lain

s gr

ound

wat

er fl

ow m

odel

(de

scrib

ed

earli

er).

19

V45

M

id-L

oddo

n W

SP

A

Lodd

on-A

voca

0.

01

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

Tho

roug

h A

s ab

ove.

20

V42

C

ampa

spe

Dee

p Le

ad

WS

PA

C

ampa

spe

0.01

M

ediu

m

Mod

erat

e T

horo

ugh

As

abov

e.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 13

4.4 Comparison of minimum and actual assessments

The minimum assessments (based on priority) and the actual assessments for the top 20 GMUs are compared in

Table 4-3. The assessments did not meet the minimum assessment requirements in 10 of the top 20 GMUs. Reasons

for this included issues related to uncertainty with model parameterisation, short calibration records and lack of good

quality extraction data.

In many cases existing models were not originally set up in a manner that meets the objectives of this project. For

example, some of the models were set up to provide predictions over 20-year management scenarios rather than the

200-year quasi-steady state runs used in this project, and as a result some models were not stable and failed to reach

a quasi-steady state condition.

There are three smaller GMUs in the top 20 (Cudgegong, Belubula and Upper Murray) that were ranked lower

(requiring simple analysis) at the start of the project, but new data provided subsequently resulted in a higher ranking

with higher assessment standards required. However, the simple analysis undertaken in these cases was considered

sufficient to flag threats to the catchment water resources from groundwater extraction.

The assessment of the Border Rivers region included the use of a groundwater flow model for the Queensland and

New South Wales alluvium, even though the Border River Alluvium GMUs rank outside the top 20 GMU, thus

requiring only a simple assessment. This area was initially ranked higher but changes to data caused a reduction in

its ranking. The groundwater model used is considered to be of a lower standard due to a poor conceptualisation and

lack of suitable calibration, but level of analysis completed for these GMUs is commensurate with the revised lower

ranking.

4.5 Actual assessments and project objectives

The comparison of the minimum assessment requirements (as indicated from the priority ranking) and the actual

assessments for the top 20 GMUs is useful in highlighting where deficiencies in existing modelling tools lie and also

where future investment is warranted. However, this comparison should not be used to infer that analyses undertaken

are not fit for purpose when judged against the project objectives.

The project objectives fall within the following scope, set for this project by the National Water Commission:

• Develop a transparent, consistent and robust methodology for determining the extent of available water

resources to inform water sharing plans, including guidance on: (i) how to adjust the … recharge

assumptions in groundwater models to factor in climate change and other risks to shared resources; (ii) how

to address the interactions between surface and groundwater systems; and (iii) significant gaps in existing

knowledge and information that need to be filled.

• Apply the methodology to estimate the quantity and temporal distribution of water resources available in

each catchment/aquifer, and the MDB as a whole, under extended drought conditions as reflected in the

most recent period of record, and then compare these estimates of water resources with those identified as

necessary to meet the levels of extractive use (current allocations, security of supply and actual use) and to

achieve the stated environmental and other public benefit outcomes of existing water sharing plans.

• Apply the methodology to make estimates of water availability in 20 years’ time in the light of climate change

and other risks to shared resources, and compare these estimates to those identified as necessary to meet

the levels of extractive use (current entitlements, security of supply and actual use) and to achieve the stated

environmental and other public benefit outcomes of existing water sharing plans.

The primary objective of the groundwater component is therefore to assess the availability of groundwater resources

under current and future extraction regimes with and without a changed climate. Although the outputs of the

assessments are not shown in this report, it is clear that all assessment results (based on minimal to very thorough

analysis) have been used to support technical views regarding the impacts of current extraction, future extraction and

climate change on groundwater resources of the MDB. In some cases (such as the Border Rivers) there is

considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of the impact, but in all other cases a quantitative analysis of

14 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

impacts on groundwater levels and various components of the water balance has been achieved at the GMU scale.

On that basis the analysis is fit for the requirements of the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.

This is different to asking whether the assessments would adequately support the design and implementation of a

management response in a stressed GMU. Many of the assessment tools used in this project would not be suitable in

their current form for this purpose, but the issue of management responses is outside the scope of this project. While

they may be unsuitable for the design and implementation response, they would be useful in guiding management

responses.

It is apparent from the comparison of minimum and actual assessments that there is a lack of consistency in

groundwater modelling efforts and approaches across the MDB. This may hamper a MDB-wide comparison of some

issues because of the varying standard of model calibration and different assumptions in model parameterisation

(such as rainfall recharge). Differences in model approaches and model calibration standards cause differences in the

sensitivity of a groundwater model to changes in an external influence like climate change thus weakening the

usefulness of an MDB-wide assessment. One path to improvement may be to develop greater consistency in

standards across each of two parts of the MDB: (i) the Darling Basin regions (Macquarie-Castlereagh, Gwydir, Namoi,

Border Rivers and Condamine-Balonne); and (ii) the southern regions (Lower Murrumbidgee, Riverine Plains model,

Mid-Murrumbidgee and Upper Murray). The Darling Basin and southern regions each have sufficient consistency in

climate, irrigated crops and soils to benefit from cross-comparisons and further development.

The prioritisation has highlighted areas that would benefit from further study, in particular the smaller alluvial valleys

such as the Upper Macquarie, Belubula and Cudgegong. Studies elsewhere in the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable

Yields Project have highlighted that several of these systems are becoming more highly developed and the

associated impacts may be exacerbated under future climate scenarios.

The prioritisation scheme and assessment standards have provided a useful structure to the analysis undertaken in

this project. There is an opportunity to build on these approaches to support longer term investment in groundwater

management in the MDB. The investment in groundwater and communication of investment issues have been

hampered by the absence of such a framework. Also, the lack of an objective and consistent framework for the

assessment of GMUs for the purpose of determining extraction limits leads to a lack of transparency and robustness.

It would be difficult to apply such a framework to the MDB without considering how it may be applied nationally. The

prioritisation scheme provided in this report is one approach that could be used, although it is expected that some

adjustment would be required to suit other regions and other stakeholders. For example, some weighting to local-

scale management issues may be warranted. There would be some value in revising the minimum assessment

requirements to create a more detailed classification scheme and broader application. The brief descriptions of the

assessment standards used in this report are reasonably flexible and provide useful guidance, but additional detail

could improve the approach.

Appropriate levels of assessment were hampered by the lack of suitable calibration records and metered groundwater

extraction data. Investment in monitoring (and reporting) is falling in many jurisdictions even where difficult

management decisions are required. A standard approach (based on a hierarchy of assessment standards) could

assist in channelling the limited funds to the most appropriate activities.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 15

5 Conclusions

A prioritisation scheme was developed which sets the minimum level of effort required to assess each GMU

depending on the degree of threat posed by groundwater extraction. The degree of threat is determined by

considering the rate of current extraction relative to sustainable yield and entitlements, the likely impact of

groundwater extraction on streamflow, and the level of future extraction relative to current extraction. In a high priority

GMU, the level of extraction is higher than in other GMUs in the MDB, and that extraction is higher than allocation and

can significantly impact on streamflow. A high priority GMU may also have a high rate of future extraction relative to

current extraction.

The prioritisation scheme developed for this project has been used to plan assessments and identify 20 priority GMUs

that require more detailed assessment than those required in other parts of the MDB. Extraction from these 20 GMUs

accounts for more than 75% of the total extraction in the MDB and includes most of the GMUs with groundwater

management and sharing plans.

A set of minimum assessment requirements (aligned with each priority class) was developed which provides a

forward-looking view of the level of assessments required for each GMU. A comparison of the minimum and actual

assessments shows that the assessments undertaken to date are adequate within the context of the objectives of this

project, but further significant improvement is needed in around half of the priority GMUs across the MDB. In some

cases the improvement could occur within the short term (e.g. improved conceptualisation and model

parameterisation), but in other cases more and/or improved monitoring and metering of groundwater extraction is

required over the longer term which will allow better model calibration and predictive capacity.

16 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

6 Recommendations

The prioritisation scheme and assessment standards have provided a useful structure to the analysis undertaken in

the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. There is an opportunity to build on these approaches to support

longer term investment in groundwater management in the MDB, and to apply these prioritisation and assessment

standards nationally. The following recommendations are provided:

• Adapt the prioritisation scheme for broader application in the MDB outside the Murray-Darling Basin

Sustainable Yields Project. The investment in groundwater and communication of investment issues has

been hampered by the absence of such a framework. It would be difficult to apply such a framework to the

MDB without considering how it may be applied nationally. The prioritisation scheme provided in this report

is one approach that could be used, although some adjustment would be required to suit other regions and

other stakeholders. For example, some weighting to local-scale management issues may be warranted.

