appendix a : technical reports

July 2019 Underground Water Impact Report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area

Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment APX-1

Appendix A : Technical reports



A.1 List of technical reports from OGIA

Below is the list of reports on technical projects carried out by OGIA that have underpinned the

preparation of UWIR 2019. The reports will be available on OGIA’s website and are referenced in the

document.

Updated geology and geological model for the Surat Cumulative Management Area; 2019

Construction and calibration of the Cumulative Impact Assessment Model for the Surat

Cumulative Management Area; 2019

Key elements of hydrogeological conceptualisation in the Surat Cumulative Management

Area; 2019

Groundwater level trends in the Hutton Sandstone, Springbok Sandstone and Condamine

Alluvium; 2019

Conceptualisation and Characterisation of Faults in the Surat Basin; 2019

Evaluating methods and attributes for monitoring springs in the Surat Cumulative

Management Area; 2019

Terrestrial groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the Surat Cumulative Management Area: a

literature review and desktop conceptualisation; 2019

Groundwater extraction and use in the Surat Cumulative Management Area: Overview,

methods for water use estimation and results; 2019

Subregional hydrogeological assessment reports; 2019

Identification of gaining streams in the Surat Cumulative Management Area. Hydrogeological

investigation report; 2017

Springs in the Surat Cumulative Management Area: A summary report on spring research

and knowledge; 2016

Groundwater connectivity between the Condamine Alluvium and the Walloon Coal Measures:

a hydrogeological investigation report; 2016

Hydrogeological conceptualisation report for the Surat Cumulative Management Area; 2016

Wetland conceptualisation: A summary report on the conceptualisation of springs in the Surat

Cumulative Management Area; 2015.



Appendix B : Details about P&G tenures in the Surat CMA



B.1 Details of major CSG projects

A brief description of petroleum and gas projects for each of the authorised tenure holders, and their

current status of development, is provided below.

Arrow Energy

Arrow’s Surat Gas Project is a joint venture with Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) and PetroChina. The

development area originally covered approximately 6,100 km2, extending from the township of

Wandoan in the north, in an arc through Dalby, towards Goondiwindi in the south, with a total of 6,500

proposed production wells (Arrow SEIS). Much of the southern tenure has been relinquished; the

southern most tenure is now situated around Cecil Plains.

The joint venture proposal stated that the project had approximately five trillion cubic feet of gas

reserves in the Surat Basin (Arrow Surat Gas Project EIS). Sustained gas production is aimed at

about 1,215 TJ/d, with 80 TJ/d of gas for supply to the domestic gas market. An EIS for the project

was lodged in December 2011 and a supplementary EIS was lodged in June 2013. The project

received environmental approval from the Queensland Government on 25 October 2013 and from the

Australian Government on 20 December 2013.

Arrow does not operate an LNG facility in Gladstone, but rather has entered into a gas supply

agreement with Shell QGC. The 27-year deal will allow Arrow to commercialise the majority of the

proposed five trillion cubic feet of gas reserves.

Arrow currently has two main existing gas fields, Daandine and Tipton, with about 440 CSG wells.

Daandine began supplying gas for domestic purposes in 2006; Tipton began in the following year.

Production from these fields has continued with some slight expansion.

Arrow’s production plans have recently changed in scheduling rather than production footprint. As

described earlier, Arrow has reversed its development direction for Development Area 5,

progressively bringing wells online from the south-east to the north-west, along the Dalby to Chinchilla

development path. Recent approval of Arrow’s PLAs to PLs allows it to progress with the

development plans.

Origin Energy

Origin’s Australia Pacific LNG Project is a joint venture between Origin (37.5%), ConocoPhillips

(37.5%) and Sinopec (25%). The project tenures run north-west from the Chinchilla/Tara region to 30

km east of Injune, with another block of tenures south-west of Cecil Plains.

The project includes existing gas fields Spring Gully and Peat in the southern Bowen Basin. In 2010,

Origin submitted an EIS for the project to cover the remainder of the 5,700 km2 project area in the

Surat Basin. The project was approved by the Queensland Government in late 2010 and by the

Australian Government in early 2011. Origin currently has about 2,300 producing CSG wells. Since

the UWIR 2016 each of Origin’s existing gas fields, other than Peat, has expanded – most notably

Combabula, with an expansion of approximately 150 km2.

Since 2016, Origin has added a number of gas fields to its production plans. Ramyard, 25 km south-

west of Wandoan, is planned to progressively commence production between 2020 and 2029.

Kainama, located 30 km south of Chinchilla, is expected to come online in 2021, with the majority of

the field in production by 2025. Dalwogan, directly west of Miles, is expected to commence production

between 2022 and 2023. These gas fields add approximately 800 additional wells to the total

projected wells.



The existing fields will continue to expand progressively outward from their current production areas.

Spring Gully is expected to expand 10 km towards Injune. The development plans will see

Combabula expand 20 km west by 2024, and 15 km south by 2027. The tenure area between Talinga

and Orana, 19 km west of Chinchilla, will also be progressively brought online over the next few years

– 2019 to 2025. The Peat gas field, 10 km east of Wandoan, is planned to significantly expand by

2023, from 20 to 130 km2.

The Ironbark Project is a good example of how plans can change in the CSG industry. Ironbark was

included in the UWIR 2012 modelling, but was removed completely from the development plans

provided for the UWIR 2016. Origin has again provided OGIA with an indicative future development

plan for Ironbark. The planned CSG production area of Ironbark is located approximately 20 km north-

west of Tara, commencing production in 2021-2024. Origin intends to construct approximately 145

wells across 100 km2; however, the project is yet to obtain the relevant tenure and approvals to allow

progression to production.

QGC

At the time of submitting an EIS for the Queensland Curtis LNG Project, QGC was operating as a

subsidiary of the BG Group. In 2016, Royal Dutch Shell (Shell) acquired 100% of the BG Group.

An EIS for the project was completed in 2009. The Queensland Government Coordinator-General

released his report on the EIS in June 2010 and the project received Australian Government approval

in October 2010. At the time of submission of the EIS, the gas field tenure area was approximately

4,600 km2 (QGC EIS).

The project area was designed in three main gas field regions: the Southern development area west

of Dalby, the Central development area between Chinchilla and Miles, and the Northern development

area west of Wandoan. The project also included pipelines and an LNG facility in Gladstone. Of the

major CSG proponents, QGC was the first to export LNG from the Gladstone facilities.

QGC is currently operating about 3,200 CSG wells. Since the UWIR 2016, the gas fields Celeste,

Poppy and Sean have been added to the fields in the Southern development area. Matilda-John and

McNulty gas fields have continued expansion in the Central development area. The Northern

development area is where QGC has expanded most since UWIR 2016. The Charlie Project was

completed and linked into the QCLNG project area in 2017. The Charlie Project brought online a

number of gas fields in 2017; Charlie, Portsmouth, Bloodworth, Golden Grove, with a number more to

commence production from 2021 to 2024.

An additional 1,500 CSG wells are planned by QGC. In the Southern development area, there will be

minimal expansion around the existing production areas. Other than Codie, Kate, and Avon Downs,

the gas fields in the Central development area are already in production. Codie and Kate gas field

areas are planned to be in production by 2022. Production at Avon Downs is planned to commence

by 2025. The Northern development area still has a significant area to commence production; the

middle of the development area is expected to commence production during 2020. In the southern

extent of the Northern development area, Mamdal gas field is intended to commence producing in

2022; the northern extent of the Northern development area is expected to be online by 2024.

Santos

Santos’s Gladstone LNG (GLNG) project is also a joint venture. In 2009, Santos submitted the initial

EIS proposal for the project, which included tenure from Roma to Emerald. The EIS was assessed by



the Queensland Government Coordinator-General in May 2010; the corresponding Australian

Government approval was released in October 2010. In 2014, Santos submitted the GLNG Gas Field

Development project EIS for additional tenure areas and expansion of the GLNG project tenure

footprint to 10,676 km2. The expansion received state approval in December 2015 and Australian

Government approval in March 2016.

Since the UWIR 2016, Santos has increased its existing production area in the Roma gas field to a

total of 1,300 CSG wells. There has been little change in the existing production footprint for the

Fairview, Arcadia and Scotia gas fields.

The planned production footprint for the Roma gas field begins several kilometres from the Roma

township and stretches approximately 30 km to the north and 70 km to the east. The planned

production will start from the north-east corner of the gas field in 2018-2019 and progressively work

back towards the township, with the entire field to be in production by 2028. Santos plans to slightly

expand the Fairview planned production area footprint in the north-east.

There are two new gas fields to begin production as part of a new project area west of the current

GLNG project. Kia Ora and Arcadia West gas fields are located west of Fairview and Arcadia,

respectively. They are planned to begin production in two stages, the first being in 2023 and the

second in 2030. Scotia gas field, north-east of Wandoan, now has some planned expansion around

the flanks of the current production footprint to occur between 2020 and 2025.

The Mahalo Project, located in the Denison Trough and spanning from Injune to Rolleston, is a joint

venture project between Santos and Origin. Similar to Origin’s Ironbark Project, this project still

requires various approvals before production can begin; however, OGIA obtained a development plan

for the project, which indicated a planned commencement date of 2023-2030. The total production

area for the project would reach approximately 4,000 km2, with 3,000 wells projected to be

constructed.

Senex

Senex is the owner and operator of the Western Surat Gas Project, a relatively small project

compared to other operators’ projects. The project is located 30 km north of Roma, between Santos’s

Fairview and Origin’s Spring Gully gas fields. Senex has obtained the necessary environmental

approvals for the project.

