PO)Y~R~ ~1:!~ ~ Report # 20/1 SSOA

GROUNDWATER SOURCE REVIEW

HERMANNSBURG

Prepared By:

Gr oundwater Assessment Section Water Resources Branch Al ice Springs

March 1990

SYNOPSIS

This report reviews the hydrogeology of the Hermannsburg Sandstone in its capacity as the source for the

Hermannsburg community borefield.

It is concluded that the sustainable yield is at least

equal to current extraction.

Resource assessment actions for various extraction rates are recommended, monitoring.

as is a strategy for resource

The performance of the production bores is reviewed and

recommendations made for their operation.

SUBJECT:

GEOLOGY:

KEYWORDS

Resource Assessment

Community water supply

Hermannsburg Sandstone Liltjera Member

LOCATION: Hermannsburg Community No . 43

Recharge

Borefield

Krichauff Ranges Ntaria

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

BACKGROUND

REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

2.1 GEOLOGY

2.2 PRODUCTION BORE DETAILS

2.3 TEST PUMPING DATA

2.4 WATER CONSUMPTION RECORDS

2.5 WATER QUALITY DATA

2.6 GEOPHYSICAL DATA

2.7 SURVEY DATA AND REGIONAL THROUGHFLOW

2.8 RECHARGE AREA

2.9 COMPUTER MODELLING

2.10 WATER LEVEL DATA

2.11 RAINFALL RECORDS

2.12 PRODUCTION BORE PERFORMANCE

3. CONCLUSIONS

3 . 1 GROUNDWATER MOVEMENT AND RECHARGE

3.2 WATER LEVEL MONITORING

3.3 FUTURE PRODUCTION BORES

3.3 . 1 Equipping of RN 15007 (P8)

3.3.2 Test Pumping of RN 15006

3.3.3 Decommisioning Older Bores

3 . 3.4 Siting Future Production Bores

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

5. REFERENCES

1. BORE CONSTRUCTION DETAI LS

2 . SUMMARY OF TEST PUMPI NG DATA

3 . MONTHLY PUMPING FIGURES, 03/88 to 07/ 89

4 . WATER QUALITY DATA

5 . BORE SURVEY AND THROUGHFLOW CALCULATION

PAGE

1

2

3

4

4

6

7

8

8

9

10

11

11

13

13

14

14

15

15

16

17

18

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

1. LOCATION MAP

2 . HERMANNSBURG BOREFIELD

3 . MONTHLY WATER CONSUMPTION

4. WATER QUALITY, PIPER TRILINEAR

5. SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION OF BOREFIELD

6. COMPARISON OF STANDING WATER LEVELS (RN 15006),

RAINFALL AND WATER CONSUMPTION

7 . STANDING WATER LEVELS (RN 15007)

ATTACHMENTS

1. GEOPHYSICAL DATA INTERPRETATION

2. SURVEY REPORT: AMG COORDINATES AND AHD LEVELS

Water Resources Library Alice Springs

Water Library Darwin

Principal Engineer Groundwater

AES Branch Alice Springs

Technical Support Branch Alice Springs

DISTRIBUTION

3

1

1

1

1

The last comprehensive report on

supply scheme was by Lally (1977).

1

1. BACKGROUND

the Hermannsburg water

Although it did not give

any assessment of the likely sustainable yield of the

Hermannsburg Sandstone, which is the aquifer currently being

utilised, it did indicate that this had the capacity to meet

the then predicted needs of the community to beyond the year

2000. Figure 1 shows Hermannsburg in its regional setting.

In 1988, Aboriginal Essential Services Branch advised that

there were likely to be increased demands for watering

grassed areas in the community and for supplying water for a

swimming pool. A Water Resources Branch project was

initiated to establish a conceptual model of the regional

groundwater system to enable estimates to be made of both the

sustainable yield of the system, and the effects of increased

abstraction from the existing borefield.

Work on this project was carried out by several WRB staff.

The purpose of the report is to review the current status of

both the groundwater resource and the borefield, and to

recommend the most appropriate direction for future Water

Resources work at Hermannsburg.

2

2. REVIEW OF AVAILABLE DATA

2 . 1 Geology

The Hermannsburg community is on the southern edge of the

Missionary Plain and is underlain by the non-prospective

Brewer Conglomerate. Early water supplies were based on rain

water tanks supplemented by river water when available.

Attempts were made to locate groundwater supplies in the

Brewer Conglomerate but during the 1950's the focus of water

supply moved to the base of the Krichauff Ranges, prompted by

the presence there of permanent and semi-permanent springs.

The community is bounded to the south by the Finke River.

The river is a groundwater discharge zone near Hermannsburg

and, except immediately after flows, yields saline water from

its alluvium and associated waterholes. Samples taken in

August 1986 were 4000 mg/ L (surface sample) and approximately

10 000 mg/ L (from 2m depth in alluvium).

The Krichauff Ranges strike roughly eas t-west immediately

south of Hermannsburg and are bisected by the deeply incised

Finke River. The outcrop of the Ranges is sub-horizontal

Hermannsburg Sandstone for some 20 km to the s outh. On the

northern flank of the Ranges the Hermannsburg sandstone dips

northward beneath the Brewer Conglomerate of the Missionary

Plain at around 10° .

Availabl e geological mapping is at scales of 1:250,000 (1968,

edition 1), 1:100,000 (1975 monochrome) and apx 1:24,000

(compilation s heets for the 1975 mapping). Areal photography

at 1:80,000 (1986 black and white) and 1:25 , 000 (1973 colour)

was also used .

The 1975 mapping subdivides the Hermannsburg Sands tone into

two members: the upper Ljiltera member and a lower unnamed

member . The upper member is dominant in outc rop in the

northern flank of the Ranges. Where exposed, the lower

member appears relatively recessive. The mai n aquifer zone

for the production bo re s is interpreted to be in the top of

3

the lower membe r (sec tion 2.8).

Both members are described as hard, competent, fine to medium

grained, cross-bedded, poorly sorted silty sandstones with

lithic inclusions. They are non-marine , accreting by

repeated, fining upwards, fluvial cycles. Primary porosity

is low and water bores of reasonable yield (1 to 5 L/ s) rely

on secondary permeabililty. Dynamic pumping heads for these

yields are high, typically 100 m below the SWL.

In the borefield area, bores do not strike measurable

supplies within 100 m of the surface. Depths to major water

strikes are shown in Table 2 and average 150 m below ground.

The standing water level then rises to within a few meters of

the ground surface (SWL's are show in Tables 1 and 2 ).

A down h o l e came ra was run to 200 m depth in RN 15006 (open

hole from 6 m onwards). The walls o f the hol e are uniformly

s mooth with no obvious fracturing or o ther distinctive

features n o ted anywhere in the hole.