• Revise the minimum assessment requirements to create a more detailed classification scheme and broader

application than in the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. The brief descriptions of the

assessment standards used in this report are reasonably flexible and provide useful guidance, but additional

detail could lead to improvements. The lack of an objective and consistent framework for the assessment of

GMUs for the purpose of determining extraction limits leads to a lack of transparency and robustness.

• Develop standards for monitoring. Appropriate levels of assessment in this project were hampered by the

lack of suitable calibration records and metered groundwater extraction data. Investment in monitoring (and

reporting) is falling in many jurisdictions – even where difficult management decisions are required. A

standard approach (based on a hierarchy of assessment standards) could assist in channelling the limited

funds to the most appropriate activities.

• Invest in the upgrade of assessments for the top ranked 20 GMUs based on deficiencies identified in this

report.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 17

7 References

Bilge H (2002) Lower Gwydir Valley Groundwater Model. Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney, New South Wales Government.

Bilge H (2006) Lower Macquarie Groundwater Flow Model. PowerPoint Presentation, August 2006, NSW Department of Natural Resources.

Chen D (2003) Dumaresq River groundwater model: Border Rivers model development, calibration and use. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. 170pp.

CSIRO (2008a) Upper Lachlan Groundwater Model. In prep.

CSIRO (2008b) Southern Riverine Plain Groundwater Model. In prep.

CSIRO (2008c) Mid-Murrumbidgee Groundwater Model. In prep.

CSIRO (2008d) Upper Condamine Groundwater Mode. In prep.

DNR (2005) Lower Murrumbidgee Groundwater Flow Model: Model Development and Calibration. Prepared by David O’Neill, NSW Dept. of Natural Resources, Dec 2005.

McNeilage C (2006) Upper Namoi Groundwater Flow Model. Model development and calibration. NSW Dept. of Natural Resources. Parramatta. June 2006.

Merrick NP (2001a) Report on Lower Namoi Groundwater Flow Model: Calibration 1980-1998. Insearch Limited Report for Department of Land and Water Conservation. Project Number C99/44/001, July 2001.

Merrick NP (2001b) Upper Namoi Zone 8 Groundwater flow model: calibration 1979-2000. Report for NSW Dept. of Land and Water Conservation.

MDBC (2007) Updated summary of estimated impact of groundwater extraction on stream flow in the Murray-Darling Basin. Draft Report. Prepared by REM on behalf of MDBC Canberra

O’Neill (2007) Mid Murrumbidgee Groundwater Model – GWMA 013 (Zone 2) Department of Natural Resources, NSW.

SKM (2002) South-East Queensland Recycled Water Project – Darling Downs Hydrological Study. Groundwater Modelling. Report prepared for Brisbane City Council and the Southeast Queensland Regional Association of Councils.

18 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

8

App

endi

x I

Tab

le 8

-1. C

urre

nt (

2004

/05)

and

pre

dict

ed (

2054

/55)

gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion,

gro

undw

ater

ent

itlem

ent o

r al

loca

tion,

gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

and

sur

face

–gro

undw

ater

con

nect

ivity

for

each

GM

U s

ubdi

vide

d in

to r

egio

n

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

allo

catio

n or

ent

itlem

ent

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* C

urre

nt e

xtra

ctio

n 20

04/0

5 P

redi

cted

ext

ract

ion

2054

/55

Deg

ree

of c

onne

ctiv

ity**

G

L/y

perc

ent

A1

AC

T

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

1.00

7.

00

0.50

1.

00

100%

N01

Lo

wer

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

89.3

0 86

.00

89.0

3 86

.00

0%

N02

Lo

wer

Mur

rum

bidg

ee (

dow

nstr

eam

of N

arra

nder

a)

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

274.

04

280.

00

324.

09

280.

00

2%

N03

Lo

wer

Gw

ydir

Allu

vium

G

wyd

ir 33

.00

32.3

0 35

.52

32.3

0 13

%

N04

U

pper

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

119.

24

122.

10

100.

30

122.

10

18%

N05

P

eel V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

51.3

5 14

.08

10.3

2 21

.60

83%

N08

Lo

wer

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

dow

nstr

eam

of N

arro

min

e)

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 70

.35

69.2

9 55

.93

69.2

9 22

%

N09

U

pper

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

upst

ream

of N

arro

min

e)

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 38

.37

4.26

37

.04

38.3

7 42

%

N10

C

udge

gong

Val

ley

Allu

vium

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

13.2

2 0.

52

9.30

13

.22

96%

N11

U

pper

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 19

1.99

91

.55

72.7

3 19

1.99

62

%

N11

U

pper

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

M

urru

mbi

dgee

0.

00

0.11

0.

00

0.00

62

%

N12

Lo

wer

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 96

.00

96.0

0 12

5.70

96

.00

0%

N13

M

id-M

urru

mbi

dgee

Allu

vium

M

urru

mbi

dgee

80

.10

8.45

48

.16

80.1

0 73

%

N14

B

illab

ong

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um (

upst

ream

of M

ahon

ga)

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

7.15

7.

40

5.72

7.

15

37%

N15

U

pper

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(up

stre

am o

f Cor

owa)

M

urru

mbi

dgee

1.

89

0.89

1.

67

1.89

31

%

N15

U

pper

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(up

stre

am o

f Cor

owa)

M

urra

y 38

.64

2.73

28

.85

38.6

4 31

%

N16

Lo

wer

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(do

wns

trea

m o

f Cor

owa)

M

urra

y 85

.18

83.7

0 73

.85

83.7

0 0%

N19

C

olla

burr

agun

dry-

Tal

brag

ar V

alle

y M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

6.30

2.

64

3.78

6.

30

60%

N20

B

ell V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 4.

66

0.44

2.

41

4.66

60

%

N21

B

elub

ula

Val

ley

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 6.

29

0.22

5.

18

6.29

15

%

N22

& Q

73

Bor

der

Riv

ers

Allu

vium

B

orde

r R

iver

s 29

.61

30.0

0 12

.52

27.0

0 31

%

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n B

orde

r R

iver

s 5.

17

1.61

3.

60

5.17

52

%

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n G

wyd

ir 1.

54

0.88

0.

87

1.54

52

%

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n N

amoi

7.

16

1.74

4.

06

7.16

52

%

N45

Lo

wer

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 0.

01

0.32

0.

00

0.16

0%

N45

Lo

wer

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

M

urra

y 3.

69

9.30

1.

99

4.65

0%

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

W

arre

go

0.18

1.

71

0.18

0.

85

12%

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

P

aroo

0.

01

0.51

0.

00

0.26

12

%

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 0.

00

19.4

8 0.

00

9.74

12

%

N54

B

unge

ndor

e A

lluvi

um

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

1.21

1.

09

1.06

1.

21

100%

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 19

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

allo

catio

n or

ent

itlem

ent

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* C

urre

nt e

xtra

ctio

n 20

04/0

5 P

redi

cted

ext

ract

ion

2054

/55

Deg

ree

of c

onne

ctiv

ity**

G

L/y

perc

ent

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s B

orde

r R

iver

s 31

.89

9.28

10

.15

0.00

0%

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s G

wyd

ir 2.

59

4.02

1.

85

0.00

0%

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

23.8

0 24

.00

6.28

0.

00

0%

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s N

amoi

3.

85

4.06

0.

83

0.00

0%

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 0.

35

1.62

0.

17

0.00

0%

N60

3 S

ydne

y B

asin

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

1.44

13

.12

0.79

3.

28

20%

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Gw

ydir

0.00

0.

45

0.00

0.

32

26%

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Nam

oi

6.66

87

.19

5.62

61

.03

26%

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

0.00

0.

61

0.00

0.

43

26%

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 0.

79

28.0

1 0.

54

19.6

1 26

%

N60

8 O

xley

Bas

in

Nam

oi

12.5

8 77

.21

9.24

46

.33

31%

N60

8 O

xley

Bas

in

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 8.

87

104.

00

6.14

62

.40

31%

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

0.11

5.

55

0.11

2.

78

0%

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

0.18

41

.15

0.14

20

.58

0%

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Mur

ray

7.55

66

3.81

4.

52

331.

90

0%

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Lach

lan

0.01

0.

15

0.00

0.

08

0%

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 3.

76

25.7

4 2.

88

5.15

0%

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

0.11

1.

38

0.09

0.

28

0%

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k P

aroo

0.

59

2.62

0.

34

0.59

0%

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k W

arre

go

0.96

9.

15

0.73

1.

83

0%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

W

arre

go

0.02

1.

25

0.01

0.

75

17%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

0.79

53

.67

0.52

32

.20

17%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

M

ooni

e 0.

00

1.21

0.

00

0.73

17

%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

B

orde

r R

iver

s 1.

58

23.9

2 1.

14

14.3

5 17

%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

G

wyd

ir 3.

79

43.0

1 2.

60

25.8

0 17

%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

N

amoi

0.

39

9.92

0.

