GDH Raising Wivenhoe Final Report

Department of Employment,
Economic Development and

Innovation
Report for Investigation of Options to
increase the flood mitigation
performance of Wivenhoe Dam
December 2011
This Investigation of Options to increase the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam
(Report):
1.
has been prepared by GHD Pty Ltd for the Queensland Department of Employment,
Economic Development and Innovation
2.
may only be used and relied on by the Department of Employment, Economic Development
and Innovation
3.
must not be copied, used by, or relied on by any person other than the Department of
Employment, Economic Development and Innovation without the prior written consent of
GHD Pty Ltd
4.
may only be used for the purpose as outlined in the Report (and must not be used for any
other purpose).
GHD Pty Ltd and its servants, employees and officers otherwise expressly disclaim responsibility
to any person other than the Department of Employment, Economic Development and
Innovation arising from or in connection with this Report.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, all implied warranties and conditions in relation to the
services provided by GHD Pty Ltd and the Report are excluded unless they are expressly stated
to apply in this Report.
The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this Report were limited to those
specifically detailed in the Terms of Reference and as detailed in this Report.
The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this Report are based on assumptions
made by GHD Pty Ltd when undertaking services and preparing the Report (Assumptions),
including, but not limited to those key assumptions noted in the Report, including reliance on
information provided by others.
GHD Pty Ltd expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report
arising from or in connection with any of the Assumptions being incorrect.
Subject to the paragraphs in this section of the Report, the opinions, conclusions and any
recommendations in this Report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed
at the time of preparation and may be relied on for six months, after which time, GHD Pty Ltd
expressly disclaims responsibility for any error in, or omission from, this Report arising from or in
connection with those opinions, conclusions and any recommendations.
i
41/24452/428742
Investigation of Options to increase the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam
Contents
1.
Executive Summary
1.1
Overview
1.2
Next steps
2.
Introduction
3.
Reliance Statement
4.
Background
4.1
Scope
4.2
Level of flood mitigation
4.3
Flooding and the Brisbane River catchment
4.4
Wivenhoe Dam
10
4.5
Brisbane River flooding
10
4.6
Historical flood events
10
4.7
Frequent Moderate Flood Events
17
4.8
Other flood influences
17
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Dam Operation
20
5.1
Dam operating rules
20
5.2
Alternative Dam Operation Strategies
26
Dam Raising Options
32
6.1
32
Raise Dam crest 2 metres, maintain existing FSV
Hydrologic Modelling
39
7.1
Model description
39
7.2
Hydrologic modelling
42
Water Security
49
8.1
Level of Service (LOS) Objectives and LOS Yield
49
8.2
Mechanisms to defer new infrastructure requirements
50
8.3
Operation of desalination and purified recycled water
51
Downstream Flood Mitigation Options
52
9.1
Introduction
52
9.2
Expand Splityard Creek Dam storage
54
ii
41/24452/428742
9.3
New flood retention dam
54
9.4
Bypass channel for Brisbane River
57
9.5
Channel upstream of Wivenhoe Dam to divert flow
57
9.6
Connect flood plains, new wetlands, other waterways
57
9.7
Watershed management
57
9.8
Backflow prevention
58
9.9
Levees and walls
58
9.10 Brisbane River
59
10. Economic Analysis
61
10.1 Overview
61
10.2 Hydrologic modelling
66
10.3 Benefits Flood Damage Analysis
66
10.4 Costs capital and operating
70
10.5 Economic evaluation
72
11. Summary and Recommendations
83
11.1 Summary
83
11.2 Recommendations
84
12. References
85
12.1 Queensland Water Commission
85
12.2 Seqwater
85
12.3 Department of Environment and Resource Management
85
12.4 Brisbane City Council
86
12.5 Other references
86
Table Index
Table 1
List of abbreviations
Table 2
Comparative Assessment Criteria
Table 3
Historical flood events peak flow and flood

volume comparison*
11
Semidiurnal Tidal Planes 2011 (Maritime Safety

Queensland)
18
Table 6
Gate operating rules
22
Table 7
Increasing flood capacity of Wivenhoe Dam

adjustments to level
33
Summary of potential upstream impacts
37
Table 5
Table 8
iii
41/24452/428742
Table 9
Adopted scaling factors for combined flows to the

Moggill gauge
40
Table 10
Hydrologic model scenarios
43
Table 11
2011 Flood Brisbane River Hydrology Model
47
Table 12
47
Table 13
1893 Flood Brisbane River Hydrology Model,
47
Table 14
Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood

simulation results
48
Table 15
Summary of scenarios tested
50
Table 16
Probability of reaching Grid 12 Dam triggers for

desalinated and PRW
51
Table 17
Assessment criteria
52
Table 18
Alternative Options Workshop Evaluation

Summary
53
Influence of Lockyer Creek and Bremer River flows,

base case scenario (S0)
56
Table 20
Key costs and timing assumptions
71
Table 21
Economic analysis summary results
77
Figure 1
Brisbane River Catchment
15
Figure 2
1893 Flood Hydrograph
16
Figure 3
16
Figure 4
17
Figure 5
Gate Operating Rules Schematic
21
Figure 6
Comparison of 2007 and 2011 gate operating rules

(0 m 3/s to 35,000 m3/s)
23
Comparison of 2007 and 2011 gate operating rules

(0 m 3/s to 5,000 m3/s)
23
Wivenhoe lake level and flow 100 % Full Supply

Volume (0 m3/s to 35,000 m3/s)
25
Wivenhoe lake level and flow 100 % Full Supply

Volume (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s)
26
Existing gate operating rules Alternative FSVs (0

m 3/s to 35,000 m3/s)
27
Existing gate operating rules Alternative FSVs (0

m 3/s to 5,000 m3/s)
28
Existing gate Operating Rules 2 metre Dam

raising (0 m3/s to 35,000 m3/s)
29
Table 19
Figure Index
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
iv
41/24452/428742
Figure 13
Existing gate Operating Rules 2 metre Dam

raising (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s)
29
2011 Operating Rules against modified Operating

Rules (0 m3/s to 35,000 m3/s)
30
2011 Operating Rules against modified Operating

Rules (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s)
31
Wivenhoe Dam level, inflow and outflow January

2011
33
Water level and outflow comparison alternative

FSV
34
Target operating line for Wivenhoe Dam and

Somerset Dam (Seqwater, 2011)
41
Comparison of Seqwater simulated and recorded

hydrographs (Moggill gauge)
42
Estimated flood damage curve Brisbane City

Council*
63
Figure 21
Economic Analysis Methodology
65
Figure 22
Economic Modelling framework
66
Figure 23
Combined Stage Damage Curve
68
Figure 24
Loss probability curve Brisbane (Illustrative)*
70
Figure 25
Economic analysis and cost benefit analysis
73
Figure 26
NPV ($) for 1893 Flood Event options
74
Figure 27
74
Figure 28
75
Figure 29
Area of land inundated in Brisbane (hectares)

various flow rates
80
Length of road inundated in Brisbane various flow

rates
80
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 30
Appendices
A
Hydrologic Model
Economic Analysis - Cost Summary
Economic Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis Results
Queensland Water Commission Report
Maps
v
41/24452/428742
1. Executive Summary
1.1
Overview
In September 2011, as part of the overall Queensland Government response to the January 2011
Brisbane floods, the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI)
commissioned GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) to carry out a rapid assessment of various options to improve
mitigation of floods downstream of Wivenhoe Dam. Subject to Government consideration, the Study
results may be used to inform more detailed investigations.
This Study report presents a preliminary rapid assessment and evaluation of potential options to improve
flood mitigation downstream of Wivenhoe Dam based on three larger historically recorded events (1893,
1974 and 2011). The variability of the characteristics of these historical events is reflected in the
effectiveness of Wivenhoe Dam to mitigate floods.
The Study includes consideration of the costs of increasing flood mitigation against the relative benefits
gained through reduced damages downstream. The costs associated with changing the timing of water
supply infrastructure required to maintain the current Level of Service (LoS) objectives were also
examined.
The modelling undertaken in the Study has been based on simplified hydrologic and economic modelling
techniques. While this provides some guidance and indicative outcomes, more sophisticated modelling
techniques will be required to verify and validate the findings of this study. The Study does not consider,
within its scope, modelling the full range of flood events including the impact of the more frequent and
moderate flooding events.
Caution should be exercised in the review of the options considered given the significant variability of
historical flood events and the potential for consequential flood risks. This variability was demonstrated in
the hydrologic modelling outputs where flood mitigation benefit may be apparent for one or two of the
historic flood events, but rarely all three showed significant benefit for all scenarios.
The Study considered scenarios involving a range of structural and non-structural options to assess the
potential improvements in flood mitigation and associated benefit, including:
lowering the Full Supply Volume (FSV) to 50% with no change to the Dam wall;
lowering the FSV to 75% with no change to the Dam wall;
raising the Dam wall by 2 metres while maintaining FSV;
raising the Dam wall by 2 metres with FSV at 75%; and
variation of the operating releases from the Dam.
The hydrologic modelling used to compare these options adopted The Manual of Operational Procedures
for Flood Mitigation at Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam, Version 8, September 2011 (2011 FOM).
The 2011 (FOM) states that the selection of release rates at any point in time is a matter for the
professional engineering judgment of the Duty Flood Operations Engineer.... This allows each event to
be managed based on inflows, outflows, predicted stream flows and lake levels as well as other
operating rules stated in the manual.
1
41/24452/428742
However, this manner of operating the dams would give any number of gate operating strategies for
each separate option and scenario that was investigated during the Study. Therefore, in order to identify
a finite number of scenarios and be able to duplicate and consistently model the options to allow direct
comparisons to be easily made, our simplistic model used the more rigid set of progressive operating
rules within the manual called Loss of Communications procedures.
1.2
Findings
In general, the following broad findings were made:
A 2 metre increase in the crest level of the Dam provides approximately 437,000 ML (437 GL) of
additional flood mitigation capacity giving a total volume in the flood storage compartment of
approximately 2,404 GL and a subsequent total volume in Wivenhoe Dam of 3,596 GL;
Reducing the FSV to 75% and using the 2011 FOM (version 8) shows a decrease of the flood peak
at the Port Office for the three events;
Lowering the FSV levels permanently will require planned water infrastructure to be brought forward
(3 years for a permanent FSV of 75% and 11 years for a permanent FSV of 50%) at a significant
economic cost;
Two out of three of the flood events modelled showed that alternative operation of the Wivenhoe and
Somerset Dam may have the potential to reduce peak levels at the Port Office gauge. However, for
the modelled 1974 event, the early release strategies increased the peak flood level at the Port
Office gauge compared to the 1974 event (including Wivenhoe and Somerset operated as per the
2011 FOM);
However, it has been found by other studies that early release strategy can have a greater impact on
the more frequent and moderate flood events including increased flows during smaller flood events.
This requires further detailed modelling in order to fully determine the impacts;
Additionally, previous hydrologic modelling has demonstrated that early release strategies worsen
downstream flood impacts associated with more frequent flood events. Five such events have been
recorded since Wivenhoe Dam was constructed. Accordingly, determining an optimum release
strategy will require extensive detailed modelling including a complete re-evaluation of the design
hydrology for the basin. This work is outside the scope of this study;
This outcome confirms the need for the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dam optimisation study
recommended by the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry which has already been initiated by
Seqwater (long-term study). This study will allow Brisbane River system, including the Wivenhoe
and Somerset dams as a whole to be fully modelled in detail. GHD understands that although the
catchment areas of Bremer River and Lockyer Creek are not within the scope, their impacts on the
Brisbane River system will be included;
The cost of raising the dam crest by 2 metres is estimated to be approximately $400 million. This
cost does not include substantial modification to the gates (potentially up to $330 million), potential
upgrades associated with the requirement for Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) or fishways
(potentially greater than $100 million). The cost has been based on this rapid assessment and is
likely to increase during any preliminary design phase;
It is estimated that it would take approximately four years to raise the crest of the dam. However, this
is based on no delays in the design, approvals, consultation and construction of the project; and
2
41/24452/428742
Based on the three events modelled the flood mitigation benefits were variable for many of the
options investigated across the three flood events. For example, while the options of alternative
operation of the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dam and the 2 metre raise (100% FSV), had minimal
impacts during the 2011 flood event, these same options showed no benefit for the 1974 flood event,
with most benefit realised during the 1893 flood event.
While the above results provide an overview of performance of three larger historical floods in the
Brisbane River, caution should be applied in drawing conclusions from this information because of the
potential for significant variability in actual flood events in terms of flow patterns and flood risk. A more
detailed assessment of a broader range of scenarios using a more complex hydrologic model is
considered necessary before any detailed conclusions are reached.
The Study clearly demonstrates that there is no single solution to improving flood mitigation downstream
of Wivenhoe Dam given the significant variation in flood benefits realised across the nominated flood
events. However, before consideration is given to an additional infrastructure to improve flood mitigation,
opportunities may exist to improve performance through better use of existing assets and procedures.
These opportunities should be assessed in greater detail within the scope of the long-term study.
1.3
Next steps
Given the very preliminary nature of this study and the simplistic hydrologic and economic modelling, it is
recommended that further analysis be undertaken on options to optimise flood mitigation effects through
a detailed, integrated assessment of available storage and early releases from Wivenhoe and Somerset
dams with inflows from other tributaries (Lockyer and Bremer Rivers).
This would entail, but not limited to:
Further examination and development of damage curves, including identification and survey of
affected private and public property;
Optimisation of the operation of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams;
Development of decision support tools for the operation of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams,
Risk based assessment of release strategies; and
Integration of changes to Wivenhoe and Somerset dams operation as part of a catchment wide flood
management plan, incorporating early warning, land use planning and localised flood prevention
solutions.
GHD understands that the long-term study which will investigate the system as a whole and will
investigate many of these issues is already underway.
3
41/24452/428742
2. Introduction
As part of the overall Queensland Government response to the January 2011 Brisbane floods, DEEDI
commissioned GHD to carry out a high-level, rapid assessment of various options to improve the
mitigation of floods downstream of Wivenhoe Dam. The Study objective is to identify a number of high
level options to improve the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam. It was not intended that this
study would provide one answer or to provide a definitive outcome. It was always intended that this rapid
assessment would provide a number of high level options that would enable further in-detail
investigation. It was also intended that a number of options would be identified which could be eliminated
from future investigation due to the indicative high cost or the construction period required or the
technical feasibility.
The Study objective is to provide a preliminary assessment of flood mitigation options and identify any
consequential water supply issues. The Study includes consideration of the costs of increasing the flood
mitigation against the relative benefits gained through reduced damages downstream together with
consideration of the impact on the timing for water supply infrastructure required to maintain the current
LoS objectives.
Table 1
List of abbreviations
Abbreviation
Meaning
AAD
Average Annual Damages ($)
AEP
Annual Exceedance Probability
AHD
Australian Height Datum
ARI
Average Recurrence Interval
BCR
Benefit Cost Ratio
Cumecs
Cubic metres per second
EL
Equivalent Level
2011 FOM
Manual of Operational Procedures for Flood Mitigation at Wivenhoe Dam

and Somerset Dam, Version 8, September 2011
100% FSV
67 metres AHD (100% Full Supply Volume)
75% FSV
50% FSV
FSV
Full Supply Volume
GIS
Geographic Information System
GL
Gigalitres (one billion litres)
GL/a
Gigalitres per annum
HAT
Highest Astronomical Tide

4
41/24452/428742
Abbreviation
Meaning
LAT
Lowest Astronomical Tide
LoS
Level of Service
l/p/d
Litres per person per day
MHWN
Mean High Water Neaps
MHWS
Mean High Water Springs
MLWN
Mean Low Water Neaps
MLWS
Mean Low Water Springs
ML
Megalitres (one million litres)
ML/a
Megalitres per annum
MSL
Mean Sea Level
m3
Cubic metres
m /s
Cubic metres per second (flow rate)
NPV
Net Present Value
Ogee crest
Type of open spillway
PMF
Probable Maximum Flood
PMP-DF
Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood
PRW
Purified recycled water
QWC
Queensland Water Commission
TUFLOW
Two-dimensional hydraulic modelling software platform
W2, W4 etc
Reference predetermined stages of flow control from Wivenhoe Dam

prescribed by the Manual of Operational Procedures for Flood Mitigation at
Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam, Version 8, September 2011
5
41/24452/428742
3. Reliance Statement
Due to the limited time available to produce this Report, caution should be exercised on any reliance of
the accuracy of the simplistic economic and hydrological modelling results from the Study. It has not
been possible, within the limitations of the Study, to check the reliability of all information and data, which
for the purpose of this Study, has been presumed to be accurate.
While GHD has attempted to review the results of available modelling against previous studies and
documentation, no formal validation or independent checks have been undertaken.
The scope of this Study has been limited to three historical flood events, so will not represent more
extreme events or types of flooding such as storm tide. Similarly, options for flood mitigation considered
have not taken into account consequential impacts on other areas of the Wivenhoe, Somerset and
Brisbane River systems. Importantly, the Study does not include, within its scope, modelling of the full
range of flood events including the impact of the more frequent and moderate flood events.
Construction rates have been based on detailed cost estimates prepared for recent dam upgrade
projects in South East Queensland in 2011. At present there is considerable volatility in construction
pricing, so construction rates should be viewed with caution. In addition, risk pricing has not been
included, which may change the cost estimate further. Dam work is subject to stringent environmental
controls and geotechnical and other conditions can differ from what is expected based on existing data.
Likewise, the impact of wetter than average seasons on construction cost rates has not been assessed.
A detailed hydrology model of the Brisbane River catchment was not available for this study, and so
sophisticated routing of flows downstream of Wivenhoe Dam was not possible. The hydrologic modelling
conducted for this study is based on level-pool reservoir routing through the dams, and a lagging and
summation of hydrographs downstream of Wivenhoe Dam to estimate the peak flow rate at the Moggill
gauge. No hydraulic modelling has been undertaken for the purposes of this Study.
6
41/24452/428742
4. Background
4.1
Scope
The scope of this Study presented in the project Terms of Reference has been developed and refined
during the initial project planning phase and through consultation with the Steering Committee.
The purpose of this Study was to undertake an eight week rapid assessment to identify preferred options
to improve mitigation of floods downstream of Wivenhoe Dam. There are a number of concurrent studies
being undertaken by various stakeholders, including Seqwater and Brisbane City Council, in response to
the recommendations of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry Interim Report. As such, this
Study should be viewed within the context of the overall strategy for flood management including local
flood mitigation solutions, development zoning and community awareness.
Any relevant preliminary findings from the Wivenhoe Dam Study and the Preliminary Optimisation Study
may be incorporated into the Seqwater long term study activity.
This Study has considered potential mitigation options against three major historical events, namely:
1893 flood event;
1974 flood event; and
2011 flood event.
Relevant data for each of these events has been supplied by Seqwater. Since the Study does not
consider the full range of flood events, caution should be exercised in the review of options given the
significant variability of three historical flood events and the potential for consequential flood risks.
The scope of this Study, limited by the time available, is for the identification and assessment of broad
options presenting alternatives to the present operation and functioning of Wivenhoe Dam. These broad
options are intended to be capable of mitigating the nominated historical events as closely as possible to
3
3
the dual control discharges of 1,900 m /s and 3,500 m /s from the Dam.
The Study consisted of two principal elements for the assessment of options to improve the mitigation of
flooding impacts:
A Wivenhoe Dam Study considering options to improve the flood mitigation potential of Wivenhoe
Dam; and
A Preliminary Optimisation Study seeking to identify various alternative options for flood mitigation.
Short-listed options for Wivenhoe Dam have been subjected to an economic assessment including
assessment of the reduced flood level in the Brisbane River and consequential benefits of each option.
Flood damage curves were used to determine the cost and therefore the economic benefit associated
with each option.
4.1.1
Wivenhoe Dam Study
A rapid assessment approach was adopted for this investigation to achieve the desired outcomes within
the timeframe. The investigation considered the following:
raising of the Dam crest by 2 metres (with FSV at current levels);
7
41/24452/428742
raising of the Dam crest by 2 metres (with FSV at 75% of current levels);
lowering the FSV to 75% of current levels;
lowering the FSV to 50% of current levels; and
raising the downstream bridges and modifying the operational releases from the Dam.
A 2 metre increase in the crest level of the Dam provides approximately 437,000 ML (437 GL) additional
storage. For each option the Wivenhoe Dam Study considered:
the cost and time for implementation of the measures;
likely impacts upstream of the Dam wall including potential impact on existing infrastructure;
the likely benefit in terms of reduced flood damages (based on the 1893, 1974 and 2011 flood
events); and
consequential impact on the Water Supply Infrastructure Program.
The development of these options used Manual of Operational Procedures for Flood Mitigation at
Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam, Version 8, September 2011. GHD understands that there is now a
Manual of Operational Procedures for Flood Mitigation at Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam Version 9
November 2011. However, this manual was released after the modelling for this study was completed so
Revision 9 has not been assessed nor the impact on the outcomes of this Study.
All options for the raising of the Dam wall have been considered against the required capacity to pass the
latest estimate of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) as required by 2035 under the Guidelines on
Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams.
For each option a comparative assessment of the following was made:
Table 2
Comparative Assessment Criteria
Potential benefits
Costs
Net reduction in damage costs
Capital and operational costs for construction of new

infrastructure
The need to bring forward water supply infrastructure
investment to maintain levels of service
The hydrological and hydraulic nature of the contributing catchments within the Brisbane River system is
complex and subject to extreme variability between historic flood events. Management of flooding in the
system is equally complex and a single solution is unlikely to be sufficient.
Due to the timing and the short timeframe for the report to be undertaken and finalised, only existing
available data was used. For example, the flood damage curves from 2006 were used with an escalation
factor as much of the information from 2011 is not currently available.
4.1.2
Preliminary Optimisation Study
The Preliminary Optimisation Study required the consideration of various flood mitigation and water
supply scenarios comprised of infrastructure and non-infrastructure measures.
8
41/24452/428742
Infrastructure options include:
raising of bridge crossings immediately downstream from Wivenhoe Dam;
flood retention storages in tributary river systems discharging downstream of Wivenhoe Dam
(Lockyer Creek and Bremer River);
levees; and
backflow prevention devices.
Non-infrastructure options were also considered, such as modifications to the operational procedures for
Wivenhoe Dam. This preliminary study is limited in its scope, time frame and this is reflected in the use of
the simplified economic and hydrologic models. GHD understands that the long term Wivenhoe and
Somerset Dam optimisation study which will investigate the system as a whole was a recommendation
of the recent Flood Inquiry and is already underway.
4.2
Level of flood mitigation
This Study does not consider options that attempt to achieve complete non-flooding of the downstream
catchment, given the corresponding impracticalities associated with Brisbanes position within the flood
plain of the Brisbane River. The other complicating factor in defining flood mitigation options is that every
flood behaves differently, and is dependent on where the flood originates, where the rainfall occurs, and
what areas are flooded.
The options that have been investigated have been ones that either achieve a level of flood mitigation or
are based on economic cost/benefit analysis. For example, when costs were identified as very high and
there was limited flood mitigation potential, then the option was rejected.
4.3
Flooding and the Brisbane River catchment
The lower extent of the Brisbane River, including the passage through Brisbane City, is highly floodprone given its low-lying position in the large Brisbane River Basin[1]. The catchment itself, combined with
the Bremer River catchment, includes a total area of 13,222 km2. Approximately half of this area is
[2]
downstream of the Wivenhoe Dam. Thousands of residential, commercial and industrial properties
have been constructed on the flood plain in the Brisbane metropolitan and Ipswich areas.
Changes to the hydraulic character of the Brisbane River, including periodic dredging and the
construction of Somerset Dam (commissioned in 1953), Cressbrook Dam (commissioned in 1982) and
Wivenhoe Dam (commissioned in 1984), have significantly altered the flood effects of heavy rainfall in
the Upper Brisbane River catchment. Consequently, comparative analysis of historical flood events is
contingent on an allowance for alterations to river bathymetry, and more significantly, increased
catchment storage and flow attenuation.
Despite changes to the river itself, the 1893 and 2011 floods were of a reasonably similar magnitude in
terms of total catchment rainfall, peak river flows, and volumetric outflow from the Brisbane River, while
[3]
the 1974 flood involved significantly less catchment rainfall and a lower peak river flows .
The 1893 and 2011 floods are characterised by more significant rainfall in the Upper Brisbane River and
Stanley River catchments, while the 1974 flood experienced more significant rainfall in the Bremer River
catchment and Brisbane metropolitan areas.
9
41/24452/428742
4.4
Wivenhoe Dam
Construction of Wivenhoe Dam was formally proposed in 1971 by the Queensland Government with the
dual purposes of providing a suitable urban water source and as a flood mitigation strategy.
An optimum flood storage volume was determined using the benefit-cost relationship between the cost of
Dam storage and assumed flood damages in 1974. Preliminary design considerations demonstrated that
even with the introduction of significant flood storage in Wivenhoe Dam, major flooding can still occur in
[4]
the Lower Brisbane River .
The Wivenhoe Dam has previously been classified using the ANCOLD Guidelines as an Extreme Hazard
Dam, as the design flood is the PMF which currently exceeds the spillway capacity. The Dam was
upgraded in 2005 to provide for the spillways to pass the 1 in 100,000 Annual Exceedence Probability
(AEP) flood. The AEP is simply the probability that a particular flood will occur in any one year. This
[5]
upgrade included construction of a three-bay fuse plug spillway on the right abutment . A secondary
fuse plug and auxiliary spillway on the left abutment, intended to improve the capacity of the spillways to
the PMF, is due for completion by 2035.
2
Approximately half of the Brisbane River catchment (6,232 km of 13,222 km ) is located downstream of
[6]
the Wivenhoe Dam , and the flooding effects of rainfall in the lower catchment are therefore unaffected
by operation of the Dam.
4.5
Brisbane River flooding
4.5.1
Riverine flooding
Riverine flooding was the primary cause of the floods in 1893, 1974 and 2011. Extended periods of
heavy rainfall in the catchment increase flow volumes within the Brisbane River to the point that the
capacity of the River was exceeded.
The Brisbane City (Port Office) gauge is a useful datum to compare peak flood levels during historical
[7]
flood events, and gauge heights are identified for each of the historical flood events identified .
4.5.2
Backwater flooding
All three major historical floods involved the effects of backwater flooding, whereby the raised river level
of the Brisbane River during the flood event caused water to back up into Brisbane River tributaries, with
flood run-off from the tributaries compounding backwater flood levels.
4.5.3
Storm surge
Storm surge involves an increase in water levels within the receiving body of water (Moreton Bay) due to
atmospheric pressure reductions and wind fetch. Storm surge can increase the extent of flooding in the
Brisbane River through a backwater effect on the primary flows, particularly when a storm surge
[8]
coincides with the high tide .
4.6
Historical flood events
The three most significant historical flood events are summarised in the following section. A comparison
of the peak flow and flood volume characteristics of the significant historical flood events is shown in
10
41/24452/428742
Table 3. The summary flows and volumes include all catchment areas downstream to Moggill, west of
Brisbane City (95% of the total catchment area). The estimates in Table 3 were supplied by Seqwater
for the purposes of this Study, and are based on Seqwater calibrated hydrology models.
Table 3
Historical flood events peak flow and flood volume comparison*