2.2 Pr oduction Bore Detail s

Details of all bores in the current borefield area are listed

in Tables 1 & 2 .

Three bores have been constructed since the 1977 review.

Their status is as follows:

RN 1 4165- equipped as Production Bore 7 .

RN 15006 - untested, low airlift , in use for monitoring

RN 15007 - futu re production bore 8; not yet equipped.

The l ocati on of all bores is shown on Figure 2.

4

2.3 Test Pumping Data

Results of pumping tests are listed in Table 2.

Calculated transmissivities (T) in the Hermannsburg borefield

range from 1 m2/d to 15 m2/d. These are based almost

exclusively on data from production bores . Most of these 24

hour constant rate tests show a classic straight line

response after some initia l well-storage effects.

Estimates of storage coeffici~ts are very limited.

Observation bores were used for the tests on RN 14165 (P7)

and RN 15007 (P8). The observation bore for RN 14165 was 10

m distant and demonstrated a response indicative of either a

leaky aquifer, or the early stages of delayed yield; duration

of the test was insufficien-t to distinguish between the two .

Matching with Walton's Type Curves gave

The observation bore for RN 15007 was 450 m distant and did

not respond during the 24 hour test. Assuming hydraulic

connection, S must be greater than a value lying between 1 x c

10-s and 2 x 10-4 (for t he range of transmi ssi vi ties cited

above).

It is doubtful that these values of storage coefficient are

indicative of the long term behaviour of the aquifer.

Analysis of test pump data for RN 15007 indicates that about

50% of the l arge drawdowns experienced in operating this

borefield are attributable to well losses.

2.4 Water Consumption Records

water Resources Branch holds pumping records from June 1977

to February 1986. The earlier records give hours run and

estimates of pumping rate. From January 1983 onwards, water

meter readings are available . The readings from P2 (RN 2934)

5

are meaningless; its meter should be replaced with one

similar to those on all the other production bores.

From these records, weekly maximum productions were 4475 kL

( ie, 639 kL/d; week ending 04/12/82) and 4664 kL ( ie, 666

kL/d; week ending 23/02/86). Annual production over those

three years is estimated to average 140 ML (ie, 384 kL/d).

More recently, monthly pumpages from each bore and supply

through the master meter are available from Aboriginal

~Essential Services Branch since March 1988. These data are

presented in Table 3. Monthly usages have been calculated

from the master meter readings. These are also listed in

Table 3 and plotted in Figure 3 to show the consumption

pattern throughout the year.

The current annual average consumption rate is 350 KL/d with

a peak monthly consumption rate of 609 KL/ d.

Based on recommended pumping rates, the capacity of the

bore field since P7 was equipped in 1985 has been 11.9 L/ s.

Pumped continuously these could supply 985 kL/ d; the actual

value would be lower due to variations in actual equipped

rates and to collection system losses when all bores pump

together .

Actual water consumption in the community has only increased

by 3.3% annually since 1976, compared with the 6% predicted

by Lally (1977).

The population of the community has remained stable at about

350 since 1976. The increase in water consumption over the

intervening period may be a reflection of increasing living

standards in the community, but is thought more likely to be

due t o wastage.

1000 L/cjd.

Annual consumption is now of the order of

6

2.5 Water Quality Data

All avai lable wate r quality data for the borefield are listed

in Table 4. Apart from iron concentration, all parameters

tested are within the National Health and Medical Research

Council's guidelines for drinking water quality in Australia

(NH&MRC, 1987 ) .

Production 3 ( RN 3618) has a significantly higher TDS than

the other production bores, though it is still within the

guideline limit. The higher TDS is believed due to its

proximity to t he Finke River which behaves as a saline

groundwater discharge zone.

Figure 4 is a piper trilinear diagram showing available

analyses over time for all the production bores. There is no

signifi cant segregation of waters. P3, and to a lesser

extent P2, plot slightly away from the cluster of othe r

bores. The plot for Kaporilya Spring water is coincident

with the majority of production bores, indicating that the

water is derived from the same source.

The concentration of iron is variable both spatially and

temporally, analysis values ranging from 0.0 to 9 . 4 mg/ L. It

frequently exceeds the maximum recommended concentration of

0 . 3 mg/ L (NH&MRC, 1987). As most of the bores are not cased,

the iron is assumed to be present in groundwater rather than

resulting from steel casing corrosion. Appropriate physical

treatment at the collection tank is required to reduce it t o

a satisfactory l evel.

Analyses of water chemistry are

particular frequency due to the

chemistry .

not required with any

stability o f the water

No particular pollution protection measures are required

apart from the usual sealing around bore-he ads . Due to the

steep topography there is no possibility o f deve lopment in

the r echarge area.

· ~

7

2.6 Geophysical Data

An interpretation of Magellan geophysical data is presented

in Attachment 1. It concludes that the Hermannsburg Sandstone

has dips of approximately 13° shallowing to 8° one to two

kilometres south of the Krichauff Range . A dip of around 11°

in the borefield area has been assumed. Available 1:50,000

geological maps show the Hermannsburg Sandstone dipping at 6°

at outcrops in the Krichauff Range, decreasing to 0° at the

Palm Valley anticline 8 km south of the borefield .

Based on these dips and on the topographic mapping, a

schematic cross- section through the borefield is shown in

Figure 5.

A report by Thigpen (1973) on fracture analysis in the Palm

Valley, Gardiner, James Range Anticline was rev iewed as part

o f the geophysical data for this project . This surface

expression of fracturing in the Hermannsburg Sandstone does

not appear to be regionally significant in terms of the

aquifer's hydraulic characteristics . However it does explain

the occurrence of minor springs in the Krichauff Range.

Most of the existing bores were sited by WRD hydrogeologists

on interpreted major fractures; all but P2 and P8 do in fact

lie on or near major fractures mapped by Thigpen (see overlay

to Figure 2). There is however no correlation with bore

yield or with aquifer parameters derived from test pumping

results. Fracture density mapped by Thigpen is greatest in

the vicinity of P5-Kaporilya Spring; in this area the mapping

s h ows fracture intersections . This suggests that the higher

transmissivity calculated for PS is due to a zone of more

intense fracturing. Hence if further production bores are

required, one option is to seek sites with similar

intersecting fracture patterns.

8

2.7 Survey Data and Regional Throughflow

A report from the Department of Lands and Housing containing

survey and level information for bores in the borefield area

is included as Attachment 2. Compilation sheets at 1:50,000

scale (for the yet to be released revision of the 1:250,000

Hermannsburg topographic sheet) were the best available

topographic mapping.

The level data are summarised in Table 5 together with

calculation of the groundwater gradient from the west.

Depending on the value adopted for transmissivity, the

throughflow is estimated to be between 3.7 m3/ d and 55.5 m3/ d

per kilometre width of aquifer .

