- Home
- Assessments
- Bioregional Assessment Program
- Galilee subregion
- 3-4 Impact and risk analysis for the Galilee subregion
- 3.4 Impacts on and risks to landscape classes
- 3.4.7 'Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE' landscape group
3.4.7.1 Description
The ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group includes ecosystems that rely on the subsurface presence of groundwater and are not associated with floodplains or palustrine, lacustrine or riparian wetlands. Non-floodplain landforms include clay plains, loamy and sandy plains, inland dunefields, or areas of fine-grained and coarse-grained sedimentary rocks. The ‘Non‑floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group includes two landscape classes: ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ that covers 268 km2 (or less than 0.1% of the assessment extent) and ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE, remnant vegetation’ that covers 20,532 km2 (or 3% of the assessment extent) (Table 19).
A high-level conceptual model for unconfined, permeable rock aquifers is relevant to this landscape group (Figure 63). Near-surface discharge may occur where there is a change in geology or topography (e.g. at a geological boundary between sandstone and an underlying shale) or at the break of slope at the base of hills or ranges. Here, terrestrial vegetation can access relatively shallow unconfined aquifers via the capillary zone.
Terrestrial vegetation may source groundwater up-gradient of the contact between the plains and elevated areas such as mesas and ironstone jump-ups (Figure 63). Terrestrial GDEs in these areas are likely to support regional ecosystems (REs) dominated by Corymbia spp. (DSITI, 2015). Terrestrial vegetation also may source groundwater where it discharges at the break of slope of sandstone ranges. A less common type of permeable rock aquifer occurs in basalts, which stores and transmits groundwater through vesicles, fractures and weathered zones. Terrestrial vegetation may source groundwater at the edge of basalt plains and hills. Connectivity of groundwater in the zone of potential hydrological change is complicated as the Galilee subregion contains a series of stacked groundwater systems, as described in detail in companion product 2.1-2.2 (Evans et al., 2018a) and Section 2.3.2 of companion product 2.3 (Evans et al., 2018b) for the Galilee subregion. The Galilee Basin groundwater system, which includes the Rewan Group and Clematis Group, is the most likely source of groundwater for the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group in the zone of potential hydrological change. In particular:
- shallow perched aquifers in weathered Cenozoic sediments, where groundwater is shallow or discharges at the break of slope, or where percolating groundwater is perched over relatively impermeable layers such as clay or shale
- groundwater flow in unconfined aquifers within the capillary zone of plants or discharging to the surface in weathered sedimentary rock units dominated by sandstone (e.g. Clematis Group, Dunda beds (part of Rewan Group), Colinlea Sandstone, and sandstone beds in the Joe Joe Group).
GDEs that access regional groundwater systems within the zone of potential hydrological change may be impacted by changes in groundwater (for example, from drawdown or recharge) across a broad area. However, some proportion of these GDEs will not be connected to the regional watertable and will be independent of broader-scale changes due to the additional coal resource development.
The water requirements and the degree of groundwater dependency of the vegetation in the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group will depend on a number of factors, including:
- vegetation age and rooting distribution of plants and how this enables access to the watertable
- depth to the watertable and spatial and temporal (seasonal) variation in the watertable level
- groundwater quality.
Vegetation within the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group can typically use deep roots to access groundwater in the capillary zone above the watertable via capillary action or hydraulic lift. Previous research has revealed links between groundwater depth and tree condition, but critical thresholds that lead to rapid and potentially irreversible change have been difficult to quantify. For example, maximum rooting depth in a global study was 5.2±0.8 m for sclerophyllous shrubland and forest, 7.0±1.2 m for trees and 9.5±2.4 m for desert vegetation (Canadell et al., 1996). Further, the mean maximum rooting depth of 11 species of sclerophyllous trees was 12.6±3.4 m (Canadell et al., 1996). This includes tree species such as Eucalyptus marginata, where roots have been reported at depths of around 40 m (Dell et al., 1983).
Tree water uptake of groundwater from deeper watertable levels is generally less than where the watertable is shallower (e.g. Zencich et al., 2002; O’Grady et al., 2006a, 2006b). Standing water levels for 98 bores associated with the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group averaged 37.3 m and ranged between 157 m and 0.3 m. The rate of drawdown can also be critical to vegetation survival. Plant roots can only remain in contact with a declining watertable if the rate of decline does not exceed potential root growth rate; 3 to 15 mm/day for arid shrub and grass species (Naumberg et al., 2005). However, there is a critical knowledge gap in the ecohydrology of groundwater-dependent vegetation, particularly relating to the sensitivity of vegetation to changes in the rate of groundwater drawdown across different watertable depths (and whether this response is linear).
The ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group supports 90 REs in the assessment extent. There is considerable uncertainty related to the water regime required to support many of these REs. However, the nature of the dependency on groundwater is likely to vary among and within vegetation communities as a function of groundwater availability, depth and quality (companion product 2.1-2.2 for the Galilee subregion (Evans et al., 2018a)).
The majority of REs have Eucalyptus and/or Corymbia species as dominant/co-dominant in the upper storey. A smaller number of REs have Acacia and/or Melaleuca species as dominant/co-dominant.