Senex has run a pilot project within the south-east corner of the project area and has planned staged

production commencement across the area from 2019 to 2040. A total of about 700 wells are

planned. Senex has another project area in the Surat Basin: the Project Atlas, west of Wandoan. The

tenure was released by the Queensland Government for domestic gas supply only and fast tracked to

PL status. Production is expected to commence during 2019.



B.2 Planned commencement and cessation of CSG production areas

Figure B-1 Planned commencement and cessation of CSG production areas in the Surat

Basin



Figure B-2 Planned commencement and cessation of CSG production areas in the Bowen

Basin



B.3 Relevant tenures and production areas

Relevant tenures are described in Chapter 2. A detailed list of all relevant tenures, corresponding

major tenure holders within the Surat CMA and planned production in those tenures as compiled for

the UWIR is available on OGIA’s website.

A summary of total production area for each major tenure holder and the proportion of existing and

planned production areas is summarised in the table below.

Table B-1 Summary of relevant tenure areas and production areas in the Surat CMA

Authorised

tenure holder

Relevant tenure

area (km2)

CSG production area

(percentage of relevant tenure) Production wells

Total Existing Planned Existing Planned

Arrow 4,287 61% 5% 56% 404 3,204

Origin 7,825 57% 23% 34% 2,137 4,221

QGC 4,717 67% 47% 20% 3,103 1,629

Santos 8,930 39% 12% 27% 1,111 4,433

Senex 744 99% 5% 94% 58 683

Total 26,503 54% 20% 34% 6,813 14,170



This page is intentionally blank.



Appendix C : Geology



C.1 Stratigraphy of the Surat CMA

Figure C-1 Stratigraphic column of the Surat CMA (after Jell 2013)



Figure C-2 Stratigraphic subdivision of the Walloon Coal Measures (after Scott et al. 2004;

Ryan et al. 2012)



Appendix D : Water use



D.1 Groundwater extraction

Table D1 provides a further breakdown of bore numbers and estimated water use for various purposes.

Table D-1 Details of water bores and estimated groundwater use

Formation

Number of bores Estimated groundwater extraction (ML/year)

Non-

S&D S&D Total

Stock-

intensive

Town

water Agriculture Industrial Irrigation

Non-

associated S&D Total

Condamine Alluvium

1,366 3,278 4,644 6,060 2,078 1,305 54 57,826 - 2,436 69,760

Other Alluvium and Basalts

1,524 7,451 8,975 8,129 3,933 909 701 28,945 - 7,253 49,870

Upper Cretaceous

9 123 132 133 - - - 392 - 414 940

Non-GAB upper subtotal 2,899 10,852 13,751 14,322 6,012 2,214 755 87,163 - 10,103 120,570

Wallumbilla Formation

2 122 124 3 - - - 14 - 339 357

Bungil Formation

1 235 236 2 1 - - - - 634 638

Mooga Sandstone

13 625 638 130 120 7 1 - - 1,713 1,971

Orallo Formation 33 736 769 980 425 61 203 - - 1,861 3,530

Gubberamunda Sandstone

78 685 763 2,022 1,672 62 288 21 240 1,858 6,162

Westbourne Formation

2 59 61 546 1 - - - - 122 669

Springbok Sandstone

13 194 207 58 3 - 1 59 30 364 515

Walloon Coal Measures

124 1,008 1,132 1,534 314 66 63 1,421 - 1,215 4,614



Formation

Number of bores Estimated groundwater extraction (ML/year)

Non-

S&D S&D Total

Stock-

intensive

Town

water Agriculture Industrial Irrigation

Non-

associated S&D Total

Durabilla Formation

10 101 111 115 - 4 5 58 - 162 345

Hutton Sandstone

348 2,697 3,045 5,169 907 540 895 2,635 13 3,596 13,755

Boxvale Formation

44 44 - - - - - - 143 143

Evergreen Formation

21 443 464 140 14 83 314 83 12 802 1,448

Precipice Sandstone

45 289 334 2,112 2,397 65 441 355 207 547 6,125

Moolayember Formation

2 156 158 - 17 - - 42 1 450 510

GAB subtotal 692 7,394 8,086 12,811 5,871 888 2,212 4,687 503 13,808 40,781

Clematis Sandstone

6 126 132 - 232 - - - - 319 551

Rewan Group 3 60 63 - - - 19 - 1 111 131

Bandanna Formation

4 62 66 18 3 - - 148 - 112 280

Bowen Basin Sediments

27 336 363 37 99 - - 858 - 447 1,440

Cattle Creek Formation

- 10 10 - - - - - - 10 10

Non-GAB lower subtotal 40 594 634 55 334 - 19 1,006 1 999 2,413

TOTAL 3,631 18,840 22,471 27,188 12,216 3,103 2,986 92,857 505 24,910 163,764



D.2 Groundwater chemistry

The section provides a statistical summary of groundwater chemistry in various formations as derived from monitoring data.

Table D-2 Water chemistry summary for the major formations in the Surat CMA

Formation Ca Mg Na K Alkalinity Cl SO4 F TDS pH SAR

25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th

Alluvium 30.0 46.0 76.8 22.0 40.0 80.0 100.0 205.0 500.0 0.05 1.00 3.00 308.0 403.0 511.7 84.0 250.0 780.0 5.0 15.0 70.0 0.10 0.20 0.30 649.0 1064.0 2016.0 7.6 7.9 8.2 2.9 5.4 11.9 Basalt 22.0 46.0 80.0 15.0 52.0 98.0 75.0 106.0 155.0 0.05 1.00 3.00 244.0 393.0 537.0 86.4 170.0 310.0 3.2 9.4 19.0 0.10 0.20 0.30 536.7 825.9 1179.0 7.7 7.9 8.2 1.6 2.7 5.8 Upper Cretaceous Formations

43.4 305.0 819.1 29.0 215.0 620.9 771.5 2260.0 4556.0 2.00 10.00 42.50 143.5 200.0 431.5 861.2 4150.0 9105.5 45.5 470.8 1225.0 0.12 0.20 0.33 2366.4 7915.4 17205.9 7.2 7.4 8.0 19.9 25.6 29.9

Cenozoic 15.4 44.0 107.0 16.4 54.0 175.8 397.5 563.0 1503.5 0.05 4.00 9.50 275.5 470.0 640.5 370.0 630.0 2320.0 9.4 38.0 135.0 0.04 0.20 0.40 1405.9 1901.9 5018.3 7.6 8.0 8.2 9.1 16.9 27.8 Wallumbilla Formation

2.8 11.0 502.8 1.0 6.0 363.9 435.0 500.0 3451.5 0.05 2.00 15.50 229.0 486.0 855.0 160.0 376.0 6735.9 1.0 26.0 613.4 0.20 0.80 1.40 1447.0 1664.5 12408.3 7.2 8.0 8.5 23.2 32.5 68.6

Bungil Formation

2.0 4.0 27.8 0.3 1.9 6.8 440.0 526.5 805.0 0.05 2.00 3.00 348.0 715.0 929.5 140.8 302.5 1046.5 0.1 2.0 11.5 0.30 0.98 1.84 1468.1 1757.0 2328.4 8.1 8.2 8.5 42.9 57.6 72.4

Mooga Sandstone

2.0 3.0 8.0 0.2 1.0 3.0 396.0 462.0 567.0 0.05 1.00 2.00 460.0 700.0 888.0 140.0 210.0 457.0 0.1 2.0 48.0 0.30 0.90 2.03 1272.8 1558.3 1857.6 8.1 8.4 8.6 41.0 57.8 73.7

Orallo Formation

2.0 3.0 12.3 0.1 1.0 4.0 320.0 435.0 534.5 0.05 1.00 2.00 338.5 598.0 884.5 110.0 164.0 422.5 1.0 6.0 51.2 0.10 0.50 2.18 1080.4 1388.4 1792.2 8.1 8.4 8.5 31.0 48.9 66.9


1.9 2.6 8.2 1.0 1.0 3.0 274.0 350.0 424.0 1.00 1.00 3.00 350.0 527.0 664.0 104.0 150.0 257.0 1.0 3.0 22.0 0.20 0.30 0.50 894.9 1126.4 1320.6 7.9 8.4 8.7 26.1 46.3 56.7


3.3 11.5 320.3 1.0 7.8 256.3 201.3 646.5 4405.0 1.00 3.00 24.50 238.0 417.0 448.8 69.5 686.5 7350.0 3.8 21.8 190.8 0.10 0.28 1.23 706.6 1756.4 13062.1 7.4 8.2 8.6 31.7 42.4 56.8

Springbok Sandstone

2.9 11.5 43.8 1.0 1.2 17.9 470.8 653.5 1207.5 1.63 3.00 6.00 240.0 364.5 620.0 364.8 844.5 1780.0 1.0 1.3 18.5 0.20 0.70 2.00 1442.2 1970.1 3408.7 7.8 8.3 8.8 24.2 64.1 88.3

Walloon Coal Measures-Non-CSG

11.6 34.2 80.0 4.0 19.0 63.9 250.0 550.0 1350.0 0.05 2.00 5.00 282.0 427.0 644.8 245.0 597.5 1988.5 1.0 10.0 40.0 0.20 0.37 0.80 1052.0 1877.4 4101.1 7.7 8.0 8.3 8.6 18.6 54.4

Walloon Coal Measures-CSG

4.0 6.0 11.0 0.7 1.2 3.5 912.0 1160.0 1770.0 4.00 6.70 13.00 880.8 1230.0 1561.6 503.5 930.5 1932.5 0.1 0.1 2.0 1.50 2.40 3.60 2817.9 3466.4 5054.6 8.2 8.3 8.4 97.3 112.1 130.3