Throughflow of that magnitude is insufficient to maintain the

water levels in the borefield with the current abstraction of

350 m3jd. This concurs with Lally's postulation that the

main source of recharge to the aquifer is via its outcrop in

the Krichauff Range about 2 km south of the borefield.

2.8 Recharge Area

The Hermannsburg Sandstone has an outcrop/ sub- outcrop area,

in the Krichauff Ranges between Areyonga and the Finke River,

of approximately 350 km2• This area contains drainages of

the Palm and Areyonga Valleys. The borefield is on the

northern flank of this outcrop at its eastern end . It cannot

however be assumed that the ent i re area has t he potential to

contribute recharge to the borefield.

Warne and Prowse (1988) have reported difficulty in locating

aquifers in the lower unit of the Hermannsburg Sandstone

during drilling along the Palm Valley Creek system. It has

therefore been assumed that the recharge area is limi ted to

the surface outcrop of the particular aquifer zone tapped by

production bores (generally struck around 150 mbgl in the

borefield area). Outcrop of that aquifer zone in the

Krichauff Range immediately south of the borefield i s shown

9

in Figures 1 and 5 and is consistent with the mapped contact

between upper and lower Hermannsburg sandstone members. The

surface water divide is further to the south; surface water

flow from this area is northward across the borefield area.

It is assumed that recharge is by direct infiltration, and by

infiltration through surface drainages within the area of

outcrop of the lower member.

The outline of this recharge area is shown in Figure 1 and

has an estimated area of only 25 km2•

With an average rainfall of 250 mm; a, infiltration of 2% of

rainfall would be required to balance the current rate of

extraction. Recharge of 2% is not inconsistent with

contemporary understanding of arid zone hydrology. Travel

time from the recharge area to the borefield may be .roughly

approximated by assuming a 4 km flowpath, transmissivity of 3

m2/ d, and aquifer thickness of 30 m for a travel time of 100

years.

Given that standing water levels have not altered

significantly over the life of the borefield (see Tables 1 &

2) it is concluded that recharge to the borefield area is equal to or greater than extraction. That is, the

sustainable yield under current climatic conditions is equal

to or greater than current extraction rates (350 m3/ d or 130

ML/ a).

2.9 Computer Mode lling

An attempt was made to model the aquifer using the

Prickett-Lonnquist finite difference mode l . A range of

parameters from the analysis of test pumping information was

used without a calibration being achieved. It was concluded

that insufficient information is available about aquifer

parameters and behaviour, and about recharge, t o permit use

of a computer model.

10

2.10 Water Level Data

There is a lack of historical standing water leve l (SWL) data

for the Hermannsburg borefield, mainly due to the lack of

suitable monitoring bores. The only data available for

examining the detailed response of the aquifer to pumping and

recharge events has been obtained from Stevens chart

recorders which were installed on bores RN 15006 and RN 15007

in November 1988. Data for RN 15007 is incomplete for the

period April to July 1989 due to equipment problems

associated with large rises in water level. The available

data for both bores is plotted in Figures 6 and 7. SWL for

RN 15006 is compared to rainfall data and monthly water

consumptions in Figure 6.

Water levels in both bores appear to respond to operation of

production bores in the borefield. Levels in RN 15006

fluctuate by up to 1 m, whereas the reaction in RN 15007 is

approximately 0.5 m. There is no ready explanation for this

behaviour since RN 15006 is further away from the production

bores than RN 15007. It is also downgradient (down dip) from

the production bores.

Both bores also appear to respond to rainfall events. SWL's

in RN 15006 have risen by 1. 7 m since February 1989. They

stabilised in August 1989, probably as a result of forming a

discharge zone in an adjacent drainage line. In the same

period, SWL's in RN 15007 have risen by 5.2 m. They did not

stabilise like those in RN 1 5006, probably because RN 15007

is 9 m higher in e levation, and is distant from surface

drainage lines, therefore being unable to develop a spring or

discharge zone.

The rise in SWL ' s in RN 150 06 and RN 15007 is attributed to

delayed recharge from the December 1988 and March-April 1989

rainfall events, coupled with the low water consumptions for

December 1988 - January 1989 .

The SWL plots indicate the existence of a steep hydraulic

gradient from the direction of the Krichauff Range since

11

the difference in piezometric head between RN 15006 and RN

15007 ranges between approximately 7 m and 11 m. Using a

projected down-dip separation of 500 m, the gradient varies

between 0.014 and 0.022. It is apparent that pumping from P4

and P7 has not established a true cone of drawdown in the

potentiometric surface. That

throughflow is not being captured.

is, all the down-dip

This hydraulic gradient and the reaction of both RN 15006 and

RN 15007 to rainfall events confirms the existence of a

recharge area immediately to the south of the borefield.

2.11 Rainfall Records

Rainfall is no longer recorded in Hermannsburg. The nearest

s tatio n is the Palm Valley Ranger's residence. Data from

that station are shown plotted on Figure 6.

It is recommended that a pluviograph be installed in the

vicinity of the borefield.

2 .12 Production Bore Performance

There are few reported problems with production bores. They

are generally stable, non-sanding holes with long lives.

It is not known why P1 was decommisioned. P6 was never

equipped; P7 was drilled adjacent when the open hole of P6

was found bridged off.

Some pumping problems have occasionally been reported during

periods of excessive demand. Investigation has not

established the cause; airlines are not a reliable diagnostic

tool with the great dynamic range in SWL of these bores.

Review of the pumping test data in Table 2 suggests that the

recommended pumping rates and pump settings c ould be

reviewed. For example, P2 and P4 could possibly be up- rated.

12

However in the light of reported problems and in the absence

of sufficient data on interference effects it would be unwise

to do so . Should this be considered as an option for

increasing instantaneous capacity, then instrumentation of

pumping equipment with electronic submergence sensors,

flowmeters and hour-meters followed by analysis of the data

over a prolonged period of high demand would be required.

To spread the effects of extraction and to minimise

interference effects it would be desirable to sequence the

operation of pumping bores in periods of high demand. The

borefield may be considered to consist of three pumping

centres: P3, P4-P8-P7, and P2-PS . Neither of the latter

centres should have two bores operating together until one

bore is already pumping in each of the three centres.

13

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1 Groundwater Movement and Recharge

Groundwater flow down-dip through the borefield area exceeds

throughflow along strike by an order of magnitude.

Extraction has not resulted in any significant change in

groundwater levels. Recharge, and hence sustainable yield,

is at least equal to current extraction.

If no rapid increase in extraction is predicted, then no further intensive investigation work is required.

If however extraction is expected to increase significantly, then further investigation will be required to establish the

upper limit to that extraction. The extent of the effective

recharge area immediately to the south of the borefield would require better definition. This would involve a detailed field appraisal of outcrop/sub-outcrop in the recharge area

and the construction of a line of observation bores up-dip of the borefield in the Krichauff Range. The observation bores

would probably be sited along the access to the gas production facility and would be used to define the

potentiometric surface in the recharge area, and to observe its response to rainfall events and to borefield extraction . Thi s would be followed by computer modelling.