33

5.95

17

%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 5.

76

152.

89

4.60

91

.74

17%

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

12.0

6 64

.24

8.03

38

.54

17%

N66

C

astle

reag

h A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 2.

36

1.03

2.

63

2.36

0%

N80

1 O

rang

e B

asal

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

8.68

6.

16

5.74

8.

68

30%

N80

1 O

rang

e B

asal

t La

chla

n 6.

23

12.9

0 3.

89

6.45

30

%

N80

2 Y

oung

Gra

nite

La

chla

n 7.

75

7.55

6.

19

7.75

25

%

N80

2 Y

oung

Gra

nite

M

urru

mbi

dgee

1.

07

1.41

0.

72

1.07

25

%

N80

3 In

vere

ll B

asal

t B

orde

r R

iver

s 5.

23

16.7

4 3.

57

8.37

35

%

N80

3 In

vere

ll B

asal

t G

wyd

ir 2.

19

9.05

1.

40

4.52

35

%

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t B

orde

r R

iver

s 4.

45

144.

80

3.15

86

.88

32%

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t G

wyd

ir 5.

49

158.

85

4.00

95

.31

32%

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t N

amoi

10

.79

113.

23

7.55

67

.94

32%

20 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

allo

catio

n or

ent

itlem

ent

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* C

urre

nt e

xtra

ctio

n 20

04/0

5 P

redi

cted

ext

ract

ion

2054

/55

Deg

ree

of c

onne

ctiv

ity**

G

L/y

perc

ent

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 2.

42

270.

74

1.61

67

.69

30%

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

60.5

7 42

5.28

42

.47

106.

32

30%

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t La

chla

n 33

.46

476.

75

22.2

8 11

9.19

30

%

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

urru

mbi

dgee

37

.75

541.

92

27.4

6 13

5.48

30

%

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

urra

y 8.

60

69.4

3 5.

20

17.3

6 30

%

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Nam

oi

0.01

0.

53

0.01

0.

26

31%

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

0.01

0.

92

0.01

0.

46

31%

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 0.

55

10.0

4 0.

43

5.02

31

%

N81

4 Li

verp

ool R

ange

s B

asal

t N

amoi

3.

66

23.7

4 2.

48

11.8

7 32

%

N81

4 Li

verp

ool R

ange

s B

asal

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

0.80

16

.78

0.61

8.

39

32%

N81

7 K

anm

anto

o F

old

Bel

t B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 0.

68

84.1

6 0.

54

42.0

8 0%

N81

7 K

anm

anto

o F

old

Bel

t M

urra

y 0.

31

36.0

4 0.

25

18.0

2 0%

N81

8 A

dela

ide

Fol

d B

elt

Mur

ray

1.65

30

.44

0.88

18

.26

0%

N81

9 P

eel V

alle

y F

ract

ured

Roc

k N

amoi

35

.75

70.4

8 25

.06

35.7

5 32

%

Q51

U

pper

Hod

gson

Cre

ek B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

5.70

7.

50

2.50

7.

50

0%

Q52

T

oow

oom

ba C

ity B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

6.27

6.

50

3.80

6.

50

10%

Q52

a T

oow

oom

ba N

orth

Bas

alt

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

9.

34

15.0

0 9.

00

15.0

0 0%

Q52

b T

oow

oom

ba S

outh

Bas

alt

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

26

.12

35.0

0 24

.00

35.0

0 0%

Q52

c W

arw

ick

Are

a B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

8.74

9.

60

6.50

9.

60

0%

Q53

M

yall

/ Moo

la C

reek

Nor

th A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

2.

34

3.50

2.

50

3.50

0%

Q54

M

yall

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

1.

89

5.30

1.

50

5.30

0%

Q55

Lo

wer

Oak

ey C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

6.13

6.

50

6.00

6.

50

0%

Q56

O

akey

Cre

ek M

anag

emen

t Are

a C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

9.66

7.

00

9.50

7.

00

0%

Q57

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 1

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

3.56

1.

44

4.19

1.

44

0%

Q58

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 2

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

11.0

1 2.

49

8.16

2.

49

0%

Q59

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 3

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

50.7

8 14

.81

32.6

7 14

.81

0%

Q60

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 4

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

4.15

1.

93

3.29

1.

93

0%

Q61

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 5

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.31

1.

50

0.97

1.

50

0%

Q62

C

onda

min

e R

iver

d/s

of C

GM

A

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

4.

51

3.50

1.

50

3.50

0%

Q63

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(K

illar

ny to

Mur

ry B

ridge

) C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

2.06

0.

46

2.00

0.

46

10%

Q64

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(M

urry

Brid

ge to

C

unni

ngha

m)

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

4.

64

3.01

4.

30

3.01

0%

Q65

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(C

unni

ngha

m to

Ella

ngow

an)

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

8.

08

5.86

6.

75

5.86

0%

Q66

G

leng

alle

n C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

7.31

4.

49

7.80

4.

49

10%

Q67

D

alry

mpl

e C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

6.08

3.

95

3.60

3.

95

10%

Q68

K

ing'

s C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.78

4.

23

1.85

4.

23

10%

Q69

S

wan

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

1.

37

0.90

1.

20

0.90

10

%

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 21

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

allo

catio

n or

ent

itlem

ent

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* C

urre

nt e

xtra

ctio

n 20

04/0

5 P

redi

cted

ext

ract

ion

2054

/55

Deg

ree

of c

onne

ctiv

ity**

G

L/y

perc

ent

Q70

N

obby

Bas

alts

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

3.00

2.

40

2.80

2.

40

0%

Q71

S

t. G

eorg

e A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

10

.03

18.0

0 4.

50

18.0

0 0%

Q99

9 E

mu

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

1.

41

3.30

0.

80

3.30

60

%

S14

E

MLR

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty

Ran

ges

45.9

6 45

.96

15.5

6 25

.00

0%

S18

A

ngas

-Bre

mer

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty

Ran

ges

6.50

5.

00

1.20

3.

00

0%

S20

M

alle

e-1

Mur

ray

32.2

3 52

.80

14.9

0 32

.22

0%

S23

M

arne

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty

Ran

ges

4.00

4.

00

1.97

3.

00

0%

S53

P

eake

, Rob

y &

She

rlock

PW

A

Mur

ray

2.42

na

1.

12

2.01

N

A

V11

A

lexa

ndra

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 1.

71

0.90

0.

60

1.80

60

%

V12

K

ingl

ake

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 1.

49

3.80

0.

51

1.20

0%

V35

M

ullin

dolin

gong

GM

A

Mur

ray

1.29

6.

98

0.45

1.

06

60%

V36

B

arna

war

tha

GM

A

Ove

ns

0.49

2.

10

0.23

0.

50

60%

V37

M

urm

unge

e G

MA

O

vens

11

.79

11.7

9 6.

70

12.3

0 60

%

V38

G

oora

mba

t GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 1.

50

4.90

0.

60

4.89

60

%

V39

K

atun

ga

Mur

ray

59.7

8 46

.52

26.0

0 40

.50

60%

V40

K

ialla

(bo

th z

ones

) M

urra

y 2.

30

4.80

0.

90

4.77

60

%

V41

N

agam

bie

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 6.

60

5.70

4.

41

5.65

60

%

V42

C

ampa

spe

Dee

p Le

ad W

SP

A

Cam

pasp

e 46

.00

44.0

0 26

.00

31.0

0 60

%

V43

S

hepp

arto

n W

SP

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 20

3.60

20

3.00

79

.80

120.

00

60%

V44

E

llesm

ere

GM

A

Cam

pasp

e 2.

28

1.90

0.

83

1.90

60

%

V45

M

id-L

oddo

n W

SP

A

Lodd

on-A

voca

34

.05

34.0

0 17

.60

37.2

0 60

%

V47

B

alro

otan

W

imm

era-

Mal

lee

1.52

0.

98

0.41

0.

50

0%

V49

M

urra

yvill

e G

WS

PA

M

urra

y 1.

84

10.8

8 0.

47

0.87

0%

V51

K

aniv

a M

urra

y 0.

00

3.67

0.

00

0.00

N

A

V55

U

pper

Lod

don

WS

PA

Lo

ddon

-Avo

ca

13.0

4 13

.00

6.21

2.

80

60%

V56

S

prin

g H

ill W

SP

A

Lodd

on-A

voca

4.

95

5.10

1.

37

1.10

60

%

V61

N

hill

Wim

mer

a-M

alle

e 0.

00

1.20

0.

00

0.00

N

A

V62

G

orok

e W

imm

era-

Mal

lee

0.00

2.

20

0.00

0.

00

NA

V63

S

A/V

ic b

orde

r W

SP

A

Mur

ray

38.1

5 N

A

24.7

5 31

.06

NA

V50

T

elop

ea D

owns

M

urra

y 1.