Durabilla Formation

3.1 11.0 68.5 1.0 3.9 42.0 244.8 425.0 778.0 0.05 1.00 2.00 254.8 316.0 491.3 252.5 477.7 1117.5 0.1 3.9 23.5 0.20 0.35 0.78 906.4 1437.3 2601.2 7.7 8.1 8.4 13.4 34.5 55.5

Hutton Sandstone

4.0 29.0 72.0 1.0 10.0 59.4 196.0 321.0 623.0 0.05 2.00 5.00 244.0 399.0 604.0 152.0 310.0 790.0 2.0 13.0 37.0 0.13 0.30 0.70 775.7 1297.7 2252.7 7.7 8.0 8.3 5.9 12.8 38.1

Evergreen Formation

5.0 20.0 52.0 1.0 8.7 22.0 33.0 87.0 356.0 0.05 2.00 5.00 122.0 195.0 478.0 25.0 54.0 310.0 0.1 8.1 24.5 0.10 0.20 0.42 223.1 411.1 1458.1 7.2 7.6 8.2 1.7 6.4 12.5

Precipice Sandstone

1.1 2.7 7.0 0.3 1.0 1.7 31.0 45.0 75.3 2.00 2.00 3.00 73.8 112.0 172.0 10.0 16.0 44.4 0.1 1.0 2.0 0.10 0.20 0.50 128.4 184.1 302.9 7.0 7.3 8.0 3.0 7.8 10.7

Moolayember Formation

13.5 27.0 89.3 4.9 21.5 81.3 118.8 384.0 1123.8 0.05 1.03 5.75 150.0 282.0 460.8 98.5 444.5 1654.8 0.1 4.9 24.0 0.10 0.30 0.59 537.5 1401.5 3657.1 7.5 7.9 8.2 5.0 13.2 26.1

Clematis Sandstone

9.4 23.5 39.0 5.3 14.0 39.0 31.5 76.0 120.0 8.00 12.00 16.00 120.0 322.5 465.0 34.3 50.0 68.5 2.0 5.5 16.8 0.10 0.17 0.23 227.1 522.4 745.4 7.1 7.8 8.0 1.7 2.3 3.9

Rewan Group 27.4 80.6 281.0 51.3 71.8 200.9 252.0 706.0 2326.3 0.05 1.00 8.25 143.3 342.0 381.8 272.5 1141.0 4215.0 1.0 25.9 164.9 0.16 0.30 0.45 1138.7 2648.0 7009.0 7.4 7.4 7.6 5.8 17.0 28.5 Bandanna Formation

2.1 5.5 31.7 1.0 1.0 36.2 271.5 498.0 934.9 0.05 1.00 2.00 549.3 675.5 993.0 51.3 177.0 865.7 1.0 1.0 11.5 0.33 1.45 2.30 946.3 1576.8 2768.1 7.8 8.1 8.2 14.5 44.5 96.9

Bandanna Formation-CSG

7.0 11.0 13.0 5.0 6.0 8.5 1210.0 1470.0 1715.0 23.00 39.00 61.50 967.0 1150.0 1520.0 1230.0 1420.0 1975.0 0.1 0.1 4.0 0.25 0.40 0.50 3538.8 4437.3 5025.5 8.0 8.2 8.4 70.9 85.5 102.1

Undivided lower Bowen Basin

28.3 38.3 58.1 33.5 49.0 76.0 79.5 163.5 1096.8 1.25 4.00 8.00 316.5 533.5 742.5 57.5 164.0 1609.8 14.3 25.3 84.3 0.20 0.30 0.50 731.3 991.9 3762.2 7.9 8.1 8.3 2.4 8.1 19.7

Undivided Permian Upper

31.5 61.8 84.3 36.3 52.2 85.1 143.3 372.0 628.0 1.25 2.50 5.50 474.3 722.0 890.8 137.3 342.5 595.3 0.1 16.0 85.0 0.22 0.35 0.62 1244.2 1770.1 2342.4 7.9 8.0 8.1 3.4 7.9 14.9

Metamorphic/ igneous/old basement rocks

42.4 115.1 159.5 35.0 51.4 166.8 260.5 512.0 806.0 2.00 3.00 13.75 200.3 261.0 382.3 420.0 1054.5 1665.0 11.8 74.0 154.5 0.22 0.37 0.60 1138.5 2338.6 3491.7 7.3 7.9 8.1 4.6 8.1 17.1



Figure D-1 Summary of groundwater chemistry characteristics for formations



Appendix E : Groundwater trends



Figure E-1 Interpreted groundwater flow directions – Gubberamunda Sandstone and

Springbok Sandstone



Figure E-2 Interpreted groundwater flow directions – Upper Juandah Coal Measures and

Taroom Coal Measures



Figure E-3 Interpreted groundwater flow directions – Hutton Sandstone and Precipice

Sandstone



Figure E-4 Spatial distribution of selected hydrographs in the Hutton Sandstone



Figure E-5 Spatial distribution of selected hydrographs in the Springbok Sandstone



Figure E-6 Spatial distribution of selected hydrographs in the Condamine Alluvium

footprint



Appendix F : Modelling of impacts



Figure F-1 Numerical permeameter workflow



Appendix G : Predictions of impacts



G.1 Details of IAA bores

Table G-1 lists 100 water supply bores that have been identified as IAA bores for the first time (refer

to section 7.2.2 of the main report).

Table G-1 Newly identified IAA bores in this UWIR

RN Latitude Longitude Formation Purpose Current RTH Authorised

9579 -26.85452 150.93411 WCM S&D Arrow yes

10598 -26.90114 150.88069 WCM S&D Arrow yes

10790 -26.90889 150.65757 WCM S&D Arrow yes

10898* -26.83318 150.64452 WCM S&D Arrow yes

10939 -26.94909 150.91423 WCM S&D Arrow yes

11637 -26.87702 150.90272 WCM S&D Arrow yes

12360** -26.95549 151.17056 WCM S&D Arrow yes

12437 -26.97368 151.12728 WCM S&D Arrow yes

13316* -26.12974 149.36314 WCM S&D Origin yes

13600 -26.83283 150.61866 WCM S&D Arrow yes

14361 -25.93106 149.47058 WCM S&D QGC yes

14365 -25.84893 149.45369 WCM S&D QGC yes

14421 -25.79343 149.70103 WCM S&D QGC yes

14649 -26.00417 149.47380 WCM S&D QGC yes

14743 -26.11409 149.59313 SSt S&D QGC yes

14891 -25.90898 149.75416 WCM S&D QGC yes

15711 -25.97652 149.84148 WCM S&D QGC yes

15789 -25.79757 149.67087 WCM S&D QGC yes

15802 -26.04458 149.93062 WCM S&D Origin yes

15836 -25.98703 149.86750 WCM S&D QGC yes

15838 -25.99399 149.72095 WCM S&D QGC yes

15848 -25.81954 149.68640 WCM S&D QGC yes

15868 -26.91414 150.67406 WCM S&D Arrow yes

16211 -26.20278 148.90861 WCM S&D Senex yes

16400 -26.62759 150.44832 WCM S&D QGC yes

17301** -26.92550 150.67836 WCM S&D Arrow yes

17683 -26.96143 151.17867 WCM S&D Arrow yes

17753 -25.98703 149.69528 WCM S&D QGC yes

17799 -26.00762 149.85519 WCM S&D QGC yes

17800 -25.99537 149.85389 WCM S&D QGC yes Formation: SSt = Springbok Sandstone. WCM = Walloon Coal Measures. Purpose: A = agriculture. In. = industrial. S&D = stock and domestic. TWS = town water supply. * = Proactive make good agreement completed by tenure holder. ** = Recent unverified baseline assessment from tenure holder reports these bores as abandoned or destroyed.




21013 -26.76859 150.84953 WCM S&D Arrow yes

21061 -26.90820 150.88498 WCM S&D Arrow yes

21791 -26.89322 150.93662 WCM S&D Arrow yes

21795 -26.88395 150.96889 WCM S&D Arrow yes

21799 -26.91265 150.98089 WCM S&D Arrow yes

21809** -26.89250 150.91711 WCM S&D Arrow yes

21825 -26.85003 150.93474 WCM S&D Arrow yes

21828 -26.91144 150.92632 WCM S&D Arrow yes

22031 -26.89009 150.70110 WCM S&D Arrow yes

23053 -26.96622 150.37784 WCM S&D QGC yes

23150 -27.39314 150.73194 WCM S&D QGC yes

24466 -26.93487 150.64154 WCM S&D Arrow yes

24472* -26.86660 150.56700 SSt S&D Origin yes

24486 -26.77136 150.68525 WCM S&D Arrow yes

24504 -26.87614 150.64245 WCM S&D Arrow yes

24910 -26.66917 150.66226 WCM S&D Arrow yes

30783 -26.08672 149.18353 WCM S&D Origin yes

30997 -27.20696 151.02446 SSt S&D Arrow yes

31331 -26.11509 149.84416 SSt S&D Origin yes

32314 -26.89048 150.92963 WCM S&D Arrow yes

35405 -27.02865 150.96704 WCM S&D Arrow yes

35623 -27.19886 151.06940 WCM S&D Arrow yes

37177 -27.01284 150.83504 WCM S&D Arrow yes

37838 -26.95728 151.18496 WCM S&D Arrow yes

48523 -26.65542 150.67094 WCM S&D Arrow yes

48803* -26.06549 149.36530 WCM S&D Origin yes

48824* -26.08565 149.34639 WCM S&D Origin yes

48841 -25.96475 149.88680 WCM S&D QGC yes

48887 -25.96842 149.37889 WCM S&D QGC yes

48951 -26.17333 148.97583 WCM S&D Senex yes

48955 -26.27555 149.04479 WCM S&D Senex yes

48956 -26.24760 149.05460 WCM S&D Senex yes

48966 -25.82586 149.43822 WCM S&D QGC yes

56714 -26.78969 150.71900 WCM S&D Arrow yes

58084 -26.07174 149.25821 WCM S&D Origin yes

Formation: SSt = Springbok Sandstone. WCM = Walloon Coal Measures. Purpose: A = agriculture. In. = industrial. S&D = stock and domestic. TWS = town water supply. * = Proactive make good agreement completed by tenure holder. ** = Recent unverified baseline assessment from tenure holder reports these bores as abandoned or destroyed.