In the meantime suitable isotopic analysis of groundwater is

recommended to get an idea of travel times from the recharge

area(s).

3 . 2 Water Level Monitoring

Water level records for Hermannsburg are very limited.

The recent exercise of placing continuous recorders on

observation bores has produced valuable information. It is

recommended that RN 15006 be retained as an observation bore

14

and that it be permanently equipped with a continuous water

level recorder and recording pluviograph. Extension of the

continuous record will enable a better judgement of the

relative effects of recharge events and of variations in

extraction rate on the peizometric surface.

Water level data throughout the remainder of the borefield

would also be useful. One or more of the existing production

b o res will need to be de-commissioned for this purpose (see

sect ion 3.3.3 for details).

Continuous recorders would also be required on any

observation bores constructed in the Krichauff Range recharge

area.

3 . 3 Future Production Bores

The requirement for further product ion bores will arise

ei ther from an overall increase in total ext raction or from a

requi rement for greater peak production capacity.

The f o rme r should be addressed by an intensive invest igati on

as outline d above. Before this is unde rtaken , and be f ore

f u rther bores are drilled to increase the instantaneous

capac ity of the borefield, a c riti cal review of water usage

patterns is r equired at Hermannsburg . The present borefield

capacity is significantly in excess o f that requi red for a

community of this size . It has for example been observed

that sewer outfl ow is up t o 9 0% of demand . The obv ious first

step is therefore to introduce reticulation maintenance

procedures and institute demand management policies.

3.3 .1 Equipping of RN 15007 (P8)

It is recommended that RN 15007 be equipped as a production

bore with a maximum pumping rate of 4.0 L/ s (see the

completion report for RN 15007). At t hat rate a drawdown of

100 m below SWL is predicted afte r 24 hou rs pumping . At 3

L/ s the pre dicted 24 hour drawdown is 75 m. The only data on

15

interference is the recent short period of continuous SWL

record; it is suggested that allowance be made for an

additional 10 m drawdown due to interference when other

production bores are operated simultaneously for prolonged

periods.

3.3.2 Test Pumping o f RN 15006

-RN 15006 was drilled immediately prior to RN 15007 as the

planned production bore. It was sited down-dip of previously

drilled production bores on the assumption that the creek

line adjacent to it and to RN 14165 ( P7) is the surface

expression of a fracture system at depth. However, RN 15006

ai rlilfted only 2 L/ s, and was therefore constructed with

surface casing only for water level monitoring use. RN 15007

was then drilled and tested as the required production bore.

It ha s since been reported that there were problems with the

compressed air supply during the drilling of RN 15006 and

that this could account for the reported low airlift yield

(pers com: P Jolly).

It is therefore recommended that RN 15006 be test pumped to

determine its yield with the objective of contributing to

understanding of the hydrogeology of the aquifer.

3.3.3 Decommisioning of Older Production Bores

Whe n P8 is commissioned it will replace one of the older,

unc ased, lower yielding production bores .

I t is recommende d that P4 be decommissioned in the first

instance. If l e ft in serv ice, there is the potential for

s e rious interference within the group P4-P8- P7.

It is recommended that P3 be retained in service to spread

ext rac t ion over a large r area.

16

3.3.4 Siting Future Production Bores

To provide an increase in instantaneous capacity without a

significant increase in total extraction, it is suggested

that a site be drilled between P2 and P8 on the fracture line

mapped by Thigpen ( 1973). Should a good yield be obtained

then P2 may be decommisioned for water level monitoring .

To provide for a significant increase in total extraction the

investigation works outlined above would be undertaken first.

New production bor'e s would probably be distributed further

along strike to the west, preferably on mapped zones of

intersecting fractures .

17

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

The recommended program for further investigation of the

Hermannsburg water source is:

A: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

1 . Implement the collection of baseline data on water

levels, rainfall, and extraction in the borefield area.

'-2. Review the data in 5 years time ( 1995) or when any

stress on the source is observed.

3. Pumping test on RN 15006.

4. Fit new meter to P2 (RN 2934) and maintain all meters

in a serviceable condition.

5. Analyse samples for isotopes to determine the age of

the groundwater being extracted.

6. If operating procedures or automatic controls permit,

the operating rules in section 2.12 may be implemented.

B: TO TAKE EFFECT IF A MAJOR EXTRACTION INCREASE IS PREDICTED

1 . Define the extent of the recharge area to the south of

the borefield by a combination of hydrogeological

mapping and construction of monitoring bores.

2. Model the aquifer system with the objective of estimating its sustainable yield.

18

5. REFERENCES

Di Donna, P. Bore completion Report, RN 15007, Hermannsburg.

PAWA Report 16/9 0A.

Lally, B. Basin Management Report, Hermannsburg Sep 1977.

PAWA Report 03/77A.

National Health and Medical Research Council.

Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality in­

Australia.

Australian water Resources Council, 1987.

Thigpen, JB. Fracture Analysis of the Palm Valley, Gardiner,

James Ranges Anticline, Northern -Territory,

Australia.

Warne, K &

Prowse, G

Geophoto Services, 1973.

Finke Gorge National Park, Palm Valley

Campground Area: 1988 Investigation for

Groundwater.

PAWA Report 21 / 89A.

TABLES

PRODUCTION COMPLETION SWL WHEN GROUND

NUMBER BORE RN DATE DRILLED ELEVATION CASING DETAILS PRESENT STATUS

(m bgl) ( m AHD )

l 3280 02/ 54 Casing details unknown Abandoned

Assumed surface casing only

then open hole to 55 m.

2 2934 03;61 4. 3 601.7 0 6.0 m 140 mm ID surface casing Production

6.0 - 97.5 m open hole

3 3618 13/ 04/ 62 8.8 572.6 0 - 3.5 m 188 mm ID surface casing Production

3.5- 193 m open hole

4 7175 21/ 07/ 70 1.2 586.0 0 - 3.0 m 140 mm ID surface c a sing Production

3.0 - 171 m open hole (130 mm nomi nal hole)

5 7292 16/09/70 tlowing 602.3 0 - 5.0 m 140 111D ID surface casing Production

(est. 11 magl) 5.0 - 140.7 m open hole (130 mm nominal hole)