45

7.48

0.

72

1.45

N

A

S50

N

oora

M

urra

y 0.

00

NA

0.

00

0.00

N

A

Not

e: N

A s

igni

fies

that

dat

a is

not

ava

ilabl

e.

* P

erm

issi

ble

cons

umpt

ive

volu

me

(PC

V)

in V

icto

rian

GM

Us.

Sus

tain

able

yie

ld is

not

ava

ilabl

e fo

r N

ew S

outh

Wal

es M

acro

Gro

undw

ater

Sha

ring

Pla

n ar

eas;

ther

efor

e th

e lo

ng-t

erm

ave

rage

ext

ract

ion

limit

(LT

AE

L) is

su

bstit

uted

for

thes

e ar

eas.

**

Exp

ress

ed a

s %

of v

olum

e of

gro

undw

ater

pum

ped

that

is d

eriv

ed fr

om s

trea

mflo

w -

indu

ced

leak

age

and

capt

ured

dis

char

ge.

22 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

Tab

le 8

-2. G

roun

dwat

er m

anag

emen

t uni

ts r

anke

d by

nor

mal

ised

com

posi

te p

riorit

isat

ion

inde

x w

ith p

ropo

rtio

n of

tota

l gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

and

subs

eque

nt im

pact

s on

str

eam

flow

(20

04/0

5)

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Nor

mal

ised

com

posi

te

prio

ritis

atio

n in

dex

Ran

k 20

04/0

5 gr

ound

wat

er

extr

actio

n

2004

/05

impa

ct o

n st

ream

flow

as

MD

B-w

ide

impa

ct

pe

rcen

t of t

otal

MD

B

GL/

y

N02

Lo

wer

Mur

rum

bidg

ee (

dow

nstr

eam

of N

arra

nder

a)

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

1.03

E+

00

1 19

.35%

5.

00

N13

M

id-M

urru

mbi

dgee

Allu

vium

M

urru

mbi

dgee

3.

33E

-01

2 2.

87%

35

.03

N09

U

pper

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

upst

ream

of N

arro

min

e)

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 2.

91E

-01

3 2.

21%

15

.47

N15

U

pper

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(up

stre

am o

f Cor

owa)

M

urra

y 2.

75E

-01

4 1.

72%

9.

02

N04

U

pper

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

1.29

E-0

1 5

5.99

%

18.3

5

N10

C

udge

gong

Val

ley

Allu

vium

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

1.20

E-0

1 6

0.56

%

8.90

N11

U

pper

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 1.

18E

-01

7 4.

34%

45

.25

N12

Lo

wer

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 1.

02E

-01

8 7.

50%

0.

00

N21

B

elub

ula

Val

ley

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 8.

02E

-02

9 0.

31%

0.

80

N16

Lo

wer

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(do

wns

trea

m o

f Cor

owa)

M

urra

y 7.

94E

-02

10

4.41

%

0.30

N01

Lo

wer

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

5.48

E-0

2 11

5.

32%

0.

00

N08

Lo

wer

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

dow

nstr

eam

of N

arro

min

e)

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 5.

04E

-02

12

3.34

%

12.4

3

N03

Lo

wer

Gw

ydir

Allu

vium

G

wyd

ir 3.

28E

-02

13

2.12

%

4.51

V43

S

hepp

arto

n W

SP

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 2.

79E

-02

14

4.76

%

47.8

8

Q52

b T

oow

oom

ba S

outh

Bas

alt

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

1.

36E

-02

15

1.43

%

0.00

Q59

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 3

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.30

E-0

2 16

1.

95%

0.

00

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

1.05

E-0

2 17

2.

54%

12

.74

V39

K

atun

ga

Mur

ray

9.04

E-0

3 18

1.

55%

15

.60

V45

M

id-L

oddo

n W

SP

A

Lodd

on-A

voca

8.

90E

-03

19

1.05

%

10.5

6

V42

C

ampa

spe

Dee

p Le

ad W

SP

A

Cam

pasp

e 8.

78E

-03

20

1.55

%

15.6

0

N20

B

ell V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 8.

68E

-03

21

0.14

%

1.44

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

urru

mbi

dgee

8.

11E

-03

22

1.64

%

8.24

N81

9 P

eel V

alle

y F

ract

ured

Roc

k N

amoi

7.

87E

-03

23

1.50

%

8.00

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n N

amoi

6.

35E

-03

24

0.24

%

2.11

Q56

O

akey

Cre

ek M

anag

emen

t Are

a C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

5.76

E-0

3 25

0.

57%

0.

00

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t La

chla

n 5.

58E

-03

26

1.33

%

6.68

Q66

G

leng

alle

n C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

5.42

E-0

3 27

0.

47%

0.

78

Q52

a T

oow

oom

ba N

orth

Bas

alt

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

5.

35E

-03

28

0.54

%

0.00

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n B

orde

r R

iver

s 5.

28E

-03

29

0.22

%

1.87

N66

C

astle

reag

h A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 4.

13E

-03

30

0.16

%

0.00

N60

8 O

xley

Bas

in

Nam

oi

3.92

E-0

3 31

0.

55%

2.

87

N22

& Q

73

Bor

der

Riv

ers

Allu

vium

B

orde

r R

iver

s 3.

89E

-03

32

0.75

%

3.93

Q58

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 2

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

3.73

E-0

3 33

0.

49%

0.

00

N80

1 O

rang

e B

asal

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

3.65

E-0

3 34

0.

34%

1.

72

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 23

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Nor

mal

ised

com

posi

te

prio

ritis

atio

n in

dex

Ran

k 20

04/0

5 gr

ound

wat

er

extr

actio

n

2004

/05

impa

ct o

n st

ream

flow

as

MD

B-w

ide

impa

ct

pe

rcen

t of t

otal

MD

B

GL/

y

Q55

Lo

wer

Oak

ey C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

3.63

E-0

3 35

0.

36%

0.

00

N19

C

olla

burr

agun

dry-

Tal

brag

ar V

alle

y M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

3.58

E-0

3 36

0.

23%

2.

27

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t N

amoi

3.

56E

-03

37

0.45

%

2.39

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Nam

oi

3.55

E-0

3 38

0.

34%

1.

48

Q65

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(C

unni

ngha

m to

Ella

ngow

an)

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

3.

48E

-03

39

0.40

%

0.00

N80

2 Y

oung

Gra

nite

La

chla

n 3.

43E

-03

40

0.37

%

1.52

Q57

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 1

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

3.04

E-0

3 41

0.

25%

0.

00

Q52

c W

arw

ick

Are

a B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

2.98

E-0

3 42

0.

39%

0.

00

N14

B

illab

ong

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um (

upst

ream

of M

ahon

ga)

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

2.96

E-0

3 43

0.

34%

2.

14

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

2.90

E-0

3 44

0.

48%

1.

35

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 2.

86E

-03

45

0.27

%

0.77

V37

M

urm

unge

e G

MA

O

vens

2.

81E

-03

46

0.40

%

4.02

N60

8 O

xley

Bas

in

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 2.

76E

-03

47

0.37

%

1.91

S20

M

alle

e-1

Mur

ray

2.59

E-0

3 48

0.

89%

0.

00

N05

P

eel V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

2.47

E-0

3 49

0.

62%

8.

60

Q64

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(M

urry

Brid

ge to

Cun

ning

ham

) C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

2.46

E-0

3 50

0.

26%

0.

00

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t G

wyd

ir 2.

32E

-03

51

0.24

%

1.26

N15

U

pper

Mur

ray

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

1.96

E-0

3 52

0.

10%

0.

52

V41

N

agam

bie

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 1.

93E

-03

53

0.26

%

2.65

S14

E

MLR

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty R

ange

s 1.

77E

-03

54

0.93

%

0.00

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t (N

SW

) B

orde

r R

iver

s 1.

69E

-03

55

0.19

%

0.99

Q53

M

yall

/ Moo

la C

reek

Nor

th A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

1.

65E

-03

56

0.15

%

0.00

Q70

N

obby

Bas

alts

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.61

E-0

3 57

0.

17%

0.

00

Q60

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 4

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.61

E-0

3 58

0.

20%

0.

00

Q52

T

oow

oom

ba C

ity B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.53

E-0

3 59

0.

23%

0.

38

Q67

D

alry

mpl

e C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.38

E-0

3 60

0.

21%

0.

36

Q68

K

ing'

s C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.25

E-0

3 61

0.

11%

0.

19

Q71

S

t. G

eorg

e A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

1.

25E

-03

62

0.27

%

0.00

Q63

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(K

illar

ny to

Mur

ry B

ridge

) C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.20

E-0

3 63

0.

12%

0.

20

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

G

wyd

ir 8.

66E

-04

64

0.16

%

0.44

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Mur

ray

8.36

E-0

4 65

0.