58101 -25.90824 149.49994 WCM S&D QGC yes

58103 -26.18704 148.89334 WCM S&D Senex yes

58129 -26.10627 149.83677 WCM S&D Origin yes

58302 -25.95814 149.68222 WCM S&D QGC yes

58371* -26.14965 149.30746 WCM S&D Origin yes

58533 -26.16430 148.93350 WCM S&D Senex yes

58910 -26.17960 149.86700 WCM S&D Origin yes

66146 -26.99489 150.85759 WCM S&D Arrow yes

66152 -26.92630 150.68839 WCM S&D Arrow yes

87320 -26.97681 150.88237 WCM S&D Arrow yes

87505 -26.97700 150.66990 SSt S&D Arrow yes

87718 -26.82496 150.62434 WCM S&D Arrow yes

87777 -26.99715 150.94954 WCM S&D Arrow yes

87897 -26.94898 150.61582 SSt A Arrow yes

87912 -26.72314 150.71776 WCM S&D Arrow yes

94039 -26.99641 150.84874 WCM A Arrow yes

94143 -26.93248 150.91549 WCM TWS Arrow yes

94586 -27.00807 150.97624 WCM S&D Arrow yes

94587 -27.01383 150.98151 WCM A Arrow yes

94678 -27.00772 150.97617 WCM S&D Arrow yes

94831 -27.19548 151.05524 WCM S&D Arrow yes

107085 -27.01514 150.98448 WCM S&D Arrow yes

107784 -26.73148 150.54221 WCM S&D Origin yes

107873 -27.00446 150.95914 WCM A Arrow yes

119076 -26.95010 150.85960 WCM S&D Arrow yes

123454 -26.21447 149.75083 SSt S&D QGC yes

147001* -26.86218 150.66355 WCM A Arrow yes

147412 -27.01555 150.97584 WCM A Arrow yes

147599 -26.98083 150.90361 WCM S&D Arrow yes

147607* -26.93346 150.65568 WCM S&D Arrow yes

147653 -27.00763 150.62665 SSt S&D QGC yes

147703 -27.00639 150.66290 SSt I QGC yes

172028 -27.30118 151.14248 WCM S&D Arrow yes

172144 -26.95917 151.17889 WCM S&D Arrow yes

172525 -26.96917 150.90861 WCM S&D Arrow yes

Formation: SSt = Springbok Sandstone. WCM = Walloon Coal Measures. Purpose: A = agriculture. In. = industrial. S&D = stock and domestic. TWS = town water supply. * = Proactive make good agreement completed by tenure holder. ** = Recent unverified baseline assessment from tenure holder reports these bores as abandoned or destroyed.



Table G-2 lists the current status of water supply bores that were identified as IAA bores in previous UWIRs (refer to section 7.2.2 of the main report).

Table G-2 Details of IAA bores from previous UWIRs

RN Latitude Longitude

Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First

identified Current status

226 -26.46850 148.88490 WCM NA S&D Santos NA 2012 Decommissioned

5390 -26.82110 150.53545 WCM NA S&D Origin NA 2012 Decommissioned

6505 -27.08420 151.01110 WCM WCM S&D Arrow Arrow 2016 Recently determined as authorised*


8665 -26.83625 150.50279 WCM NA S&D Origin NA post 2012 Decommissioned

9135 -26.74362 150.41723 WCM NA S&D Arrow NA 2012 Decommissioned

10459 -26.14914 149.81061 WCM NA S&D QGC NA 2012 Decommissioned



11590 -26.07648 149.53167 WCM WCM S&D QGC QGC 2016 Decommissioned



12340 -26.73870 150.36719 WCM WCM S&D QGC QGC 2012 Finalised MGA


12646 -27.06513 150.85612 WCM WCM S&D Arrow Arrow 2012 MGA negotiations ongoing

13117 -26.18614 149.29478 WCM WCM S&D Origin Origin 2012 Finalised MGA

13322 -26.19426 149.49972 SSt SSt S&D Origin Origin 2016 No longer IAA, not a water bore


Formation: GS = Gubberamunda Sandstone. HS = Hutton Sandstone. OF = Orallo Formation. SSt = Springbok Sandstone. UCF = Upper Cretaceous formations. WCM = Walloon Coal Measures. WF = Westbourne Formation. Purpose: P&G Ex. = P&G exploration. TWS = town water supply. S&D = stock and domestic. A = agriculture. I = industrial. Status: MGA = Make good agreement. * = Previously listed as not authorised in Table E-2 of the UWIR 2016.




Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First








14632 -26.05307 149.61462 WCM WCM S&D QGC QGC 2016 Finalised MGA, awaiting execution

14648 -25.99390 149.50270 WCM WCM S&D QGC QGC 2016 Uncertain authorisation status*


14888 -25.87953 149.74636 WCM HS S&D QGC NA 2016 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted















Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First






16552 -27.10440 151.01725 WCM WCM S&D Arrow Arrow 2016 Recently determined as authorised*

16855 -27.14400 151.01978 WCM WCM S&D Arrow Arrow 2016 Finalised MGA






16943 -26.17252 149.46405 WCM NA S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, not a water bore




17631 -27.32296 151.14667 WCM SSt S&D Arrow NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

18197 -25.93401 149.79165 WCM WCM S&D QGC QGC 2016 MGA negotiations ongoing



22123 -27.08625 150.80754 WCM NA S&D QGC NA 2012 No longer IAA, not a water bore





Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First



23060 -27.02537 150.36138 WCM WCM S&D QGC QGC 2016 Recently determined as authorised*


23424 -26.95528 150.39767 WCM WCM S&D QGC QGC 2016 Recently determined as authorised*

23460 -26.87040 150.41270 WCM NA P&G Ex. QGC NA 2012 No longer IAA, not a water bore

23469 -27.00814 150.34555 WCM WCM S&D QGC Origin 2016 Uncertain authorisation status*

23560 -27.29222 150.68611 WCM SSt S&D QGC NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

24278 -27.33829 151.15059 WCM SSt S&D Arrow Arrow 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

24280 -27.46639 151.17992 WCM WCM S&D Arrow Arrow 2012 DES advised on hold

24288 -27.42897 151.18773 WCM WCM S&D Arrow Arrow 2012 DES advised on hold

24465 -26.86760 150.54993 WCM WCM S&D Origin Origin post 2012 Finalised MGA



26063 -26.84600 150.50173 WCM SSt S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted




30997 -27.20696 151.02446 WCM SSt S&D Arrow Arrow 2012 Removed from IAA post 2012,

aquifer not impacted; aquifer now impacted






Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First





33435 -26.14528 149.61222 WCM NA S&D QGC NA post 2012 Decommissioned










35966 -26.28561 149.82514 WCM GS A QGC NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted











Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First


























Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First


58307 -26.35676 149.82389 WCM GS S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

58402 -26.27111 149.23194 WCM WF S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

58435 -26.17953 149.21786 WCM WCM S&D Origin Origin post 2012 Finalised MGA

58499 -27.26709 149.18333 WCM UCF S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted










83510 -27.07893 150.53286 WCM OF S&D QGC NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

83627 -26.84642 150.52155 WCM NA A Origin NA 2012 Decommissioned

87471 -27.15807 151.00961 WCM WCM A Arrow Arrow 2012 Finalised MGA


94052 -27.19611 151.00917 WCM SSt A Arrow NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

94135 -27.04028 150.96778 WCM WCM I Arrow Arrow 2016 Finalised MGA






Original

formation

Current

formation Purpose

Original

RTH

Current

RTH

First


107910 -27.08972 150.92139 WCM WCM S&D Arrow Arrow post 2012 Finalised MGA


119267 -27.10942 150.91119 WCM NA I QGC NA 2012 Decommissioned



123291 -26.55781 148.61902 WCM OF S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted

123292 -26.51809 148.81732 WCM OF S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted


137175 -27.12317 150.81889 WCM NA A QGC NA 2012 Decommissioned

137552 -27.11743 150.89550 WCM HS TWS QGC NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted


147156 -27.00194 150.67000 WCM HS S&D Origin NA 2012 No longer IAA, aquifer not impacted








Table G-3 lists bores that, as a result of UWIR 2019, are predicted to experience an impact of more

than the trigger threshold of five metres within three years, but where either there is insufficient data to

reliably assess whether or not the bores tap the impacted aquifers; or there is an inconsistency

between the aquifer authorised under the Water Act 2000 (Water Act) and the impacted aquifer (refer

to section 7.2.2 of the main report).