1893
3
Catchment
1974
3
2011
3
Peak flow (m /s)
Volume (ML)
Peak flow (m /s)
Volume (ML)
Peak flow (m /s)
Volume (ML)
Stanley River
6,053
1,080,976
3,961
551,381
5,519
705,262
Upper Brisbane
River
8,987
1,718,258
6,121
1,173,460
8,709
1,675,134
Lockyer Creek
2,460
501,754
4,423
765,024
5,461
701,832
Mount Crosby
624
176,593
1,360
197,306
2,289
201,299
Bremer River
856
196,825
4,223
631,195
2,446
374,989
3,674,406
TOTAL
3,318,366
4,159,049
*Source: Seqwater Simulated Historical Flood Event Hydrographs
4.6.1
1893 Flood
[2]
In 1893, major flooding devastated parts of Brisbane. The flood represents one of the largest floods on
record in terms of both total rainfall and area inundated.[9] The 1893 flood is similar in terms of rainfall
distribution and peak flows within the river system to the 2011 flood.
Flows into the area now occupied by the Wivenhoe Dam during the 1893 event were similar to the
[9]
2011 flood at approximately 2,650,000 mega-litres (ML).
The Port Office gauge recorded a level of approximately 8.3 metres in the 1893 flood. [7]
4.6.1.1
Rainfall
Bureau of Meteorology records of the four-day peak of the 1893 flood suggested:
939 mm of rainfall was recorded in the Stanley River catchment; and
358 mm of rainfall in the Upper Brisbane River catchment.
[8].
A maximum total of 1,026 mm of rainfall was recorded in the Brisbane River catchment during the month
of the 1893 flood. However, rainfall records for the time are largely inadequate for detailed analysis.
4.6.2
1974 Flood
[8]
The 1974 floods caused around $200 million in damage and resulted in 14 deaths. The flood was
mitigated to some extent by the construction of Somerset Dam in 1953, and the associated flow
attenuation.
The primary characteristic of the 1974 flood was heavy rainfall and outflows in the Bremer River and
Lower Brisbane River areas, with comparatively less rainfall and flows in the Upper Brisbane and Stanley
10
River catchments.
11
41/24452/428742
Flows into the Wivenhoe Dam area during the 1974 event were approximately half that of the 1893
and 2011 floods; and [9]
The Port Office gauge recorded a level of approximately 5.5 metres in the 1974 flood.
[7]
Rainfall
A monsoonal trough was present over South East Queensland in January 1974, south of normal latitude,
saturating the Brisbane River catchment.
Over a five-day period between January 24 and 29, a minimum of 300 mm of rainfall was
experienced in all parts of the Brisbane River catchment;
Between 500 mm and 900 mm of rain was recorded within the metropolitan area;
Over 1,300 mm of rain fell at Mount Glorious; and
The most intensive rainfall occurred during a 24 hour period on Friday January 25, with between 300
mm to 500 mm recorded.
The 1974 flood saw more significant rainfall within the Lower Brisbane River and Bremer River
catchments relative to the 1893 flood, but less significant rainfall in the upper reaches of the Brisbane
River catchment.
4.6.3
2011 Flood
[1]
Flood inundation within Brisbane City in 2011 was remarkably similar to the 1974 flood , although river
flow volume during the January 2011 event was almost double the 1974 flood and rivals the 1893 flood,
[4]
exceeding a 1 in 100 AEP.
Flooding from the January 2011 event resulted in 35 deaths in South East Queensland, in part reflecting
[11]
the increased urbanisation in and around riverine flood plains . Approximately 2,000 people were
relocated to emergency accommodation. The central business district was shut down for approximately
five-days at significant financial and commercial expense. Substantial damage was inflicted on services
[11]
and utilities in the Brisbane metropolitan and Ipswich areas.
Operation of the Somerset and Wivenhoe dams attenuated the peak flow discharges into the Lower
[9]
Brisbane River (similar to the 1893 flood at approximately 2,650,000 ML ), thus reducing flood levels
[3]
and consequently damage to urban areas and infrastructure.
The Port Office gauge recorded a level of approximately 4.46 metres in the 2011 flood.[7]
Rainfall
The following, unusually heavy falls were recorded in the catchment areas upstream of the Wivenhoe
[12]
and Somerset dams.
rainfalls between 600 mm and 1,000 mm were recorded in parts of the Brisbane River Catchment in
[13]
December 2010 and January 2011;
total daily rainfall of between 150 mm and 250 mm was experienced on average in the Brisbane
[1]
River catchment between January 9 and 11; and
Seqwater records of the three-day 2011 flood suggested 412 mm of rainfall was recorded in the
Stanley River catchment, and 307 mm of rainfall in the Upper Brisbane River catchment, producing
the most significant peak flow rates.
12
41/24452/428742
Sinclair Knight Merz concluded, based on review of overall data collected at alert stations, that the AEP
of the rainfalls for the whole [Wivenhoe] Dam catchment is likely to be between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 200
year event.[8]
Flood characteristics
Characteristics of the January 2011 flood include:
[3]
a long duration (and lengthy associated rainfall period);
a large total flow volume;
a double peak in flow rate; and
under-forecast rainfall intensity prior to the peak of the flood up to 65% less than those actually
recorded.
13
41/24452/428742
Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the Brisbane River catchment and associated tributaries,
demonstrating peak flows at flood volumes for each of the three historical flood events.
Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 demonstrate the simulated hydrographs for the historical floods
considered in the Study (including discrete hydrographs for each river catchment within the larger
Brisbane River catchment) as provided by Seqwater.
Key information regarding the benefits of Wivenhoe Dam and the 2011 FOM on these three major flood
events is presented in Table 4.
For the 1893 and 1974 flood events (prior to construction of Wivenhoe Dam), recorded flood levels
are significantly higher than the modelled flood levels which we undertaken assuming Wivenhoe
Dam had been in place; and
For the 2011 flood event (following construction of Wivenhoe Dam) the recorded flood level is
2 metres lower than the level modelled assuming Wivenhoe Dam was not constructed.
Table 4
Summary of Peak Flood level at the Port Office for the scenarios tested at low tide
Flood Event (year)
Peak Recorded Level at Port Office without

Wivenhoe Dam (metres AHD)
1893
8.3* [actual]
1974
5.5 [actual]
2011
6.46 [modelled]
[7]
Wivenhoe Dam present Sep 2011

FOM (metres AHD)
4.9 [modelled]
[7]
3.5 [modelled]
[9]
4.46 [actual]
[7]
*Note: Somerset Dam was not present during the 1893 flood. This is the recorded levels at the Port Office without the benefit of
Somerset or Wivenhoe Dams.
14
41/24452/428742
Linville
Upper Brisbane
Catchment:
Upper Brisbane
Catchment:
1893: 8,987 m3/s

1974: 6,121 m3/s
2011: 8,709 m3/s
1893: 1.72 GL
1974: 1.17 GL
2011: 1.68 GL
Peachester
2.5 hrs
Devon Hills
2 hrs
Gatton
Gregors Ck
Peachester
4
hr
Rosentretter
Cre
ssb
Cre rook
ek
6h
rs
Glenore Grove
ek
re
rC
ye
ck
Lo
hr
15
hrs
Stanley River
Catchment:
SOMERSET DAM
1,312 km2
8 hrs
Lyons Bridge
Lockyer
Catchment:
6h
rs
1893: 2,460 m3/s

1974: 4,423 m3/s
2011: 5,461 m3/s
6,990 km2
WIVENHOE DAM
Stanley River
Catchment:
1893: 1.08 GL
1974: 0.55 GL
2011: 0.71 GL
2,974 km2
OReillys Weir
Lockyer
Catchment:
1.75
1893: 0.51 GL
1974: 0.77 GL
2011: 0.70 GL
h rs
1893: 6,053 m3/s

1974: 3,961 m3/s
2011: 5,519 m3/s
9,964 km2
2 hrs
10,012 km2
Lowood
40 min
Twin Bridge
20 min
Fernvale Bridge
1 hr
Kalbar
Rosewood
Savages Crossing
Mt Crosby Local
Area:
10,144 km2
1893: 624 m3/s

1974: 1,360 m3/s
2011: 2,289 m3/s
s
hr
2.5 hrs
Burtons Bridge
2.5 hrs
Harrisville
Mt Crosby Local
Area:
Walloon
ek
re
lC
ril
ar
W
4.5 hrs
Kholo Crossing
639 km2
hr
s
Amberley
913 km
1893: 0.18 GL
1974: 0.20 GL
2011: 0.70 GL
1 hr
10,509 km2
Mt Crosby Weir
4
s
hr
4.5 hrs
David Trumpy Bridge

Bremer River
Catchment:
1,868 km2
1 hr
Colleges Crossing
3.5 h
rs
1893: 856 m3/s

1974: 4,223 m3/s
2011: 2,446 m3/s
Bremer River
Catchment:
1893: 0.20 GL
1974: 0.63 GL
2011: 0.38 GL
3 hrs
Moggil
12,597 km2
5 hrs
Jindalee
12,888 km2
5 hrs
13,222 km2
City Gauge - Brisbane
Legend
NOT TO SCALE
Dam
A Brisbane River Catchment Details
TT
Drawn
G:\41\24452\Tech\Visio\Catchment_Schematic.vsd
Location
Flood Volumes
River Name
Cumulative Catchment
TT
Checked
Peak Flows
Condition of use:
This document may only be
used by GHDs client (and any
other person who GHD has
agreed can use this document)
for the purpose for which it has
prepared and must not be used
by any other person or for any
other purpose.
Drawn
Designed
T.T.
T.T.
Date: 01/11/2011
Scale
NTS
Client:
DEEDI
Project:
Wivenhoe Options Study Rapid Assessment
Title:
Brisbane River Catchment
This Drawing must not

be used for
Construction
Original Size
A3
Rev: A
Figure 2
Figure 3
16
41/24452/428742
Figure 4
4.7
Frequent Moderate Flood Events
While this Study focusses on the three large historical events noted in Section 4.6 above, it is important
to acknowledge the moderate flood events which occur more frequently. Five moderate flood events
have occurred since Wivenhoe Dam was constructed, including the following approximate peak flows
[15]
recorded at the Moggill gauge :
3
Early April 1989
(1,700 m /s);
Late April 1989
(1,700 m /s);
February 1999
(1,900 m3/s);
October 2010
(1,500 m3/s); and
December 2010
(1,700 m /s).
While these five events were not part of this Study, the long-term study should investigate moderate
events when considering changes into operating rules and other infrastructure solutions.
4.8
Other flood influences
While not part of the scope of this Study it is worth noting that tidal and coastal effects can have a
significant bearing on the extent of flooding in the lower Brisbane River reaches.
Flood level variations of over 1 metre can be expected for the range of flows anticipated (between
3
3
6,000 m /s and 10,000 m /s) as a result of tidal, storm surge or local flooding influences.
17
41/24452/428742
4.8.1
Tidal influences
Tidal conditions have a significant effect on the height of flooding at the Port Office gauge, downstream
in the Brisbane River catchment. This is most clearly illustrated by the difference between the 1974 flood
3
3
and the 2011 flood. Although the flows were of similar magnitude (between 9,500 m /s and 10,500 m /s),
there was a 1 metre difference in flood level at the Port Office gauge (4.46 metres versus 5.46 metres).
This variation in flood levels primarily relates to the following tidal conditions:
the 2011 flood occurred during a small tidal range with high tides of under 1.0 metre; and
the 1974 flood coincided with king tides in excess of 2.2 metres.
The scope of this project has not considered mitigation of tidal backwater flow due to extreme high tides.
Table 5 indicates the Semidiurnal Tidal Planes for 2011. The numbers represent height (in metres)
above Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT).
Table 5
Semidiurnal Tidal Planes 2011 (Maritime Safety Queensland)
Location
Brisbane Bar
Mean High Water Springs (MHWS)
2.17
Mean High Water Neaps (MHWN)
1.78
Mean Low Water Neaps (MLWN)
0.76
Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS)
0.37
Australian Height Datum (AHD)
1.243
Mean Sea Level (MSL)
1.27
Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
2.73
The highest high tide or king tide for Brisbane was 2.71 metres (above LAT) on January 21 and May 17,
2011 1.
4.8.2
Storm surge
The effects of storm surge and local flooding should also be considered. Storm surge is the natural rise
in sea level as a result of low atmospheric pressure. Many of the most flood prone areas in the Brisbane
metropolitan area are around local creeks such as Oxley, Breakfast and Norman creeks. These creeks
carry run-off from the local area and the timing of the local peaks may coincide with the major flood peak
in the Brisbane River. In 2011, there was very little local flooding, which was extremely beneficial in
reducing flood inundation in these creeks. In 1974 local flooding was significantly worse.
Maritime Safety Queensland 2010
18
41/24452/428742
A storm surge is an atmospherically forced ocean response caused by extreme surface winds and low
surface pressure associated with severe and/or persistent offshore weather systems. The term storm
tide refers to the rise of water associated with a storm, plus tide, wave set-up, and freshwater flooding.
Brisbane City Council does not have a contemporary storm tide assessment, however, Moreton Bay
Regional Council to the north and Gold Coast City Council to the south have recently undertaken storm
tide studies.
19
41/24452/428742
5. Dam Operation
5.1
Dam operating rules
Wivenhoe Dam is a mixed-use structure containing:
1,165 Gigalitres (GL) of water supply storage for the Brisbane metropolitan area; and
an additional 1,967 GL of flood storage to mitigate flood inundation downstream.
5.1.1
Flood mitigation
The Dams flood storage capacity was increased from 1,450 GL to 1,967 GL during the Dam upgrade in
2005 via reconstruction of the wave wall on the crest into a water retaining structure. The main spillway is
fitted with five 12 metre wide by 16 metre high radial gates. An auxiliary spillway was installed in 2005 on
the right abutment of the Dam. The auxiliary spillway includes three bays of fuse plug embankments,
which are designed to wash away in sequence during extreme flood events, in order to provide additional
emergency spillway capacity. The three fuse plugs trigger at different reservoir levels so that there is a
staged discharge. The three fuse plugs trigger progressively as the Dam water level reaches 75.7
metres AHD, 76.2 metres AHD and 76.7 metres AHD respectively.
Flood mitigation is provided by keeping the spillway gates closed, or nearly closed, and thereby retaining
incoming flows into the reservoir. Flood mitigation is implemented via the operating rules for the gates,
which have a number of decision points relating to expected inflows, lake level and the flows occurring
downstream of the Dam.
5.1.2
The current operating rules are published in the 2011 FOM. This Study has adopted these rules for the
purpose of hydrologic modelling and demonstrating the downstream effects of the various release rates
(see Figure 5). The 2011 (FOM) states that the selection of release rates at any point in time is a matter
for the professional engineering judgment of the Duty Flood Operations Engineer... This allows each
event to be managed based on inflows, outflows, predicted stream flows and lake levels as well as other
operating rules stated in the manual.
However, this manner of operating the dams would give any number of gate operating strategies for
each separate option and scenario that was investigated during the Study. Therefore, in order to identify
a finite number of scenarios and be able to duplicate and consistently model the options to allow direct
comparisons to be easily made, our simplistic model used the more rigid set of progressive operating
rules within the manual called Loss of Communications procedures.
These are provided in the event of total communications failure to ensure the Dam operators open the
gates in a manner to allow the extreme flood that the Dam is designed for to pass safely. This approach
was taken as it provides for a repeatable basis for the comparison of the options. However it is
recognised that inclusion of more flexible operational rules to match the actual procedures within the
current operations manual as well as those rules implemented during the actual 2011 flood event are
likely to provide different results. It is highly recommended that further more detailed modelling is
undertaken and it is understood that this will occur in the long-term optimisation study.
20
41/24452/428742
Gate Operating Rules Schematic
41/24452/428742
Figure 5
21
The gate operating rules incorporate a number of procedures, which provide a different priority in
decision making for gate releases, and therefore downstream flows, based on the inundation of
community infrastructure downstream. These procedures were updated and approved in September
2011. The 2011 FOM procedures are summarised in Table 6 and the Flood Rules (Ver 7) have been
provided for comparison. The 2011 operating rules use a flowchart decision tool for the management of
flood waters within the W1 category. In contrast, the 2007 operating rules have defined flow rates for the
categories 1A-E as described below.
Note: the 2011 FOM and the simplistic model accounts for the interaction between Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam through the
target operating line provided in the manual. In the following sections, when Wivenhoe Dam operation is described, it is in the
context of both Wivenhoe and Somerset dam operating together.
Table 6

2011 FOM Ver 8
2007 FOM Ver 7

3
Min lake level

(metres AHD)
Max lake level

(metres AHD)
Other limits (m /s)
Flow Limit (m /s)
W0
67 (FSV)
67.25
no release
W1A
67.25
67.5
Colleges Crossing
<175
110
W1B
67.5
67.75
Burtons <430
380
W1C
67.75
68
Kholo <550
500
W1D
68
68.25
Mt Crosby <1,900
900
W1E
68.25
68.5
Mt Crosby <1,900
1,500
W2
68.5
74
3,500
W3
68.5
74
Moggill <4,000
3,500
W4
74
80
no limit
5.1.3
Operating rules comparison
During the course of this Study, Seqwater released revised operating curves and updated the manual.
The current version is the 2011 FOM. The operating curves in the new manual are similar to the 2007
and 2009 curves adopted at the commencement of this Study and those that were in effect during the
January 2011 flood.
The exception is the discharge flows from the Dam leading to W4, which are marginally lower in the 2011
flood rules. The comparison between the two operating rules is shown in Figure 6. For most operation
comparisons, the difference between the two different rules is negligible.
41/24452/428742
22
Figure 6
Comparison of 2007 and 2011 gate operating rules (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
Figure 7
Comparison of 2007 and 2011 gate operating rules (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s)
23
41/24452/428742
5.1.4
W1 operating protocol
For lake levels from 67.0 metres to 68.5 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD), floodwaters are stored
in the Dam in order to restrict the flow rates in the Brisbane River downstream so that key bridges at
Colleges Crossing, Burtons and Kholo remain open for as long as possible. This is intended to minimise
disruption to the community that use these bridges.
5.1.5
W2 and W3 operating protocol
The W2 and W3 procedures restrict the flow rates in the Brisbane River downstream of Wivenhoe Dam
to flow limits for Brisbane urban areas whereby damage is minimised. These flow rates are achieved
through the storage of the flood waters behind the partially open gates at the Dam. The W2 flow is
3
3
defined as 3,500 m /s maximum release from the Dam with targets of 3,500 m /s at Lowood and
3
3
4,000 m /s at the Moggill gauge. The W3 flow is defined as 4,000 m /s maximum release from the Dam
3
with targets of 4,000 m /s at the Moggill gauge.
5.1.6
W4 operating protocol
The current Wivenhoe Dam operating protocols switch to Dam safety mode at W4, or when the water
level reaches 74 metres AHD.
The W4 procedure defines the point at which the flood waters are no longer stored behind the gates. The
W4 procedure is primarily concerned with protecting the safety and structural integrity of the Dam by
ensuring the flood waters are released in a managed fashion to avoid overtopping the main Dam crest at
80 metres AHD. The 2011 FOM curves defined provide for this managed release. For this procedure, the
gates are rapidly opened to discharge the flood and bring the lake level under control.
It is at the start of the W4 procedure that significant damage to community infrastructure occurs
downstream of the Dam. As such, any adjustments to flood mitigation needs to have an associated
change to the start of procedure W4.
At this point, the gates are opened rapidly and progressively until the water level begins to drop;
If the water level continues to rise, the gates must be opened fully before the fuse plugs trigger at
75.7 metres AHD to ensure the increase in Dam outflow caused by the fuse plug triggering is small
relative to the total flow. This is achieved by having the gates fully open with a large flow though the
spillway and therefore the incremental increase in flow as a result of the fuse plug embankments
washing away is smaller;
There is no opportunity to adjust the fuse plug embankment flow as this is controlled by the level of
the channel and the width of the fuse plug section;
When operated as designed, the fuse plugs act in the same manner as low cost gates and when
3
triggered result in a small increase in flow of 2,250 m /s which is less than a 20% increase in flow
downstream of the Dam;
In accordance with the Wivenhoe Minimum Gate Opening operating curve, activation of the fuse
plugs in conjunction with fully opened gates comprises an increase in flow from 10,250 m 3/s to
12,500 m3/s;
In the case of triggering the fuse plugs, flow can still be partially regulated by the gates to
compensate for the additional flow from the fuse plugs;
24
41/24452/428742
The transition to the fully opened gate can be seen in Figure 17, as the graph diverges sharply at a
Dam level of 73 metres AHD; and
If the fuse plugs are triggered during a flood event, they can be reinstated as the concrete base of
the plugs is at FSV of 67 metres AHD.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 demonstrate the relationship between the Wivenhoe Dam lake level (AHD) and
flow discharge from the Dam during a significant flood event under 2011 FOM.
At the commencement of W4 at 74 metres AHD there is an increase in the flow from approximately
3
3
4,000 m /s to 10,000 m /s. This corresponds to a change in the reservoir level of only 1.5 metres. This
demonstrates the aggressive release strategy once W4 is reached.
The peak spillway capacity is reached at the current Dam crest level of 80 metres AHD, with a
3
corresponding outflow of nearly 30,000 m /s. This is needed to meet the design standard for the Dam
flood capacity.
Figure 8
Wivenhoe lake level and flow 100 % Full Supply Volume (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
25
41/24452/428742
Figure 9
5.2
Wivenhoe lake level and flow 100 % Full Supply Volume (0 m /s to 5,000 m /s)
Alternative Dam Operation Strategies
Four key options have been considered as part of this Study:
2011 FOM combined with alternative FSVs;
2011 FOM combined with Dam raising;
2011 FOM combined with Dam raising and alternative FSVs; and
modified gate operating rules.
Many of the options considered as part of this Study focus on modifications to Wivenhoe Dam operation.
A number of alternative operations curves have been analysed. Alternative strategies to those developed
could be derived that would result in different flood levels. Further, the full range of design events have
not been considered for assessment of alternative Dam operation curves, as this assessment is based
on the expected performance for three key historical floods (1893, 1974 and 2011), and as each flood
has different characteristics.
In particular, it is important to have regard to more frequent and moderate flood events in relation to any
changes in gate operating rules. Previous hydrological modelling has demonstrated that early release
strategies worsen downstream flood impacts associated with more frequent flood events.
It is therefore recommended that further study is given to operational changes which show the potential
to reduce the downstream effects of different flood events.
26
41/24452/428742
A number of different operating rules have been investigated to assess their impact on peak flows and
water levels for the 1893, 1974 and 2011 floods. Each flood has different characteristics which make it
practical to use as a test for the effectiveness of the option:
1893 flow centred on the Somerset Dam area, highest flows into the Wivenhoe Dam;
1974 flow centred on the Bremer River and local Brisbane creeks, a scenario for which the
Wivenhoe Dam has the least mitigation potential; and
2011 flow centred on Wivenhoe Dam, Lockyer Creek and the stretch of Brisbane River between
the Dam and Mt Crosby Weir with very little flow in the local Brisbane creeks.
5.2.1
2011 Operating Rules Alternative FSVs
The Study considered the same operating curve to the W4 limit as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11,
with alternative FSVs (50%, 75% and 100%). These options investigate the change in flood impact as a
result of the additional storage within the Dam. However, water security is affected by lowering the FSV,
therefore additional infrastructure is needed to be brought forward in order to maintain the LoS
objectives. As demonstrated, the operating curves differ only at the very low flows.
Figure 10
Existing gate operating rules Alternative FSVs (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
27
41/24452/428742
Figure 11
Existing gate operating rules Alternative FSVs (0 m /s to 5,000 m /s)
The lowered FSV options use the same operating rules at higher flows. The benefit relies solely on the
additional flood storage volume available within the Dam by starting the flood event with a lower FSV in
the reservoir.
5.2.2
2011 Operating Rules Dam raising
An alternative to lowering the FSV is to raise the Dam by 2 metres thereby expanding the flood storage
available and not impacting on water security. For this option the W4 trigger level and fuse plugs are
raised accordingly. An additional option was also considered of raising the Dam by 2 metres in
conjunction with a lowering to 75% FSV. Indicative operating curves for both of these options are shown
in Figure 12 and Figure 13.
28
41/24452/428742
Figure 12
Existing gate Operating Rules 2 metre Dam raising (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
Figure 13
Existing gate Operating Rules 2 metre Dam raising (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s)
29
41/24452/428742
The 2011 FOM is shown in blue below the new gate curves in Figure 12. The option of raising Wivenhoe
3
Dam by 2 metres needs to have an operating curve that discharges 10,000 m /s from the Dam at 77.7
metres AHD to match the location of the new fuse plugs which have also been raised by 2 metres.
At this point the gates must be fully open to allow the increase in flow in the Brisbane River downstream
of the Dam due to the triggering of the fuse plugs to be approximately 20%.
If the 2 metre raising was considered with the lowered FSV, the transition to the W4 limit allows
3
regulation of the flow to an appropriate limit. In this case, 2,000 m /s has been adopted to minimise
3
closure of the Brisbane Valley highway bridges. Alternatives might include setting this limit at 3,500 m /s
to match flow limits for Brisbane urban areas whereby damage is minimised. This operating curve still
has to ensure the gates are fully open at the new W4 level of 76 metres AHD. It is assumed that the fuse
plugs will trigger at 77.7 metres AHD with the 2 metre raise.
The cases where the fuse plugs are triggered have been rejected because they do not provide a
mitigation of floods (which is the primary objective of the study). When the fuse plug is triggered, there is
a move to a zone where the outflows increase in all cases modelled.
5.2.3
Modified gate operating rules
An alternative to Dam raising, or lowering the reservoir FSV, is an adjustment to the early stages of gate
operation to maximise flood storage at the expense of inundation of downstream bridges at low flows.
Two alternatives have been assessed as shown in the curves in Figure 14 and Figure 15.
Figure 14
3
3
2011 Operating Rules against modified Operating Rules (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
30
41/24452/428742
Figure 15
2011 Operating Rules against modified Operating Rules (0 m /s to 5,000 m /s)
These curves show alternatives as follows:
Starting at 75% of FSV with a more rapid increase in flows than the existing gate operations rules.
This still allows for progressive closure of bridges but increases flow up marginally faster than the
existing W1 rules. This makes maximum use of both the increased flood storage by having a lower
FSV level and the increased available discharge range in the lake by having the FSV 3 metres lower;
and.
The alternative is to remove the W1 operating rule altogether, and within 1 metre of lake level rise
increase the flow to the flow limit for the protection from inundation of Brisbane urban areas of 3,500
3
m /s. While flood damage occurs below this release rate, flows above this rate increase damages as
flood waters affect a much larger number of properties. This alternative strategy assumes that
bridges are either raised to maintain access, or that the inundation of the bridges is tolerable.
31
41/24452/428742
6. Dam Raising Options