27%

0.

00

N80

3 In

vere

ll B

asal

t B

orde

r R

iver

s 8.

25E

-04

66

0.21

%

1.23

N80

1 O

rang

e B

asal

t La

chla

n 8.

07E

-04

67

0.23

%

1.16

Q54

M

yall

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

7.

34E

-04

68

0.09

%

0.00

Q51

U

pper

Hod

gson

Cre

ek B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

6.77

E-0

4 69

0.

15%

0.

00

Q69

S

wan

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

6.

58E

-04

70

0.07

%

0.12

N54

B

unge

ndor

e A

lluvi

um

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

6.42

E-0

4 71

0.

06%

1.

06

24 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Nor

mal

ised

com

posi

te

prio

ritis

atio

n in

dex

Ran

k 20

04/0

5 gr

ound

wat

er

extr

actio

n

2004

/05

impa

ct o

n st

ream

flow

as

MD

B-w

ide

impa

ct

pe

rcen

t of t

otal

MD

B

GL/

y

N81

4 Li

verp

ool R

ange

s B

asal

t N

amoi

5.

93E

-04

72

0.15

%

0.79

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

urra

y 5.

85E

-04

73

0.31

%

1.56

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n G

wyd

ir 5.

34E

-04

74

0.05

%

0.45

S23

M

arne

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty R

ange

s 4.

49E

-04

75

0.12

%

0.00

Q61

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 5

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

4.44

E-0

4 76

0.

06%

0.

00

V55

U

pper

Lod

don

WS

PA

Lo

ddon

-Avo

ca

4.06

E-0

4 77

0.

37%

3.

73

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

B

orde

r R

iver

s 3.

54E

-04

78

0.07

%

0.19

N45

Lo

wer

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

M

urra

y 3.

31E

-04

79

0.12

%

0.00

Q62

C

onda

min

e R

iver

d/s

of C

GM

A

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

3.

08E

-04

80

0.09

%

0.00

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 3.

03E

-04

81

0.10

%

0.48

N80

3 In

vere

ll B

asal

t G

wyd

ir 2.

91E

-04

82

0.08

%

0.48

Q99

9 E

mu

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

2.

91E

-04

83

0.05

%

0.48

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 2.

73E

-04

84

0.17

%

0.00

V11

A

lexa

ndra

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 2.

65E

-04

85

0.04

%

0.36

N80

2 Y

oung

Gra

nite

M

urru

mbi

dgee

2.

32E

-04

86

0.04

%

0.18

V40

K

ialla

(bo

th z

ones

) M

urra

y 2.

28E

-04

87

0.05

%

0.54

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 2.

00E

-04

88

0.03

%

0.14

V44

E

llesm

ere

GM

A

Cam

pasp

e 1.

91E

-04

89

0.05

%

0.50

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.75

E-0

4 90

0.

03%

0.

09

N81

8 A

dela

ide

Fol

d B

elt

Mur

ray

1.73

E-0

4 91

0.

05%

0.

00

N81

4 Li

verp

ool R

ange

s B

asal

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

1.59

E-0

4 92

0.

04%

0.

20

V38

G

oora

mba

t GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 1.

56E

-04

93

0.04

%

0.36

N81

7 K

anm

anto

o F

old

Bel

t B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 1.

33E

-04

94

0.03

%

0.00

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

N

amoi

1.

10E

-04

95

0.02

%

0.06

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 1.

10E

-04

96

0.03

%

0.13

S18

A

ngas

-Bre

mer

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty R

ange

s 8.

20E

-05

97

0.07

%

0.00

N60

3 S

ydne

y B

asin

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

7.01

E-0

5 98

0.

05%

0.

16

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k W

arre

go

6.84

E-0

5 99

0.

04%

0.

00

N81

7 K

anm

anto

o F

old

Bel

t M

urra

y 6.

09E

-05

100

0.01

%

0.00

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

W

arre

go

5.31

E-0

5 10

1 0.

01%

0.

02

V56

S

prin

g H

ill W

SP

A

Lodd

on-A

voca

5.

11E

-05

102

0.08

%

0.82

V47

B

alro

otan

W

imm

era-

Mal

lee

3.48

E-0

5 10

3 0.

02%

0.

00

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

3.48

E-0

5 10

4 0.

01%

0.

00

V12

K

ingl

ake

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 3.

40E

-05

105

0.03

%

0.00

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

3.29

E-0

5 10

6 0.

01%

0.

00

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k P

aroo

2.

74E

-05

107

0.02

%

0.00

A1

AC

T

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

2.23

E-0

5 10

8 0.

03%

0.

50

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 25

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Nor

mal

ised

com

posi

te

prio

ritis

atio

n in

dex

Ran

k 20

04/0

5 gr

ound

wat

er

extr

actio

n

2004

/05

impa

ct o

n st

ream

flow

as

MD

B-w

ide

impa

ct

pe

rcen

t of t

otal

MD

B

GL/

y

V36

B

arna

war

tha

GM

A

Ove

ns

1.56

E-0

5 10

9 0.

01%

0.

14

V35

M

ullin

dolin

gong

GM

A

Mur

ray

1.50

E-0

5 11

0 0.

03%

0.

27

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

8.93

E-0

6 11

1 0.

01%

0.

00

V49

M

urra

yvill

e G

WS

PA

M

urra

y 5.

85E

-06

112

0.03

%

0.00

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

W

arre

go

4.30

E-0

6 11

3 0.

00%

0.

00

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

1.99

E-0

6 11

4 0.

00%

0.

00

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Nam

oi

1.98

E-0

6 11

5 0.

00%

0.

00

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Lach

lan

1.18

E-0

6 11

6 0.

00%

0.

00

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

P

aroo

9.

90E

-07

117

0.00

%

0.00

N45

Lo

wer

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 9.

87E

-07

118

0.00

%

0.00

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

M

ooni

e 7.

17E

-07

119

0.00

%

0.00

N11

U

pper

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

M

urru

mbi

dgee

3.

25E

-08

120

0.00

%

0.00

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

00%

0.

00

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s B

orde

r R

iver

s 0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

61%

0.

00

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s G

wyd

ir 0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

11%

0.

00

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

0.00

E+

00

121

0.37

%

0.00

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s N

amoi

0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

05%

0.

00

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

01%

0.

00

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Gw

ydir

0.00

E+

00

121

0.00

%

0.00

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

0.00

E+

00

121

0.00

%

0.00

V51

K

aniv

a M

urra

y 0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

00%

0.

00

V61

N

hill

Wim

mer

a-M

alle

e 0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

00%

0.

00

V62

G

orok

e W

imm

era-

Mal

lee

0.00

E+

00

121

0.00

%

0.00

S50

N

oora

M

urra

y 0.

00E

+00

12

1 0.

00%

0.

00

S53

P

eake

, Rob

y &

She

rlock

PW

A

Mur

ray

NA

N

A

0.07

%

NA

V63

S

A/V

ic b

orde

r W

SP

A

Mur

ray

NA

N

A

1.48

%

NA

V50

T

elop

ea D

owns

M

urra

y N

A

NA

0.

04%

N

A

Not

e: N

A s

igni

fies

that

dat

a is

not

ava

ilabl

e. G

roun

dwat

er e

xtra

ctio

n as

soci

ated

with

sal

t int

erce

ptio

n sc

hem

es a

nd th

e su

bseq

uent

impa

cts

on s

trea

mflo

w a

re e

xclu

ded

from

thes

e va

lues

. Que

ensl

and

GA

B In

take

B

eds

are

not i

nclu

ded

due

to th

e la

ck o

f dat

a.

Tab

le 8

-3. P

riorit

y an

d m

inim

um le

vels

of a

sses

smen

t for

Mur

ray-

Dar

ling

Bas

in g

roun

dwat

er m

anag

emen

t uni

ts

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* G

roun

dwat

er a

lloca

tion

or

entit

lem

ent

Ran

k P

riorit

y M

inim

um a

sses

smen

t

G

L/y

N02

Lo

wer

Mur

rum

bidg

ee (

dow

nstr

eam

of

Nar

rand

era)

M

urru

mbi

dgee

28

0.00

27

4.04

1

Ver

y hi

gh

Ver

y th

orou

gh

N13

M

id-M

urru

mbi

dgee

Allu

vium

M

urru

mbi

dgee

8.

45

80.1

0 2

Ver

y hi

gh

Ver

y th

orou

gh

26 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* G

roun

dwat

er a

lloca

tion

or

entit

lem

ent

Ran

k P

riorit

y M

inim

um a

sses

smen

t

G

L/y

N09

U

pper

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

upst

ream

of

Nar

rom

ine)

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

4.26

38

.37

3 V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

N15

U

pper

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(up

stre

am o

f C

orow

a)

Mur

ray

2.73

38

.64

4 V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

N04

U

pper

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

122.