GDE = groundwater-dependent ecosystem
Source: adapted from Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation (Dataset 4) © The State of Queensland (Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation) 2015
3.4.7.2 Potential hydrological impacts
The ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ receptor impact model focused on recruitment dynamics associated with groundwater-dependent native tree species, with the primary production associated with tree canopies providing a range of (as yet unspecified) ecological functions (companion product 2.7 for the Galilee subregion (Ickowicz et al., 2018)). The qualitative model identified a negative response to groundwater drawdown.
For the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ receptor impact model, one hydrological response variable was identified: maximum difference in drawdown under the baseline future or under the coal resource development pathway future relative to the reference period (1983 to 2012) (dmaxRef).
3.4.7.2.1 Groundwater
Most of the remaining groundwater-dependent vegetation in the zone of potential hydrological change is classified as ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group (1189 km2 of 3776 km2, or 31% of groundwater-dependent vegetation in the zone). It is very unlikely that additional drawdown in excess of 0.2 m in the upper aquifer will affect more than 1143 km2 of vegetation classified as ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ (Figure 64 and Table 29).
The median (50th percentile) estimate of greater than 2 m drawdown due to additional coal resource development is less extensive, potentially affecting 69 km2 of vegetation in the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group, or 2% of groundwater-dependent vegetation in the zone (Table 29). Additional drawdown in excess of 5 m is very unlikely to affect more than 68 km2 of vegetation in the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group.
Vegetation in the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group in the zone of potential hydrological change is located along the western edge of the zone, upstream of the proposed Hyde Park and China Stone mines in the north and upstream of the proposed Kevin’s Corner, Alpha and South Galilee mines in the south (Figure 58).
GDE = groundwater-dependent ecosystem
Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 1)
Table 29 ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group: area (km2) of groundwater-dependent vegetation potentially exposed to varying levels of additional drawdown in the zone of potential hydrological change
Some totals reported here have been rounded.
GDE = groundwater-dependent ecosystem
Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 1)
3.4.7.2.2 Surface water
Vegetation in the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group is located outside of alluvial river and creek flats and is therefore not affected by changes to surface water flow regimes.
3.4.7.3 Potential ecosystem impacts
The key hydrological determinants of ecosystem function identified by experts for the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ landscape group relate to access to relatively shallow groundwater sources. Tree foliage cover is related to both the rate of groundwater drawdown and its maximum depth, such that tree roots maintain contact with groundwater.
For the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ receptor impact model, the receptor impact variable is the percent foliage cover of trees, such as Corymbia species that overlie shallow local aquifers that typically discharge at the break of slope of sandstone ranges or basalts. Percent foliage cover is the mean annual value measured in a 0.25 ha plot. The experts’ opinion provides strong evidence that:
- antecedent foliage cover has a strong effect on future foliage cover, which reflects the lag in the response of foliage cover to changes in hydrological response variables that would be expected of mature trees with long life spans
- mean percent foliage cover would decrease from approximately 48% by approximately 1% if groundwater depth increases by 10 m and all other model variables are held at their median values.
Median estimates of the difference in percent foliage cover due to additional coal resource development in the 30-year periods preceding 2042 and 2102 indicate less than 1% change from under the baseline (Figure 65). The large uncertainty in the elicited model is reflected by the range of model predictions. Results indicate there is a 5% chance that percent foliage cover in some assessment units may decrease by up to 12% in 2042 and 2102, and a 95% chance that it may increase by up to 11% in 2042 and 2102, due to additional coal resource development.
GDE = groundwater-dependent ecosystem
Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 11)
Risk thresholds for the ‘Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE’ receptor impact model are:
- ‘at some risk of ecological and hydrological changes’ decreases of greater than 5% foliage cover
- ‘more at risk of ecological and hydrological changes’ decreases of greater than 10% foliage cover.
Groundwater-dependent ecosystems where receptor impact modelling indicated greater than ‘at minimal risk’ occur in upland areas near the proposed coal mines in the northern (Carmichael, China Stone, Hyde Park) and southern (South Galilee, Alpha, Kevin’s Corner) areas of the zone of potential hydrological change (Figure 66). Receptor impact variables were not calculated for 452 (11%) assessment units for this landscape group in the zone of potential hydrological change. Of the 3792 assessment units where receptor impact variables were calculated, 194 (or 5%) are considered to be ‘at some risk’ and 21 (less than 1%) are considered to be ‘more at risk’. Overall, there is some level of risk to about 5% of groundwater-dependent ecosystems located near the proposed mines, but outside of floodplains where additional drawdown is greatest in the zone of potential hydrological change.
GDE = groundwater-dependent ecosystem
Data: Bioregional Assessment Programme (Dataset 11)
Product Finalisation date
- 3.1 Overview
- 3.2 Methods
- 3.3 Potential hydrological changes
- 3.4 Impacts on and risks to landscape classes
- 3.4.1 Overview
- 3.4.2 Landscape classes that are unlikely to be impacted
- 3.4.3 'Springs' landscape group
- 3.4.4 'Streams, GDE' landscape group
- 3.4.5 'Streams, non-GDE' landscape group
- 3.4.6 'Floodplain, terrestrial GDE' landscape group
- 3.4.7 'Non-floodplain, terrestrial GDE' landscape group
- References
- Datasets
- 3.5 Impacts on and risks to water-dependent assets
- 3.6 Commentary for coal resource developments that are not modelled
- 3.7 Conclusion
- Citation
- Acknowledgements
- Contributors to the Technical Programme
- About this technical product