The following section considers the options for raising Wivenhoe Dam in relation to the effects on flood
mitigation.
6.1
Raise Dam crest 2 metres, maintain existing FSV
This option examines the relative effectiveness, in terms of flood mitigation, of increasing the available
flood storage capacity through raising the Dam crest and keeping the FSV at its current level. A 2 metre
increase in the crest level of the Dam provides approximately 437,000 ML (437 GL) of additional storage.
The storage of flood waters during the nominated flood events must be balanced with managing extreme
flood events, such as the PMF, which are likely to cause a rise to the overall the Dam crest level.
The fuse plugs installed at Wivenhoe Dam in 2005 provide the capacity required to discharge the
extreme flood events, but are not required to be used for smaller floods, as occurred in January 2011.
The operating rules require that where fuse plug initiation cannot be avoided (75.7 metres AHD) the
radial gates are to be fully raised prior to the initiation of the first fuse plug.
Any raise to the Dam crest must therefore be coupled with an increase in the fuse plug trigger level, and
adjustment to the corresponding flood rules in the operating protocols. This is particularly important for
the level at which W4 is initiated, at which point flood damage to Brisbane becomes secondary to
maintaining the safety of the Dam.
Figure 16 demonstrates the operation of Wivenhoe Dam during the January 2011 Flood Event.
32
41/24452/428742
Figure 16
Wivenhoe Dam level, inflow and outflow January 2011
W4 Release
It should be noted that recent reports on the raising of Wivenhoe Dam consider increasing the FSV from
67 metres AHD to 69 metres AHD, with a corresponding raise to the Dam crest (from 80 metres AHD to
82 metres AHD) in order to maintain the flood capacity of the Dam. These reports are not applicable in
the context of this Study, as increasing the Dams ability to mitigate floods requires that the FSV be
maintained at its current level, with an increase to the overall Dam crest level, thereby improving the
flood capacity rather than water supply volume.
The primary level changes considered in this Study are summarised in Table 7.
Table 7
Increasing flood capacity of Wivenhoe Dam adjustments to level

Existing (metres AHD)
2 metre raised Dam option (metres AHD)
Ogee crest level
57
57
FSV
67
67
W4 trigger limit
74
76
Fuse plug trigger level

Dam crest flood level
75.7
80
77.7
82
33
41/24452/428742
Figure 17
Water level and outflow comparison alternative FSV
82
80
Elevation (m AHD)
78
76
74
72
Existing Dam FSL 67m

(100% Capacity)
70
Dam FSL 64m (75%

Capacity)
68
Dam FSL 60m (50%

Capacity)
66
2m Raise to W4 (100%
Capacity)
64
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Discharge (m3/s)
The proposed 2 metre raising of the Dam crest level permits the W4 level to shift to level of 76 metres
AHD. The fuse plugs would subsequently need to be raised to 77.7 metres AHD. However, the operating
requirement that the gates fully open at 77.7 metres AHD means that the gates need to be progressively
opened as outlined in the operating rules.
The elevation-discharge curve in Figure 17 shows flows throttled back until 76 metres AHD with very
3
similar outflows to the current arrangement for flows below 5,000 m /s (due to the progressive gate
opening). The results demonstrated in Figure 17 would be refined in a more detailed assessment of the
Dam raising. The current operating curve triggers W4 at 74 metres AHD. This level corresponds with a
3
4,750 m /s outflow, which represents a 1 in 500 AEP event according to the outflow AEP curve.
Of note is the impact of the Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood (extreme design flood) on
the raised structure. The current arrangement only passes the 1 in 100,000 AEP event, which does not
meet current design guidelines. Raising the Dam by 2 metres allows the Probable Maximum Precipitation
Design Flood to pass through the structure with a peak water level 81.3 metres AHD. This indicates
that the Dam crest could be 0.7 metres lower, or further changes to the W4 trigger level could be
implemented, to further increase flood mitigation.
It should be noted that there is a significant level of technical uncertainty associated with the 2 metre
dam raise. Elements of the structure may, or may not need upgrading to cope with the increased water
levels during extreme flood events. The most significant of these relates to the inability of the spillway
gates to be lifted completely above the water flowing through the spillway. Currently a substantial
deflector beam is provided below the spillway bridge to deflect the water away from the gate. The 2
34
41/24452/428742
metre dam raise increases the water load on this deflector beam by 2 metre. Preliminary assessments
show that this wall can be strengthened to withstand the increased load but these issues need to be fully
considered within the scope of a more detailed study. This study will need to include hydraulic modelling
to better quantify the design loading and outside the scope of this preliminary assessment. If the
subsequent detail investigation shows that the wall is not capable of being strengthened then a new
spillway structure will be required at significant additional cost in the order of $330 million.
There are elements of dam raising option that are outside the scope of this current Study and may result
in significant uncertainty in overall project cost. These elements include aspects such as the necessity
for a fish passage to meet current environmental approvals. If required, this structure would comprise
substantial fish lifting system similar to that being used at Paradise Dam. As fish passage is also
required during flood periods, this structure would be very substantial and may cost greater than $100
million. Due to the uncertainties surrounding the requirement of this structure, these additional costs
have not been included in the economic assessment.
6.1.1
Required infrastructure
The infrastructure required to raise the Wivenhoe Dam was reviewed in detail in the year 2000 by GHD.
The Study is contained in the report Engineering Study in the Augmentation of the Flood Passing
Capacity of Wivenhoe Dam (GHD February 2001). This analysis laid the foundation for the design and
construction of the Auxiliary Spillway in 2005.
The Engineering Study also looked into various Dam crest level raising scenarios, and provides a
feasibility-level analysis of infrastructure required to raise the Dam crest level by either 2 metres or
4 metres. The Engineering Study provides material quantities and feasibility-level cost estimates for the
required infrastructure.
Key infrastructure and modifications required to raise the Dam include:
the addition of fill on the downstream Dam wall face to raise the Dam crest level while maintaining
stable slopes;
relocation of the crest road during the upgrade as the downstream fill allows a wider crest during
construction, it may be feasible to retain the crest road in the existing location during general
construction works, but be shifted laterally as necessary during key construction milestones;
extension of the existing core zone and filter zones to the new crest;
construction of a new upstream wave wall tied into the core zone;
construction of raised training walls into the spillway;
provision of removable bulkheads for the water quality control room;
modifications to the bulkhead lifting equipment and control room window to ensure suitability for the
raising of water levels by 2 metres;
raising the spillway bridges;
modifications to the approach roads to connect the new Dam centreline (downstream of the existing
centre) to the spillway bridge;
extension and modification of the existing flow deflector bulkhead below the spillway bridge
(necessary to avoid the upper nappe surface of the spill flow affecting operation of the gate);
35
41/24452/428742
construction of a new saddle dam in the Coominya saddle;
raising the existing saddle dams (1 and 2;)
raising the dividing walls in the fuse plug spillway
raising the fuse plug embankments through upstream and downstream addition of fill; and
modifications to and raising of dam monitoring and water control systems.
An indicative implementation schedule for the raising of the Dam is presented below.
The approximate volume of earth fill required (including filter zones, rip rap and bulk fill) is of the order of
3
3
750,000 m for the main Dam, and an additional 110,000 m for the saddle dams. On this basis, the
following implementation times might be expected:
Year 1 geotechnical investigations, detailed design, tender documentation and relevant approvals
(minimum 12 month duration expected);
Year 2 first six months, procurement;
Year 2 second six months, mobilisation, site establishment, miscellaneous concrete works,
development of borrow sources for fill material; and
Year 3 earthworks and spillway and bridge works following wet season.
6.1.2
Fuse plug upgrades
During development of this Study an additional option was presented where the existing earth fuse plugs
could be replaced with collapsible gates such as Hydroplus gates with the potential to utilise the total
available flood storage volume. This option has not been considered in detail.
Hydroplus fuse gates do not give any increased functionality compared to the existing fuse
embankments. Both gates and the fuse plugs are designed to breach, or tip over, when the water level in
the Dam reaches the trigger point. This provides an additional spillway capacity for the highest reservoir
levels during extreme flood events.
However, use of the fuse plugs are included in the Dam operating curves and for very large floods should
be used as part of the Dam operation. The storage volume within the Dam should be used for flood
mitigation up to the trigger points for the fuse plugs, as long as the spillway gates are fully opened. With
the gates fully opened the percentage increase in flow downstream of the Dam due to the fuse plug
triggering is minimised to less than 20% additional flow.
The selection of earth fuse plugs in 2005 was based on these being the most economic system of
auxiliary spillway at the time.
If it was decided that the existing fuse plugs should be upgraded, steel and concrete Hydroplus fuse
plug gates could be used to directly replace the existing embankments.
In addition to the gates themselves, the existing concrete ogee crest buried beneath the existing
embankment would require reconstruction into a flat crest. Sufficient reinforcing would be required in
order to withstand the hydraulic gradient imposed by the fuse plugs. The estimated capital cost of such a
solution would be in the order of $80 million.
36
41/24452/428742
If the fuse plugs where to be replaced with a radial or similar gate structure to facilitate early release of
water, the cost of the new works would be in the order of $300 million.
6.1.3
Storage impacts upstream
Raising of Dam and flood storage levels will impact on the existing upstream infrastructure and
environment. A cost allowance for these impacts has been included in the economic assessment of the
options for raising Wivenhoe Dam. A key point to note is the reservoir level versus flow does not change
until the 1 in 500 event. Consequently, for floods relevant to downstream roads and other non-critical
infrastructure, the flood risk does not change within the Wivenhoe Reservoir basin. Accordingly, minor
local and rural roads including the Wivenhoe Somerset Road should not need to be modified.
However, for floods of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 100,000 the inundation level within the reservoir basin rises.
Significant capital works to upgrade these facilities at these extreme flood conditions are not warranted.
The likely extent of the impact is noted in Table 8 and Appendix E.
Table 8
Summary of potential upstream impacts
Area of impact
Impact
Roads
As the FSV remains unchanged the impact on roads will be minimal and then only
during extreme events. The existing road network is currently not designed for
extreme flood events and as such, any temporary disruption to the highway
network around Wivenhoe Dam during extreme events would be tolerable.
However, some cost impacts should be expected as some roads will be subject to
more frequent flooding.
Environment
Environmental impacts would be minimal and temporary during extreme events.

Appendix E shows known sites of environmental, recreational and cultural interest
that would be affected during extreme events by the raising of the Dam.
Land
resumption
Land impacts may be considered within the bounds of the increased flood
envelope. While there is no know policy to determine the extent of impacted land,
for the purpose of this Study GHD has assumed the land area between 75 metres
AHD and 77 metres AHD levels as a result of the 2 metre Dam raising.
The area of land between 75 metres AHD and 77 metres AHD levels for
Wivenhoe Dam is approximately 2,378 hectares. This is comprised of road
parcels, easement parcels and lot parcels.
There is already 16,424 hectares that is currently classed as Lake Wivenhoe on
the cadastral database, which suggests that it is already owned by Seqwater.
Slityard Creek
power station
Initial advice gained from the power station operators suggest that the station can
tolerate water levels in Wivenhoe up to a level of 77 metres AHD without damage
or effect on the operation of the power station. A 2 m dam raising takes the
annual exceedance probability of a water level of 77 metres AHD from about 1 in
7,000 to 1 in 5,000. This is a small change in probability for an extremely rare
event. This may be better managed as an insurable risk rather than any upgrades
to capital works. However the effect of a 2 metre raising of the dam on the power
station, including a review on any potential impact on electricity supply, should be
assessed during the long-term study. Further consultation with the power station
owners should also occur.
Esk and
The new Toowoomba raw water supply off take from Wivenhoe Dam was recently
37
41/24452/428742
Area of impact
Toowoomba
water supply
Impact
constructed as part of the LinkWater Toowoomba Alliance. It is understood that
the pump station at the Dam was damaged during the January 2011 flood as a
result of rising water levels in the Dam. Increasing the flood level in the Dam will
clearly have an impact on the pumping facility and this would need to be
considered in any raising option.
Similarly, the adjacent Esk raw water supply off take would also need to be
considered.
Commercial
operations
(gravel)
While not considered in detail as part of this Study some consideration should be
given to the impact on any commercial gravel and sand operations within
Wivenhoe Dam.
38
41/24452/428742
7. Hydrologic Modelling
7.1
Model description
Given the restricted timeframe for this rapid assessment project, a simplified Brisbane River hydrology
model was created. It uses the estimated run-off hydrographs from the principal sub-catchments across
the Brisbane River catchment. These sub-catchments include:
Stanley River (upstream of Somerset Dam);
Upper Brisbane River (upstream of Wivenhoe Dam and excluding Somerset Dam outflows);
Lockyer Creek;
Bremer River; and
Mount Crosby local area (the area along the Brisbane River downstream of Lockyer Creek and
upstream of the Bremer River).
There is a stream gauge downstream of the Brisbane River and Bremer River confluence at Moggill
(Moggill gauge). While there are a number of contributing sub-catchments further downstream of Moggill,
those catchment areas are modest in comparison to those listed above, and the run-off from these areas
were not considered for the purposes of this Study.
Three historical floods (1893, 1974, and 2011) were considered to assess potential flood mitigation
options at Wivenhoe Dam, or on Lockyer Creek, or the Bremer River. These flood events represent the
largest floods within the recorded history for the Brisbane River catchment, and each flood has a different
behaviour in terms of the rainfall distribution and variability that make them suitable for an assessment of
options for a rapid appraisal assessment of this nature.
It was assumed that the peak flow rate at the Port Office gauge is approximately the same as the peak
flow rate at the Moggill gauge based on the hydrology from the 2004 study undertaken by Sinclair Knight
Merz.
The hydrologic model has two components:
an estimation of peak flow rates at the Moggill gauge; and
flood routing through Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam.
The estimation of the peak flow rate at the Moggill gauge was based on the Seqwater supplied
hydrographs and lag times for the Lockyer Creek catchment, the Mount Crosby local area catchment, the
Bremer River catchment, and the outflows from Wivenhoe Dam. As a simplified model was developed for
this Study, flood routing along the Brisbane River downstream of the Dam was not explicitly performed.
Instead, the attenuation of peak flow rates along the river was estimated based on the provided lag
times. The combined hydrographs were then scaled to estimate the peak flow rate at Moggill gauge. That
is, the lagged hydrographs from the Lockyer Creek catchment, the Mt Crosby local area, and Wivenhoe
Dam outflows were added together and then scaled to estimate the flow at Moggill gauge. Scaling factors
were estimated for each of the three historical flood events (refer to Table 9).
39
41/24452/428742
Table 9
Adopted scaling factors for combined flows to the Moggill gauge
Year
Scaling factor
1893
0.790
1974
0.700
2011
0.525
Table 9 indicates a similar scaling factor for the 1893 and 1974 floods, and that flow attenuation appears
to be more significant during the 2011 Flood Event. The higher attenuation during the 2011 event may be
due to the larger contribution of flow from the Lockyer Creek catchment in this event. However, more
detailed analysis would be required to investigate this phenomenon further, but for the purposes of this
Study, this approach was considered satisfactory to enable comparisons of flood mitigation options to be
undertaken.
The hydrologic model for flood routing through Wivenhoe Dam allows for investigation of different release
rate scenarios at Wivenhoe Dam, and differing permanent water supply levels. The flood routing through
Wivenhoe Dam takes into consideration the objectives of the two strategies for Somerset Dam Flood
Operations:
to mitigate the rural and urban flooding downstream of Wivenhoe Dam; and
to protect the safety of the dams.
The 2011 FOM nominates the actions to take while protecting the safety of the dams as:
to raise the crest gates to enable uncontrolled discharge; and
to utilise the regulator valves and sluice gates to release water from Somerset Dam, with the aim of
moving towards the Wivenhoe/Somerset Operating Target Line. Ideally, at the peak of a Flood Event,
the dams lake levels should plot on or very close to the Wivenhoe/Somerset Target Line. However,
this may not be possible to achieve in practice.
A plot of the target operating line is shown in Figure 18.
40
41/24452/428742
Figure 18
7.1.1
Target operating line for Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam (Seqwater, 2011)
Model data
Seqwater provided estimates of surface run-off hydrographs for the five major sub-catchments described
above. These estimates were based on Seqwater modelling of historical rainfall using their calibrated
hydrology models. Figure 19 demonstrates the simulated January 2011 hydrograph at the Moggill gauge
along with the recorded flood hydrograph at this location. This figure demonstrates that the Seqwater
hydrology models are suitably calibrated and yield reliable estimates of surface run-off within the
Brisbane River catchment.
41
41/24452/428742
Figure 19
Comparison of Seqwater simulated and recorded hydrographs (Moggill gauge)
12,000
Simulated
Recorded
10,000
Flow Rate (m3/s)
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
28 Dec 2010
7.1.2
02 Jan 2011
07 Jan 2011
12 Jan 2011
Date
17 Jan 2011
22 Jan 2011
27 Jan 2011
Model development
The Wivenhoe Dam flood routing model is based on the reservoir routing approach, using the direct
solution method outlined in Australian Rainfall and Run-off (IEAust, 1999). The outflow from Somerset
Dam was computed on the basis of the sluice gate opening and crest gates rating curves, and also on
the water level in Wivenhoe Dam as a function of the target operating line described above. A mass
balance approach was used to estimate the water level in Somerset Dam for each (1 hour) time step.
7.2
The base case hydrologic model scenario uses the current 2011 FOM. The base case uses a minimum
gate opening operating rule and the recorded January 2011 Flood Event was modelled using this data.
This model yielded a simulated peak water level 74.8 metres AHD in Wivenhoe Dam, which indicates an
adequate representation of the actual flood event given the recorded level of 75.0 metres AHD. However,
there are some discrepancies in the way the model hydrograph responds relative to the recorded event.
3
The base model simulates a flow rate exceeding 4,000 m /s for approximately 40 hours, whereas it was
only 17 hours during actual event (Seqwater 2011: p iv).
The purpose of the base model scenario is to provide a point of comparison with alternative potential
flood mitigation options, and is not intended to be a calibration exercise for the January 2011 flood. The
principal reason for this relates to the manner in which the Dam water levels were managed by the Dam
operators during the January 2011 event.
42
41/24452/428742
During the event, the water level in Wivenhoe Dam was adjusted to manage releases and avoid the
release of flows coinciding with the peaks from other downstream river catchments, principally Lockyer
Creek and Bremer River.
7.2.1
Modelled scenarios
A number of scenarios were modelled and these are described in Table 10. The base case for all
modelling scenarios is S0, which reflects the current operating rules for Wivenhoe and Somerset dams.
There are four primary scenarios investigated (S1-S4), which explore the influence of modifying the full
supply capacity volume, fuse plug levels, and embankment crest levels. The remaining scenarios (S5S8) consider options where the existing dam arrangement is retained, but release rates are uniformly
restricted at certain flows, and alternative full supply capacity volumes were considered.
Scenarios 6 and 7 are not technically feasible as they trigger the Dam fuse plugs. They have been
included for the purposes of sensitivity analysis as required by the project scope.
The results of the model simulations for the three historical flood events considered in this Study (1893,
1974 and 2011 floods) are summarised in Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13, and graphed in Appendix A.
Table 10
Hydrologic model scenarios
Scenario
number
Scenario name
Scenario description
S0
Base case
Wivenhoe Dam in operation using minimum gate opening

operating rule as stated in the 2011 FOM.
S1
Straight to W2 with
FSV maintained at
100%
Peak outflow from the Dam of 3,500 m 3/s is reached as quickly

as practically possible. Flooding of existing crossings is
assumed as being not as important a consideration as the
reduction of potential flood damage downstream of the Dam.
Some retention of flood water within the Dam occurs while the
gates are opened to the desired release capacity (2011 FOM).
S2
Steady increase in
flow to W4 with the
FSV maintained at
75%
The steady increase in flow output from the Dam to W4 trigger

level with the FSV reduced to 75%. This seeks to have a steady
increase in peak outflow to the W4 trigger level.
S3
A 2 metre raising of
the Dam Wall including
the fuse plug levels
with the FSV reduced
to 75%
The 2 metre raising of the Dam and the fuse plugs and the FSV
at 75%. This seeks to increase the flood mitigation storage
volume within the Dam, by both raising the Dam and reducing
the FSV. This assumes the W4 trigger level is increased from 74
metres AHD to 76 metres AHD and the trigger for the first fuse
plug is increased from 75.7 metres AHD to 77.7 metres AHD.
S4
A 2 metre raising of
the Dam including the
fuse plug levels with
the FSV kept at 100%
The 2 metre raising of the Dam and the fuse plugs and the FSV
at 100%. This seeks to increase the flood mitigation storage
volume within the Dam, only by raising the Dam. This assumes
the W4 trigger level is increased from 74 metres AHD to 76
metres AHD and the trigger for the first fuse plug is increased
from 75.7 metres AHD to 77.7 metres AHD.
43
41/24452/428742
S5
Uncontrolled flow to
3,500 m3/s
This option assumes the gates are permanently kept open to

allow a maximum release of 3,500 m3/s. That is, all inflows are
allowed to pass through the Dam with no storage of flood waters
within the Dam.
S6
Restrict releases to
3
3,500 m /s (not
feasible sensitivity
only)
The minimum gate opening rule is applied until a peak outflow

rate of 3,500 m3/s is reached. Outflows are maintained and do
not exceed this flow. Under this option water is temporarily held
behind the gates as they are progressively opened.
S7
Restrict releases to
3
1,900 m /s (not
feasible sensitivity
only)
The minimum gate opening rule is applied until a peak outflow

3
rate of 1,900 m /s is reached. Outflows are maintained do not
exceed this flow rate. Under this option water is temporarily held
behind the gates as they are progressively opened.
S8
Reduce FSV to 75% or