Table G-3 Potential IAA bores with uncertain status or bore information


Impacted

aquifer

Authorised

aquifer Purpose Category

6778 -26.903534 150.857230 WCM S&D LCOA

7724 -26.889150 150.908353 WCM S&D LCOA

14062 -26.223426 149.404726 SSt BF S&D AAI

14255 -25.953980 149.344170 HS BF S&D AAI

14369 -25.785921 149.640554 WCM NS S&D LCOA

14423 -25.932324 149.406574 HS ICG S&D AAI

15079 -26.771929 150.666901 WCM S&D LCOA

17005 -26.033082 149.444343 HS ICG S&D AAI

17542 -26.701253 150.657137 WCM KB S&D AANI

17640 -26.036417 149.288250 HS ICG S&D AAI

19964 -26.733586 150.721582 WCM S&D LCOA

21786 -26.976197 150.946650 WCM S&D LCOA

21787 -26.921622 150.913556 WCM S&D LCOA

21796 -26.966076 150.959429 WCM S&D LCOA

21797 -26.915607 150.904662 WCM S&D LCOA

21805 -26.945120 150.904270 WCM S&D LCOA

21806 -26.955967 150.901883 WCM S&D LCOA

21817 -26.977120 150.968870 WCM S&D LCOA

21820 -26.953899 150.947683 WCM NS S&D LCOA

21832 -26.969300 150.908690 WCM S&D LCOA

24487 -26.760219 150.688618 WCM S&D LCOA

24497 -26.666369 150.632169 WCM HS S&D AANI

26466 -26.797704 150.856357 WCM S&D LCOA

30035 -27.186000 151.032350 SSt CRA S&D AANI

30165 -26.038703 149.328893 HS ICG S&D AAI

30259 -25.948980 149.351392 HS BF S&D AAI

30553 -26.241520 149.657610 WF WCM S&D AAI

Aquifer: All. = Alluvium. BF = Birkhead Formation. CRA = Condamine River Alluvium. HS = Hutton Sandstone. ICG = Injune Creek Group. KB = Kumbarilla Beds. NS = not specified. OF = Orallo Formation. SSt = Springbok Sandstone. WCM = Walloon Coal Measures. WF = Westbourne Formation. Purpose: A = Agriculture. SI = Stock-intensive. S&D = Stock and domestic. Category: AAI = Authorised aquifer impacted. AANI = Authorised aquifer not impacted. LCOA = Lower confidence OGIA attribution. UA = Uncertain authorisation.




Impacted

aquifer

Authorised

aquifer Purpose Category

31408 -26.285030 149.371230 GS ICG S&D AAI

32507 -26.159220 149.160540 HS ICG S&D AAI

33286 -26.231570 149.679520 WF WCM S&D AAI

33553 -26.920875 150.639697 SSt WCM S&D AAI

37479 -26.184340 149.636060 SSt WCM S&D AAI

44555 -26.242596 149.103896 WCM NS S&D LCOA

48977 -25.924535 149.375559 HS ICG S&D AAI

48979 -25.942868 149.392781 HS ICG S&D AAI

52763 -27.287020 151.077390 SSt WCM S&D AAI

58111 -26.194125 149.049413 HS BF A AAI

58451 -26.122400 149.331670 HS ICG S&D AAI

58810 -26.324066 149.027826 OF ICG S&D AAI

61675 -26.752852 150.678209 WCM S&D LCOA

66553 -26.879716 150.754332 All. WCM S&D AAI

83486 -26.974436 150.473515 WF WCM S&D AAI

86622 -26.968181 150.856600 WCM NS S&D LCOA

107260 -26.632089 150.461619 WCM KB S&D AANI

123196 -26.496857 149.234154 OF ICG S&D AAI

123554 -26.241389 149.657501 GS ICG S&D AAI

147717 -27.074880 150.854020 SSt WCM S&D AAI

Unregistered -26.983 150.8958 WCM

S&D UA/LCOA

Aquifer: All. = Alluvium. BF = Birkhead Formation. CRA = Condamine River Alluvium. HS = Hutton Sandstone. ICG = Injune Creek Group. KB = Kumbarilla Beds. NS = not specified. OF = Orallo Formation. SSt = Springbok Sandstone. WCM = Walloon Coal Measures. WF = Westbourne Formation. Purpose: A = Agriculture. SI = Stock-intensive. S&D = Stock and domestic. Category: AAI = Authorised aquifer impacted. AANI = Authorised aquifer not impacted. LCOA = Lower confidence OGIA attribution. UA = Uncertain authorisation.



G.2 Drawdown pattern for long-term impacts in key formations

A series of maps showing the distribution of long-term impacts in key formations is presented in

following figures (refer to section 7.3 of the main report). These maps also show the upper (95th

percentile) and lower bounds (5th percentile) of predicted impacts based on the predictive uncertainty

analysis. The predictions based on the fully calibrated model sit close to the 50th percentile.



Figure G-1 Distribution of long-term impacts – Springbok Sandstone



Figure G-2 Distribution of long-term impacts – Walloon Coal Measures



Figure G-3 Distribution of long-term impacts – Hutton Sandstone



Figure G-4 Distribution of long-term impacts – Precipice Sandstone



Figure G-5 Distribution of long-term impacts – Condamine Alluvium



Figure G-6 Distribution of long-term impacts – Gubberamunda Sandstone



Figure G-7 Distribution of long-term impacts – Clematis Sandstone



Figure G-8 Distribution of long-term impacts – Bandanna Formation



Figure G-9 Distribution of long-term impacts – Cattle Creek Formation



G.3 Time series of predicted impacts

Figure G-10 Predicted drawdown time series, Bandanna Formation and Precipice Sandstone contact zones



Figure G-11 Predicted drawdown time series, CSG development area west of Wandoan



Figure G-12 Predicted drawdown time series, CSG development area north-east of Roma



Figure G-13 Predicted drawdown time series, CSG development area south-west of Chinchilla



Figure G-14 Predicted drawdown time series, CSG development area south-west of Dalby



Appendix H : Water Monitoring Strategy



H.1 Water Monitoring Strategy monitoring points

The tables below summarise the status of existing and proposed monitoring points that are part of the

WMS. More details for each of the monitoring points are available on OGIA’s website.