10

119.

24

5 V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

N10

C

udge

gong

Val

ley

Allu

vium

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

0.52

13

.22

6 V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

N11

U

pper

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 91

.55

191.

99

7 V

ery

high

V

ery

thor

ough

N12

Lo

wer

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 96

.00

96.0

0 8

Hig

h T

horo

ugh

N21

B

elub

ula

Val

ley

Allu

vium

La

chla

n 0.

22

6.29

9

Hig

h T

horo

ugh

N16

Lo

wer

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(do

wns

trea

m o

f C

orow

a)

Mur

ray

83.7

0 85

.18

10 H

igh

Tho

roug

h

N01

Lo

wer

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

86.0

0 89

.30

11 H

igh

Tho

roug

h

N08

Lo

wer

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

dow

nstr

eam

of

Nar

rom

ine)

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

69.2

9 70

.35

12 H

igh

Tho

roug

h

N03

Lo

wer

Gw

ydir

Allu

vium

G

wyd

ir 32

.30

33.0

0 13

Hig

h T

horo

ugh

V43

S

hepp

arto

n W

SP

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 20

3.00

20

3.60

14

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

Q52

b T

oow

oom

ba S

outh

Bas

alt

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

35

.00

26.1

2 15

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

Q59

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 3

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

14.8

1 50

.78

16 M

ediu

m

Mod

erat

e

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

425.

28

60.5

7 17

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

V39

K

atun

ga

Mur

ray

46.5

2 59

.78

18 M

ediu

m

Mod

erat

e

V45

M

id-L

oddo

n W

SP

A

Lodd

on-A

voca

34

.00

34.0

5 19

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

V42

C

ampa

spe

Dee

p Le

ad W

SP

A

Cam

pasp

e 44

.00

46.0

0 20

Med

ium

M

oder

ate

N20

B

ell V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 0.

44

4.66

21

Low

S

impl

e

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

urru

mbi

dgee

54

1.92

37

.75

22 L

ow

Sim

ple

N81

9 P

eel V

alle

y F

ract

ured

Roc

k N

amoi

70

.48

35.7

5 23

Low

S

impl

e

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n N

amoi

1.

74

7.16

24

Low

S

impl

e

Q56

O

akey

Cre

ek M

anag

emen

t Are

a C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

7.00

9.

66

25 L

ow

Sim

ple

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t La

chla

n 47

6.75

33

.46

26 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q66

G

leng

alle

n C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

4.49

7.

31

27 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q52

a T

oow

oom

ba N

orth

Bas

alt

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

15

.00

9.34

28

Low

S

impl

e

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n B

orde

r R

iver

s 1.

61

5.17

29

Low

S

impl

e

N66

C

astle

reag

h A

lluvi

um

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 1.

03

2.36

30

Low

S

impl

e

N60

8 O

xley

Bas

in

Nam

oi

77.2

1 12

.58

31 L

ow

Sim

ple

N22

& Q

73

Bor

der

Riv

ers

Allu

vium

B

orde

r R

iver

s 30

.00

29.6

1 32

Low

S

impl

e

Q58

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 2

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

2.49

11

.01

33 L

ow

Sim

ple

N80

1 O

rang

e B

asal

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

6.16

8.

68

34 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q55

Lo

wer

Oak

ey C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

6.50

6.

13

35 L

ow

Sim

ple

N19

C

olla

burr

agun

dry-

Tal

brag

ar V

alle

y M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

2.64

6.

30

36 L

ow

Sim

ple

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 27

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* G

roun

dwat

er a

lloca

tion

or

entit

lem

ent

Ran

k P

riorit

y M

inim

um a

sses

smen

t

G

L/y

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t N

amoi

11

3.23

10

.79

37 L

ow

Sim

ple

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Nam

oi

87.1

9 6.

66

38 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q65

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(C

unni

ngha

m to

E

llang

owan

) C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

5.86

8.

08

39 L

ow

Sim

ple

N80

2 Y

oung

Gra

nite

La

chla

n 7.

55

7.75

40

Low

S

impl

e

Q57

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 1

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.44

3.

56

41 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q52

c W

arw

ick

Are

a B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

9.60

8.

74

42 L

ow

Sim

ple

N14

B

illab

ong

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um (

upst

ream

of

Mah

onga

) M

urru

mbi

dgee

7.

40

7.15

43

Low

S

impl

e

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

64.2

4 12

.06

44 L

ow

Sim

ple

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 15

2.89

5.

76

45 L

ow

Sim

ple

V37

M

urm

unge

e G

MA

O

vens

11

.79

11.7

9 46

Low

S

impl

e

N60

8 O

xley

Bas

in

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 10

4.00

8.

87

47 L

ow

Sim

ple

S20

M

alle

e-1

Mur

ray

52.8

0 32

.23

48 L

ow

Sim

ple

N05

P

eel V

alle

y A

lluvi

um

Nam

oi

14.0

8 51

.35

49 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q64

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(M

urry

Brid

ge to

C

unni

ngha

m)

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

3.

01

4.64

50

Low

S

impl

e

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t G

wyd

ir 15

8.85

5.

49

51 L

ow

Sim

ple

N15

U

pper

Mur

ray

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

0.89

1.

89

52 L

ow

Sim

ple

V41

N

agam

bie

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 5.

70

6.60

53

Low

S

impl

e

S14

E

MLR

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty R

ange

s 45

.96

45.9

6 54

Low

S

impl

e

N80

5 N

ew E

ngla

nd F

old

Bel

t (N

SW

) B

orde

r R

iver

s 14

4.80

4.

45

55 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q53

M

yall

/ Moo

la C

reek

Nor

th A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

3.

50

2.34

56

Low

S

impl

e

Q70

N

obby

Bas

alts

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

2.40

3.

00

57 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q60

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 4

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.93

4.

15

58 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q52

T

oow

oom

ba C

ity B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

6.50

6.

27

59 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q67

D

alry

mpl

e C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

3.95

6.

08

60 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q68

K

ing'

s C

reek

Allu

vium

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

4.23

1.

78

61 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q71

S

t. G

eorg

e A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

18

.00

10.0

3 62

Low

S

impl

e

Q63

C

onda

min

e R

iver

Allu

vium

(K

illar

ny to

Mur

ry

Brid

ge)

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

0.

46

2.06

63

Low

S

impl

e

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

G

wyd

ir 43

.01

3.79

64

Low

S

impl

e

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Mur

ray

663.

81

7.55

65

Low

S

impl

e

N80

3 In

vere

ll B

asal

t B

orde

r R

iver

s 16

.74

5.23

66

Low

S

impl

e

N80

1 O

rang

e B

asal

t La

chla

n 12

.90

6.23

67

Low

S

impl

e

Q54

M

yall

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

5.

30

1.89

68

Low

S

impl

e

Q51

U

pper

Hod

gson

Cre

ek B

asal

t C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

7.50

5.

70

69 L

ow

Sim

ple

Q69

S

wan

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

0.

90

1.37

70

Low

S

impl

e

N54

B

unge

ndor

e A

lluvi

um

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

1.09

1.

21

71 L

ow

Sim

ple

28 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* G

roun

dwat

er a

lloca

tion

or

entit

lem

ent

Ran

k P

riorit

y M

inim

um a

sses

smen

t

G

L/y

N81

4 Li

verp

ool R

ange

s B

asal

t N

amoi

23

.74

3.66

72

Low

S

impl

e

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t M

urra

y 69

.43

8.60

73

Low

S

impl

e

N23

M

isce

llane

ous

Allu

vium

of B

arw

on R

egio

n G

wyd

ir 0.

88

1.54

74

Low

S

impl

e

S23

M

arne

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty R

ange

s 4.

00

4.00

75

Low

S

impl

e

Q61

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 5

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.50

1.

31

76 L

ow

Sim

ple

V55

U

pper

Lod

don

WS

PA

Lo

ddon

-Avo

ca

13.0

0 13

.04

77 L

ow

Sim

ple

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

B

orde

r R

iver

s 23

.92

1.58

78

Low

S

impl

e

N45

Lo

wer

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

M

urra

y 9.

30

3.69

79

Low

S

impl

e

Q62

C

onda

min

e R

iver

d/s

of C

GM

A

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

3.

50

4.51

80

Low

S

impl

e

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 27

0.74

2.

42

81 L

ow

Sim

ple

N80

3 In

vere

ll B

asal

t G

wyd

ir 9.

05

2.19

82

Low

S

impl

e

Q99

9 E

mu

Cre

ek A

lluvi

um

Con

dam

ine-

Bal

onne

3.

30

1.41

83

Low

S

impl

e

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 25

.74

3.76

84

Low

S

impl

e

V11

A

lexa

ndra

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 0.

90

1.71

85

Low

S

impl

e

N80

2 Y

oung

Gra

nite

M

urru

mbi

dgee

1.