50%
Maintain the existing 2011 FOM gate opening, with a reduction

in the FSV to 75% and 50% of the existing.
7.2.2
Scenarios 1 (S1) to Scenario 4 (S4)
On the basis of the January 2011 flood event, each of the four modelled scenarios using 2011 FOM
yielded a slight reduction in peak outflow from the Dam.
For those options where the FSV was reduced to 75% (S2 and S3), the estimated decrease at the
3
Moggill gauge was 1,500 m /s (or 16%);
A similar decrease in flow rate was achieved for the Straight to W2 (S1) scenario.; and
The decrease was limited to 600 m 3/s (or 7%) if the FSV is maintained at 100% using the 2 metre
raising to the W4 and fuse plug levels (S4).
The 1974 flood behaved differently within the model when compared to 2011 event. The four options
considered here did not have an appreciable mitigation effect relative to the base case.
The early release of flows modelled in Scenario 1 (Straight to W2) exacerbates flooding
3
downstream, with the peak flow rate at the Moggill gauge increasing by approximately 1,600 m /s (or
21%); and
The remaining three scenarios either increased or decreased peak flow rates at the Moggill gauge by
3
approximately 100 m /s.
The 1893 flood simulation decreased the peak flow at the Moggill gauge for the four Scenarios by
3
3
between 2,800 m /s (or 28%) and 1,100 m /s (or 11%).
The most effective scenario for the 1893 flood model was Scenario 3, reducing the FSV to 75% and
applying a 2 metre raising to the W4 and fuse plug levels; and
The remaining three scenarios had peak flow rates within approximately 300 m /s of each other.
Based on a comparison of the three historical flood events modelled, Scenario 3 (2 metre raising of the
Dam and fuse plug levels as well as W4, combined with a reduction in FSV to 75%) appears to have the
greatest potential for flood mitigation. Scenario 1 (Straight to W2, FSV 100%) increased the flood peak at
3
both the Moggill and Port Office gauges by 1,600 m /s, therefore exacerbating the downstream flooding
for the 1974 event, this option is not considered a feasible option.
44
41/24452/428742
7.2.3
Scenarios 5 (5S) to Scenario 7 (S7)
S6 and S7 may not be technically feasible and have been included for the purposes of sensitivity
analyses only as they were in the scope document for the project. S5 was a variation of S6 and was
identified during the course of the Study.
Additional scenarios were also considered which either:
3
reduced the peak outflow from Wivenhoe Dam to 1,900 m /s or 3,500 m /s, and or
maintained the present minimum gate opening operation at the Dam while reducing the present FSV
capacity to 50% or 75%.
3
S5 aims to limit the peak outflow from Wivenhoe Dam to 3,500 m /s. In Scenario 5, the gates are kept
3
open to a capacity of 3,500 m /s such that any inflow to the Dam is freely discharged in an uncontrolled
manner.
This scenario assumes that the Dam operator does not need to consider the magnitude of any flood
event, as the Dam is assumed to have sufficient capacity to contain the flood without overtopping or
triggering the existing fuse plug level.
Scenario 5 is similar to the Straight to W2 (S1) scenario, with the exception that water is released
instead of being retained while the gates are opened under the W2 scenario.
This strategy appears to work favourably during the 2011 flood situation where the peak flow rate at the
3
Moggill gauge is reduced by approximately 1,500 m /s, and the simulated peak water level in Wivenhoe
Dam is 73.7 metre (approximately 1.1 metre lower than the base case).
However, in the 1974 flood simulation, even though the peak water level in Wivenhoe Dam is reduced
significantly (by approximately 2.3 metres), the peak flow rate the at Moggill gauge is exacerbated by
3
approximately 1,700 m /s relative to the base case. This is because the flood gates are not used to
mitigate or delay the flood peak within the Dam to allow the flood waters from the Lockyer Creek
catchment and the Bremer River catchment to pass. The timing of peak flow rates downstream of the
Dam in the Lockyer Creek catchment and the Bremer River catchment are impacted by the flood waters
from the Dam.
The 1893 flood simulation yielded a peak water level in Wivenhoe Dam of 77.0 metre (or 1.3 metre
increase compared to the base case), which would result in the triggering of the fuse plug and a peak
3
flow at Moggill gauge of 8,300 m /s.
Detailed modelling would be required to more accurately assess these estimates. Therefore, S5 appears
to only have a favourable outcome in one of the three historical flood events and it is not considered a
feasible scenario.
3
S6 and S7 reduce the peak outflow rates from Wivenhoe Dam to either 1,900 m /s or 3,500 m /s,
based on a minimum gate opening sequence to achieve these discharge rates. The results
demonstrate that these scenarios are not feasible, as there is no beneficial outcome to any of the
three historical flood simulations. The 2011 hydrograph resulted in the fuse plug being triggered in
three of the six modelled combinations;
The 1974 Flood Event simulations suggest the scenario has some benefit; though, the reduction in
flow rate at the Moggill gauge is approximately 700 m 3/s (or only 9%); and
45
41/24452/428742
The 1893 flood scenarios trigger the fuse plug at all three FSV capacities (50%, 75%, and 100%),
limiting release rates.
7.2.4
Scenario 8 (S8)
Scenario 8 considered a simple reduction in the FSV to either 50% or 75% and uses 2011 FOM.
A reduction in the FSV capacity to 75% yielded a decrease in Wivenhoe Dam peak levels of
0.5 metre, 0.7 metre, and 0.3 metre for the 1893, 1974, and 2011 flood events respectively;
The respective decreases in peak flow rate at the Moggill gauge are 10%, 8%, and 7% respectively.
Only the 1974 scenario demonstrates better mitigation performance compare to the scenario 1 to 4
considered previously which focus on raising the Dam, changing the FSV and operating rules; and
Reducing the FSV to 50% of its present volume does not appear to have a significant impact on the
1974 Flood Event, and results in reductions of approximately 10% for the 2011 and 1893 flood
events.
46
41/24452/428742
Parameter
8,200
3,500
72.3
104.0
9,400
17.4
9,400
4.5
4.8
NA
NA
100% FSV
100% FSV
8,200
4,400
74.1
104.0
7,800
15.0
7,800
3.5
4.1
S1 - Straight
to W2 FSV
100%
S0 base
case (2011
FOM)
Parameter
41/24452/428742
NA
NA
NA
12,700
8,300
75.0
107.7
8,800
16.5
8,800
4.1
4.5
75% FSV
S2 - Steady
to W4, FSV
75%
NA
8,200
3,500
72.5
104.0
7,900
15.1
7,900
3.5
4.2
75% FSV
S2 - Steady
to W4, FSV
75%
NA
10,500
4,400
74.2
104.8
7,600
14.7
7,600
3.3
4.0
75% FSV
S2 - Steady
to W4, FSV
75%
12,700
8,600
75.1
107.7
9,000
16.8
9,000
4.2
4.6
100% FSV
100% FSV
12,700
9,700
75.7
107.7
10,100
18.5
10,100
4.9
5.1
S1 - Straight
to W2 FSV
100%
S0 base
case (2011
FOM)
1893 Flood Brisbane River Hydrology Model,
Peak Inflow to Wivenhoe Dam (m /s)

3
Peak Outflow from Wivenhoe Dam (m /s)
Peak Water Level in Wivenhoe Dam (m AHD)
Peak Water Level in Somerset Dam (m AHD)
3
Peak Flow Rate at Moggill (m /s)
Estimated Peak Water Level at Moggill (m AHD)
3
Peak Flow Rate at Port Office (m /s)
Est. Port Office Level - LAT/Bar at 0.0m (m AHD)
Est. Port Office Level - HAT/Bar at 2.7m (m AHD)
3
Peak Flow Rate at Moggill (m /s) with Fuse Plug
Initiated
Table 13
NA
NA

3
Peak Outflow from Wivenhoe Dam (m /s)
3
3
3
Initiated
Table 12
10,500
3,900
74.0
104.8
7,600
14.7
7,600
3.3
4.0
100% FSV
100% FSV
9,600
7,300
74.8
105.2
9,100
16.9
9,100
4.3
4.7
S1 - Straight
to W2 FSV
100%
S0 base
case (2011
FOM)

Peak Outflow from Wivenhoe Dam (m3/s)
3
3
3
Initiated
Parameter
Table 11
NA
12,700
6,700
75.7
107.7
7,300
14.2
7,300
3.1
3.9
75% FSV
S3 - 2m
Dam raise
FSV 75%
NA
8,200
3,100
73.1
104.0
7,900
15.1
7,900
3.5
4.2
75% FSV
S3 - 2m
Dam raise
FSV 75%
NA
10,500
5,000
74.5
104.8
7,600
14.7
7,600
3.3
4.0
75% FSV
S3 - 2m
Dam raise
FSV 75%
NA
12,700
8,300
76.3
107.7
8,700
16.3
8,700
4.0
4.5
100% FSV
S4 - 2m
Dam raise
FSV 100%
NA
8,200
4,700
74.0
104.0
7,700
14.8
7,700
3.4
4.1
100% FSV
S4 - 2m
Dam raise
FSV 100%
NA
9,700
5,800
75.0
105.1
8,500
16.0
8,500
3.9
4.4
100% FSV
S4 - 2m
Dam raise
FSV 100%
8,300
12,700
3,500
77.0
107.7
5,800
11.6
5,800
2.2
3.3
100% FSV
S5 uncontrolled
3,500 m3/s
NA
8,200
3,500
71.8
104.0
9,500
17.5
9,500
4.5
4.8
100% FSV
S5 uncontrolled
3,500 m3/s
NA
10,500
3,500
73.7
104.8
7,600
14.7
7,600
3.3
4.0
100% FSV
S5 uncontrolled
3,500 m3/s
NA
10,300
3,500
75.2
105.0
7,600
14.7
7,600
3.3
4.0
75% FSV
8,200
9,600
3,500
75.8
105.2
7,600
14.7
7,600
3.3
4.0
100% FSV
NA
8,200
3,500
73.5
104.0
7,200
14.0
7,200
3.1
3.9
75% FSV
NA
8,200
3,500
74.3
104.0
7,800
15.0
7,800
3.5
4.1
100% FSV
7,900
50%
FSV
12,700
3,500
76.5
107.7
5,400
11.0
5,400
1.9
3.1
9,100
12,700
3,500
77.5
107.7
5,700
11.5
5,700
2.1
3.2
75% FSV
10,800
12,700
3,500
78.4
107.7
5,800
11.6
5,800
2.2
3.3
100% FSV
S6 Restrict Release Rate to 3,500

m3/s (not feasible sensitivity only)
NA
50%
FSV
8,200
2,300
72.5
104.0
7,100
13.8
7,100
3.0
3.8

NA
50%
FSV
10,500
3,500
74.7
104.8
7,500
14.5
7,500
3.3
4.0

8,500
10,100
1,900
76.3
105.1
6,700
13.2
6,700
2.8
3.6
75% FSV
9,700
9,700
1,900
77.3
105.4
6,700
13.2
6,700
2.8
3.6
100% FSV
NA
8,200
1,900
74.0
104.0
7,200
14.0
7,200
3.1
3.9
75% FSV
NA
8,200
1,900
75.1
104.0
7,800
15.0
7,800
3.5
4.1
100% FSV
8,000
12,700
1,900
77.6
107.7
4,400
9.2
4,400
1.3
2.7
50% FSV
9,300
12,700
1,900
78.7
107.7
4,500
9.4
4,500
1.4
2.7
75% FSV
11,100
12,700
1,900
79.8
107.7
4,500
9.4
4,500
1.4
2.7
100% FSV
S7 Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m3/s

(not feasible sensitivity only)
NA
8,200
1,900
72.5
104.0
7,100
13.8
7,100
3.0
3.8
50% FSV
S7 Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m3/s

NA
10,500
1,900
75.4
104.8
6,700
13.2
6,700
2.8
3.6
50% FSV
3
S7 Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m /s
12,700
7,500
74.9
107.7
8,000
15.3
8,000
3.6
4.2
50% FSV
NA
NA
8,200
3,700
73.4
104.0
7,200
14.0
7,200
3.1
3.9
75% FSV
NA
12,700
8,600
75.2
107.7
9,000
16.8
9,000
4.2
4.6
75% FSV
NA
12,700
9,700
75.7
107.7
10,100
18.5
10,100
4.9
5.1
100% FSV
NA
8,200
4,400
74.1
104.0
7,800
15.0
7,800
3.5
4.1
100% FSV
NA
9,600
7,300
74.8
105.2
9,100
16.9
9,100
4.3
4.7
100% FSV
S8 September 2011 FOM
8,200
2,300
72.5
104.0
7,100
13.8
7,100
3.0
3.8
NA
NA
10,300
6,400
74.5
104.9
8,500
16.0
8,500
3.9
4.4
75% FSV

50% FSV
NA
10,500
5,400
74.2
104.8
7,700
14.8
7,700
3.4
4.1
50% FSV
47
7.2.5
Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood routing
Flood routing was conducted using the Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood hydrographs
provided by Seqwater for this Study. These hydrographs were originally created for the Wivenhoe
Alliance Hydrological Study (2005). While the PMF was investigated by the Wivenhoe Alliance, these
were not available for this Study, and it was beyond the scope of this Study to generate the necessary
run-off hydrographs.
Simulations were conducted for the base case (S0) and the primary scenarios (S1-S4) and the results
are shown in Table 14. The critical storm duration for peak outflow was the 36 hour duration event. The
base case and scenarios S1 and S2 retain the existing embankment crest of 80 metres AHD, and it is
anticipated that the Probable Maximum Precipitation - Design Flood overtops this crest by between 0.6
and 0.9 metres. While the existing embankment is overtopped during these scenarios, these options do
not require substantial Dam upgrade capital works to convey the Probable Maximum Precipitation
Design Flood until 2035.
Scenarios S3 and S4 include a two metre increase in the embankment crest to 82.0 metres AHD and the
results suggest that the Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood event should not overtop the
raised crest. Adopting a revised capacity volume of 75% of the current capacity resulted in a decrease of
0.9 metres in the peak water level (compared to S4), and if no freeboard were required for this event,
then the embankment crest may need only to be increased to approximately 81.0 metres.
Table 14
Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood simulation results

S0
base
case
2001
FOM
S1
Straight
to W2
FSV
100%
S2
Steady
to W4,
FSV 75%
S3
2m Dam
raise FSV
75%
S4
2m Dam
raise FSV
100%
47,100
47,100
47,100
47,100
47,100
Peak Outflow from Wivenhoe Dam (m3/s)
31,700
31,200
30,500
32,000
31,500
Peak Water Level, Wivenhoe Dam (metres AHD)
80.9
80.8
80.6
80.9
81.8
Peak Water Level, Somerset Dam (metres AHD)
111.3
111.3
111.3
111.3
111.3
Embankment Overflow
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Reduction in Peak Flow
33%
34%
35%
32%
33%
Parameter
S1: Straight to W2 Release

S2: Steady increase to W4 Release
S3: 2 Metre Raise to, Fuse Plug Levels and Embankment Crest and W4
S4: 2 Metre Raise to Fuse Plug Levels and Embankment Crest and W4
48
41/24452/428742
8. Water Security
The Queensland Water Commission (QWC) is responsible for the Water Security Objectives for South
East Queensland. They develop long-term water supply strategies to ensure the water supply for South
East Queensland.
As such, they have been involved in this Study to investigate the Water Security Objectives of altering
the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam.
While their report is attached, it is not in the form of formal advice as they have not been asked to
endorse or suggest a response, but purely to review the effects of lowering the FSV and the effect on the
long-term water strategy and the triggering of new infrastructure. The two options they were asked to
review were the permanent reduction in the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam to 75% and 50%. Due to the impact
of lowering the FSV any further than 50% and the real potential of trigging the need for immediately
building additional infrastructure, it was deemed this would be inappropriate within the context of this
rapid assessment project.
The assumptions and constraints are contained within the QWC report (Appendix D), however the LoS
Objectives are re-stated here as they are important factors in the assessment of the FSV and the
timelines for augmentation of the infrastructure.
The following explanation of the LoS objectives is taken from the Report on the impacts of lowering the
FSV of Wivenhoe Dam on water supply security (Version 5, 28 Oct 2011).
8.1
The Regional Water Security Program for SEQ (under the Water Act 2000) establishes the desired LOS
objectives which form a basis for the SEQ Water Strategy and are implemented through the SEQ System
Operating Plan. These objectives provide long term security of water supply and are defined as follows:
During normal operating mode, sufficient water will be available from the SEQ Water Grid to meet an
average regional urban demand of 375 litres per person per day (L/p/day) (230 L/p/day residential,
145 L/p/day non-residential and system losses);
Sufficient investment in the water supply system will occur so that:
Medium Level Restrictions will not occur more than once every 25 years, on average
Medium Level Restrictions will only reduce consumption by 15 per cent below the total
consumption volume in normal operating mode
Drought response infrastructure will be not be required to be built more than once every 100
years, on average
Combined regional storage reserves do not decline to 10 per cent of capacity more than once
every 1000 years, on average
Regional water storages do not reach 5 per cent of combined storage capacity
Wivenhoe, Hinze and Baroon Pocket dams do not reach minimum operating levels
It is expected that Medium Level Restrictions will last longer than six months, no more than once
every 50 years on average.
49
41/24452/428742
The Level of Service Yield is the maximum demand that can be supplied, for given infrastructure and
operating conditions, while still meeting the LOS objectives. It is a modelled maximum supply.
Medium population growth for the South East Queensland region has also been assumed for these
modelling outputs with consumption based on 200 l/p/d.
The main conclusions of this QWC Study are that the shortfall in water supply reduction in LoS yield for
a permanent reduction in the FSV in Wivenhoe Dam is to bring the new water source, identified as a
desalination plant, forward by 3 years. Table 15 shows the comparison in the shortfall in water supply,
the year new infrastructure is required to maintain the LoS objectives and the number of years earlier
It should be noted that the shortfall in LoS yield differ slightly from the QWC Report as they have referred
the volumes to the current published SEQ Water Strategy (2010), whereas the following LoS yield
includes the recent Hinze Dam upgrade and the associate additional 15,000 megalitres per annum
(ML/a).
Currently, the Strategy indicates that based on the LoS yield, new infrastructure is not required until
2030. By permanently reducing the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam to 75% or 50%, in order to maintain the LoS
objectives and yield, the new infrastructure will need to be brought forward by 3 and 11 years
respectively.
Table 15
Summary of scenarios tested

Wivenhoe FSV
Scenario
100%
75%
50%
500,000
475,000
415,000
LoS shortfall (ML/a)
20,000
85,000
Number of years
infrastructure is brought
forward
11
2031
2028
2020
LoS yield (ML/a)
Year of additional
infrastructure
8.2
Mechanisms to defer new infrastructure requirements
The 2028 and 2020 dates for the required additional infrastructure in order to maintain LoS yield can, of
course, be deferred by implementing other mechanisms. Some of the other approaches that can be
taken are to change the trigger level for the introduction of purified recycled water (PRW) into Wivenhoe
Dam. Currently the SEQ Water Strategy (2010) uses the 40% drought response trigger for the
introduction of PRW into Wivenhoe Dam, the preparation for construction on the new water source and
the introduction of medium level restrictions.
In order to defer the building of new infrastructure the following approaches could be considered:
introducing PRW into Wivenhoe earlier than the 40% trigger;
introducing water restrictions earlier than the 40% trigger;
unrealised population growth; and

50
41/24452/428742
demand hardening (i.e. not reaching to 200 l/p/day).
All of these approaches would effectively change the LoS objectives and this is something to be
considered if deferring capital is a requirement. Also, this rapid assessment does not investigate the
economic impact of changing the LoS objectives and introducing restrictions earlier. However, given the
economic impact of water restrictions on some businesses, this will need to be assessed in any future
detailed study.
8.3
Operation of desalination and purified recycled water
Current operation of the interconnected SEQ Water Grid allows for the operation of the Tugun
Desalination Plant at 100% when the Grid 12 dams reach a combined volume trigger of 60%. PRW from
the Western Corridor Water Recycled Scheme is introduced into Wivenhoe Dam when the Grid 12
dams reach a combined volume trigger of 40%.
Information provided by the SEQ Water Grid Manager, based on a water demand of 545,000 ML/a, has
suggested that with the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam at 100%, the probability of operating the Tugun
Desalination Plant at 100% capacity due to the trigger of 60% volume in the Grid 12 dams is very low at
approximately 12%. The probability of PRW being introduced into the Dam is very low at approximately
1.6%.
By reducing the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam to 75%, the probability of reaching the 60% trigger for operating
the Desalination Plant increases to 55%. The probability of reaching the 40% trigger for the introduction
of PRW into the Dam increases to 17.6%.
Further reducing the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam to 50% increases the probability of reaching the 60% trigger
for operating the Desalination Plant increases to 100% and the probability of reaching the 40% trigger for
the introduction of PRW into the Dam increases to 74%.
Table 16
Probability of reaching Grid 12 Dam triggers for desalinated and PRW

Probability (%)
Wivenhoe FSV (%)
Operating the Desalination Plant
PRW into Wivenhoe
100
12
1.6
75
55
17.6
50
100
74
51
41/24452/428742
9. Downstream Flood Mitigation Options

9.1
Introduction
This section considers a broad range of options to increase flood mitigation aside from those considered
for Wivenhoe Dam.
Within the constraints of the Study timeline a high level review of options was considered in a
quantitative manner, principally through a workshop with key stakeholders to brainstorm the options from
an initial long list. Table 17 provides an overview of the outcomes of this workshop and a list of the
options considered. Further commentary on the viability of the options is provided in this section. It is
recognised that some of the options considered may be applied at a local, as well as a regional, scale as
a suite of solutions within a risk based flood management approach.
The workshop assessment considered each identified option against the following broad criteria:
Table 17
Assessment criteria
Criteria
Description
Cost
Cost in terms of both capital investment and operational costs.
Time
Time to implement the measures including design, approvals,

consultation and construction.
Flood mitigation
Effectiveness of the measure to significantly reduce flood damage.
Community impact
Impact on the community, either directly or indirectly as a result of the

measure, such as relocation and displacement, reduction in amenity
and social impact.
Environmental impact
Impact of measures on environment and ecology of the area,

including local and regional impacts
Risk
Overall risk of the solution, in terms of technical implementation,

constructability, and public acceptability.
Table 18 presents a summary of the options identified and the outcome of the workshop evaluation of
each option to produce a short-list of options for further consideration.
52
41/24452/428742
Surface-level channel between the Dam and other areas (for example,
inland)
Various interventions to divert water into existing flood plains and to convert
some existing flood areas to permanent wetlands
Water 'gates' to stop water flowing back up non-flooded branches of flooding

rivers or localised devises in drainage systems
Permanent or temporary barriers to keep floodwaters out of key areas

Emu Creek

Bremer River

Lockyer Creek
Bypass channel for

Brisbane River
Channel upstream of
Wivenhoe to divert flow
Connect flood plains,

new wetlands, other
water ways
Backflow prevention
Levees and floodgates

on major streams
Dredge Brisbane River
Flush Brisbane River
10
11
12
13
41/24452/428742
Surface-level channel between Brisbane River and the ocean with

resumption of houses required

Linville
Key to colours and scales
Strategic annual water release from Wivenhoe to remove soil, etc. from river
to increase flow capacity
Deploy dredging vessels to remove soil, etc. from river to increase flow
capacity
Planting vegetation on slopes of dam and upstream to 'absorb' some of the

floodwater
New flood-mitigation-only Dam. Land cleared of structures/trees, but able to

be used in non-flood periods, possibly for cropping or non-permanent
activities
activities
activities
activities
Expand Splityard Creek
Expand storage capacity of Splityard Creek Dam (storage for hydro plant)
and pump out of Wivenhoe into Splityard during the flood event
Description
Alternative Options Workshop Evaluation Summary
Options
Table 18
Time
now-3yrs
3-5yrs
5-10yrs
10-20yrs
>20yrs
0-$50m
$50m-$300m
$300m-$1b
$1b-$10b
>$10b
Time
Cost
Cost
very low
low
moderate, if scaled up
moderate
high
Flood mitigation
Flood mitigation
extreme
high
moderate
low
very low/ positive
Community impact
Community impact
extreme
high
moderate
low
very low/ positive
Environment
Environment
extreme
high
moderate
low
very low
Risk
Risk
53
9.2
Expand Splityard Creek Dam storage

Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
It is understood that some additional storage many be available within the Splityard Creek Dam, adjacent
and above Wivenhoe Dam, as part of the existing Pump Storage Hydroelectric Power Scheme. However,
the available storage volume is comparatively small so has no material impact on flood mitigation
compared to the flood volumes stored in the Wivenhoe Dam. Similarly the flow rates required to
significantly reduce the outflow from Wivenhoe Dam during flood events are very large. The additional
pumping infrastructure required to transfer the flood water from Wivenhoe Dam to Splityard Creek Dam
at the required flow rates would be prohibitively complex and expensive.
9.3
A preliminary investigation was undertaken regarding the construction of flood retention dams in various
locations. These retention dams would be normally empty, filling only during the flood events that they
are designed for.
However, in order to provide any impact on the flood volumes in the Brisbane River, preliminary
calculations show that the volume of the dams would need to be in the order of 500,000 to 700,000 ML.
To store this volume, a dam approximately half to three quarters the size of Wivenhoe (at FSV) would be
needed. This structure would be large, expensive, and inundate a significant area of land during flood.
A significant concrete outlet structure would be required to regulate the flow during flood events but allow
unimpeded flow during low flow conditions.
Early studies conducted by Queensland Government agencies have identified a number of potential sites
for smaller dams. These would require further investigation to determine their suitability for large flood
retention structures. The location would also need to be assessed to determine the infrastructure and
development within the impounded area.
Land would need to be cleared of structures and trees so during the operation of these dams, as flood
mitigation, there would be a reduced risk of debris and clogging of the Dams. However, the cleared area
may possibly be used for low value cropping or grazing provided access was not restricted for its primary
use as a flood mitigation structure.
Further detailed hydrological modelling would also need to be undertaken to ensure that site selection
was appropriate and there may be opportunities to combine a number of locations, in series, in order to
retail the required volume of water.
9.3.1
Linville and Emu Creek within the Wivenhoe Dam Catchment
Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
These sites are no longer considered as the likely benefit of storage upstream of Wivenhoe Dam is
considered to be minimal, against expected high costs and environmental impact. Any flood waters
stored within the Wivenhoe catchment would still need to pass through Wivenhoe Dam and therefore it
would only delay the release of the volume of water. Given the cost of the structure, there would be
greater impact in investing in Wivenhoe Dam itself.
54
41/24452/428742
9.3.2
Lockyer Creek and Bremer River catchments
Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
The benefits of mitigating peak flow rates downstream of Wivenhoe Dam were investigated for the base
case scenario. Three alternative downstream conditions were considered here:
excluding flow from the Lockyer Creek catchment;
excluding flow from the Bremer River catchment; and
excluding flow from both the Lockyer Creek and Bremer River catchments.
These results are summarised in Table 19.