Table H-1 Summary of WMS pressure monitoring points

Formation by

tenure holder

Status

Total Maintain Repair Replace Remove Integrate Proposed

Arrow

Alluvium - - - - - 1 1

Condamine Alluvium

23 - - 2 3 1 29

Main Range Volcanics

2 - - 2 - - 4


1 - - - 1 - 2

Springbok Sandstone

4 - - 2 5 1 12


55 6 1 4 12 5 83

Durabilla Formation

3 - - - - - 3

Hutton Sandstone

6 - 1 2 3 7 19

Evergreen Formation

1 1 - - - - 2

Precipice Sandstone

2 1 - - 2 - 5

Bandanna Formation

- - - 1 - - 1

Arrow subtotal 97 8 2 13 26 15 161

Bridgeport

Hutton Sandstone

- - - - - 1 1

Precipice Sandstone

- 1 - - - - 1

Bridgeport subtotal - 1 - - - 1 2

Origin

Alluvium - - - - - 2 2

Mooga Sandstone

2 - - - - - 2


14 - - - - - 14



Formation by

tenure holder

Status



2 - - - - - 2

Springbok Sandstone

25 - - - 3 2 30


55 12 - 4 6 3 80

Hutton Sandstone

21 - 2 1 3 4 31

Boxvale Sandstone Member

1 - - - - 1 2

Precipice Sandstone

13 1 - - 7 3 24

Clematis Sandstone

- - - 1 - - 1

Bandanna Formation

3 2 - 1 - 3 9

Origin subtotal 136 15 2 7 19 18 197

QGC

Alluvium - - - - - 3 3

Condamine Alluvium

1 - - - - 2 3


9 - - - - - 9


3 1 - - - - 4

Springbok Sandstone

15 2 1 1 3 6 28


45 9 6 4 2 3 69

Durabilla Formation

1 - - - - - 1

Hutton Sandstone

14 1 - - 2 3 20

Precipice Sandstone

6 - - 1 1 - 8

QGC subtotal 94 13 7 6 8 17 145

Santos

Mooga Sandstone

- 1 - 5 - - 6

Orallo Formation

1 - - 1 - - 2



Formation by

tenure holder

Status



7 - 1 7 - 2 17


- - - 2 - - 2

Springbok Sandstone

7 1 1 3 - 2 14


19 - 11 17 - 5 52

Durabilla Formation

- - - 1 - - 1

Hutton Sandstone

8 - 1 1 1 4 15


- - - - - 1 1

Precipice Sandstone

13 - 2 1 2 6 24

Clematis Sandstone

6 - - - - - 6

Bandanna Formation

11 1 2 - - 3 17

Cattle Creek Formation

2 - - - - 1 3

Santos subtotal 74 3 18 38 3 24 160

Senex


2 - - - - - 2

Springbok Sandstone

2 - - - - 1 3


6 - - - - 6 12

Hutton Sandstone

3 - - - - 1 4

Senex subtotal 13 - - - - 8 21

Total 414 40 29 64 56 83 686



Table H-2 Water chemistry production wells

Status by formation

Tenure holder

Total Arrow Origin QGC Santos Senex


Integrate 15 24 48 21 3 111

Proposed 2 5 1 2 5 15

Walloon Coal Measures subtotal 17 29 49 23 8 126

Bandanna Formation

Integrate - 13 - 17 - 30

Proposed - - - 1 - 1

Bandanna Formation subtotal - 13 - 18 - 31

Total 17 42 49 41 8 157

Table H-3 Summary of WMS chemistry monitoring points

Tenure holder

and formation

Status

Maintain Repair Replace Remove Integrate Proposed Total

Arrow

Condamine Alluvium

5 - - - - - 5


- - - 1 - - 1

Springbok Sandstone

1 - - - 1 1 3


2 - - - - - 2

Hutton Sandstone

2 - 1 - 1 - 4

Precipice Sandstone

- - - 3 - - 3

Arrow subtotal 10 - 1 4 2 1 18

Origin

Mooga Sandstone

- - - 1 - - 1


- - - 8 - - 8

Springbok Sandstone

23 - - - 1 - 24


6 - - 1 - - 7

Hutton Sandstone

5 - 1 - 5 - 11



Tenure holder

and formation

Status

Maintain Repair Replace Remove Integrate Proposed Total

Precipice Sandstone

3 - - 1 1 5

Bandanna Formation

1 - - - - 3 4

Origin subtotal 38 - 1 10 7 4 60

QGC


1 - - - - - 1


2 - - 3 - - 5

Springbok Sandstone

8 - - - 2 1 11


- - - 2 - - 2

Hutton Sandstone

5 - - - 1 1 7

Precipice Sandstone

2 - - - - - 2

QGC subtotal 18 - - 5 3 2 28

Santos

Mooga Sandstone

- - - 3 - - 3

Orallo Formation

- - - 1 - - 1


- - - 4 - - 4

Springbok Sandstone

2 - - - - - 2

Hutton Sandstone

2 - - - - - 2

Precipice Sandstone

1 - - 2 2 3 8

Clematis Sandstone

- - - 2 - - 2

Bandanna Formation

4 - - - 1 1 6

Santos subtotal 9 - - 12 3 4 28

Total 75 - 2 31 15 11 134



Table H-4 Water chemistry suite

Suite Type

Parameters to be measured

as part of the suite

Frequency

UWIR MP CSG bore

Suite A

Field parameters

Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm @ 25°C), pH, Redox Potential (Eh), Temperature (°C), Free gas at wellhead (CH4)

Every 6 months until 5 samples obtained

Every 12 months

Laboratory analytes

Major cations and anions: Calcium (Ca2+), Magnesium (Mg2+), Potassium (K+), Sodium (Na+), Bicarbonate(HCO3

-), Carbonate (CO3

-), Chloride (Cl-), Sulphate (SO4

2-), Total Alkalinity

Metals (dissolved): Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba), Boron (B), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe), Lead (Pb), Manganese (Mn), Mercury (Hg), Nickel (Ni), Selenium (Se), Strontium (Sr2+), Zinc (Zn)

Fluoride (F-), Total Dissolved Solids

Gas (dissolved): Methane (CH4)

Suite B Laboratory analytes

Isotopes: Strontium (87Sr/86Sr) Once only in: SBK, HUT, PCP Metals (dissolved): Strontium (Sr2+)



H.2 Guidelines for the construction of new monitoring points

Three standards apply to the construction of monitoring bores in Queensland:

Minimum construction requirements for water bores in Australia (National Uniform Drillers

Licensing Committee 2012)

Minimum standards for the construction and reconditioning of water bores that intersect the

sediments of artesian basins in Queensland (Department of Natural Resources Mines and

Energy 2017)

Code of practice for the construction and abandonment of coal seam gas and petroleum

wells, and associated bores in Queensland (Department of Natural Resources Mines and

Energy 2018).

The following section provides additional guidance on matters such as borehole access, effective

monitoring intervals and instrumentation for new pressure and water quality monitoring points. All new

monitoring points required under the Water Monitoring Strategy (WMS) are to be constructed in a way

that is consistent with the above standards and the following guidelines.

Water pressure monitoring points

1. Borehole access

Access to down-hole equipment and instrumentation should be able to be undertaken by a small crew

and generally completed within a single day (including removal and replacement of well caps and

monitoring instrumentation) without the need for specialist equipment or a workover rig.

2. Isolation of the target horizon and the effective monitoring interval

Monitoring bore and screen design should effectively isolate a small number of permeable units which

are all considered to be part of the same target formation.

Where multiple permeable units are logged within the same formation, the screened section should

target the units in closest proximity to the targeted coal reservoirs, whilst maintaining at least five

metres separation from adjacent formations.

For pressure monitoring points in formations other than target coal reservoirs, the effective screened

interval should be within the range of six to 24 metres to minimise the potential for inadvertently

completing the bore within a low-permeability unit or extending the bore substantially into an adjacent

formation.

Screen designs should be finalised on site based on down-hole geophysics and geological logs.

3. Pressure monitoring instrument selection and accuracy

The type and make of instrumentation installed should achieve the following:

Be of proven reliability, easy to obtain, serviceable, long lasting and appropriate for the

conditions (including water quality, temperature, installation depth and expected water

pressures in the bore)

Can be calibrated, easily and reliably deployed (including cabling and connections) and is

replaceable.



4. Pressure data validation

The bore design should allow for the following:

data validation, either via regular manual check readings or through the use of temporarily or

permanently installed duplicate gauges

as a minimum, data validation readings should be undertaken every six months and/or at the

end of each download period (whichever period is shorter)

quality assurance of multi-level facilities should include regular comparison of data from

different monitoring levels to look for trends, data anomalies and identify any evidence of

cross-formational communication

where possible/applicable, validation readings should be used to correct for logger ‘drift’ and

other artefacts prior to the final data sets being provided to OGIA.

5. Data access

Where a logger is installed, pressure should be logged continuously at a frequency of one reading per

hour (i.e. 24 readings per day) to assist with identifying trends and possible reasons for variations.

6. Monitoring bore completion diagram

All pressure monitoring must have an associated monitoring bore completion diagram. These

diagrams must be provided to OGIA prior to the monitoring point being endorsed. As a minimum,

each completion diagram should include:

the location, type and dimensions of all seals installed to prevent water movement

the location, type and dimensions of all screens installed to allow water ingress into the bore

lithological, geophysical and interpreted stratigraphic logs of the bore

detail on the installed headworks sufficient to identify/confirm any access constraints

the location and type of all pressure and water quality monitoring instruments or other

equipment installed in the bore

observed post-completion standing water level and any available information on water strikes

identified during drilling

surveyed ground, datum levels and location information

date of drilling, installation and commissioning

confirmation of data logging frequencies, data download methods, purging and sampling

methods and whether/how data validation checks are undertaken.

Water chemistry monitoring points

In addition to the above, the following guidance on water quality monitoring points is provided:

7. Purging and sampling

Collection of the water sample should be able to be undertaken in less than one day.

Purging and monitoring of field water quality parameters (for stabilisation) is undertaken to ensure

representative groundwater samples from the targeted formation. Water quality sampling should not



have a significant effect on water pressure and 90 per cent recovery should occur within two weeks of

sampling.

Sampling equipment is dedicated within the bore, thereby limiting potential cross contamination.

Sampling techniques limit any contamination/interaction with groundwater that may alter chemical

and/or physical properties.

Sampling technique minimises volumes of purge water generated to reduce possible handling and

disposal requirements.

Sampling intake is at or near the centre of the screen to promote flow through the borehole screen

rather than sampling from the annulus.

Monitoring bore types

Consistent with the standards mentioned above, for relatively shallow bores where there is no gas

risk, an aquifer monitoring bore completion is preferred, while for monitoring points where there is a

potential gas risk, a coal seam gas type completion is preferred. Cemented-in vibrating wire

piezometers are unsuitable.

OGIA endorsement of new monitoring points

As detailed in section 8.2.6, for all new monitoring points, a summary of the planned construction

details must be provided to OGIA for endorsement prior to construction and installation. This should

include a description or schematic, which provides the following details:

the planned monitoring point construction type

the proposed screen and effective monitoring interval

the proposed monitoring equipment selection and accuracy.

OGIA will respond within 10 business days of receipt of the information.



H.3 Groundwater monitoring networks

Figure H-1 Mooga and Gubberamunda sandstones monitoring networks



Figure H-2 Clematis Sandstone and Bandanna Formation monitoring networks



Figure H-3 Alluvium and Main Range Volcanics monitoring networks



Appendix I : Spring Impact Management Strategy



I.1 Springs in the Surat CMA

The Water Act provides that a spring is a spring of interest if it overlies an aquifer where the long-

term predicted impact on water levels at the location of the spring resulting from the extraction of

water by petroleum tenure holders exceeds 0.2 metres. In most cases, the affected aquifer does not

feed the identified spring.

There are 212 spring vents and 119 watercourse springs identified as springs of interest. A summary

of the springs of interest are shown in Tables I.1 and I.2. A detailed list of each spring of interest is

available on OGIA’s website. The following definitions apply to the table columns:

Source aquifer: the aquifer providing the greatest contribution to groundwater discharge.

Type: the spring type using the spring typology (section 9.3.3 of the main report).

Table I-1 Summary of spring vents

Source aquifer

Spring wetland typology

Total Type 1a Type 1b Type 2 Type 3 Type 4a Type 4b

Alluvium 0 0 0 1 5 0 6

Volcanics 0 0 0 9 5 0 14


0 0 0 2 0 8 10

Hutton Sandstone 5 (5) 3 (3) 7 (4) 1 0 8 24 (12)


12 (12) 0 0 2 0 1 15 (12)

Precipice Sandstone 77 (77) 7 (7) 11 (11) 25 (4) 0 16 136 (99)

Clematis Sandstone 2 (2) 0 0 5 (1) 0 0 7 (3)

Total 96 (96) 10 (10) 18 (15) 45 (5) 10 33 212 (126)

Note: The number in brackets is the total number of EPBC spring vents.