6 7291 12/ 08/ 70 1.2 apx 586.5 0 - 3.0 m 140 mm ID sur face casing Abandoned,

3.0 - 165 . 3 m open hole (130 mm nominal hole) Bora fallen in

7 14165 04/ 11/84 0.5 586.5 0 - 5 . 7 m 203 mm ID surface casing Production

0 - 167.4 m 140 mm ID s teal casing

8 15007 12/03/88 8.3 590.0 0 - 2.0 m 203 liUII ID surface casing to be equipped

Toe 0 - 220 m 152 mm ID steel casing

15006 09/ 03/ 88 5.4 580.9 0 - 6 . 5 m 203 111D ID surface casing Observation

ToC 6.5- 250 m open hole

~ OJ TABLE 1 - BORE CONSTRUCTI ON DETAILS

r m -4

PRODUCTION BORE DEPTH SWL RECOMMENDED PUMP T f r om ACTUAL DRAWDOWN BELOW SWL at MAJOR MOST

BORE NO. RN (m ) when tested ( a ) rate (b)setting CONSTANT PUMPING (a) r ecomm (b) actual WATER RECENT

( m) (L/s) (m) RATE RATE r ate rate STRI KE (m) SWL

(m2;d) (L/S) (m at 24 h r)

1 3280 55 49

2 2934 97 2.2 ( 03/ 82 ) 1.4 85 \

3.4 1.1 35 30 ? 70-9 6 ?

3 3618 193 9.0 (03/82 ) 1.5 120 \

1. 5 0.7 100 40 ? 1 40

4 7175 171 3.0 (03/82 ) 1 . 0 100 \

1. 5 1.4 40 ? 60 ? 146-171

5 7292 141 Flowing (03/82) 5.0 110 \

14 . 6 5.3 8 5 95 118- 141 flowing

(01/ 91 )

6 7291 165 (0.5 . 06j80) 2 .0 3. 0 90 16 6

7 14165 166 Flowing ( 11/84) 3.0 16 0 * 2. 8 2 . 4 1 40 1 05 177 (153- 202) 3.2 ( 11/9 1 )

8 15007 220 6. 4 (08/88) 4.0 140 * 4.5 3.0 1 00 7 5 146-190 4 .0 (06/90)

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF TEST PUMPING DATA

\ pump settin g in open h o l e

M pump settin g above perforated casin g interval

? some uncerta inty i n available info rmation

MONT II PROD 1 PROD 2 PROD 3 PROD 4 PROD 5 PROD 6 PROD 7 MASTER METER MONTHLY USEAGES

RN 3280 RN 2934 RN 3618 RN 7175 RN 7292 RN 7291 RN 14165

MAR 88 5401.7 31203.2 52434.7 9979.7 122880 130017.0

APR 88 5401.7 21331.1 55901.1 96779 .1 129598.2 142833.7 12816.7

MAY 88 146509 . 7 3676.0

JUN 88 5401.7 31453.4 59291.4 99878.3 132242.6 150185. 6 3675.9

JUL 88 5401.7 340 42.0 60100.0 104727.0 134038 . 0 1571 22 . 0 6936.4

AUG 88 5401. 0 36310.0 62730.0 10649 8.0 136370.0 1 64572.0 7450.0

SEP sa 5401.0 38710.0 64741.0 111447.0 137589 .0 174046.0 9474.0

OCT 88 5401.0 40351.0 6752 7.0 117790 .o 1 40574.0 186949.0 12903.0

NOV 88 1821.0 4 28 43.0 69979.0 122954. 0 1 45670 .0 201292.0 14343 . 0

DEC 88 207930 .0 6638.0

JAN 89 3 672.0 460 51 .0 71399.0 130383.0 150447.0 214568.0 5538.0

FEB 89 7373.0 48602.0 74227.0 136844.0 153945.0 229477 .0 14909 . 0

fo'.AR 89 1151 .0 50107.0 77406.0 146503.0 159396.0 2483 66.0 18889.0

APR 89 3838.0 51963.0 77862.0 150294.0 161793.0 256657.0 8291.0

MhY 89 7125.0 54165.7 77862 .0 155572.9 16 4163.4 265687.7 9030.7

JUN 89 837.0 56392.0 778 62.0 161934.0 166078.0 275971.0 10283.3

JUL 89 2951. 0 56990.0 169248.0 166549.0 285112.0 9141.0

TABLE 3 - MONTHLY PUMPING FIGURES FOR BER.MA.Rl'ISBURG

3/ 88 TO 7/ 89

(note: all values are meter readings except the monthly u s eaqe)

Analysis in niillrgrams per litre- mg/L (unless otherwise stated)

~ DATE SPECFX: TOTAl TOTAl TOTAl IRON BICARB- (CALC

REGISTEIE> -~ CONOOCT !XSSCX.VED SOOIUM POTASSlJ 1.1 CALOUM MAGNESIUM HAAONESS Al.KAUHrT'I CTOTAl.l SILICA Oll.ORIDE SULPHATE HIT RATE ONATE Fll.IORDE FROLI COMJ.IEHTS

HUMBER SAMPUHG ANCE S<XJDS CHLOODEl

)JS/cm TOS pH Na K Ca Mg CaC03 CaC03 Fe Si03 Cl SO• N03 HC03 F HaC I

--

2934 4 .02.7c 1590 930 7.6 165 15 88 44 400 256 <.1 14 240 186 6 312 0.4 396 PUMPED 0 .7 L/s -- 1--· ·----- ------- - -

2934 24 . 03.8~ 1025 620 7.4 84 12 68 43 330 230 0.2 15 155 78 10 281 0.4 255 PUMPED 1.4 L/s

2934 21.12 .8 1010 530 7.6 82 12 50 42 297 195 <.1 15 . 140 102 12 238 0.5 230 P2 -----· ·------ --

2934 04 .08 . 81 960 580 7. 5 71 8 63 39 318 229 0 . 1 19 140 70 9 279 0 . 3 231 ---

- - ---·-- ---· ·--- --- ---3618 23.03 .6 - 1018 7.6 192 21 57 44 322 222 - - 215 213 5 271 0 . 4 - P3

------ ---3618 05 .04 .6 - 893 7. 5 136 10 74 37 338 282 155 161 7 313 0 . ~ - ---------· --3618 15.04.6 - 900 7 .7 132 10 79 37 350 298 - - 135 143 0 363 o.: --- --- --·-- --- --- -3618 18.09.6 1100 690 7 .1 122 10 80 36 320 262 5.2 14 150 144 <1 320 <.1 2 1/2 1/s

--- ----- ------ --- ----- -------

3618 20 .04 .7 1770 950 7 .5 171 11 92 50 435 265 __Q_d__ 14 258 190 9 323 0 .5 425 --· ---- ------ ---- -·--- --- ---

3618 22 .05 . 7 ~ 1610 950 7.6 180 13 93 49 434 255 1.4 14 274 192 7 311 0.4 452 - --- -- --- ···--·- -- --·--- --- --- - -

3618 17.03.8 ) 1540 920 7 . 5 171 15 95 47 420 260 0 .4 13 257 186 5 311 0.3 424 1. 7 1/s -- - ---- -- -·- -·-· - ·- -- .. - ---- - ------ -----··· ----·-- ---