41

1.07

86

Low

S

impl

e

V40

K

ialla

(bo

th z

ones

) M

urra

y 4.

80

2.30

87

Low

S

impl

e

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 28

.01

0.79

88

Low

S

impl

e

V44

E

llesm

ere

GM

A

Cam

pasp

e 1.

90

2.28

89

Low

S

impl

e

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

53.6

7 0.

79

90 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N81

8 A

dela

ide

Fol

d B

elt

Mur

ray

30.4

4 1.

65

91 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N81

4 Li

verp

ool R

ange

s B

asal

t M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

16.7

8 0.

80

92 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

V38

G

oora

mba

t GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 4.

90

1.50

93

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N81

7 K

anm

anto

o F

old

Bel

t B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 84

.16

0.68

94

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

N

amoi

9.

92

0.39

95

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Mac

quar

ie-C

astle

reag

h 10

.04

0.55

96

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

S18

A

ngas

-Bre

mer

E

aste

rn M

t Lof

ty R

ange

s 5.

00

6.50

97

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N60

3 S

ydne

y B

asin

M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

13.1

2 1.

44

98 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k W

arre

go

9.15

0.

96

99 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N81

7 K

anm

anto

o F

old

Bel

t M

urra

y 36

.04

0.31

10

0 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

W

arre

go

1.71

0.

18

101

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

V56

S

prin

g H

ill W

SP

A

Lodd

on-A

voca

5.

10

4.95

10

2 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

V47

B

alro

otan

W

imm

era-

Mal

lee

0.98

1.

52

103

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

41.1

5 0.

18

104

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

V12

K

ingl

ake

GM

A

Gou

lbur

n-B

roke

n 3.

80

1.49

10

5 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

5.55

0.

11

106

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k P

aroo

2.

62

0.59

10

7 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

A1

AC

T

Mur

rum

bidg

ee

7.00

1.

00

108

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 29

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Reg

ion

Gro

undw

ater

ext

ract

ion

limit

or s

usta

inab

le y

ield

* G

roun

dwat

er a

lloca

tion

or

entit

lem

ent

Ran

k P

riorit

y M

inim

um a

sses

smen

t

G

L/y

V36

B

arna

war

tha

GM

A

Ove

ns

2.10

0.

49

109

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

V35

M

ullin

dolin

gong

GM

A

Mur

ray

6.98

1.

29

110

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N62

0 G

reat

Art

esia

n B

asin

Cap

Roc

k C

onda

min

e-B

alon

ne

1.38

0.

11

111

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

V49

M

urra

yvill

e G

WS

PA

M

urra

y 10

.88

1.84

11

2 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

W

arre

go

1.25

0.

02

113

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

0.92

0.

01

114

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N81

3 W

arru

mbu

ngle

Ter

tiary

Bas

alt

Nam

oi

0.53

0.

01

115

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N61

2 W

este

rn M

urra

y P

orou

s R

ock

Lach

lan

0.15

0.

01

116

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

P

aroo

0.

51

0.01

11

7 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N45

Lo

wer

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 0.

32

0.01

11

8 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N63

G

AB

Allu

vial

M

ooni

e 1.

21

0.00

11

9 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N11

U

pper

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

M

urru

mbi

dgee

0.

11

0.00

12

0 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N46

U

pper

Dar

ling

Allu

vium

B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 19

.48

0.00

12

1 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s B

orde

r R

iver

s 9.

28

31.8

9 12

1 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s G

wyd

ir 4.

02

2.59

12

1 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s M

acqu

arie

-Cas

tlere

agh

24.0

0 23

.80

121

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s N

amoi

4.

06

3.85

12

1 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N60

1a

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in In

take

Bed

s B

arw

on-D

arlin

g 1.

62

0.35

12

1 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Gw

ydir

0.45

0.

00

121

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

N60

4 G

unne

dah

Bas

in

Bar

won

-Dar

ling

0.61

0.

00

121

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

V51

K

aniv

a M

urra

y 3.

67

0.00

12

1 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

V61

N

hill

Wim

mer

a-M

alle

e 1.

20

0.00

12

1 V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

V62

G

orok

e W

imm

era-

Mal

lee

2.20

0.

00

121

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

S50

N

oora

M

urra

y na

0.

00

121

Ver

y Lo

w

Min

imal

S53

P

eake

, Rob

y &

She

rlock

PW

A

Mur

ray

na

2.42

N

a V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

V63

S

A/V

ic b

orde

r W

SP

A

Mur

ray

na

38.1

5 N

a V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

V50

T

elop

ea D

owns

M

urra

y 7.

48

1.45

N

a V

ery

Low

M

inim

al

* P

erm

issi

ble

cons

umpt

ive

volu

me

(PC

V)

in V

icto

rian

GM

Us.

Sus

tain

able

yie

ld is

not

ava

ilabl

e fo

r N

ew S

outh

Wal

es M

acro

Gro

undw

ater

Sha

ring

Pla

n ar

eas;

ther

efor

e th

e lo

ng-t

erm

ave

rage

ext

ract

ion

limit

(LT

AE

L) is

sub

stitu

ted

for

sust

aina

ble

yiel

d in

thes

e ar

eas.

30 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

Tab

le 8

-4. C

ompa

rison

of m

inim

um a

nd a

ctua

l ass

essm

ents

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Min

imum

ass

essm

ent

Act

ual a

sses

smen

t C

omm

ent

N02

Lo

wer

Mur

rum

bidg

ee (

dow

nstr

eam

of

Nar

rand

era)

V

ery

thor

ough

V

ery

thor

ough

T

he m

odel

is w

ell c

alib

rate

d an

d is

bas

ed o

n a

leng

thy

reco

rd o

f ext

ract

ion.

Wou

ld

bene

fit fr

om im

prov

ed r

epre

sent

atio

n of

riv

er in

tera

ctio

n an

d in

tera

ctio

n w

ith a

quife

rs

belo

w th

e m

odel

led

hydr

ogeo

logi

cal l

ayer

s.

An

alys

is m

eets

min

imu

m a

sses

smen

t re

qu

irem

ent.

N13

M

id-M

urru

mbi

dgee

Allu

vium

V

ery

thor

ough

M

oder

ate

Mod

el li

mite

d by

use

of i

ncor

rect

ext

ract

ion

data

in th

e m

odel

cal

ibra

tion.

A

nal

ysis

do

es n

ot

mee

t m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t, b

ut

mo

del

is

suff

icie

nt

to id

enti

fy c

atch

men

t w

ater

bal

ance

issu

es a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

g

rou

nd

wat

er e

xtra

ctio

n.

N09

U

pper

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

upst

ream

of

Nar

rom

ine)

V

ery

thor

ough

S

impl

e T

his

GM

U w

as in

itial

ly r

anke

d be

low

20;

how

ever

cha

nges

to e

xtra

ctio

n da

ta d

urin

g th

e pr

ojec

t has

mea

nt th

at th

e ra

tio o

f cur

rent

ext

ract

ion

to L

TA

EL

is g

reat

er th

an 1

. A

nal

ysis

do

es n

ot

mee

t m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t, b

ut

ther

e is

su

ffic

ien

t an

alys

is t

o id

enti

fy c

atch

men

t w

ater

bal

ance

issu

es a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

g

rou

nd

wat

er e

xtra

ctio

n.

N15

U

pper

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(up

stre

am o

f C

orow

a)

Ver

y th

orou

gh

Sim

ple

Thi

s G

MU

was

initi

ally

ran

ked

belo

w 2

0; h

owev

er c

hang

es to

ext

ract

ion

data

dur

ing

the

proj

ect h

as m

eant

that

the

ratio

of c

urre

nt e

xtra

ctio

n to

LT

AE

L is

gre

ater

than

1.

An

alys

is d

oes

no

t m

eet

min

imu

m a

sses

smen

t re

qu

irem

ent,

bu

t th

ere

is

suff

icie

nt

anal

ysis

to

iden

tify

cat

chm

ent

wat

er b

alan

ce is

sues

ass

oci

ated

wit

h

gro

un

dw

ater

ext

ract

ion

.

N04

U

pper

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Ver

y th

orou

gh

Mod

erat

e to

thor

ough

Li

mite

d m

odel

cal

ibra

tion

due

to p

oor

conc

eptu

alis

atio

n an

d pa

ram

eter

isat

ion.

O

utpu

ts a

ffect

ed b

y so

me

mod

ellin

g ar

tefa

cts

(inst

abili

ty).

A

nal

ysis

do

es n

ot

mee

t m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t, b

ut

ther

e is

su

ffic

ien

t an

alys

is t

o id

enti

fy c

atch

men

t w

ater

bal

ance

issu

es a

sso

ciat

ed w

ith

g

rou

nd

wat

er e

xtra

ctio

n.