In order to provide benefit from an impoundment on either the Lockyer Creek or the Bremer River, the
peak flow rates need to be mitigated. This means that the majority of the volume of the flood waters
needs to be stored temporarily and slowly released in the manner of a detention basin.
If the peak flow rates from the Lockyer Creek and Bremer River catchments were mitigated, the
reduction in peak flow at the Moggill gauge are estimated to be 16%. 29% and 32% respectively for the
1893, 1974 and 2011 flood events.
If the peak flow rates from the Bremer River catchment were mitigated, the reduction in peak flow rates
at the Moggill gauge are approximately 5%, 36% and 21% respectively for the 1893, 1974 and 2011
flood events.
Mitigating the flows in the Lockyer Creek and Bremer River catchments would mean the peak flow rates
in the Brisbane River at the Moggill gauge would be reduced to flows of below 4,5000 m3/s or lower
which dramatically reduces the flood damage in Brisbane for the 1974 and 2011 flood events.
3
However, in the case of the 1893 flood simulation, the estimated peak flow rate of 8,000 m /s at the
Moggill gauge is still considered to be significant and equates to only an approximate 20% reduction in
peak flow rate when compared to the simulation of the 1893 flood event with Wivenhoe Dam present and
using the 2011 FOM. While the 1893 flood event suggests that mitigation on Lockyer Creek and Bremer
River does not alleviate the flood damage as much as the 1974 and 2011 events, there is a reduction in
3
the peak flow of approximately 2,100 m /s which is still significant.
While these mitigation options were not considered in conjunction with the other primary scenarios (S1S4), it is likely that a similar percentage reduction in the peak flow rate may occur for the respective
floods.
55
41/24452/428742
Table 19
Influence of Lockyer Creek and Bremer River flows, base case scenario (S0)
Scenario
Flood
event
2011
1974
1893
Excluding
Lockyer Creek
flow
Excluding
Bremer River
flow
Excluding
Lockyer Creek
and Bremer
River flow
6,200
7,200
4,400
Port Office Level, LAT (metres AHD)
2.4
3.1
1.3
Port Office Level, HAT (metres

AHD)
3.4
3.9
2.7
5,500
5,000
3,100
2.0
1.7
0.5

AHD)
3.2
2.2
8,500
9,600
8,000
3.9
4.6
3.6

AHD)
4.4
4.9
4.2
Parameter
Port Office Flow (m3/s)
Port Office Flow (m /s)
Port Office Flow (m3/s)
These options were only considered at a high level, as it has a potentially high cost, significant
community concern and environmental impacts as experienced on similar recent new dam projects in
Queensland. The hydrological effects of impounding either the Lockyer Creek or the Bremer River need
significant investigation particularly given the potential impact on Ipswich and surrounds. There may be
opportunities to provide a series of impoundments in order to achieve the required volume, however,
detailed investigations would need to be undertaken to progress this option and site selection would be a
critical component.
Caution would again be required after construction of these dams, as similarly to Wivenhoe Dam, these
should be seen as flood mitigation and not flood proofing structures. All floods behave differently and
therefore, while flood retention structures may reduce flooding during one event, they may not be as
effective during a different flood event. This is highlighted by some of the results discussed above where
it is concluded that there was a benefit in the reduction in the peak flow of the Brisbane River at the
Moggill gauge by the construction of flood mitigation dams on the Lockyer Creek and the Bremer River
during the 1974 and 2011 flood events, but not for the 1893 event.
Some recent cost estimates for dams holding 300,000 ML were approximately $700/ML. Therefore, no
economic analysis was undertaken on the cost and benefits of these options as the preliminary
investigation was very high level. Significant further investigations need to be undertaken including site
selection, number and size of the impoundments and detailed hydrological assessment to confirm the
benefit of these structures prior to any economic analysis being undertaken.
56
41/24452/428742
9.4
Bypass channel for Brisbane River

Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
This option was considered at a high level only, and was proposed to by-pass extreme flows via an
allocated flood channel around populated areas. Given the surrounding topography and urbanisation of
Brisbane this option is not considered practical and would be prohibitively expensive with very high
environmental and community impact. This option is not considered further, however may have some
merit in some regional towns.
9.5
Channel upstream of Wivenhoe Dam to divert flow

Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
This option considered an upstream channel to divert extreme flows in the upper watershed to an
adjacent catchment. The technical feasibility of this option, given the size of the large catchment area
required to be diverted to be effective and availability of suitable adjacent catchments to receive such
water, is highly questionable. The expected cost of this option would also limit the viability of proceeding
and as such has not been considered further.
9.6
Connect flood plains, new wetlands, other waterways

Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
Various interventions were considered to divert water into existing flood plains and to convert some
existing flood areas to permanent wetlands. This option is considered to be of limited value only in terms
of flood mitigation. It may have some localised effects and small flood events may be able to be slightly
mitigated. However, in the context of the volumes required in order to have significant impact on the
peak flows in the Brisbane River this option is not considered further.
9.7
Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
This option considered the potential to increase time taken for run-off from the catchment to reach the
Dam through land use management in the upper catchment areas. This is a catchment based approach
aimed at reducing runoff rates in the upper catchment and reducing rates of flow down watercourses.
Flood mitigation effects would be limited to smaller events given the potential for the natural covering to
slow run-off rates of more extreme events.
The disadvantages of this option are the length of time it takes to establish ground cover, the significant
area involved which would need to be set aside and legislative framework that would be required to
manage such a large area, across multiple regions. This option would have had limited effect during
some of the historical nominated events, for which the majority of rainfall fell in catchments downstream
of the Dam. Land resumption and compensation for planting would outweigh the benefits of such an
approach. As the benefit of this option is in the vegetation cover, this land would need to be set aside
with no grazing or cropping allowed. Due to the identified constraints this option is not considered further.
57
41/24452/428742
9.8
Backflow prevention
Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
Localised backflow devices may have a benefit but the benefit will be restricted to localised areas. The
installation of backflow devices is the subject of a separate study currently being undertaken by Brisbane
City Council. The effectiveness of the devices is limited to mitigation of backflow from the river. They will
not prevent localised flooding due to high rainfall in the catchment upstream of the backflow device such
as was prevalent in the 1974 event. In addition, the benefits gained from the use of backflow devices
need to be compared against risk of operational failure.
Backflow devices could form part of any localised levee solution, however, have not been considered in
detail as part of this Study. If backflow prevention devices are considered on a local scale, significant
hydrological investigation needs to be undertaken to identify the potential for consequential flood risk
elsewhere due to the displacement and diversion of the flood waters. Otherwise there is the potential to
exacerbate flooding in neighbouring areas. The significance and effect of this issue needs to be fully
investigated anywhere these devices are considered for installation.
9.9
Levees and walls

Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
Levee banks have been identified in the flood mitigation options short-listing and have the potential to
provide localised flood mitigation benefits to some urban areas of Brisbane
To determine the extent of these benefits and provide concept level cost estimates, a conceptual
arrangement for levees has been developed.
Conceptually, levee banks would comprise an earthen structure with a crest width of approximately
5 metres and side slopes of 2 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical). For taller structures, a central sand filter zone
may be needed to control seepage and potential piping issues in order to mitigate internal erosion of the
soil via seepage flows. Much of the access to locations where levee banks may be of use is currently
occupied by high value residential or commercial properties along the river bank. This significantly
constrains the construction of these levees or increases the cost due to the land resumptions involved
and the resulting compensation that would be required.
Where constrained access does not permit a levee, walls may replace the levee however, this would
need careful engineering consideration to prevent seepage under the structures. Earthen structures can
be constructed on river bank margins, but some locations may need to be augmented in subsequent
phases of design to improve river bank stability, in particular on the recession limb of floods when the
potential for river bank collapse is high.
The adopted crest level of the levees has been designed to mitigate flooding caused by the anticipated
3
10,000 m /s peak flow at the Port Office gauge being representative of the nominated flood events
considered in this Study. This proposed peak design flow is marginally higher than the peak flow during
the January 2011 flood of approximately 9,500 m 3/s.
Levee banks have generally been positioned close to the river bank, and isolated from important
infrastructure such as major highways, where possible. In some areas, road and transport infrastructure
58
41/24452/428742
has already been constructed in the most suitable levee bank positions, and therefore relocation of the
existing road infrastructure would be necessary.
Levees along major creeks should either:
extend to the point of limited backflow influence from the Brisbane River; or
include a gated structure to permit local flooding to discharge.
Local flooding tends to occur significantly prior to the arrival of the flood peak in the Brisbane River. As
such, local flood gates can discharge the local peak through the levee bank and be subsequently closed
for the Brisbane River peak. Alternatively, stormwater pumping facilities may be incorporated to manage
localised water build up behind the levees.
It should be noted that levee banks only provide flood protection up to the design flood event. For floods
with peak flows exceeding the design event, the levees will be overtopped, resulting in further damage.
Overtopping of the levee can result in rapid rises in water level within the flood protected area and may
cause more significant flood damage than if no levees were constructed. In some instances, loss of life
can occur if overtopping causes rapid failure of the levee and the population at risk cannot be evacuated
prior to the event.
Localised flooding behind levees and walls is also a risk, particularly where backflow devices fail to
operate correctly or the capacity of pumping facilities are exceeded.
Cost estimates and an economic evaluation for the proposed levees have not been determined as part of
this Study. However, it is anticipated the cost of land resumption alone for regional levees would exceed
the economic benefits.
However, despite these concerns, levees may be a valuable option to protect specific local areas, for
example, areas with a high population density, or important industrial zones. Consideration of any levee
scheme should include significant hydrological investigation to identify the potential for consequential
flood risk elsewhere in the catchment due to the displacement and diversion of the flood waters.
9.10
Brisbane River
Two options were considered at the workshop to improve the flow capacity of the Brisbane River and
potentially reduce water levels.
9.10.1
Dredging the Brisbane River
Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
Deploy dredging vessels to remove soil, sediment and debris from the river bed to increase flow
capacity. This has not been considered further as there would be limited flood mitigation benefits and
expected high operational costs and environmental impacts of both the operation of the dredging vessels
and the disposal of the resulting material.
59
41/24452/428742
9.10.2
Flush Brisbane River
Cost
Time
Flood
mitigation
Community
impact
Environment
Risk
Periodic release of high flows from Wivenhoe Dam could be undertaken to flush accumulated sediment
from the river bed. Flushing would be best undertaken when there is a low king tide to achieve maximum
effect and minimise river water levels. It would probably only be needed every 5-10 years.
While a 'low cost' option when considered in association with a reduction in reservoir level, it has not
been considered further due to the limited flood mitigation benefit, the expected community concern and
potential environmental impacts. The recent 2011 flood event has had a significant impact on Moreton
Bay and the sea grass beds, resulting in turtle and dugong casualties, therefore, significant
environmental investigations would need to be undertaken in order to prove that flushing would not have
similar effects.
60
41/24452/428742
10. Economic Analysis

10.1
Overview
Economic evaluation (cost benefit analysis) considers the costs and benefits for society as a whole. It is
concerned with efficiency and impacts on resource consumption and includes broader social effects such
as ill health and stress that may not have a market value. This contrasts with financial analysis which
considers costs and benefits to an individual or entity. It is based on the cash value of the resources and
effects with no market value are not considered.
The preliminary economic evaluation of flood mitigation options involved application of a Rapid Appraisal
2
3
Method (RAM) within a benefit cost analysis framework . RAM is an approach used in other regions of
Australia such as Victoria, which adopts a cost benefit analysis framework to assess the economic costs
and economic benefits associated with flood mitigation/management initiatives. It involves estimation of
benefits on the basis of a reduction in average annual damage and costs from engineering estimates of
capital investments and operations.
Furthermore, consistent with the guidance of the former Queensland Department of Natural Resources
4
and Mines (DNRM) , the economic analysis incorporates consideration of three groups of estimated
damages associated with floods:
Direct (tangible) damages: the physical impact of the flood. For example, damages to the structure
and contents of buildings, agricultural enterprises and regional infrastructure;
Indirect (tangible) damages: losses from disruption of normal economic and social activities that arise
as a consequence of the physical impact of the flood, for example, costs associated with emergency
response, clean-up and community support, as well as disruption to transport, employment and
commerce; and
Intangibles (or non market impacts): losses which cannot be quantified in monetary terms (as there
is an absence of a market price and/or methods to approximate market prices). For example, loss in
biodiversity or increased stress levels for residents following a major flood event affecting their
homes.
Economic evaluation considers 'total cost' to the community.' From a government perspective, it is
important to understand that the 'costs' in the analysis largely accrue to the state, while a significant
proportion of the 'benefits' are received by individuals. Therefore, the funding considerations associated
with additional costs will require careful consideration from a State budgetary perspective (as alluded to
in footnote 2).
The steps undertaken in preparation of this economic evaluation are set out below and illustrated in
Figure 21. Furthermore a diagram showing the economic framework is provided at Figure 22.
2
See Rapid Appraisal Method (RAM) for Floodplain Management, National Resources and Environment, Victoria, May 2000 and
Economic Costs of Natural Disasters in Australia, Bureau of Transport Economics, Report 103, Canberra, 2001.
Cost Benefit Analysis (also known as Benefit Cost Analysis) is an analysis tool used to rank alternative projects or initiatives by
identifying and quantifying the benefits (or losses avoided) and costs to society. It aims at valuing benefits and costs in money
terms and producing a summary measure of net benefit, typically a Net Present Value (NPV) or Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR). If the
NPV is greater than zero or the BCR is greater than one, the project / initiative is considered to provide a positive net benefit to
society.
Guidance on the Assessment of Tangible Flood Damages, Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines, September
2002
61
41/24452/428742
i.
Definition of Study area identified as the area downstream of Wivenhoe Dam subject to
flooding in January 2011 due to releases from the Dam5.
ii.
Estimation of damages for key flood events initially involved use of flood damage curves
developed in 2007 as part of the Brisbane Valley Flood Damage Minimisation Study6 for
Brisbane City Council, Ipswich City Council and Esk Shire Council (refer to Figure 20). The flood
damage curves are also known as stage-damage curves and show the relationship between
inundation and damage incurred. In this analysis the flood damage curves that form the basis of
3
the estimation of damage reduction (benefits) show the peak flow rate (as measured in m /s) on
the horizontal axis and expected total damage (in $ million) on the vertical axis. As the peak flow
increases (inundation increases) and the expected level of damage rises. This data provided (in
$AUD 2007) estimated flood damage, relating to direct residential and non-residential properties
3
for peak flow rates of 1,000 to 10,000 m /s in these three urban locations. The January 2011
3
flood event was assessed at being equivalent to 9,000-9,500 m /s at the Port Office gauge.
7
The 2007 curve was rescaled to $AUD 2011 using a construction cost index . The 2007 curves
3
3
were also rescaled at 500 m /s intervals for the range - 1,000 to 10,000 m /s to facilitate
subsequent evaluation. Data was also collected from the Queensland Reconstruction Authority,
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Rail, and other sources to adjust the
residential and non-residential values to obtain a broader estimate of damages to capture direct
and indirect tangible costs. The estimate developed, while significant, is likely to be an
underestimation of actual damages due to data limitations and the difficulties to capture each
and every cost incurred in major disaster events.
The Queensland Government report, Resources for Reconstruction, Discussion Paper 1
(September 2011) - notes that the ...estimated cost for the recovery of state and local
government roads, local government assets and private dwellings is in the vicinity of $10.8
billion. Similarly, the ...World Bank concluded that the cost of damage and losses in
Queensland could be up to $15 billion when the impacts on mining, tourism, agriculture and
commercial sectors are included. Furthermore, the report estimates cost of reconstruction of
state-owned and local government roads and other assets at slightly over $1 billion for the
metropolitan region. The Insurance Council of Australia (General Insurance Claims Response
2010/11 Queensland Flood and Cyclone, Update 27 October 2011) notes reserved and paid
value Queensland floods totals $2.4 billion.
For data collection and analysis purposes this includes Brisbane City Council, Ipswich City Council and Esk Shire Council areas
Feasibility and Final Report for Brisbane Valley Flood Damage Minimisation Study, Phase Three Damage Mitigation Feasibility,
prepared by City Design, Brisbane City Council. August 2007
Derived from: Cordell Building Indices, Cordell Housing Index Price (CHIP), Queensland, February 2010
62
41/24452/428742
Figure 20
Estimated flood damage curve Brisbane City Council*
1,400
1,200
$ m 2006
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1000
2000
Residential Damage
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
10000
Non-Residential Damage
GRAND TOTAL Damages
Peak Flow Rates (m3/s)
*Source: Feasibility and Final Report for Brisbane Valley Flood Damage Minimisation Study, 2007
iii.
Estimation of Average Annual Damages (AAD)8. This involves translation of the damage
estimates for varying levels of peak flow rates associated with flooding into a loss-probability
curve to calculate estimated AAD. A loss-probability curve uses AEP values corresponding to
Average Recurrence Intervals (ARI) for flood events which are plotted against damages
associated with peak flow rates. The area under the curve (i.e. a triangle or triangle plus a
parallelogram) equates to the AAD.
iv.
Determination of options for flood mitigation, while maintaining water supply security, for each of
the three major flood events (January 2011, 1974 and 1893) and varying operating regimes flow
3
3
release rates for example, 1,900 m /s, 3,500 m /s and patterns for differing levels of FSV (100%,
75% and 50%) a total of 45 options were modelled hydrological, or which 32 emerged as
practical from an operations and dam safety perspective.
v.
Determination of the cost associated with options such as the economic costs of bringing forward
facilities for water supply augmentation to maintain the necessary LoS, capital costs of new
infrastructure, for example, associated with raising the Dam wall, raising bridges and relocation
of roads, and additional operating costs for existing (and new) facilities such as desalination and
PRW.
ADD is the average damage per year that would occur in a nominated development situation from flooding over a very long period
of time. AAD provides a basis for comparing the economic effectiveness of different management measures against floods of all
sizes, i.e. their ability to reduce the AAD.
63
41/24452/428742
vi.
Economic evaluation of options incremental to the base case the existing operating regime,
existing estimated AAD and planned/committed investment. The analysis involves evaluation of
benefits and costs of options relative to the base case (the without case) which in this analysis
9
is in effect a Do Nothing case . Included for each option are those costs over and above
currently planned, both new costs (capital and operating) as well as the economic costs
associated with bringing planned investment forward, and those benefits that accrue from an
option compared with the current situation. Benefits are measured as the change in AAD from
the current estimate to a new (typically, lower) AAD estimate associated with mitigation
initiatives. The change in AAD reflects the costs avoided/cost reduction with a flood mitigation
initiative.
The base case AAD has been estimated by plotting for various AEPs the expected damage
values ($ million) associated with that magnitude of event for a range of flood events where city
3
3
centre peak flows range from 1,000 m /s to 10,000 m /s. The various options are modelled
using a hydrologic model to estimate the change in peak flow rate in the with investment and/or
change of operating regime case.
vii.
A 20 year evaluation period has been adopted (2011 to 2031, with Year 0 = 2011 and the
evaluation year = 2011) with a real discount rate of 7% for the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF )
analysis. The 20 year evaluation period is sufficiently long enough to 'capture' all the expected
cost and benefits of the options under consideration. The calculation of residual values for assets
has been done to reflect that assets will generate future benefits beyond the evaluation period.
viii.
Calculation of measures of net economic worth - NPV and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) are
calculated. Sensitivity analysis of key factors and assumptions is applied to test the robustness
of the outcomes under realistic changes in key variables. Furthermore, given the degree of
uncertainty with some estimates (particularly, capital costs), it has been deemed appropriate to
consider this aspect in the analysis and utilise contingency values to reflect an optimism bias
10
uplift factor .
ix.
Provision of supplementary discussion of factors to further inform the analysis. In this case, this
involves discussion of outcomes from hydrological modelling, Geographic Information System
(GIS) mapping used to develop inundation maps for various levels of flows, analysis of traffic
flows on impacted roads and bridges and consideration of possible impacts on the Regulatory
Asset Base (RAB) for the bulk water assets of South East Queensland.
This incorporates adoption of the SEQ Water Strategy (2010)
10
For example, the UK Treasurys Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government advises application of an
Optimism Bias (OB) factor on non-standard civil engineering projects of 6% to 66% to expected capital expenditure based on
empirical research of completed projects. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/5(3).pdf. Treatment of OB is also recommended in the
Australian Governments guide Handbook of Cost Benefit Analysis (Department of Finance & Administration, 2006) but no
specific values are provided.
64
41/24452/428742
Figure 21
Economic Analysis Methodology
Note: BTE = Bureau of Transport Economics
65
41/24452/428742
Figure 22
10.2
Economic Modelling framework
The hydrologic modelling outputs that have been adopted in the economic analysis for practical options,
and the summary economic analysis, is presented in Table 21. Details of the analysis are described in
the following sections.
Note: Table 21 demonstrates the options from the hydrological modelling which did not involve water levels exceeding the trigger
level of the first fuse plug. The cases where the fuse plugs are triggered have been rejected because they do not provide a
mitigation of floods (which is the primary objective of the study).
10.3
Benefits Flood Damage Analysis
10.3.1
Stage damage curves
The 2007 study indicated a total damage (residential and non-residential property only) estimate of $1.3
3
billion for a flow rate (flood discharge) of 10,000 m /s for Brisbane (as shown in Figure 20 earlier). The
2007 study indicated a flood damage of $0.43 billion and $25 million at 10,000 m 3/s for Ipswich City
Council and Esk Shire Council, respectively. In order to develop an indicative damage curve for areas
downstream of Wivenhoe Dam, the damage curves for Brisbane City Council, Ipswich City Council and
Esk Shire Council have been combined into a single curve for various flow rates. After applying a
number of adjustments, an estimate of total damage in the combined Brisbane City Council, Ipswich
66
41/24452/428742
City Council and Esk Shire Council region for a 10,000 m3/s flow of $3.8 billion was developed (Figure
23). The difference (adjustments) between the 2011 and 2007 estimates include:
application of a building/property cost escalation of 25.3% to bring mid 2006 $AUD values to late
2011 $AUD dollar values;
inclusion of damage estimates for Brisbane City Council of $440 million including:
$137m for roads
$61 million for clean-up costs
$75 million for the floating walkway
$2 million to salvage the floating walkway
$75 million for ferry terminals
$38 million for city parks.
inclusion of $478 million for costs estimated by Transport Network Reconstruction Program for State
roads in the region and $8 million for urban rail infrastructure and systems damage; and
inclusion of estimates for indirect tangible costs for residential and commercial damages of 15% and
55% respectively in line with advice provided in the Guidance on the Assessment of Tangible Flood
11
Damages (2002).
It is worth noting that there is considerable uncertainty as to the actual costs of a major flood event due
to the difficulty in collecting data on all costs incurred, where all costs includes direct, indirect and
intangible costs. For example, The World Bank report Queensland Recovery and Reconstruction in the
Aftermath of the 2010/2011 Flood Events and Cyclone Yasi12 notes that losses of economic flow
(forgone revenue or production losses) could account for 30% of total damage.
11
It is noted that the Victoria Rapid Appraisal Method Study (2000) cited earlier implies use of a value of 30% overall or 20% for
rural areas and 45% for urban centres.
12
A report prepared by the World Bank in collaboration with the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, June 2011.
67
41/24452/428742
Figure 23
10.3.2
Combined Stage Damage Curve
Average Annual Damage
Average Annual damage (AAD) is defined as the average cost of flood damage per year to a nominated
development situation caused by flooding over a long period of time. In many years there may be no
damage, in some years there will be minor damage (caused by small, relatively frequent flood events)
and in a few years there will be major damage (caused by large, rare flood events). If the damage
associated with various annual events is plotted against their probability of occurrence, the AAD is equal
to the area under the consequence/probability curve. AAD provides a basis for comparing the economic
effectiveness of different management measures, i.e. the management strategys ability to reduce the
AAD.
Based on the 2011 estimated damage curve, and estimates of AEP flow rate values at the Moggill and
3
Port Office flow gauges, a based line loss probability curve was developed for flow values of 1,000 m /s
3
to 10,000 m /s (see Figure 24 for an example of a loss-probability curve). A loss-probability curve
involves plotting potential damages on the vertical axis and AEP on the horizontal.
The derived loss probability curve then enables estimation of the AAD for rates ranging from 1,000 m 3/s
to 10,000 m3/s flow (the latter value is approximately 1,000 m 3/s greater than the January 2011 Flood
Event). A base line AAD value of approximately $191 million is derived (i.e. an average annual damage
cost to Brisbane, Ipswich and Esk of $191 million) from calculation of the area under the curve
represented by probability on the x-axis and damage ($ cost) on the y-axis. This value of AAD = $191
million represents the estimated AAD in the without project case i.e. before any flood mitigation
initiatives are in place.
68
41/24452/428742
For each option assessed, hydrologic modelling was used to estimate the mitigated peak flow rate. The
peak flow rate derived for each option enabled estimation of a new AAD associated with that particular
option. The new peak flow in effect moves the damage curve so that what previously would be the
3
3
damage expected with a flood of 8000 m /s is now associated with a peak flow of 10,000 m /s. For
3
example an event that would result in a peak flow of 10,000 m /s would be expected to result in damage
of approximately $3.6 billion. However, following the implementation of an option or management
strategy and the resulting flood mitigation, the peak flow of the event would be reduced to a flow of 8,000
3
m /s and therefore have a reduce damage impact equivalent to that lower flow. This new damage curve
is then used to develop a revised loss-probability curve and results in a new estimate of AAD. This
process is reiterated for each option as new peak flow rates are derived from the hydrologic modelling.
Therefore, each option has its own individual peak flow rate and resultant AAD estimate (i.e. an AAD
associated with a particular mitigation option).The relative reduction in AAD therefore represents the
economic benefit associated with a particular option. That is, the benefit that is derived from that
reduction in flow associated with the flood mitigation option analysed is equal to the new or with project
AAD subtracted from the base case/ without project (old) AAD). In essence, what the analysis does is
use the change in the level of damage expected by a flood event (as measured by peak flow rate) to reestimate the AAD associated with the introduction of option and the resulting mitigation. Mitigation
options include a combination of procedural and operational changes, and in many cases incorporate
investment in additional capital items to enable the operational change whilst maintaining water security
(LoS) objectives.
The AEP is the inverse of the average recurrence interval (ARI), the one in every x years measure. AEP
is the likelihood of occurrence of a flood of a given size or larger in any one year. The AEP is expressed
as a percentage. If a given flood level has an AEP of 5%, it means there is a 5% risk (i.e. a probability of
0.05 or a chance of 1-in-20) of a flood that size or larger occurring in any one year. ARI is another way of
expressing the likelihood of a flood event. It is the long-term average number of years between the
occurrence of a flood as big as, or larger than, the selected event. For example, a flood as big as, or
larger than, the 20 year average recurrence interval flood event will occur on average once every 20
years. The average recurrence interval of a flood should not be taken as an indication of when a flood of
that size will occur next.
69
41/24452/428742
Figure 24
Loss probability curve Brisbane (Illustrative)*
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
Damage $m
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$
Probability
Current Total Damage
New Total Damage
*Note: Current Total Damage includes both blue and red areas. For each option, a new loss probability curve is estimated (and
new AAD) and compared with the base loss probability curve (and old AAD).
10.4
Costs capital and operating
Cost estimations have been developed for the following broad options:
25% reduction of FSV;
50% reduction of FSV;
Raising the Dam crest by 2 metres; and,
Raise the heights of two strategically important bridges downstream of Wivenhoe Dam to
2000 m3/s.
Modelling by the QWC13 revealed:
[A] permanent reduction in the full supply volume of 25% will lower the Level of Service (LOS) yield
by about 30,000 ML/annum, and a 50% reduction would lower it by about 110,000 ML/annum.
This reduction in LOS yield may require the construction of new infrastructure to be brought forward
by about 3 years for the 25% reduction, and about 11 years for a 50% reduction based on current
demand assumptions.
13
Report on impacts of lowering the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam on water supply security, Queensland Water Commission, October
2011 and updates November 2011. Information Material Only.
70
41/24452/428742
10.4.1
Assumptions
Options which trigger activation of the fuse plugs within the hydrologic model have not been considered
in the economic analysis. Fuse plugs are designed to be triggered in extreme flood events only. Also the
peak flow rates at Moggill of the modelling scenarios where the plugs were triggered showed either the
same or higher peak flow rates than those scenarios where the plugs remained intact.
In order to successfully implement many of the options it would be necessary to undertake a range of
capital works and/or bring forward some currently planned future investments. Table 21 details the
capital expenditure items associated with the implementation of each option. Details of particular capital
requirements are set out in Table 21.
Table 20 projects the key cost and timing assumptions have been used in the evaluation of options:
Table 20
Key costs and timing assumptions
Option
Costs
Timing
25% reduction of
FSV
A desalination plant with approximately 30