3618 21.12 .8 ~ 1590 970 7 .5 189 13 92 48 427 252 12 26Q 2H 5 307 0 . 4 430 ----· -- ----··- - - -· --· . ··-- ·--- ---· ·---~-- --

----....L-

WATER QUALITY DATA HERMANNS BURG TABLE 4

Analysis in milligrams per litre- mg/L (unless otherwise stated)

~ DATE SPECfiC TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL IRON BICARB- (CAlC REGISTEI~D -~ cx:>NOOCT- lXSS<X..VED SOOIUM POTASSIJ M CALOUI.I W.GHESIUI.I HAAONESS ALKAI.JNIT't CTOTAI..l

SILICA Oil.OOIDE SULPHATE NITRATE OOATE FLUOR DE fRC4,I COMio'EifTS HUMBER SAI.IPUNG mCE S<X..IDS Oil.OOOE)

pS/cm TOS pH Na K Ca Mg CaC03 CaC03 Fe Si03 Cl SO• H03 HC03 F HaC I

- - ·--·- · . 7175 21 .07 . 7( 880 500 7 .7 77 9 24 48 257 176 0.4 13 136 76 6 215 <. 1 - 2 1/s --·· --- .... .. --.- ···---- ----- --·--· ----- ----- - ·--7175 20 .04 . 7, 1460 750 7.9 98 9 90 63 483 343 <. 1 17 186 96 9 427 0 . 5 307 Plf ---- ·-- ---- -- ------ -- ---7175 22 . 05 . 7~ 1130 630 7 .6 85 10 77 54 414 310 2. 1 14 149 84 1 378 0 . 5 246 -- . ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --· ---

7175 07.03 . 8~ 1170 700 7.4 80 12 80 53 420 320 0.3 15 160 82 9 390 0 . 5 259 1.5 1/s - -- -- --- ----- ·--7175 21.12.8.< 1130 670 7.7 84 11 76 57 424 315 < . 1 13 140 132 5 384 0 .5 232

- -- ---·- --- --- --- ---- ----- --r-·--

----------- - --1--·--·-- ·--

7291 07 .05 . 7 1070 640 7 .3 75 8 81 54 424 346 9 . 4 14 125 76 3 422 0 .6 - P6 -- ---

7291 12 .08 . 7( 1050 620 7. 4 59 9 63 59 400 288 2 . 1 15 134 66 5 351 0 .6 ------- --- -- ---- ---- -- -

- --- --- - ·-·-- ----- -- - ··-· -- -------- - -7292 04 .02 .7 830 460 7. 4 53 10 52 31 257 189 <. 1 16 105 52 4 230 0 .5 173 P5 ------- -· - ----- ---- - . ·- -- ------

22 .05 . 7 750 430 7 .4 60 8 52 31 257 208 0 . 2 16 99 51 6 253 0 .5 163 - -- -- ----- - ·- -- ----- ---- ----- ----12.09 .7 760 400 7 . ~ 48 8 53 32 264 192 <. 1 16 109 23 3 234 0 . 4 173 - - ------- -- - - -· --- - ------ - -- ------ - ---- - - -18 .02 .8 860 460 7. c 52 9 55 31 265 190 0 . 1 15 114 35 5 232 0 .3 186

-- -- - - -- -·----- ---- ----29 . 03 . 8~ 780 430 7 . ~ 54 8 so 32 265 189 0 . 5 14 100 48 6 230 0 . 4 165 5 . 2 1/ s

--· - -- - ---- ----· '------ -

WATER QUALITY DATA HERMANNS BURG TABLE 4

~ OJ r m ~

Analysis in milligrams per litre - mg/L (unless otherwise stated)

~ REGISTEJ£0

NUJ.IBER

SPECflC TOTAl OONOOCT IXSSQVED

ANCE sru1S

JJS/cm TOS pH

SOOIULI IV'ITASSaJLt CALCIULI t.IAG}£SlUM TOTAL TOTAL IRON rv" HAAONESS ALKAUNm CTOTAll

Na K Ca Mg CaC03 CaC03 Fe

(CAlC SILICA CHLOR1DE SULPHATE NfTRATE BICARB- Fll..IOODE FR01.1

OOATE <aooDEJ COMJ.IEHTS

Si03 Cl SO' N03 HC03 F NaCI

I ---T-----f---f--f----1--- ----/----jl------l---l--- l--'---~---l---l---l---+---l---l----'l-------1 I

_7_29_2_t-21_._1_2_.a_2-+-7_6_o_ l-_4_3_o _ _ 7_._2 ----~-~- -~ 2 L -~ .J.J'}__ __ 189 ___ < . 1 __ l1.. !

110

i ---+------l----+--1----1--1---+---1---l-- 1----1----l---t---r---t-- - r--- -t---+-- ----- l

14165 04.11.84 1050

16.11.84 1110

600 7 .8 85 1--- -1-- ----

720 7 . 4 77

8

-7

54

80

53 352 I 267 j-----

51 409 1.0 333 1---l----- 1---f--- l--11----1----------

16

16

l- -+1_6_._12_._a_5 t-1_1_2o_l-_6_4_o_1 __ 7 __ · 2 _ _ _!_~ _ _! __ - _a~-_4~- __ 4o~- 2~_;_7 __ , _ _::;1_;__. 2::_

1._1::..::5_

130

120

120

- --1-1_1_.1_0_._8_8 t--8_45_+_52_5-1 __ 7_._9_1 __ 5_. E-1 __ 8_

1 __ 6_8_

1 __ 3_2 _3_0~ 239 _2_. 8 _ __ 1_7

4 __ 9_1_

90 3 326 0 . 5 213 P7

74 3 406 0 . 5 196

87 3 411 0 .5 196

74 <1 292 0 . 2 150

15006 09.03.88 1320 805 7.9 128 10 67 51 377 207 2. 2 15 225 136 3 252 0 .3 371 Observ . Bor e 1---1---1---~---1-- 1---1---1----1--+---1---~--+--4------~

--·1----1---~--1---1---- - - - --- -----1--l--1---1--- 1---~----1----1-------

78 7 68 50 375 276 2. 2 14 125 99 3 337 0 . 4 206 P8 15007 12.03 .88 1050 605 7. 7 --- ·-·--· ----- ------- ------1--1--- - - 1--1--- ---1----l---1--- ---l

1- - -t----1---,1---- ---- --- ----· ------ --- --- ----· -------1---1---1--f----t--- -1--------1

6636 26 . 06 .84 840 500 7.6 62 8 51 39 288 214 0. 2 19 114 50 4 261 0 . 5 188 Kapori l ja Spri ng 1- -+-----+---+---1- - ---- ---- - - --- -- -- --- -- -- -- --- ---- -·-