Table I-2 Summary of watercourse springs

Dominant aquifer Number of watercourses

Alluvium 24

Alluvium and/or other formation 10

Main Range Volcanics 5

Mooga Sandstone and/or Orallo Formation 9

Gubberamunda Sandstone 3

Springbok Sandstone 3

Walloon Coal Measures 3

Hutton Sandstone 26

Clematis Group 4

Boxvale Sandstone 10

Precipice Sandstone 22

Total 119



I.2 Spring risk assessment Consistent with the risk assessment for the UWIR 2016, a similar assessment has completed to guide the identification of sites for monitoring and mitigation plans in the UWIR 2019. Details of the assessment have been reported previously (OGIA 2016a, 2016b), with a summary provided below.

For each spring, a risk level between 1 (low) and 5 (very high) was assigned on the basis of the

likelihood of there being reductions in the flow of water to the spring and the consequences on

known spring values if a reduction in flow was to occur.

The likelihood of a reduction in the flow of water to a spring was based on the predicted impact in the

spring’s source aquifer using the regional groundwater flow model. The model outputs provide details

of the magnitude and timing of the predicted impact. Two likelihood factors are considered.

L1: Magnitude of long-term predicted impacts in the spring’s source aquifer

Description Score (L1)

> 1 metre predicted drawdown 5

0.5–1 metres predicted drawdown 4

0.2–0.5 metres predicted drawdown 3

0–0.2 metres predicted drawdown 2

‘Spring of interest’ with nil predicted impacts 1

Not identified as a ‘spring of interest’ 0

L2: Timing of the predicted 0.2-metre impact in the spring’s source aquifer

Description Score (L2)

Within 10 years 5

Between 10 and 20 years 4



Beyond 50 years 1

0.2-metre impact not predicted to occur 0

The consequence assessment relates to a measure of impact on the ecological functioning of the

spring that may result if the predicted decrease in pressure was to occur. This provides a measure of

the sensitivity of the spring to a changed groundwater regime.

Springs are subject to a range of groundwater and non-groundwater related influences that may affect

their condition and ecological function. Within the context of the UWIR 2019, only consequences

resulting from changes in the groundwater flow regime are assessed.

The overarching principle is that changes in groundwater pressure will affect groundwater flow to

springs, which is necessary to maintain the integrity of the associated ecosystem. Three equally

weighted criteria have been applied to assess the consequence of a reduction in pressure in a

spring’s source aquifer. Details are provided in (OGIA 2016a, 2016b) with a summary as follows:



C1: Change in available pressure above ground

Description Score (C1)

>80% change 5

50–80% change 4

20–50% change 3

>0–20% change 2

No change 1

C2: Spring typology


Type 1a, Type 1b and Type 2 – regional flow system 5

Type 1a, Type 1b and Type 2 – regional and local flow system 4

Type 3 3

Type 2 and 3 – groundwater and surface water system 2

Type 4 – local flow system 1

C3: Conservation ranking


Category 1a, Category 1b and unsurveyed springs 5

Category 2 4

Category 3 and watercourse springs 3

Category 4a 2

Category 4b 1

Category 5 (inactive) 0

Total scores for likelihood and consequence of impact were then calculated as follows:

Likelihood of impact (max 10) = L1 + L2

Consequence of impact (max 15) = C1 + C2 + C3

A matrix was applied to assign overall risk.

Consequence

0 - 3 4 - 7 8 - 9 10 - 12 13 - 15

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

Like

lihoo

d

1 Rare Very low (1) Very low (1) Low (2) Low (2) Low (2)

2 Unlikely Very low (1) Low (2) Moderate (3) Moderate (3) Moderate (3)

3 – 4 Possible Low (2) Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) High (4)

5 – 7 Likely Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) High (4) Very high (5)

8 - 10 Highly likely Low (2) Moderate (3) High (4) Very high (5) Very high (5)



I.2.1 Results

The outcomes from the risk assessment at a spring complex and watercourse spring scale are

summarised in Table I-3 and Table I-4. Only sites where any drawdown is predicted are included in

the tables.

Responsible tenure holders are assigned where monitoring activities or mitigation plans are required under the UWIR 2019. The following explanations apply to these tables:

Complex: as defined by the Queensland Springs Dataset held by the Queensland

Herbarium. Watercourse springs have a site number.

Years before impact exceeds 0.2 metres (from 2019): the time before predicted impact is

to exceed 0.2 metres in the source aquifer at the location of the spring complex. These

impacts are based on P&G development only and do not include the influence of injection

(see section 4.2.3). This will significantly delay predicted impacts for springs which are fed

from the Precipice Sandstone.

Maximum drawdown: the magnitude and timing of the maximum impact predicted from the

regional groundwater model in the source aquifer at the location of the spring complex.

Risk assessment scores: the highest risk score assigned for each criterion to a spring within

the complex (see also Appendix I.2).

RTH actions: the action required to be undertaken by the RTH. This is specified as either

mitigation – a mitigation plan is required (see section 9.5.2 of the main report) – or validation

(see section 9.4.2).



Table I-3 Spring complexes – predicted impacts and risk assessment results

Complex Name Formation

Summary of model predictions Risk assessment scores

RTH action RTH

Years

before

>0.2 m

Maximum drawdown Risk criterion

Total

Magnitude

(metres)

Timeframe

(years) L1 L2 C1 C2 C3

3 Dawson River 3 Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 30 2 0 2 5 5 3 - -

4 Dawson River 4 Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 30 2 0 2 3 3 3 - -

5 Boggomoss Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 30–32 2 0 2 4 5 3 - -

6 Dawson River 6 Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 29–30 2 0 2 4 4 3 - -

230 Lucky Last Evergreen Formation (Boxvale Sandstone Member)

0–4 0.2–0.4 26 3 5 2 4 5 5 Mitigation plan

Santos

260 Scotts Creek Hutton Sandstone - < 0.2 > 100 2 0 2 5 5 3 Monitoring Origin

283 Barton Gubberamunda Sandstone

> 100 0.0–0.5 > 100 3 1 3 1 3 2 Monitoring Origin

296 Carnarvon Gorge

Precipice Sandstone - <0.2 50

2 0 2 1 5 3 - -

311 311 Precipice Sandstone 2–4 0.5–0.7 26–27 4 5 4 3 5 5 Mitigation plan

Santos

334 Glapagos Clematis Sandstone - < 0.2 > 100 2 0 2 1 4 2 - -

339 Lonely Eddie Precipice Sandstone 0–3 0.6–0.8 27–30 4 5 4 1 4 4 Mitigation plan

Santos

362 Cockatoo Precipice Sandstone 8–12 0.3–0.5 29 3 5 2 5 5 4 Mitigation plan

Santos

370 Starling Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 30 2 0 2 4 4 3 - -

371 Sprocket Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 30 2 0 2 4 5 3 - -



Complex Name Formation


RTH action RTH

Years

before

>0.2 m


Total

Magnitude

(metres)

Timeframe


437 Horror Hutton Sandstone - < 0.2 > 100 2 0 2 5 5 3 - -

561 561 Precipice Sandstone 0 1.1–1.5 25 5 5 5 1 5 5 Mitigation plan

Santos

580 Prices Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 30 2 0 2 5 5 3 - -

584 Wambo Cainozoic Sediments - < 0.2 > 100 2 0 2 1 5 3 - -

591 Yebna2 Precipice Sandstone 1–3 0.5–0.7 26 4 5 2 5 4 5 Mitigation plan

Santos

592 Abyss Hutton Sandstone - < 0.2 > 100 2 0 2 5 5 3 Monitoring Santos

722 Carnassier Precipice Sandstone - < 0.2 40 2 0 2 1 3 2 - -

737 Nugget Hutton Sandstone - < 0.2 > 100 2 0 2 1 3 2 - -

765 Or Cainozoic Sediments - 0.2–0.5 > 100 3 0 3 1 5 3 - -



Table I-4 Watercourse springs – predicted impacts and risk assessment results

Site Name


RTH action RTH

Years

before

> 0.2 m


Total

Magnitude

(metres)

Timeframe


W166 Barton Creek 10–18 25–26 48–49 5 4 5 3 3 5 Validation* Origin

W10 Blyth Creek > 100 0.5–1 > 100 4 1 4 3 3 4 Validation* Santos

W179 Boyd Creek 1–3 0.5–0.7 26–27 4 5 4 3 3 5 Validation Santos

W185 Cave Gully 4–9 0.4–0.6 30–32 4 5 3 3 3 4 Validation* Origin

W187 Christmas Creek 0 1.0–1.3 25–25 5 5 5 3 3 5 Validation Santos

W28 Cockatoo Creek 8–11 0.4–0.5 29–29 3 5 3 3 3 4 Mitigation plan Santos

W42 Dawson River 0 0.5–0.8 > 100 4 5 2 3 3 4 Mitigation plan Santos

W203 Dogwood Creek 0–9 9–11 23–60 5 5 5 3 3 5 Validation Arrow

W215 Horse Creek 0 38–58 36–51 5 5 5 3 3 5 Mitigation plan QGC

W77 Horse Creek (East) > 100 0.2–0.4 > 100 3 1 3 3 3 3 Validation* QGC

W216 Hutton Creek 9–24 0.4–0.6 37–50 4 5 4 3 3 5 Mitigation plan Santos

W217 Hutton Creek 0 1.5–1.8 25–25 5 5 5 3 3 5 Mitigation plan Santos

W224 L Tree Creek 5–11 > 100 70–110 5 5 5 3 3 5 Validation Arrow

W239 North Branch 5–12 0.3–0.5 31–34 3 5 3 3 3 4 Validation Santos

W251 Robinson Creek 0 0.1–0.6 50–110 4 5 3 3 3 4 Validation QGC

W254 Robinson Creek - 0.2–0.5 34–36 3 3 3 3 3 4 Validation* Santos

W261 Sardine Creek 4–9 0.4–0.6 29–32 4 5 4 3 3 5 Validation* Origin



Site Name


RTH action RTH

Years

before

> 0.2 m


Total

Magnitude

(metres)

Timeframe


W265 Spring Creek 0 0.9–1.2 25–25 5 5 5 3 3 5 Validation Santos

W267 Sugarloaf Creek 38 12–13 36–180 5 2 5 3 3 4 Validation* Origin

W274 Unnamed Creek 0 1.0–1.4 25–25 5 5 5 3 3 5 Validation Santos

W81 Hutton Creek 0–3 0.4–0.6 25–26 4 5 4 3 3 5 Mitigation plan Santos

W40 Dawson River 3–7 0.6–0.7 25–26 4 5 2 3 3 4 Mitigation plan Santos

Note: * The need for validation at these locations in the current UWIR cycle will be reviewed at the Annual Report in consideration of the industry development scenario.