GL/a capacity, including a capital cost of $1.33
billion14 15
Constructed to commence
operations from 2027 (3 years
prior to current planning)17.
Additional annual operating costs of existing

16
PRW of $2.8 million per annum
Required project commencement

year of 2023.
Additional annual operating costs of the

existing desalination plant of $13.7 million per
annum
New desalination operating costs from 2027 of
$1.21 million/GL/a
50% reduction of
FSV
A desalination plant with approximately 95

GL/a capacity with a capital cost of $2.67
billion18
Constructed to commence
operations from 2019 (11 years
prior to current planning)17 19
Additional annual operating cost of existing

PRW of $12.8 million per annum
Required project commencement

year of 2014
Additional annual operating costs of the

existing desalination plant of $28 million per
annum
14
Capital costs include desalination plant as well as additional capacity at Wyaralong Dam and associated pipe networks; these
latter items at an estimated cost of $369 million.
15
Expenditure profile for the desalination plant over 4 years is: Year 1= 5%, Year 2 = 5%, Year 3 = 25% and Year 4 = 65%.
16
Preliminary indicative cost associated with lowering the operating level of Wivenhoe Dam were provided by SEQ Water Grid
Manager (pers. comm. 20/10/2011 and 1/11/2011). Estimates were based on use of both PRW and Desalination for supply
augmentation and incorporates probabilities of changes to existing PRW and Desalination operating costs.
17
Capital costs estimates for desalination plant derived from data for a number of plants either completed or planned for
development in Australia, namely: Sydney (Kurnell, $1890m, 90 GL/annum capacity); Melbourne (Wonthaggi, $3.5 billion, 150
GL/annum); South East Queensland (Tugun, $1.2 billion, 49 GL/annum); Perth (Kwinanna, $387 million, 45 GL/annum); Perth
(Binnngup, $1.4 billion, 100 GL/annum); Adelaide (Port Stanvac, $1.83 billion, 100 GL/annum)
18
Capital costs include desalination plant as well as additional capacity at Wyaralong Dam and associated pipe networks; these
latter items at an estimated cost of $369 million.
19
Expenditure profile for the desalination plant over five years is: Year 1= 5%, Year 2 = 5%, Year 3 = 15%, Year 4 = 20% and Year
5 = 55%.
71
41/24452/428742
Option
Costs
Timing
New desalination operating costs from 2016 of

$1.09 million/GL/a.
Raise the wall at
Wivenhoe Dam
by 2 metres
Capital cost of $395 million.
Raise the heights

of two
strategically
important bridges
downstream of
Wivenhoe Dam
Colleges
Crossing (Mt
Crosby Road)
and Burtons
Bridge to 2000
3
m /s immunity in
one year (2012)
including planning
and construction:
$67.3 million for Colleges Crossing
Capital cost estimate includes for the raising of

the Wivenhoe Dam wall, plus for road
relocation costs and costs of other facilities
relocation upstream. This estimate does not
include the cost of raising bridges downstream
of the Dam such as Burtons Bridge at Borallan
or Colleges Crossing at Chuwar. This cost
does not include substantial modification to the
gates (potentially up to $330 million), potential
upgrades associated with the requirement for
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) or fishways
(potentially greater than $100 million). The
cost has been based on this rapid assessment
and is likely to increase during any preliminary
design phase.
$37.9 million for Burtons Bridge
Four year planning, approvals and

construction period commencing
in 2012 for Dam raising and
relocation of roads and other
assets impacted.
Undertake road diversions

downstream of Wivenhoe Dam in
one year (2012) for 3,000 m3/s
immunity.
Residual values have been
estimated using a straight line
depreciation method and the
following economic lives have
been used: Dam wall extension
(50 years), new desalination plant
and associated infrastructure (30
years), new roads (20 years) and
bridges (100 years). In the
Discounted Cashflow Analysis,
residual values have been treated
as negative costs (as opposed to
benefits) i.e. as an offset against
capital costs of options
(implementing a project).
A summary of costs is presented in Appendix B.
10.5
Economic evaluation
10.5.1
Overview
Figure 25 sets out the relationship between the economic analysis inputs and the cost benefit analysis
(including sensitivity testing).
72
41/24452/428742
Figure 25
Economic analysis and cost benefit analysis
Discounted Cash Flow analysis was used to estimate the net economic worth of options assessed.
Measures obtained were NPV20 and BCR21 for each option incremental to the base case. The following
additional indicators were calculated:
change in AAD value actual ($ millions) and percentage; and
probable damage value of future event where peak flow rates equate to those estimated for the
option;
probable damage value relative to January 2011 of a future event where peak flow rates equate to
those estimated for the option;
Present Value Costs; and
Present Value Benefits.
10.5.2
Initial evaluation results
The results of the economic evaluation are set out in Table 21.
20
NPV The discounted value of the expected benefits of a project, less the discounted value of the expected costs.
21
BCR The ratio of the expected present value of net recurrent benefits to the present value project costs.
73
41/24452/428742
The NPV for each option is presented in Figure 26, Figure 27 and Figure 28 for the 1893, 1974 and 2011
flood events respectively.
Figure 26
Figure 27
74
41/24452/428742
Figure 28
10.5.3
Summary of Economic Evaluation
A summary of the economic analysis is presented in Table 21. The initial economic evaluation indicates
the following with respect to the options:
All options involving the reduction of the Wivenhoe Dam FSV by 50% return negative NPVs. The
main factor here in determining these negative economic results being major bring forward costs and
significant augmentation capacity requirements to meet the current LoS objectives;
All other options return positive NPVs, except the 1893 flood at 100% FSV operating under the 2011
FOM;
Raising the Dam wall at FSV 75% out performs raising the Dam at FSV 100% because of its ability to
more substantially lower the peak flow rate and because the increase costs are more than
compensated for by a more significant increase in economic benefits;
Options involving low capital requirements (i.e. bridge raisings), high release rates and 100% FSV
generate the largest NPVs;
75
41/24452/428742
The following options result in the most significant reduction in peak flow rate (to between 7300 and
6700 m3/s) and therefore the largest benefit streams:
Year 1893 Flood 2 Metre Raise to W4 and Fuse Plug Levels 75% FSV
Year 1974 Flood Release Rate = 3,500 m 3/s 75% FSV
Year 1974 Flood 2011 FOM 75% FSV
Year 1974 Flood 2011 FOM 50% FSV
Year 1974 Flood Release Rate = 1,900 m /s 50% FSV
Year 2011 Flood Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m /s 50% FSV
However, four of these options are very capital intensive and actually generate negative NPVs
(costs far outweigh benefits);
Options involving FSV 75%, (where capital requirements are at the lower end of the range of those
involved) are broadly the next best performing options with significant positive NPVs;
The equal best performing options (i.e. the largest NPV) are the options of the 2011 Flood utilising
FSV 100% with uncontrolled flow to 3,500 m3/s or Straight to W2. This option marginally out
performs the following:
1974 Flood FSV 100% Release rate 3,500 m3/s1974
Flood FSV 100% 2011 FOM
1974 Flood FSV 75% Release Rate 3,500 m3/s
1974 Flood FSV 75% 2011 FOM
1974 Flood FSV 100% Release rate 1,900 m3/s
1974 Flood FSV 75% Release Rate 1,900 m3/s
All of these options generate an expected NPV of between $1 billion and $1.3 billion; and
The two best performing options are characterised a substantial reduction in peak flow rates (down to
7600 m3/s)and therefore a very substantial economic benefit and nil capital cost requirements.
.
76
41/24452/428742
75%
75%
100%
100%
100%
75%
S2 - Steady to W4,
FSV 75%
S3 - 2m Dam
raise FSV 75%
S4 - 2m Dam raise
FSV 100%
S5 - uncontrolled
3,500 m3/s
S6 Restrict
Release Rate to
3
3,500 m /s (not
feasible
sensitivity only)
S6 Restrict
Release Rate to
3
3,500 m /s (not
feasible
sensitivity only)
41/24452/428742
100%
8,500
2011
7,600
2011
337.8
337.8
63.4
63.4
245.1
245.1
245.1
582.9

582.9
337.8
582.9
337.8
63.4
63.4
63.4
PV Costs
($million)
337.8
Raise Bridges

Raise Wall
Desal
Earlier
Capital Expenditure Items
7,200
1974
1893
2011
1974
7,800
7,600
2011
1893
9,500
1974
1893
7,700
7,600
8,700
2011
1893
1974
7,900
1974
7,600
7,300
2011
1893
8,800
1893
7,900
7,600
2011
1974
9,400
1974
9,000
1893
S1 - Straight to
W2 FSV 100%
9,100
100%
2011
10,100
1893
S0 base case
(2011 FOM)
7,800
Estimated
Peak Flows
(m3/s)
Flood
Event
FSV
Option
1974
Hydrology
Model
Economic analysis summary results
Option
Table 21
1,268.20
1,455.80
1,174.50
1,268.20
321.9
536
759.2
481.7
1,268.20
1,127.60
1408.9
1,268.20
1,127.60
731.2
1,268.20
386.3
643.9
579.5
1,174.50
-22.1
PV Benefits
($million)
930.4
1,118.00
1,174.50
1204.8
258.5
290.9
514.1
236.6
685.3
544.7
826
930.4
789.8
393.4
1,204.8
322.9
580.4
579.5
1,174.50
-22.1
NPV
($million)
Initial Economic Analysis
3.75
4.31
20
5.1
2.19
3.1
1.97
2.18
1.93
2.42
3.75
3.34
2.16
20.0
6.1
10.2
BCR
109
126
101
109
57
66
53
57
15
39
28
55
74
35
67
105
51
57
97
64
122
109
51
57
97
109
33
63
17
57
109
33
29
26
56
53
50
-1
-2
101
%
Reduced
AAD
Reduced
AAD
($million)
1,610
1,291
1,769
1,610
3,220
2,301
1,690
2,449
1,610
1,849
1,370
1,610
1,849
2,524
1,610
3,111
2,672
2,782
1,769
3,790
Probable
damage
($million)
Initial Economic Damage Analysis
77
100%
75%
50%
100%
75%
50%
S7 Restrict
Release Rate to
1,900 m3/s (not
feasible
sensitivity only)
S7 Restrict
Release Rate to
3
1,900 m /s (not
feasible
sensitivity only)
S7 Restrict
Release Rate to
1,900 m3/s (not
feasible
sensitivity only)
S8
September 2011
FOM
S8
September 2011
FOM
S8
September 2011
FOM
41/24452/428742
50%
S6 Restrict
Release Rate to
3,500 m3/s (not
feasible
sensitivity only)
7,700
2,084.40
2,084.40
2,084.40
337.8
337.8
337.8
1221.3
1,502.60
1,080.70
862.3
1,455.80
643.9
579.5
1,174.50
-22.1
1,668
1,502.6
1,455.80
1,174.50
1,315.10
1,502.60
PV Benefits
($million)
-863
-581.8
-1,003.7
524.5
1,118.00
306.1
579.5
1,174.50
-22.1
-479.9
-645.2
1,054.50
1,111.00
-769.3
-581.8
NPV
($million)
Initial Economic Analysis
2,147.90
2,147.90
401.2
63.4
2,084.40
PV Costs
($million)
Raise Bridges
2,084.40
Raise Wall
Desal
Earlier
Capital Expenditure Items
7,100
8,000
1893
2011
8,500
1974
7,200
9,000
1893
2011
9,100
1974
7,800
10,100
1893
2011
6,700
1974
7,100
2011
7,200
1974
1893
2011
1974
1893
2011
1974
7,800
7,500
2011
1893
7,100
1974
1893
Estimated
Peak Flows
3
(m /s)
FSV
Option
Flood
Event
Hydrology
Model
Option
0.59
0.72
0.52
2.55
4.31
1.91
0.78
0.7
3.63
18.5
0.63
0.72
BCR
55
105
49
68
93
130
39
74
29
66
56
126
26
50
-1
53
-2
101
75
68
66
53
59
68
%
Reduced
AAD
144
130
126
101
113
130
Reduced
AAD
($million)
1,690
1,211
1,929
2,301
1,291
2,672
2,782
1,769
3,790
929
1,211
1,291
1769
1,530
1,211
Probable
damage
($million)
Initial Economic Damage Analysis
78
10.5.4
Sensitivity analysis
In order to demonstrate the impact of some key variables, and to assess the general robustness of the
economic analysis, a number of sensitivity tests were conducted, including:
adjustments to the real discount rate (use of 4% and 10%);
reductions in benefits associated with options (20% reduction);
an uplift in benefits to reflect possible underestimation (20% uplift);
impact of a need to bring forward water capacity earlier than envisaged (for FSV 75% options,
bringing forward desalination and associated costs by six years as opposed to three years. The six
years was undertaken as a sensitivity analysis);
inclusion of capital costs for road diversion downstream of the Dam wall to an immunity level of 3000
3
m /s for the 2 metre Dam raising options only ($133 million spent as follows: 5% in 2013 and 95% in
2014, which includes a total contingency estimate of 80%); and
a pessimistic case uplift of capital costs to reflect possible underestimation or optimism bias (20%
uplift) and a reduction of benefits of 20%.
These sensitivity tests did not materially alter the ranking of options. Details of the sensitivity tests are set
out in Appendix C.
10.5.5
Other effects
On the basis of hydrologic modelling, a number of flood inundation maps were prepared for various flow
3
3
rates ranging from 1,000 m /s to 38,000 m /s.
This analysis illustrates the rapid growth in area under inundation associated with increasingly higher
flow rates as shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30, respectively for land and kilometres of roadways
inundated at various flow rates.
79
41/24452/428742
Figure 29
Area of land inundated in Brisbane (hectares) various flow rates
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Flow rates m3/ sec
Figure 30
Length of road inundated in Brisbane various flow rates
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Flow rate m3 / sec
Main Roads & Motorways (kms)
Total KMs road inundated
80
41/24452/428742
With respect to bridges downstream of the Dam that become inundated when water is released, the
following traffic flows (as measured by Average Annual Daily Traffic) data has been found to provide an
indication of the order of possible impacts and highlights the traffic levels impacted relative to major
roads in the same general area.
Table 22
Traffic statistics selected roads downstream of Wivenhoe Dam22
Road/Region
Site description
Average
annual daily
traffic
%CV
Mount Crosby Road
Colleges Crossing
9,539
4.2
Brisbane Valley Highway
Brisbane Valley Highway north of