N10

C

udge

gong

Val

ley

Allu

vium

V

ery

thor

ough

S

impl

e T

his

GM

U w

as in

itial

ly r

anke

d be

low

20;

how

ever

cha

nges

to e

xtra

ctio

n da

ta d

urin

g th

e pr

ojec

t has

mea

nt th

at th

e ra

tio o

f cur

rent

ext

ract

ion

to L

TA

EL

is g

reat

er th

an 1

. A

nal

ysis

do

es n

ot

mee

t m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t, b

ut

ther

e is

su

ffic

ien

t an

alys

is t

o h

igh

ligh

t th

e ri

sks

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

gro

un

dw

ater

ex

trac

tio

n.

N11

U

pper

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

V

ery

thor

ough

T

horo

ugh

Thi

s G

MU

was

initi

ally

ran

ked

low

er a

nd th

e m

inim

um a

sses

smen

t was

‘tho

roug

h’.

Whi

le th

ere

are

som

e lim

itatio

ns to

the

calib

ratio

n le

adin

g to

unc

erta

inty

, the

as

sess

men

t is

gene

rally

con

sist

ent w

ith a

thor

ough

ana

lysi

s, b

ut fa

lling

sho

rt o

f a

very

thor

ough

ana

lysi

s be

caus

e of

lim

ited

calib

ratio

n. T

he m

odel

laye

r st

ruct

ure

prov

ides

a c

oars

e re

pres

enta

tion

of th

e ex

tent

and

sha

pe o

f the

Lac

hlan

For

mat

ion

and

coul

d be

impr

oved

in th

is r

egar

d.

An

alys

is d

oes

no

t m

eet

min

imu

m a

sses

smen

t re

qu

irem

ent,

bu

t th

ere

is

suff

icie

nt

anal

ysis

to

iden

tify

cat

chm

ent

wat

er b

alan

ce is

sues

ass

oci

ated

wit

h

gro

un

dw

ater

ext

ract

ion

.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 31

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Min

imum

ass

essm

ent

Act

ual a

sses

smen

t C

omm

ent

N12

Lo

wer

Lac

hlan

Allu

vium

T

horo

ugh

Tho

roug

h W

hile

ther

e ar

e so

me

limita

tions

to th

e ca

libra

tion

lead

ing

to u

ncer

tain

ty, t

he

asse

ssm

ent i

s ge

nera

lly c

onsi

sten

t with

a th

orou

gh a

naly

sis.

A

nal

ysis

mee

ts m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t.

N21

B

elub

ula

Val

ley

Allu

vium

T

horo

ugh

Sim

ple

Thi

s G

MU

was

initi

ally

ran

ked

belo

w 2

0; h

owev

er c

hang

es to

ext

ract

ion

data

dur

ing

the

proj

ect h

as m

eant

that

the

ratio

of c

urre

nt e

xtra

ctio

n to

LT

AE

L is

gre

ater

than

1.

An

alys

is d

oes

no

t m

eet

min

imu

m a

sses

smen

t re

qu

irem

ent,

bu

t th

ere

is

suff

icie

nt

anal

ysis

to

hig

hlig

ht

the

risk

s as

soci

ated

wit

h g

rou

nd

wat

er

extr

acti

on

.

N16

Lo

wer

Mur

ray

Allu

vium

(do

wns

trea

m o

f C

orow

a)

Tho

roug

h T

horo

ugh

The

mod

el is

an

impr

ovem

ent o

n pr

evio

us m

odel

s of

the

GM

U a

s it

now

ext

ends

ac

ross

the

Riv

er M

urra

y an

d in

clud

es in

tera

ctio

n w

ith e

xtra

ctio

n ar

eas

sout

h of

the

river

. The

mod

el is

wel

l cal

ibra

ted

but m

ay s

uffe

r fr

om in

accu

rate

gro

undw

ater

ex

trac

tion

data

. A

nal

ysis

mee

ts m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t.

N01

Lo

wer

Nam

oi A

lluvi

um

Tho

roug

h T

horo

ugh

Wel

l cal

ibra

ted

and

verif

ied

mod

el. T

he m

odel

has

a c

oars

e gr

id s

truc

ture

(2.

5 km

sq

uare

grid

) an

d co

uld

be im

prov

ed b

y ad

ditio

nal g

rid r

efin

emen

t. T

he m

odel

doe

s no

t inc

lude

eva

potr

ansp

iratio

n no

r is

ther

e an

exp

licit

repr

esen

tatio

n of

irrig

atio

n ac

cess

ions

. A

nal

ysis

mee

ts m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t.

N08

Lo

wer

Mac

quar

ie A

lluvi

um (

dow

nstr

eam

of

Nar

rom

ine)

T

horo

ugh

Mod

erat

e to

thor

ough

S

ome

limita

tions

ass

ocia

ted

with

lack

of e

vapo

tran

spira

tion

func

tion

with

in th

e m

odel

co

uple

d w

ith p

redi

ctio

n of

ris

ing

grou

ndw

ater

leve

ls.

An

alys

is d

oes

no

t m

eet

min

imu

m a

sses

smen

t re

qu

irem

ent,

bu

t th

ere

is

suff

icie

nt

anal

ysis

to

hig

hlig

ht

the

risk

s as

soci

ated

wit

h g

rou

nd

wat

er

extr

acti

on

.

N03

Lo

wer

Gw

ydir

Allu

vium

T

horo

ugh

Mod

erat

e to

thor

ough

H

igh

degr

ee o

f unc

erta

inty

due

to s

hort

cal

ibra

tion

perio

d (5

yea

rs)

and

issu

es w

ith

para

met

eris

atio

n an

d ch

oice

of m

odel

bou

ndar

y co

nditi

ons.

A

nal

ysis

do

es n

ot

mee

t m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t, b

ut

ther

e is

su

ffic

ien

t an

alys

is t

o h

igh

ligh

t th

e ri

sks

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

gro

un

dw

ater

ex

trac

tio

n.

V43

S

hepp

arto

n W

SP

A

Mod

erat

e T

horo

ugh

Thi

s G

MU

is lo

cate

d w

ithin

the

Sou

ther

n R

iver

ine

Pla

ins

grou

ndw

ater

flow

mod

el

whi

ch is

wel

l cal

ibra

ted

and

incl

udes

coa

lesc

ing

impa

cts

of n

eigh

bour

ing

GM

Us.

The

m

odel

cal

ibra

tion

may

suf

fer

from

poo

r ex

trac

tion

data

. A

nal

ysis

mee

ts m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t.

Q52

b T

oow

oom

ba S

outh

Bas

alt

Mod

erat

e

Q59

C

onda

min

e C

GM

A S

A 3

M

oder

ate

Mod

erat

e to

thor

ough

U

sefu

l for

‘im

pact

ass

essm

ent’,

but

lim

itatio

ns w

ith e

xtra

ctio

n da

ta m

eans

ther

e is

un

cert

aint

y in

the

calib

ratio

n.

Ap

pro

ach

mee

ts m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t.

N81

1 La

chla

n F

old

Bel

t (M

acqu

arie

reg

ion)

M

oder

ate

Sim

ple

Thi

s G

MU

was

initi

ally

ran

ked

low

and

a s

impl

e as

sess

men

t was

und

erta

ken.

New

da

ta p

rovi

ded

durin

g th

e pr

ojec

t was

use

d to

det

erm

ine

a hi

gher

ran

king

. A

nal

ysis

do

es n

ot

mee

t m

inim

um

ass

essm

ent

req

uir

emen

t, b

ut

ther

e is

32 ▪ Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking © CSIRO 2008

GM

U c

ode

GM

U n

ame

Min

imum

ass

essm

ent

Act

ual a

sses

smen

t C

omm

ent

suff

icie

nt

anal

ysis

to

hig

hlig

ht

the

risk

s as

soci

ated

wit

h g

rou

nd

wat

er

extr

acti

on

.

V39

K

atun

ga

Mod

erat

e T

horo

ugh

V45

M

id-L

oddo

n W

SP

A

Mod

erat

e T

horo

ugh

V42

C

ampa

spe

Dee

p Le

ad W

SP

A

Mod

erat

e T

horo

ugh

The

se G

MU

s ar

e lo

cate

d w

ithin

the

Sou

ther

n R

iver

ine

Pla

ins

grou

ndw

ater

flow

m

odel

whi

ch is

wel

l cal

ibra

ted

and

incl

udes

coa

lesc

ing

impa

cts

of n

eigh

bour

ing

GM

Us.

The

mod

el c

alib

ratio

n m

ay s

uffe

r fr

om p

oor

extr

actio

n da

ta.

An

alys

is m

eets

min

imu

m a

sses

smen

t re

qu

irem

ent.

© CSIRO 2008 Groundwater management unit prioritisation and assessment ranking ▪ 33