I.3 Spring monitoring

The spring monitoring program is described in Chapter 9 of the UWIR. The details of springs to be

monitored are identified in Table I-5 and Table I-6.

The following explanations apply to these tables:

Complex, name and vent ID: a unique identifier for each spring vent or watercourse. For

spring vents, these are as identified in the Queensland Springs Dataset held by the

Queensland Herbarium.

Wetland discharge (extent): the reference to the method to be used as defined in Table I-7.

Water chemistry: the reference to the chemistry suite to be measured as defined in Table

I-8.

Discharge: the reference to the methods for measuring discharge as defined in Table I-7.

Flora: the reference to the methods for monitoring spring flora as defined in Table I-7.

Condition: the requirement to assess spring condition as defined in Table I-7.



Table I-5 Spring vents – sites and methods

Complex Name Vent ID

Wetland

discharge

(extent)

Water

chemistry Discharge Flora Condition Monitoring frequency RTH

230 Lucky Last 287 A and B - - Yes Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Santos




230 Lucky Last 687.1 - - - Yes Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Santos








260 Scotts Creek 189 A and B - - Yes Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Origin




260 Scotts Creek 192.1 A and B - - Yes Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Origin

283 Barton 702 - - - - Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Origin

311 311 See W40, W81 and W217 (Table I-6) Santos

591 Yebna 2 See W40, W81 and W217 (Table I-6) Santos



Complex Name Vent ID

Wetland

discharge

(extent)

Water

chemistry Discharge Flora Condition Monitoring frequency RTH

339 Lonely Eddie There are four known vents at this location. Monitoring locations, methods and frequency to be proposed in RTH mitigation plan (see section 9.7).

Santos

362 Cockatoo There are 20 known vents at this location. Monitoring locations, methods and frequency to be proposed in RTH mitigation plan (see section 9.7).

Santos

561 561 285.1 - A B Yes Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Santos

592 Abyss 286 B - - Yes Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Santos

592 Abyss 286.1 B - - Yes Yes 6 monthly (Apr and Nov) Santos



Table I-6 Watercourse springs – sites and methods

Site Name Monitoring point Latitude Longitude

Water

chemistry Discharge

Monitoring

frequency RTH

W40 Dawson River Channel (S4) -25.691822 149.215287 A A Quarterly Santos

W40 Dawson River Tributary (SC1) -25.725473 149.087755 A A Quarterly Santos

W40 Dawson River Tributary (SC4) -25.679718 149.127267 A A Quarterly Santos

W81 Hutton Creek Channel (S17) -25.701809 149.050540 A A Quarterly Santos

W217 Hutton Creek Tributary (SC3) -25.719614 149.028979 A A Quarterly Santos

W28 Cockatoo Creek Monitoring locations, methods and frequency to be proposed in RTH mitigation plan (see section 9.7). Santos

W215 Horse Creek Monitoring locations, methods and frequency to be proposed in RTH mitigation plan (see section 9.7). Santos

W42 Dawson River Monitoring locations, methods and frequency to be proposed in RTH mitigation plan (see section 9.7). QGC



Table I-7 Attributes and methods

Attribute Method and description

Wetland discharge (extent)

Method A

The wetland discharge is monitored using the presence of known spring aquatics as a proxy of water discharge. A list of aquatic and terrestrial species for each spring complex is provided in Table I.9.

These species are to inform the delineation of the aquatic vegetation extent.

For wetlands with an area greater than 1.5 m2, use a DGPS to map the extent of aquatic vegetation. As described in Fensham and Fairfax (2009).

For wetlands with a total area of less than 1.5 m2, estimate total area of aquatic vegetation and moist soil zone.

Method B The wetland discharge is monitored using the extent of the seasonally moist soil zone – the saturated extent.

Water Chemistry

(Table I-8)

Measure and sample water quality in accordance with ‘Monitoring and Sampling Manual, Environmental Protection (Water) Policy’ (DES 2018).

Sampling and measurements must be taken as close as possible to the primary discharge areas – ideally where flowing conditions exist.

Suite A Field water quality measurements.

Suite B Collect a water sample for laboratory analysis.

Discharge

Method A Direct flow measurement using permanent stream gauging infrastructure, or a standard low-flow field hydrology method, is used at the monitoring location.

Method B Where there is a sufficient depth of water, a logger is installed to measure changes in depth, flow and water chemistry.

Flora Presence or absence of species listed in Table I.9.

Condition

Photograph the wetland from all aspects. For each photograph, record the photograph sequence number, time, date and orientation and describe the features in the photograph. Photograph and describe the following signs of water availability:

whether or not there has been recent rainfall

overall greenness and vigour of spring vegetation

extent of free water within the wetland

extent of discharge flows from the wetland

extent of surface water erosion at the periphery of the wetland

extent of soil moisture around the spring or the lack thereof

extent of salt scalding or iron staining at the periphery of the wetland

extent of shrinking or collapsing of mound structures

extent of woody emergent vegetation within and fringing the wetland

degree and recentness pugging and animal disturbance

degree and recentness of anthropogenic disturbance at the wetland.



Table I-8 Water chemistry suite

Suite A Parameter

Field parameters

pH

Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm @ 25°C)

Redox (Eh)

Temperature (°C)

Suite B Parameter

Laboratory analytes

Total dissolved solids

Alkalinity

Total Alkalinity as CaCO3

Bicarbonate as CaCO3

Carbonate as CaCO3

Hydroxide as CaCO3

Sulfate – SO4 by ICPAES

Chloride

Major Cations – Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium

Bromide, lodide, Fluoride

Total Nitrogen as N (including NOx and TKN)

Total Phosphorus as P

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)

Total and dissolved metals – Strontium

Suite C Parameter

Isotopes

Radon (222Rn)

Stable isotopes (18O and 2D)

Strontium (87/86Sr)



Table I-9 Target species list

Target species name Category Species type Listed species

Adenostemma lavenia Disjunct Aquatic -

Aeschynomene indica Invasive Native Aquatic -

Ammannia multiflora Invasive Native Aquatic -

Ampelopteris prolifera Disjunct Aquatic -

Arthraxon hispidus Rare or Threatened Aquatic Y

Azolla pinnata Invasive Native Aquatic -

Baccharis halimifolia Invasive Exotic Aquatic -

Bacopa minima Exotic Aquatic -

Baumea rubiginosa Native Aquatic -

Carex appressa Native Aquatic -

Cenchrus ciliaris Exotic Terrestrial -

Cenchrus purpurascens Disjunct Aquatic -

Centella asiatica Exotic Aquatic -

Centipeda minima Invasive Native Aquatic -

Chloris gayana Invasive Exotic Terrestrial -

Cirsium vulgare Native Terrestrial -

Cyclosorus interruptus Disjunct Aquatic -

Cynodon dactylon Invasive Native Terrestrial -

Cyperus difformis Disjunct Aquatic -

Cyperus laevigatus Disjunct Aquatic -

Cyperus polystachyos Invasive Native Aquatic -

Duma florulenta Native Terrestrial -

Eleocharis cylindricus Native Aquatic -

Eleocharis sp. Invasive Exotic Aquatic -

Eragrostis sp Native Terrestrial -

Eriocaulon carsonii Rare or Threatened Aquatic Y

Eriocaulon scariosum Native Aquatic -

Fimbrisylis ssp. Exotic Aquatic -

Isachne globosa Disjunct Aquatic -

Leersia hexandra Native Aquatic -

Livistona nitida Rare or Threatened Aquatic Y

Ludwigia octovalvis Invasive Native Aquatic -

Ludwigia peploides subsp. montevidensis Invasive Native Aquatic -

Melaleuca viminalis Native Terrestrial -

Monochoria cyanea Invasive Native Aquatic -



Target species name Category Species type Listed species

Myriophyllum artesium Rare or Threatened Aquatic Y

Myriophyllum gracile Native Aquatic -

Opuntia tomentosa Invasive Exotic Aquatic -

Ottelia ovalifolia Invasive Native Aquatic -

Paspalum distichum Invasive Native Aquatic -

Phaius australis Native Aquatic Y

Philydrum lanuginosum Native Aquatic -

Phragmites australis Invasive Native Aquatic -

Rhynchospora brownii Disjunct Aquatic -

Rumex crispus Exotic Terrestrial -

Sacciolepis indica Disjunct Aquatic -

Sesbania cannabina Invasive Native Aquatic -

Spirodela punctata Invasive Native Aquatic -

Thelypteris confluens Rare or Threatened Aquatic Y

Typha domingensis Invasive Native Aquatic -

Typha orientalis Invasive Exotic Aquatic -

Urochloa mutica Invasive Exotic Aquatic -

Utricularia bifida disjunct Disjunct Aquatic -

Utricularia dichotoma Native Aquatic -

appendix a : technical reports

Documents