Lovers Lane
8,580
10.5
Sandy Creek (north branch)
7,600
11.0
Rd 412 Forest Hill Ferny Road
2,900
16.0
Rd 411 Coominya Connection Road
2,800
16.0
Rd 414 Esk Hampton Road
4,100
14.0
Wivenhoe-Somerset Road
Warrego Highway
Brisbane Valley Highway Junction
500
6.0
Mount Glorious Road
500
6.0
Wim Site Bremer River
40,240
12.1
West of Kholo Road overpass
34,158
16.5
1km West of Brisbane Valley Highway
24,490
17.4
West of Seminary Road
23,830
~~~~
*% CV = proportion of commercial vehicles in the traffic flow
Reducing the Wivenhoe Dam FSV by either 25% or 50%, while maintaining the LoS objectives, will
necessitate the bringing forward of planned water supply augmentations. These include upgrading
Wyaralong Dam, provision of a distribution network, and implementation of new desalination capacity.
These new assets, as noted previously, are significant and implementing them sooner than currently
planned may hold implications for the size of the Regulatory Assets Base. This in turn may have
implications for bulk water pricing in South East Queensland.
The economic impacts on businesses and the community of the potential to trigger restrictions more
frequently by lowering the FSV of the Dam to 50% or 75% or not meeting or changing the LoS objectives
has not been included in this analysis but should be investigated further in future studies.
22
2009 North Coast Region Traffic Census / 2009 Metropolitan Traffic Census
81
41/24452/428742
10.5.6
Further issues
During investigations for the preliminary economic evaluation it became clear that further research and
data exchange would prove helpful in gaining a better and deeper insight into the benefits of flood
mitigation.
These are described briefly below:
Further analysis to provide a broader basis for the benefits of mitigation, including full access to
detailed physical surveys of damage associated with the January 2011 Flood Event, and further
disaggregation of other direct and indirect costs associated with public infrastructure and other
assets. Provision of this data would enable a more refined estimate of flood damage curves, and
estimation of AAD;
Improved data collection and dissemination of information associated with indirect and intangible
costs. Limited time did not allow ready access to non-published information and the ability to source
data from insurance companies (or peak bodies). Discussions with welfare groups and others would
enable refection of some of the intangible costs associated with floods to be discussed;
Traffic counts on the minor river crossings downstream of Wivenhoe Dam would enable a better
understanding of the scale of impact associated with low immunity levels for a number of existing
structures;
Examination of how the application of cost benefit analysis might disadvantage certain mitigation
measures and groups within our community;
Research on the long-term socio-economic impact of the January 2011 Flood Event on the
community;
Development of the January 2011 Flood Event into a major case study;
Financial impact analysis of the implication of a possible change in the Regulatory Assets Base on
South East Queenslands bulk water pricing; and
Analysis using the actual damage curves from January 2011 rather than the scaled 2007 damage
curves.
82
41/24452/428742
11. Summary and Recommendations

11.1
Summary
Given the simplistic nature of the hydrologic and economic modelling used in this preliminary rapid
assessment to investigate options to increase the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam, the
following broad findings could are made:
A 2 metre increase in the crest level of the Dam provides approximately 437,000 ML (437 GL) of
additional flood mitigation capacity giving a total volume in the flood storage compartment of
approximately 2,404 GL and a subsequent total volume in Wivenhoe Dam of 3,596 GL;
Raising the Dam wall by 2 metres or permanently lowering the existing FSV to 75% has a relatively
limited impact reducing peak levels at the Port Office gauge; in the range of 0 metres to 0.6 metres
for the nominated events compared to the base case for all events;
The provision of larger available flood storage through combining the raising of the Dam wall with
permanent reductions in FSV has a greater impact on reducing peak water levels in the dam and
peak flows at the Moggill gauge than either raising the Dam wall or reducing the FSV by themselves.
The estimated resultant impact of this is a reduction in flood levels at Port Office by between 1.2 m
and 0.7 m, for 1893 and 2011. However, 1974 showed an increase in flood peak of 0.1 m at the Port
Office gauge;
Reducing the FSV to 75% and using the 2011 FOM (version 8) shows a decrease of the flood peak
at the Port Office for the three events. However, this will require planned water infrastructure to be
brought forward (3 years for a permanent FSV of 75% and 11 years for a permanent FSV of 50%) at
a significant economic cost;
Two out of three of the flood events modelled showed that alternative operation of the Wivenhoe and
Somerset Dam may have the potential to reduce peak levels at the Port Office gauge. However for
the modelled 1974 event, the early release strategies increased the peak flood level at the Port
Office gauge compared to the 1974 event (including Wivenhoe and Somerset operated as per the
2011 FOM);
However, it has been found by other studies that any early release strategy inadvertently has a
greater impact on the more frequent and moderate flood events including increased flows during
smaller flood events. This requires further detailed modelling in order to fully determine the impacts;
Additionally, previous hydrologic modelling has demonstrated that early release strategies worsen
downstream flood impacts associated with more frequent flood events. Five such events have been
recorded since Wivenhoe Dam was constructed. Accordingly determining an optimum release
strategy will require extensive detailed modelling including a complete re-evaluation of the design
hydrology for the basin. This work is outside the scope of this study;
This outcome confirms the need for the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dam optimisation study
recommended by the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry which has already been initiated by
Seqwater (long-term study). This study will allow Brisbane River system, including the Wivenhoe
and Somerset dams as a whole to be fully modelled in detail. GHD understands that although the
catchment areas of Bremer River and Lockyer Creek are not within the scope, their impacts on the
Brisbane River system will be included;
83
41/24452/428742
The cost of raising the dam crest by 2 metres is estimated to be approximately $400 million. This
cost does not include substantial modification to the gates (potentially up to $330 million), potential
upgrades associated with the requirement for Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) or fishways
(potentially greater than $100 million). The cost has been based on this rapid assessment and is
likely to increase during any preliminary design phase;
It is estimated that it would take approximately four years to raise the crest of the dam. However, this
is based on no delays in the design, approvals, consultation and construction of the project;
Based on the three events modelled the flood mitigation benefits were variable for many of the
options investigated across the three flood events. For example, while the options of alternative
operation of the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dam and the 2 metre raise (100% FSV), had minimal
impacts during the 2011 flood event, these same options showed no benefit for the 1974 flood event,
with most benefit realised during the 1893 flood event;
Additional storage on the Bremer and Lockyer Rivers would have a significant impact on Flood levels
a Moggill during the 1974 and 2011 events, reducing damage to low levels. However would have
limited effect on the 1893 event due to the variability in the geographic rainfall patterns. The
identification of suitable storage sites and likely significant costs of such storages may be
problematic; and
After considering the impact a range of structural and non-structural options on flood mitigation, the
largest reductions in flood damage result from improved operational rules. As there are minimal costs
associated with changes to gate operational rules, these options have the greatest Net Present
Value from an economic perspective. However, due to the simplistic hydrologic modelling that was
used, the full effects need to be investigated in more detail before significant changes are made.
Before consideration is given to raising the Dam level or permanently lowering FSV, efforts should be
made to further investigate maximising the available storage in the Dam in conjunction with improved
operational rules.
11.2
Recommendations
Further detailed analysis should be undertaken on options to optimise flood mitigation effects through an
integrated assessment of available storage and potential operational changes to the discharge from
Wivenhoe and Somerset dams including the effects of inflows from other tributaries (Lockyer and Bremer
Rivers).
This would entail, but not limited to:
Further examination and development of damage curves, including identification and survey of
affected private and public property;
Optimisation of the operation of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams;
Development of decision support tools for the operation of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams;
Risk based assessment of release strategies, for example over a broad range of rainfall events
against downstream coincidence of peak flows; and
Integration of changes to Wivenhoe and Somerset dams operation as part of a catchment wide flood
management plan, incorporating early warning, land use planning and localised flood prevention
solutions.
84
41/24452/428742
12. References
12.1
QWC is responsible for water security in South East Queensland. Among their many roles, the QWC
sets the LoS Objectives, determines where the next water source should be built to ensure water security
and set water restrictions.
For the purpose of this Study, QWC provided advice on the likely impact of the various levels of
Wivenhoe Dam (50% and 75% FSV) on the timing of new water infrastructure.
12.2
Seqwater
Aerial Imagery South-East Queensland (2009);
Brisbane River Cumec Events (2004 Model results based on 2002 ALS 5 metre Elevated Grid. Model
3
3
run at 2,000 m /s to 8,000 m /s);
Wivenhoe Dam Infrastructure and Utility Locations; and
Bridge Levels with Deck-heights.
12.3
Department of Environment and Resource Management23
The Department of Environment and Resource Management provided the following data for the
purposes of this Study:
flood lines January 2011;
digital Elevation Models for Wivenhoe Dam, Brisbane City Area, Somerset and Lockyer;
Wivenhoe Dam;
road network (Physical Road Network);
January 2011 flood Imagery; and
Digital Cadastral Data 2011.
23
In consideration of permitting use of this data, there must be acknowledgement and agreement that the Data Custodian gives no
warranty in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or suitability) and accepts no liability
(including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any
use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing or be used in breach of the privacy laws.
85
41/24452/428742
Brisbane City Council24
12.4
Brisbane City Council provided the following data for the purposes of this Study:
flood line 1974 Pre-Wivenhoe Dam;
Brisbane River Inundation (15 inundation extent profiles corresponding to peak discharge at the Port
Office gauge). This data is based on the Brisbane River Hydraulic Model PMF Final Report. The key
limitations that apply to the data are:
TUFLOW Model primarily calibrated to the 1974 event:
calibration of the model to the January 2011 Flood Event has not yet been undertaken
30 metres of grid used in model and/or model outputs
survey and bathymetry are from prior to the 2011 event
GIS data used to compute the flood damage to residential and non-residential properties in the
report, Feasibility and Final Report for Brisbane Valley Flood Damage Minimisation Study no 242.
Prepared by Brisbane City Council. BCC009.7972 Brisbane City Council (2010).
12.5
Other references
12.5.1
Section 3 - Historical flooding
[1] Chen, K. The 2011 Brisbane Flood: A Preliminary Analysis, Risk Frontiers Quarterly, Vol 10 (2) 2011
[2] Brisbane City Council, Phase Three Damage Mitigation Feasibility, Brisbane Valley Flood Damage,
2007
[3] WMA Water, Report to the Queensland Flood Commission of Inquiry, May 2011
[4] Grigg, T. Evaluation of Brisbane Flood Mitigation Proposals, University of Queensland, 1977.
[5] Wivenhoe Dam Spillway Augmentation Works, Volume 5, Design Discharges and Downstream
Impacts of Wivenhoe Dam Upgrade Report, Report No: Q1091 WIV-RP-HD-004, Wivenhoe Alliance,
September 2005
[6] Sunwater, SEQWC Flood Operations Approximate Flood Peak Travel Times - SCHEMATIC
[7] Brisbane City Council, Flood Summary for Brisbane River at Brisbane, January 2011
[8] Bureau of Meteorology, Brisbane Floods January 1974
[9] Seqwater, Report on the Operation of the Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam, March 2011
[10] McMahon, G. 2011. Submission to Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry Supplementary
Submission.
[11] Brisbane City Council, Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, March 2011
[12] SKM, January 2011 Flood Event: Report on the operation of Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam,
March 2011
[13] ICA Hydrology Panel, Flooding in the Brisbane River Catchment (January 2011), 20 February 2011
24
As above
86
41/24452/428742
[14] City Design, Brisbane River Flood Study, 1999

[15] Allens Arthur Robinson, Seqwater Response to Mr Babisters Report, 1 September 2011 (MGI:
120128021)
12.5.2
Section 9 - Economic analysis
Benefits of Flood Mitigation in Australia, Bureau of Transport & Regional Economics, Canberra, Report
106, May 2002
Brisbane Valley Flood Damage Minimisation Study, Brisbane City Council Damage Assessment, WRM
Water & Environment, City Design, Brisbane City Council, October 2006
Economic Costs of Natural Disasters in Australia, Bureau of Transport Economics, Canberra, Report
103, 2011
Fact Sheet The January 2011 Flood Event, Seqwater,(www.seqwater.com.au), undated
Feasibility and Final Report for Brisbane Valley Flood Damage Minimisation Study, Phase Three
Damage Mitigation Feasibility, City Design, Brisbane City Council, August 2007
Flood Damage in Tamworth Costs of the November 2000 Flood, Bureau of Transport Economics,
Canberra, Working Paper 48, September 2001
Grigg, T.J., (1977), An Evaluation of Brisbane Flood Mitigation Proposals, Hydrology Symposium 1997,
Brisbane, 28-30 June 1977
Grigg, Trevor Managing Floods and Flood Risk Lessons Learned and Not Learned, The Brisbane
River Experience, Presentation to Hydrology: Managing Water in Queensland Seminar, Queensland
Branch of the Australian Water Association, Brisbane, 13 April, 2011
Guidance on the Assessment of Tangible Flood Damages, Department of Natural Resources and Mines,
Queensland, September 2002
Insurance Council of Australia, General Insurance Claims Response, 2010/11 Queensland Floods and
Cyclone, Update 27 October 2011
Provision of Contingency Storage in Wivenhoe & Somerset Dams, QWC and Department of Natural
Resources and Water, Report No. WS/OPS 011106, SEQWATER, March 2007
Queensland Recovery and Reconstruction in the Aftermath of the 2010/2011 Flood Events and
Cyclone Yasi, The World Bank and Queensland Reconstruction Authority, June 2011
Queensland Reconstruction Authority, Resources for Reconstruction, Discussion Paper No. 1,
September 2011
Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry, Interim Report, August 2011
Rapid Appraisal Method for Floodplain Management, Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Victoria, May 2000
Report on the impacts of lowering the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam on water supply security, QWC, Version 3,
10 October 2011, Information Material Only (and variations)
http://www.qldreconstruction.org.au (accessed various times September, October, November 2011)
87
41/24452/428742
Appendix A
Hydrologic Model
Results
41/24452/428742
Scenario 0 Base Case
Scenario 1 Straight to W2 (100% FSV)
Scenario 2 Steady Increase to W4 (75% FSV)
Scenario 3 2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels (75% FSV)
Scenario 4 2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels (100% FSV)
Scenario 5 Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s (100% FSV)
Scenario 6 3500 m3/s No Failure (100% FSV)
Scenario 6 3500 m3/s Failure (100% FSV)
Note: Failure hydrograph is approximate only, and the peak may be higher than estimated.
Scenario 7 1900 m3/s No Failure (100% FSV)
Scenario 7 1900 m3/s Failure (FSV 100%)
Note: Failure hydrograph is approximate only, and the peak may be higher than estimated.
Scenario 8 Sep 2011 FOM (75% FSL)
Scenario 8 Sep 2011 FOM (50% FSL)
Appendix B
Economic Analysis - Cost Summary
41/24452/428742
Discount Rate
Eventuation Period
Sensitivity parameters:
2 years
Year 1 30%
Year 2 70%
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
15%
6%
6%
5 years
5%
5%
15%
20%
55%
30%
5%
5%
5%
2018
2671.8
616.6
1787
89.4
89.4
89.4
300MLD
(100GL/Annum)
($millions)
4 years
5%
5%
45%
45%
60%
6%
6%
10%
202.7
2012
395.7
148.4
12.2
12.2
20.3
4 years
5%
5%
45%
45%
60%
6%
6%
10%
2012
1311.4
491.8
671.8
40.3
40.3
67.2
4m Dam Raising
($millions)
Wivenhoe Dam Raising
2m Dam Raising
($millions)
4% real discount rates

10% real discount rates
20% reduction in benefits
20% increase in benefits
for 75% FSL bring forward desal etc by 6 years as opposed to 3 years
20% increase in capital costs plus 20% reduction in benefits (a pessimistic scenario in effect)
7%
Year 0 = 2011 and Year 20 = 2031
2023
2023
306.9
890
44.5
44.5
44.5
1329.9
4 Years
5%
5%
25%
65%
30%
5%
5%
5%
368.5
48.1
286
17.2
incl
17.2
95MLD
(30GL/annum)
($millions)
Desalination Plant
DRAFT - NOT FOR EXTERNAL USE
2 years
60%
6%
15%
5%
95%
2012
67.3
25.2
34.76
5.2
incl
2.1
Colleges
($millions)
5%
95%
2012
37.6
14.1
19.4
2.9
incl
1.2
Burtons Crossing
($millions)
Bridge Raising
- No allowance for land costs.

- Assumed margin costs included.
- FSL 75% small desal and Wyaralong etc starts in 2023 (Evaluation Year 12) (sensitivity test has it in 2020, Evaluation Year 9)
- dam wall raising and roads and bridges we have as starting in 2012 (Evaluation Year 1)
- Capital costs estimates for desalination plant derived from data for a number of plants either completed or planned for development in Australia, namely: Sydney (Kurnell, $1890m, 90 GL/annum capacity); Melbourne
(Wonthaggi, $3.5 b, 150 GL/annum); SEQ (Tugun, $1.2b, 49 GL/annum); Perth (Kwinanna, $387m, 45 GL/annum); Perth (Binnngup, $1.4b, 100 GL/annum); Adelaide (Port Stanvac, $1.83b, 100 GL/annum).
- economic evaluation in real terms i.e. no inflation
- Construction rates have been based on detailed cost estimates prepared for recent dam upgrade projects in SE Qld in 2011. The reader is reminded that there is considerable volatility in construction pricing at present and
construction rates should be viewed with caution because of this. In addition, whilst some contingency has been allowed, risk based pricing has not been included which may change the cost estimate further. Dams work is subject
to stringent environmental controls and geotechincal and other conditions can differ from what is expected based on existing data. Likewise the impact of wetter than average seasons on construction cost rates has not been
assessed. It is recommended that a detailed ground up cost estimate is prepared by a specialist estimator before any reliance is made on the figures presented.
Economic Assumptions
Assumed Capex Expenditure Profile
Evaluation Year (starts)
Total estimate (Direct and Indirect)
Escallation Allowance
Contingency
Direct costs
Design Costs
Construction Supervision
Owners Costs
Wyaralong Water
WTP and Pipeline
($millions)
Water
Wivenhoe Dam Flood Mitigatiion Options, Rapid Assessment - Cost Summary

Nov-11
GHD
Wivenhoe Dam - Dam Raising to RL 82.1 with Downstream Raise and 0.7 m Wave Wall
Items from GHD 2001
Ref "Engineering Feasibility Study into Augmentation of the Flood Passing Capacity of Wivenhoe Dam" , GHD February 2001
ID Item
Description
Unit
Quantity Rate (2001) Amount (2001)
Rate (2011) Amount (2011)
GRAND TOTAL
$395,724,072
Downstream Dam Raising 0.7 m wave wall

General
Establishment
Clearing of existing road and services
LS
Sq m
1
35000
10000
5
Excavation Right Embankment

Excavation Left Embankment
cu m
cu m
34000
12400
5
5
Earthworks
Left Embankment
Rip Rap
River Gravel
Clay Core
Sand Filter
Gravel Filter
River Run Fill
Rolled Sandstone - bulk fill
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
141857
10800
9600
4640
2640
68528
312213
30
20
7
30
30
20
6
Right Embankment
Rip Rap
River Gravel
Clay Core
Semi Pervious Soil
Sand Filter
Gravel Filter
River Run Fill
Rolled Sandstone - bulk fill
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
63179
2400
8800
6160
6160
6160
22872
85815
30
20
7
20
30
30
20
6
Protection works
Wave Wall 0.7 m
lineal m
4600
350
Excavation
$10,000
$175,000
$0
$0
$170,000
$62,000
$0
$0
$0
$4,255,710
$216,000
$67,200
$139,200
$79,200
$1,370,560
$1,873,278
$0
$0
$1,895,370
$48,000
$61,600
$123,200
$184,800
$184,800
$457,440
$514,890
$0
$0
$1,610,000
SUB TOTAL
$300,000
$50
$25
$25
$100
$80
$25
$100
$100
$50
$25
$100
$80
$25
$25
$100
$100
$50
$25
$1,000
$300,000
$1,750,000
$0
$0
$850,000
$310,000
$0
$0
$0
$14,185,700
$864,000
$240,000
$464,000
$264,000
$3,426,400
$7,805,325
$0
$0
$6,317,900
$192,000
$220,000
$154,000
$616,000
$616,000
$1,143,600
$2,145,375
$0
$0
$4,600,000
$13,498,248
$46,464,300
Spillway Riasing
General
Establishment
Hydraulic Model
LS
LS
1
1
10000
75000
Retaining Walls (92 m type A, 190 m type B 27 m removable panels)

Approach Embankment Type A
Concrete
Reinforcing
Excavation
cu m
t
cu m
286
75
133
350
1200
20
Gravity Retaining Wall Type B

Concrete
Reinforcing
cu m
t
595
76
350
1200
Retaining Wall around Inlet structure (removable panels)

Concrete
Reinforcing
Removable panels
cu m
t
sq m
9
3
84
350
1200
200
Retaining Wall Around Spillway Structure

Left Bank Vertical Wall Raise
Remove existing road
Excavation
Concrete
Cut off Trench
Reinforcement
Compacted Select Backfill
m
cu m
cu m
cu m
t
cu m
130
1911
1100
86
160
1458
50
15
400
350
1200
15
m
cu m
cu m
cu m
t
cu m
cu m
100
3600
1050
72
157
420
2622
50
15
400
350
1200
30
15
Right Bank Vertical Wall Raise

Left Bank Vertical Wall Raise
Remove existing road
Excavation
Concrete
Cut off Trench
Reinforcement
Sand Filter
Compacted Select Backfill
Spillway Strengthening (done Wivenhoe Alliance 2003-5)
Deflector Wall Modifications (assumes extend wall or new wall and gates OK)
Modify / extend existing deflector baffle
LS
1
Existing Fuse Plug Modifications (raise by 2m)
Concrete Training Walls
Bulk Fill
Clay Core
cu m
cu m
cu m
254
8032
722
$10,000
$75,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,100
$90,000
$2,660
$0
$0
$208,250
$91,200
$0
$0
$3,150
$3,600
$16,800
$0
$0
$0
$6,500
$28,665
$440,000
$30,100
$192,000
$21,870
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$54,000
$420,000
$25,200
$188,400
$12,600
$39,330
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$300,000
$250,000
$2,500
$3,000
$100
$2,500
$3,000
$2,500
$3,000
$1,000
$500
$25
$2,500
$5,000
$3,000
$35
$500
$25
$2,500
$5,000
$3,000
$100
$35
$5,000,000
$2,500
$35
$25
$300,000
$250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$715,000
$225,000
$13,300
$0
$0
$1,487,500
$228,000
$0
$0
$22,500
$9,000
$84,000
$0
$0
$0
$65,000
$47,775
$2,750,000
$430,000
$480,000
$51,030
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$90,000
$2,625,000
$360,000
$471,000
$42,000
$91,770
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$635,000
$281,120
$18,050
Items from GHD 2001
ID Item
Description
Filter Zones
Rip Rap
Unit
cu m
cu m
Access Tracks / Bulkhead Doors

Track to service bridge LHS
Track to service bridge RHS
Sliding Bulkhead for 3t gantry
each
each
each
Left Bank Control Building and Misc

Bulkhead Door
Reinforce Viewing Window
Electrical cable portal
Winch cable portal
Water quality bulkhead winch motors (3hp)
Water sampling pumps
3t gantry crane wheel motors
Relocate Flood Alert Systems
Radial Gates Securing Mechanism
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each
each

459
$0
8032
$0
$0
$0
$0
1
30000
$30,000
1
30000
$30,000
1
50000
$50,000
$0
$0
1
10000
$10,000
1
1000
$1,000
2
500
$1,000
1
63750
$63,750
6
6000
$36,000
11
500
$5,500
4
2000
$8,000
2
300
$600
5
5000
$25,000
SUB TOTAL

$100
$45,900
$100
$803,200
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$0
$0
$30,000
$30,000
$5,000
$5,000
$2,000
$4,000
$200,000
$200,000
$10,000
$60,000
$3,000
$33,000
$10,000
$40,000
$10,000
$20,000
$25,000
$125,000
$2,325,275
$18,488,145
Raising of Existing Spillway Bridge

Removal of existing deck units
saw cutting
coring
general preparation
lineal m
lineal m
LS
Demolition of existing headstocks

Demolition
LS
Concrete Works (incl reinforcement)

pier columns
pier headstocks
blade piers
abutment footings
abutment piers
abutment headstocks
insitu kerbs
relieving slabs
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
Place, grout and stress existing Dus

New traffic barriers
asphalt surfacing
each
lineal m
sq m
1063
396
1
10
10
10000
50000
155
444
25
40
4
20
29
14
1000
2000
1000
800
1200
1000
500
450
80
250
1075
1500
350
40
$10,630
$3,960
$10,000
$0
$0
$50,000
$0
$0
$155,000
$888,000
$25,000
$32,000
$4,800
$20,000
$14,500
$6,300
$0
$120,000
$87,500
$43,000
SUB TOTAL
$100
$350
$200,000
$250,000
$2,500
$3,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,000
$2,500
$4,000
$1,000
$250
$106,300
$138,600
$200,000
$0
$0
$250,000
$0
$0
$387,500
$1,554,000
$62,500
$100,000
$10,000
$50,000
$58,000
$35,000
$0
$320,000
$250,000
$268,750
$1,470,690
$3,790,650
Approach Bridges to Connect with existing road bridge

Concrete Works (incl reinforcement)
pier columns
pier headstocks
pier footings
abutment footings
abutment retaining wall
abutment headstocks
relieving slabs
Place, grout and stress existing Dus
New traffic barriers
asphalt surfacing
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
each
lineal m
sq m
203
270
238
40
58
14
14
1000
2000
800
800
1200
1000
450
192
500
2600
6000
350
40
$203,000
$540,000
$190,400
$32,000
$69,600
$14,000
$6,300
$0
$1,152,000
$175,000
$104,000
SUB TOTAL
$2,500
$3,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$10,000
$1,000
$250
$507,500
$945,000
$595,000
$100,000
$145,000
$35,000
$35,000
$0
$1,920,000
$500,000
$650,000
$5,432,500
$2,486,300
Pavement and Lighting

Permanent Road on new spillway
Asphalt
Roadbase type 2.1
Drainage
sq m
cu m
lineal m
32200
9660
4600
40
50
15
50
6000
Lighting
Lighting 100 m intervals alternate sides
each
$1,288,000
$483,000
$69,000
$0
$0
$300,000
SUB TOTAL
$250
$100
$75
$15,000
$8,050,000
$966,000
$345,000
$0
$0
$750,000
$2,140,000
$10,111,000
Saddle Dam No 1 Downstream Raising

General
Establishment
LS
Excavation OTR
Excavation Rippable Rock
Rip Rap
Transition Zone
Miscellaneous Fill
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
10000
2760
2300
1274
978
16208
2.5
10
30
15
6
Earthworks
$10,000
$0
$0
$6,900
$23,000
$38,220