------1--- 1-- - - --- - - -·-- - - -- - ---- --- -- ---· - ------· ----- ---1- -1-- ·1--1----1--- + --i------

1- - - t-----1----'--'--1--- 1---F --·-- --· --- -..-. -- ··---·---··- ·--- ------------ --- ----1--=----=---1---1-------1

i NHMRC Guideli*s ;~~~- ~ · ~- 300 500 0. 3 400 400 45 ~ : i ... Maxima , except pH r a nge

--L-~--~---~-~--~-~-~

WATER QUALITY DATA HERMANNS BURG TABLE 4

BORE NO. -

Gro und Level

( m AHD)

DEPTH TO

WATER ( m)

SWL

(m AHD )

Dis tanc e

between

bores (km )

Gradient

between

bores

Di s tance

between

RN14956

RN15 00 7

Gradient

between

RN14956

RN15007

~ TRANSMISSIVITY, T:

OJ r m (.7l

RN 14956

6 50.12 ( ± 10 m)

5.55

64 4 .55

5 .4

0 .0 0 55

RN 14957 RN 7292 RN 15007

621 . 47 (± 10 m ) 602.26 (± 1 .5 m) 589.32 (± 1.5 m)

6.5 0 8 . 25

614.97 602.26 581.07

9.8 1.0

0 . 0013 0.0212

17.2 km

0.0037

Theref ore THROUGHFLOW, Q: f or gradient RN 14956 - RN 15007

TABLE 5 - BORE SURVEY AND TBROUGHI'LOW CALCULA1'ION

FIGURES

r

--

.., 2 0 2 4 6

G) c :0 m ~

FINKE L ___ _ 260000

8 10 Kms

Pze

PARK

270 000

Mapped outcrop of Lower Hermannsburg member from 1· 100 000 geo1ogical ser1es 5450

__ _ _j

Mop5449

LEGEND

Road

----- Track 734 0000

Creek I -------- River

--=- Sanoridge _,_ Fence

~ ~~ ~~~=~=~= i=· >BOOm Contour

d3D >900m Contour

• Bore

LOCATION MAP

FIGURE 1 2766- 15 -82

-

, Cj) c :0 m (A)

z 0 f­a.. ::e :::> (/) z 0 0

:J <( 0

w 0 <( n:: w ~

HERtvl ~J'-' NSBU RG WATER CO ~-JS LJtv1 PT I O I\l

Average ,A,nnual Demand = 350 c u .m. / d 700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

APRIL 88 JUNE 88 AUG 88 OCT 88 DEC 88 FEB 89 APR 89 JUNE 89

~10NTH

MONTHLY WATER CONSUMPTION FIGURE 3 2768-15-84

HER MANNSBURG BOREFIELD

l!l RN 6636 (Keporilye Spring)

\! RN 2934 (P2)

X RN 3618 (P3)

+ RN 7175 (P4 )

RN 7292 (P5)

)I( RN 7291 (P6)

o RN 1 41 65 (P7)

• RN 1 5007 (PS)

.& RN 15006

reo~ -so~ HERMANNSBURG WATER QUALITY

PIPER TRILINEAR \ \ \ \ I I I DIAGRAM

"T1 ~0 ~0 ,..o \\)0 rf (()0 tf (j) Ce Cl c ::0 m ~ FIGURE 4

2934-15-86

900

800

..... 0700 J: < E

-as > Cl>

w 500

400

II (j) c: :D m (J1

A 0

Pze

Pzr

3 " Postulated boundary bet\11/een upper

and loVIIe r Herrnannsburg rnernbers,

Vllith dips sho\11/n

Mapped northern-most exposure of Pzr

Zone of fracturing, PS &: P6

Main s upply P7 Main supply PB

2 3 4 5

Kilometres from RN 15007 (Production bore No.8)

t lOp of Krichauff

Range

6 7

o•

Axis of Palm Valley anticline

8 B

HERMANNSBURG BOREFIELD SCHEMATIC SECTION A - 8

FIGURE 5 2935-15-87

....... "'0 1000 -;;--E 900 -

c 0 .... 800 -a. E 700 -:::> (f)

c 0 600 -() .... Q) .... «! 3: >.

.L:. .... c 0

:::E Q) Ol «! 100 .... Q)

> <(

578 .0 -

577.8 -

577 .6-

....... 577.4-Q

:X: <(

E 5 77.2-

Q) 577.0-

> Q) _J 576.8 -.... Q) .... 5 76.6-

~ Ol 576.4-c :0 -c 576.2 «! -(/) 576.0-

575.8 -

575.6 -

r--------.---------.---------r---------r---------r--------,---------,---------,---------.--------.---------.--------~- 100

::::::::: = Average Monthly Wat er ········· Consumption (m 3 /d)

lJ = Dai ly Rainfall (mm)

RN 15006

I Hor izonta l Scal e 1mm z 1 Day

- 90

(ij - 80 > ..§ - 1o «! 0.. I - 6 0

....... E - so E

= - 40 «! -.~ -30 «! a: ~ - 20

«! Q - 10

~ 575.4-L-------~--------~--------_L ________ J_ ________ J_ ______ ~~------~--------~--------~---------L---------L--------~

G> I Sep tember I October I Nove mber I December I January I February I March April May June July August c 1988 1989 :0 m (j)

COMPARISON OF STANDING WATER LEVELS, RAINFALL AND MONTHLY WATER CONSUMPTION

FIGURE 6 27 69-15-85

588.2

588.0-

587.8-

587.6 -

587 .• -

587.2 -

...... 587.0 -c J: c( 586 .8 -

E ..... 586 .6-~ > ~ 586 .• -

.... al 586.2--as !: 586.0-01 c i5 585.8 -c as

/ /

' 1'-

/ /

/

v~\

11 / /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ .... /

;; ..... -t 58•.o -r--------.---------.--------.---------.---------.--------.--------~---r~---.---------.---------.---------.--------~

, Ci) c :0 m -...I

583.8 -

583 .6 -

583 .• -

583.2-

583.0- ----- - - --

RN 15007 I

Horizontal Scale 1mm z 1 Day

582.8 -~----~~~-------7----~--~----~--~~------~~----~--~--~~---------7---------+--------~--------~--------~ I September I Oct ober I November I December January I February I March Apri l May June July I August

1988 1989

COMPARISON OF STANDING WATER LEVELS.

FIGURE 7 2936- 15- 88

ATTACHMENTS

I

18

ATTACHMENT 1 - GEOPHYSICAL DATA INTERPRETATION

ROWSTON, P AND RITCHIE, T NOVEMBER 1988

Limited seismic coverage was a feature of the development of

the Palm Valley gas field. This is attributable to the

ruggedness of the terrain in the area. Magellan 2-2 is the

seismic line most relevant to the geological setting of the

Hermannsburg borefield by virtue of its proximity (see Figure

A1.1) .

Because of the differences in depths of investigation in

oil/ gas and groundwater exploration, reflections from the

base Hermannsburg are not resolved on the section. Dip of

the Hermannsburg must therefore be deduced from deeper

reflectors assuming constant thickness and conformity (see

Figure A1.2) .

With these assumptions then, dips of = 13° at Hermannsburg

( SP 17-18) shallowing to = 8° one to two kilometres south

along 1 ine 2-2, then shallowing again to = 0° five to six

kilometres south of Hermannsburg are estimated.

These dips are illustrated in Figure A1. 2 . Note also the

faulting (interpretted by Magellan) associated with this dip

increase at depth .

11 Ci) c :0 m )> _. _.

, o ,• .,o· •

.. . .. ... . •• • • • .\ o• : " • • • • • • _..,o, • • z- ~

• • • • • • • • .,o .. ... . ......

:· ....

. . . ~ . . ... ... . . ··.·

• .' C'

. ..

. .. .. ,., .. · . . ....

·.: ~: ... ·: ~·;· . . ...

. ~ ... .

,'\ ,;. . 1

. . ... ' I

I ' . .

. ' • ,·. ... • ' • ~ .. .1

i ~ i t'ty I ~~~

.!.! f ! I I i

- 4. l l0

I ~' ------------~~---r~--~~---r~-1~

... .. ·.::I ·. ·.l ." .... "1

CONTOURS ARE FEET 'SUBSEA' 0 16 kms

N

I • .

.. , ~ . • t \ •

•: • , , -, I . . :'o .

- ., ...

•• o

• e l O

I • N,

• zo

• oo

. .. . .

.,,

0 • •$ I '

N o

. ~

STRUCTURE MAP

PALM VALLEY FIELD DATUM: TOP OF PACOOTA

I ) •

FIGURE A1.1

PALM VALLEY No.1

) 0 110

.., G) c ::0 m )> _.

LINE 2 - 2 ° .__ __ _.._ __ __._ __ __._ __ _._ __ __,5 KM

5 10 15 20 2 5

FAULT (Magellan) so

• • • • • • • • • • • 13°

TOP GOYDER

ASE CAMBRIAN

BITTER SPRINGS

FIGURE A1 .2

SURVEY REPORT . ATTACHMENT 2 sv -4/1

INSTRUCTION No. . . ?.~eyf9.Q~ 0?. Dated .. ~9/~ U.~~ ......... ... Files .... ~~?i.QQ? /.1). · · · · · · · . ·

SUBJECT ..... ~.~ .~~~~~~.~~? .. ~ . ~~.~ .~~Y.~~?. ~~. ~~.~~~ .. ~q~~? .. ~~~~~~~.~~~9. · · · · · · · · · · · · AND AREYONGA

REPORT TO SUPERVISING SURVEYOR DATE: 2/5/89

1. AREYONGA

Bore RN6Y68 at ..._Areyo n ga has an A.HD RL of 67(j . 56 on the top of the 2'' socket, derived from PPl/201/1 (S81/527) in t u rn d e rived from BM 75/2b .

The bore NTC 633 -

is visible on Photo No 202 Run No 1 Flight 131mm from the western edge and 59mm from the

southe rn edge.

2. HERKANNSBURG

Horizontal coordina tes were obse rv ation s and are bel i eved t o

derived from GPS be within+ 10 metr es .

Vertical check to

he ight s are PI P 2/2867/ 1

derived from - the datum

P/P 3/2898/1 with a for these values was

originally ob t ained by si multaneous reciprocal vertical angles form Mt Hermannsbu r g with a pr ob able external accura cy of + 1 . 5 metres internal accuracy be twe en bore s an d B~S-etc is + 0.010 metres .

Bore RNs l4Cj56 and 14'157 at Antj u kwerra (Sugar and Litj e ra Ca mp respect iv ely are believed to ve rti cal acc ur acy of + 10 metr es . long dropper @ o• M @ 1 . Om .

tlORJ:: RN 36 18

AMG (Zon e 5)) 273 U7 0 E 7348470N Bor e to BM 2tl4 ° ~ JU .S m BM AHD Grou nd Le v e l a t Bore SW co rn er o f co n e s urr o und

BOl{ E RN 1500 6

AMG (Z o ne 53) i 7 1 14 0 E 7349200N

BMs

5 73 . 0 8 572 . 58 572 . 7 3

have

Bo re t o BM ff M ~ 19 . 9m l. O ~ 0° M to Bo r e Marker BM AHD 580 . 36 Top of bo r e pipe 58 0 . Y3

a

Creek) have a finder

BORE RN 14165

AMB (Zone 53) 270 890 E 734 8 760N Bore to BM 11° @ 64.3m Bore to Old BM 36°M@ 20.1m BM AHD Old BM Ground Level NE corner cone s urround

BORE RN 15007

585.56 586.13 586.50 5~6.5~

ATTACHMENT 2

AM G (Zone 53) l7U4SUE 7 34~ 850N Bore to BM 344° M @ 1 2.5m Bore Marker 0° M @ l.Om BM AHD 589.15 Top of casing 58Y . Y8

BORE RN 717 5

AMG (Zone 5 3) 27U 040 E 734~96UN Bore to BM 96°@ 4 3. 1m Bore t o Uld BM 62°M@ Y.7m BM AHD Old BM Ground Level NW corner cone surround

BORE RN 2934

AMG (Zone 53) 267 420E 7 349 41 0N Bore to BM 335° @ 34 . 1m BM AHD Ground Level NE corner co ne s urround

BORE RN 7292

AMG (Zon e 53) 267 OOOE 7 34Y 170N Bor e to BM 3 11 ° @ 36.3m BM AHD Groun d Level NE Corn e r co ne s urr o und

B 0 RE RN 14 9 57

AMG (Zone 53 ) 25~ 5J U E 7 3 4tl YY U~

Bo re to BM 2 10 °M ~ 1 S . ~m Bore to Bor e MarKer 11~ M ~ 7 . ~m BM AHU Ground Level Co ver over Bo r e (top) To p of casing

586 . 55 Stl6 . 22 5~5 .Y 5

586 . 0 b

60 1. 64 601.69 60 l. tl6

60 4 . 04 602 . 26 b02 . )~

621.66 62 1 . 47 6 2 1. ·:U 62 1. 86

BOlU:: RN 14956

AMG (Zone 53) 253 U50 E 7348 170N Hore to BM 342° @ 32.6m BM AHD Ground Level SW corner cone surround

TIMES (DAYS)

Surveyor Chainman

FIELD

5.tl 7.3

OFFICE

3.0

Field Books A/S Nos 20~7 and 20Ytl

T I McKNIGHT Licensed Surveyor

May 1989

649.92 650.10 65U.l2

ATTACHMENT 2