$14,670
$97,248
$75,000
$15
$50
$100
$75
$25
$75,000
$0
$0
$41,400
$115,000
$127,400
$73,350
$405,200
Items from GHD 2001
ID Item
Description
Protection Works
Roadbase on crest (300 thick)
Hydromulch
Unit
sq m
sq m

$0
$0
920
12.6
$11,592
5750
1.5
$8,625
SUB TOTAL

$0
$0
$100
$92,000
$10
$57,500
$210,255
$986,850
Saddle Dam No 2 Downstream Raising

General
Establishment
LS
10000
Excavation OTR
Rip Rap
Transition Zone
Miscellaneous Fill
Clay Core
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
3000
2500
3966
3208
46074
5074
2.5
10
30
15
6
7
sq m
sq m
1000
6250
12.6
1.5
Earthworks
Protection Works
Hydromulch
$10,000
$0
$0
$7,500
$25,000
$118,980
$48,120
$276,444
$35,518
$0
$0
$12,600
$9,375
SUB TOTAL
$75,000
$15
$50
$100
$75
$25
$25
$100
$10
$75,000
$0
$0
$45,000
$125,000
$396,600
$240,600
$1,151,850
$126,850
$0
$0
$100,000
$62,500
$543,537
$2,323,400
Coominya Saddle Dam

General
Establishment
LS
10000
Excavation OTR
Rip Rap
Transition Zone
Miscellaneous Fill
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
cu m
2988
4980
2475
2520
7983
2.5
10
30
15
6
sq m
sq m
2400
3984
12.6
1.5
Earthworks
Protection Works
Hydromulch
$10,000
$0
$0
$7,470
$49,800
$74,250
$37,800
$47,898
$0
$0
$30,240
$5,976
SUB TOTAL
$75,000
$15
$50
$100
$75
$25
$100
$10
$75,000
$0
$0
$44,820
$249,000
$247,500
$189,000
$199,575
$0
$0
$240,000
$39,840
$263,434
$1,284,735
Up Stream Impact rectification

Minor road improvements 9m wide
creek rehabilitation works
Additional land resumption
Power Station impacts (plug)
Other impacts costs (enviro, commecial comp.)
sq m
LS
sq m
LS
LS
10000
1
350
300000
$3,500,000
$300,000
1
1
500000
750000
$500,000
$750,000
excl
SUB TOTAL
$5,050,000
$5,050,000
$75,008,000
$75,008,000
Diversion Road downstream of dam main wall - 3000 cumec immunity

Bridge Works (650m x 12 wide)
Diversion roadworks (5200m x 12m wide)
Intersection works
sq m
sq m
sum
7800
62400
1
SUB TOTAL
Total Estimated Items

Environmental control during construction
Unestimated Items
percent
percent
10
10
6000
420
2000000
$46,800,000
$26,208,000
$2,000,000
$168,939,580
$16,893,958
$16,893,958
Total Construction Works

Owners Costs
Engineering Design and Planning
Construction Supervision
$202,727,496
percent
percent
percent
10
6
6
$20,272,750
$12,163,650
$12,163,650
Total dam Capex (exclu contingency

Contingency - dam works
TOTAL ALL COSTS*

*excludes land resumption costs
$247,327,545
percent
60
$148,396,527
$395,724,072
Appendix C
Economic Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis

Results
41/24452/428742
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
Year 2011 Flood

Base Case Sep 2011 FOM
Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s
Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m3/s
Sep 2011 FOM
Steady Increase to W4
Sep 2011 FOM
2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2
Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Base Summary
2
56
2
93
63
56
67
122
101
33
101
101
101
28
130
130
130
97
126
126
126
105
97
50
109
50
109
144
113
105
109
109
74
74
109
-1%
29%
-1%
49%
33%
29%
35%
64%
53%
17%
53%
53%
53%
15%
68%
68%
68%
51%
66%
66%
66%
55%
51%
26%
57%
26%
57%
75%
59%
55%
57%
57%
39%
39%
57%
reduction in % reduction in
AADs ($ m)
AADs
10100 9000
10100 8000
8800
9000
8700
7300
7800
9400
7800
7800
7800
9500
7100
7100
7100
7900
7200
7200
7200
7700
7900
9100
7600
9100
7600
6700
7500
7700
7600
7600
8500
8500
7600
Peak Flow Rate at Port Office

(m3/s)
3,790
2,672
3,790
1,929
2,524
2,672
2,449
1,370
1,769
3,111
1,769
1,769
1,769
3,220
1,211
1,211
1,211
1,849
1,291
1,291
1,291
1,690
1,849
Probable damage of
event
($ m)
2,782
1,610
2,782
1,610
929
1,530
1,690
1,610
1,610
2,301
2,301
1,610
1,118
1,118
743
149
223
1,302
903
438
903
903
903
548
1,462
1,462
1,462
823
1,382
1,382
1,382
983
823
Probable damage
relative to Jan 2011
($ m)
110
1,063
110
1,063
1,743
1,142
983
1,063
1,063
372
372
1,063
63,429,584
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
63,429,584
63,429,584
63,429,584
2,147,871,555
2,084,441,971
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
401,231,667
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
63,429,584
63,429,584
2,147,871,555
2,084,441,971
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
PV Costs
22,140,975 643,870,562
22,140,975 1,080,714,317 731,239,313
643,870,562
481,690,141
1,408,872,979
1,174,473,935
386,322,337
1,174,473,935
1,174,473,935
1,174,473,935
321,935,281
1,502,632,597 1,502,632,597 1,502,632,597 1,127,594,126
1,455,752,788
1,455,752,788
1,455,752,788
759,189,667
1,127,594,126
$
579,483,505
1,268,233,552
579,483,505
1,268,233,552
1,668,029,565 1,315,113,361 1,221,353,743 1,268,233,552
1,268,233,552
862,292,439
535,998,283
1,268,233,552
PV Benefits
22,140,975
580,440,978
22,140,975
1,003,727,654
393,437,229
306,068,478
236,573,499
825,954,254
1,174,473,935
322,892,753
1,111,044,351
1,174,473,935
1,174,473,935
258,505,697
645,238,957
581,809,374
581,809,374
789,792,042
1,054,521,121
1,117,950,705
1,117,950,705
514,073,025
544,675,401
579,483,505
1,204,803,969
579,483,505
1,204,803,969
479,841,990
769,328,609
863,088,227
930,431,469
930,431,469
524,490,356
290,881,641
685,314,828
NPV ($)
BCR
0.52
2.16
1.91
1.97
2.42
10.15
5.08
0.70
0.72
0.72
3.34
3.63
4.31
4.31
3.10
1.93
6.09
18.52
19.99
0.78
0.63
0.59
3.75
3.75
2.55
2.19
2.18
19.99
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
Year 2011 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
4% Real Discount Rate
2
56
2
93
63
56
67
122
101
33
101
101
101
28
130
130
130
97
126
126
126
105
97
50
109
50
109
144
113
105
109
109
74
74
109
-1%
29%
-1%
49%
33%
29%
35%
64%
53%
17%
53%
53%
53%
15%
68%
68%
68%
51%
66%
66%
66%
55%
51%
26%
57%
26%
57%
75%
59%
55%
57%
57%
39%
39%
57%
AADs ($ m)
AADs
10100 9000
10100 8000
8800
9000
8700
7300
7800
9400
7800
7800
7800
9500
7100
7100
7100
7900
7200
7200
7200
7700
7900
9100
7600
9100
7600
6700
7500
7700
7600
7600
8500
8500
7600

(m3/s)
3,790
2,672
3,790
1,929
2,524
2,672
2,449
1,370
1,769
3,111
1,769
1,769
1,769
3,220
1,211
1,211
1,211
1,849
1,291
1,291
1,291
1,690
1,849
Probable damage of
event
($ m)
2,782
1,610
2,782
1,610
929
1,530
1,690
1,610
1,610
2,301
2,301
1,610
1,118
1,118
743
149
223
1,302
903
438
903
903
903
548
1,462
1,462
1,462
823
1,382
1,382
1,382
983
823
Probable damage
($ m)
110
1,063
110
1,063
1,743
1,142
983
1,063
1,063
372
372
1,063
53,705,987
2,235,576,775
416,342,664
416,342,664
221,163,900
637,506,563
53,705,987
53,705,987
53,705,987
2,289,282,762
2,235,576,775
2,235,576,775
416,342,664
470,048,651
416,342,664
416,342,664
221,163,900
637,506,563
53,705,987
53,705,987
2,289,282,762
2,235,576,775
2,235,576,775
416,342,664
416,342,664
416,342,664
221,163,900
637,506,563
PV Costs
27,863,003 810,269,974
27,863,003 1,360,009,935 920,217,966
810,269,974
665,737,842
1,772,976,651
1,478,000,426
486,161,984
1,478,000,426
1,478,000,426
1,478,000,426
405,134,987
1,890,967,141 1,890,967,141 1,890,967,141 1,419,005,180
1,831,971,896
1,831,971,896
1,831,971,896
1,049,266,421
1,419,005,180
$
729,242,976
1,595,990,916
729,242,976
1,595,990,916
2,099,108,660 1,654,986,161 1,536,995,671 1,595,990,916
1,595,990,916
1,085,139,954
740,796,437
1,595,990,916
PV Benefits
27,863,003
756,563,986
27,863,003
875,566,839
503,875,302
393,927,310
444,573,942
1,135,470,087
1,478,000,426
432,455,997
1,424,294,438
1,478,000,426
1,478,000,426
351,429,000
398,315,621
344,609,634
344,609,634
1,002,662,517
1,361,923,245
1,415,629,232
1,415,629,232
828,102,521
781,498,617
729,242,976
1,542,284,928
729,242,976
1,542,284,928
190,174,102
580,590,614
698,581,104
1,179,648,252
1,179,648,252
668,797,291
519,632,537
958,484,352
NPV ($)
BCR
0.61
2.21
1.95
3.01
2.78
15.09
7.54
0.83
0.85
0.85
3.41
3.90
4.40
4.40
4.74
2.23
9.05
27.52
29.72
0.92
0.74
0.69
3.83
3.83
2.61
3.35
2.50
29.72
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
Year 2011 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
10% Real Discount Rate
2
56
2
93
63
56
67
122
101
33
101
101
101
28
130
130
130
97
126
126
126
105
97
50
109
50
109
144
113
105
109
109
74
74
109
-1%
29%
-1%
49%
33%
29%
35%
64%
53%
17%
53%
53%
53%
15%
68%
68%
68%
51%
66%
66%
66%
55%
51%
26%
57%
26%
57%
75%
59%
55%
57%
57%
39%
39%
57%
AADs ($ m)
AADs
10100 9000
10100 8000
8800
9000
8700
7300
7800
9400
7800
7800
7800
9500
7100
7100
7100
7900
7200
7200
7200
7700
7900
9100
7600
9100
7600
6700
7500
7700
7600
7600
8500
8500
7600

(m3/s)
3,790
2,672
3,790
1,929
2,524
2,672
2,449
1,370
1,769
3,111
1,769
1,769
1,769
3,220
1,211
1,211
1,211
1,849
1,291
1,291
1,291
1,690
1,849
Probable damage of
event
($ m)
2,782
1,610
2,782
1,610
929
1,530
1,690
1,610
1,610
2,301
2,301
1,610
1,118
1,118
743
149
223
1,302
903
438
903
903
903
548
1,462
1,462
1,462
823
1,382
1,382
1,382
983
823
Probable damage
($ m)
110
1,063
110
1,063
1,743
1,142
983
1,063
1,063
372
372
1,063
66,265,032
1,877,004,631
269,624,426
269,624,426
248,290,376
517,914,801
66,265,032
66,265,032
66,265,032
1,943,269,663
1,877,004,631
1,877,004,631
269,624,426
335,889,458
269,624,426
269,624,426
248,290,376
517,914,801
66,265,032
66,265,032
1,943,269,663
1,877,004,631
1,877,004,631
269,624,426
269,624,426
269,624,426
248,290,376
517,914,801
PV Costs
18,167,959 528,333,283
18,167,959 886,789,019 600,024,430
528,333,283
357,163,471
1,156,062,307
963,724,244
316,999,970
963,724,244
963,724,244
963,724,244
264,166,642
1,232,997,533 1,232,997,533 1,232,997,533 925,256,631
1,194,529,920
1,194,529,920
1,194,529,920
562,923,743
925,256,631
$
475,499,955
1,040,659,469
475,499,955
1,040,659,469
1,368,715,375 1,079,127,082 1,002,191,857 1,040,659,469
1,040,659,469
707,561,151
397,431,858
1,040,659,469
PV Benefits
18,167,959
462,068,251
18,167,959
990,215,612
330,400,005
258,708,858
108,873,096
638,147,506
963,724,244
250,734,938
897,459,211
963,724,244
963,724,244
197,901,609
710,272,130
644,007,098
644,007,098
655,632,205
858,640,462
924,905,494
924,905,494
314,633,367
407,341,830
475,499,955
974,394,437
475,499,955
974,394,437
574,554,289
797,877,549
874,812,774
771,035,044
771,035,044
437,936,725
149,141,482
522,744,668
NPV ($)
BCR
0.47
2.23
1.96
1.44
2.23
7.97
3.99
0.63
0.66
0.66
3.43
3.56
4.43
4.43
2.27
1.79
4.78
14.54
15.70
0.70
0.57
0.53
3.86
3.86
2.62
1.60
2.01
15.70
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
Year 2011 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
10100
9000
10100
8000
8800
9000
8700
7300
7800
9400
7800
7800
7800
9500
7100
7100
7100
7900
7200
7200
7200
7700
7900
9100
7600
9100
7600
6700
7500
7700
7600
7600
8500
8500
7600

(m3/s)
Desalination Built 6 Years Earlier
33%
29%
64%
122
51%
97
63
56
51%
66%
66%
66%
57%
109
97
126
126
126
57%
57%
39%
109
109
74
AADs ($ m)
AADs
1,370 -
2,524 2,672
1,849 -
1,849
1,291
1,291
1,291
1,610 -
1,610 1,610 2,301 -
Probable damage of
event
($ m)
1,302
149
-
823
823
1,382
1,382
1,382
1,063
1,063
1,063
372
Probable damage
($ m)
809,803,467
564,686,825
564,686,825
809,803,467
564,686,825
628,116,409
564,686,825
564,686,825
809,803,467
564,686,825
564,686,825
564,686,825
PV Costs
1,408,872,979
731,239,313
643,870,561
1,127,594,126
1,127,594,126
1,455,752,788
1,455,752,788
1,455,752,788
1,268,233,552
1,268,233,552
1,268,233,552
862,292,439
PV Benefits
599,069,512
166,552,487
79,183,736
317,790,659
562,907,300
827,636,379
891,065,963
891,065,963
458,430,086
703,546,727
703,546,727
297,605,614
NPV ($)
BCR
1.74
1.29
1.14
1.39
2.00
2.32
2.58
2.58
1.57
2.25
2.25
1.53
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
Year 2011 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
2
56
2
93
63
56
67
122
101
33
101
101
101
28
130
130
130
97
126
126
126
105
97
50
109
50
109
144
113
105
109
109
74
74
109
-1%
29%
-1%
49%
33%
29%
35%
64%
53%
17%
53%
53%
53%
15%
68%
68%
68%
51%
66%
66%
66%
55%
51%
26%
57%
26%
57%
75%
59%
55%
57%
57%
39%
39%
57%
AADs ($ m)
AADs
10100 9000
10100 8000
8800
9000
8700
7300
7800
9400
7800
7800
7800
9500
7100
7100
7100
7900
7200
7200
7200
7700
7900
9100
7600
9100
7600
6700
7500
7700
7600
7600
8500
8500
7600

(m3/s)
20% Increase Cost & 20% Reduced Benefits
3,790
2,672
3,790
1,929
2,524
2,672
2,449
1,370
1,769
3,111
1,769
1,769
1,769
3,220
1,211
1,211
1,211
1,849
1,291
1,291
1,291
1,690
1,849
Probable damage of
event
($ m)
2,782
1,610
2,782
1,610
929
1,530
1,690
1,610
1,610
2,301
2,301
1,610
1,118
1,118
743
149
223
1,302
903
438
903
903
903
548
1,462
1,462
1,462
823
1,382
1,382
1,382
983
823
Probable damage
($ m)
110
1,063
110
1,063
1,743
1,142
983
1,063
1,063
372
372
1,063
76,115,500
2,501,330,365
405,362,500
405,362,500
294,139,970
699,502,470
76,115,500
76,115,500
76,115,500
2,577,445,865
2,501,330,365
2,501,330,365
405,362,500
481,478,000
405,362,500
405,362,500
294,139,970
699,502,470
76,115,500
76,115,500
2,577,445,865
2,501,330,365
2,501,330,365
405,362,500
405,362,500
405,362,500
294,139,970
699,502,470
PV Costs
26,569,170 772,644,674
26,569,170 1,296,857,180 877,487,175
772,644,674
578,028,169
1,690,647,575
1,409,368,721
463,586,804
1,409,368,721
1,409,368,721
1,409,368,721
386,322,337
1,803,159,117 1,803,159,117 1,803,159,117 1,353,112,951
1,746,903,346
1,746,903,346
1,746,903,346
911,027,600
1,353,112,951
$
695,380,206
1,521,880,263
695,380,206
1,521,880,263
2,001,635,478 1,578,136,034 1,465,624,492 1,521,880,263
1,521,880,263
1,034,750,927
643,197,939
1,521,880,263
PV Benefits
26,569,170
696,529,173
26,569,170
1,204,473,185
472,124,675
367,282,174
283,888,199
991,145,105
1,409,368,721
387,471,304
1,333,253,221
1,409,368,721
1,409,368,721
310,206,836
774,286,749
698,171,248
698,171,248
947,750,451
1,265,425,346
1,341,540,846
1,341,540,846
616,887,630
653,610,481
695,380,206
1,445,764,762
695,380,206
1,445,764,762
575,810,388
923,194,331
1,035,705,873
1,116,517,763
1,116,517,763
629,388,427
349,057,969
822,377,793
NPV ($)
BCR
0.52
2.16
1.91
1.97
2.42
10.15
5.08
0.70
0.72
0.72
3.34
3.63
4.31
4.31
3.10
1.93
6.09
18.52
19.99
0.78
0.63
0.59
3.75
3.75
2.55
2.19
2.18
19.99
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
Year 2011 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
20% Benefits Increase
2
67
2
112
76
67
80
146
122
40
122
122
122
33
156
156
156
117
151
151
151
126
117
60
131
60
131
173
136
126
131
131
89
89
131
-1%
35%
-1%
59%
40%
35%
42%
76%
64%
21%
64%
64%
64%
17%
81%
81%
81%
61%
79%
79%
79%
66%
61%
31%
69%
31%
69%
90%
71%
66%
69%
69%
47%
47%
69%
AADs ($ m)
AADs
10100 9000
10100 8000
8800
9000
8700
7300
7800
9400
7800
7800
7800
9500
7100
7100
7100
7900
7200
7200
7200
7700
7900
9100
7600
9100
7600
6700
7500
7700
7600
7600
8500
8500
7600

(m3/s)
3,790
2,672
3,790
1,929
2,524
2,672
2,449
1,370
1,769
3,111
1,769
1,769
1,769
3,220
1,211
1,211
1,211
1,849
1,291
1,291
1,291
1,690
1,849
Probable damage of
event
($ m)
2,782
1,610
2,782
1,610
929
1,530
1,690
1,610
1,610
2,301
2,301
1,610
1,118
1,118
743
149
223
1,302
903
438
903
903
903
548
1,462
1,462
1,462
823
1,382
1,382
1,382
983
823
Probable damage
($ m)
110
1,063
110
1,063
1,743
1,142
983
1,063
1,063
372
372
1,063
63,429,584
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
63,429,584
63,429,584
63,429,584
2,147,871,555
2,084,441,971
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
401,231,667
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
63,429,584
63,429,584
2,147,871,555
2,084,441,971
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
PV Costs
26,569,170 772,644,674
26,569,170 1,296,857,180 877,487,175
772,644,674
578,028,169
1,690,647,575
1,409,368,721
463,586,804
1,409,368,721
1,409,368,721
1,409,368,721
386,322,337
1,803,159,117 1,803,159,117 1,803,159,117 1,353,112,951
1,746,903,346
1,746,903,346
1,746,903,346
911,027,600
1,353,112,951
$
695,380,206
1,521,880,263
695,380,206
1,521,880,263
2,001,635,478 1,578,136,034 1,465,624,492 1,521,880,263
1,521,880,263
1,034,750,927
643,197,939
1,521,880,263
PV Benefits
26,569,170
709,215,090
26,569,170
787,584,791
539,685,092
434,842,591
332,911,527
1,107,728,850
1,409,368,721
400,157,221
1,345,939,138
1,409,368,721
1,409,368,721
322,892,753
344,712,438
281,282,854
281,282,854
1,015,310,868
1,345,671,679
1,409,101,263
1,409,101,263
665,910,958
770,194,226
695,380,206
1,458,450,679
695,380,206
1,458,450,679
146,236,077
506,305,937
618,817,479
1,184,078,180
1,184,078,180
696,948,844
398,081,298
938,961,538
NPV ($)
BCR
0.62
2.60
2.29
2.36
2.90
12.18
6.09
0.84
0.87
0.87
4.01
4.35
5.17
5.17
3.72
2.32
7.31
22.22
23.99
0.93
0.76
0.70
4.51
4.51
3.06
2.62
2.61
23.99
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
100% FSL
50% FSL
75% FSL
75% FSL
100% FSL
75% FSL
Year 2011 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
Sep 2011 FOM
20% Benefits Reduction
2
44
2
75
50
44
53
97
81
27
81
81
81
22
104
104
104
78
100
100
100
84
78
40
88
40
88
115
91
84
88
88
59
59
88
-1%
23%
-1%
39%
26%
23%
28%
51%
42%
14%
42%
42%
42%
12%
54%
54%
54%
41%
53%
53%
53%
44%
41%
21%
46%
21%
46%
60%
48%
44%
46%
46%
31%
31%
46%
AADs ($ m)
AADs
10100 9000
10100 8000
8800
9000
8700
7300
7800
9400
7800
7800
7800
9500
7100
7100
7100
7900
7200
7200
7200
7700
7900
9100
7600
9100
7600
6700
7500
7700
7600
7600
8500
8500
7600

(m3/s)
3,790
2,672
3,790
1,929
2,524
2,672
2,449
1,370
1,769
3,111
1,769
1,769
1,769
3,220
1,211
1,211
1,211
1,849
1,291
1,291
1,291
1,690
1,849
Probable damage of
event
($ m)
2,782
1,610
2,782
1,610
929
1,530
1,690
1,610
1,610
2,301
2,301
1,610
1,118
1,118
743
149
223
1,302
903
438
903
903
903
548
1,462
1,462
1,462
823
1,382
1,382
1,382
983
823
Probable damage
($ m)
110
1,063
110
1,063
1,743
1,142
983
1,063
1,063
372
372
1,063
63,429,584
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
63,429,584
63,429,584
63,429,584
2,147,871,555
2,084,441,971
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
401,231,667
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
63,429,584
63,429,584
2,147,871,555
2,084,441,971
2,084,441,971
337,802,083
337,802,083
337,802,083
245,116,642
582,918,725
PV Costs
17,712,780 515,096,449
17,712,780 864,571,453 584,991,450
515,096,449
385,352,112
1,127,098,383
939,579,148
309,057,870
939,579,148
939,579,148
939,579,148
257,548,225
1,202,106,078 1,202,106,078 1,202,106,078 902,075,300
1,164,602,231
1,164,602,231
1,164,602,231
607,351,733
902,075,300
$
463,586,804
1,014,586,842
463,586,804
1,014,586,842
1,334,423,652 1,052,090,689 977,082,995 1,014,586,842
1,014,586,842
689,833,951
428,798,626
1,014,586,842
PV Benefits
17,712,780
451,666,865
17,712,780
1,219,870,518
247,189,367
177,294,366
140,235,471
544,179,659
939,579,148
245,628,286
876,149,564
939,579,148
939,579,148
194,118,641
945,765,477
882,335,893
882,335,893
564,273,217
763,370,564
826,800,147
826,800,147
362,235,091
319,156,576
463,586,804
951,157,258
463,586,804
951,157,258
813,447,903
1,032,351,282
1,107,358,976
676,784,759
676,784,759
352,031,868
183,681,985
431,668,117
NPV ($)
BCR
0.41
1.73
1.52
1.57
1.93
8.12
4.06
0.56
0.58
0.58
2.67
2.90
3.45
3.45
2.48
1.55
4.87
14.81
16.00
0.62
0.50
0.47
3.00
3.00
2.04
1.75
1.74
16.00
Appendix D
Queensland Water Commission Report
41/24452/428742
INFORMATION MATERIAL ONLY
Report on the impacts of lowering the

Full Supply Volume of Wivenhoe Dam
on water supply security
20 October 2011
Version 4
QWC
Document Control
Date
Author/Reviewer
Description
Version
7/10/2011
Wendy Auton
First draft
7/10/2011
Mark Askins
Review
7/10/2011
Rolf Rose
Review
7/10/2011
Wai-Tong Wong
Review
7/10/2011
Abel Immaraj
Review
19/10/2011
Wendy Auton
Additional runs with Hinze Dam

raising and Wyaralong Water
Treatment Plant
19/10/2011
Wai-Tong Wong
Review
19/10/2011
Mark Askins
Review
19/10/2011
Abel Immaraj
Review and Approval
20/10/2011
Gayle Leaver
Approval
This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available
information at the time of publication. The agency holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions
within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the
responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and,
as such, does not necessarily represent government or agency policy.
D/11/050389
ii
QWC
Table of Contents
1
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................2
METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................3
2.1
Assessmentframework .......................................................................................................3
2.2
Hydrologicmodel ................................................................................................................4
2.3
LevelofService(LOS)ObjectivesandLOSYield....................................................................8
2.4
Longtermwatersupplydemandbalance ............................................................................8
2.5
TemporaryreductiontoWivenhoeDamFSV .......................................................................9
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.1
LOSyields .........................................................................................................................10
3.2
Longtermsupplydemandbalance ....................................................................................11
3.3
FrequencyoftriggeringfulldesalinationandPRWadditiontoWivenhoeDam ..................13
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 14
APPENDIXA:GRID12STORAGESINSOUTHEASTQUEENSLAND .................. 15
D/11/050389
iii
QWC
Abbreviations
FSV
Full Supply Volume in Megalitres when the dam is at

100% existing operating volume
Grid 12 Storage
12 key storages in SEQ with their corresponding

capacities defined in Appendix A
LOS
Level of Service
l/p/d
litres per person per day
ML
megalitres
ML/d
megalitres per day
ML/a
megalitres per annum
PRW
Purified Recycled Water
QWC
SEQ
South East Queensland
WATHNET Model
Generalised Water Supply Headworks Simulation Using

Network Linear Programming Model
2010 Price Path

Review
Bulk water price review in November 2010 (residential

consumption increasing from 180 L/p/d in 2011 to 200
l/p/d by 2018)
2010 SEQ Water

Strategy
Infrastructure
Infrastructure as per 15 July 2010 SEQ Water Strategy

including Tugun desalination, Purified Recycled Water,
Southern Regional Water Pipeline, Eastern Pipeline
Interconnector, Northern Pipeline Interconnector (65
ML/d northerly flow), Cedar Grove Weir and Bromelton
Offstream Storage.
D/11/050389
iv
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide information on the potential impacts on the security
of supply in South East Queensland (SEQ) of permanent reductions of the Full Supply
Volume (FSV) of Wivenhoe Dam. This modelling assessment is solely to assist the Rapid
Assessment of the Wivenhoe Dam Wall Raising Project.
The underlying assumptions used include the demand and supply capacity contained in
the SEQ Water Strategy, with demand forecasts updated to align with the recent base
case in the 2011 Annual Review of the South East Queensland Water Strategy.
Nine scenarios of permanent reduction of Wivenhoe Dam by 25% and 50% of FSV with
the recent commissioning of Hinze Dam raising and the proposed Wyaralong Water
Treatment Plant (WTP) have been considered. Further investigation would be required to
understand the full extent of the impacts. This assessment is based on sensitivity analysis
of the total grid capacity and no detailed assessment has been undertaken at the bulk
distribution level.
The following observations can be drawn from these assessments:
x
Permanent reduction in the full supply volume of 25% will lower the Level of Service
(LOS) yield by about 30,000 ML/a and a 50% reduction would lower it by about 95,000
ML/a.
The reduction in LOS yield may require the construction of new infrastructure to be
brought forward by about 4 years (to about 2026 from 2030) for the 25% FSV
reduction based on a forecast demand (Base Case of 200 l/p/d residential and 130
l/p/d non-residential). It should be noted that demand is sensitive to weather conditions
and has been tracking below the Water Strategy target of 200 l/p/d residential, which
could reflect the recent wet climatic conditions.
brought forward by about 12 years (to about 2018 from 2030) for a 50% FSV reduction
based on forecast demand (Base Case of 200 l/p/d residential and 130 l/p/d nonresidential).
The commissioning of the raised Hinze Dam increases the LOS yield by 15,000 ML/a,
20,000 ML/a and 25,000 ML/a for Wivenhoe Dam at 100%, 75% and 50% FSV
respectively.
The proposed Wyaralong WTP Stage 2 (74 ML/d) provides an additional 5,000 to
20,000 ML/a of LOS Yield after Hinze Dam Raising.
Wivenhoe Dam system contributes about 50% of the LOS yield of SEQ. Hence any major
reduction in FSV would need to be carefully considered.
This report does not recommend a particular scenario for adoption as other factors such
as social, economic and environmental may also need to be considered. It provides the
long term water demand/supply balance in the SEQ Water Strategy.
Advice from the responsible agency or entity on operational and regulatory impacts such
as increased pumping costs and the Water Resource Plan would have to be considered.
QWC
1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide information on the potential impacts on the security
of supply in South East Queensland (SEQ) of permanent reductions of the Full Supply
Volume (FSV) of Wivenhoe Dam. This modelling was done to support the Rapid
Assessment of the Wivenhoe Dam Raising Project being managed by the Department of
Employment, Economic Development and Innovation.
This report outlines the results of the assessment, from a water supply security
perspective for South East Queensland (SEQ) of the effects of lowering the FSV of
Wivenhoe Dam to either 75% or 50% of its FSV on the LOS yield and the long term supply
demand balance of South East Queensland.
This assessment does not consider the environmental, social and economic impacts of the
dam operating levels in relation to flood mitigation for downstream properties and
infrastructure. Furthermore the potential impacts of climate change on the supply and
demand are not assessed given the short timeframe available for the study.
This modelling assessment was requested by GHD, the Projects consultants. This
assessment is provided solely for the purpose of assisting the Rapid Assessment of the
Wivenhoe Dam wall raising Project. The report including the input data, methodology,
assessment, results, observations and the conclusions are not to be used for any other
project or purpose and are not to be used in any report without QWCs prior review and
approval.
D/11/050389
QWC
2 Methodology
The methodology used for the assessments is described in this section. To assess the
long term impacts of the permanent lowering of the full supply volume of Wivenhoe Dam,
an assessment framework which was developed previously for similar investigations was
adopted.
2.1
Assessment framework
The assessment framework showing the type and purpose of assessment is shown in
Table 1. Within each type of assessment, various scenarios have been developed and
their details are provided in Table 2.
The LOS yield assessments were carried out in the following sequence of infrastructure
assumptions:
x
2010 Infrastructure;
2010 Infrastructure with the commissioning of Hinze Dam Raising; and
2010 Infrastructure with the commissioning of Hinze Dam Raising and the
proposed Wyaralong Water Treatment Plant Stage 2 (74 ML/d).
Hinze Dam Raising (commissioned in July 2011) has provided an additional 149, 656 ML
storage, bringing the FSV to 310, 727 ML.
The Wyaralong WTP capacity was based on a proposed allocation of about 27,000 ML/a
(74 ML/d).
For consistency with the 2010 SEQ Water Strategy, the existing volume is maintained in
the model for the 40% trigger of Grid 12 storage.
Table 1: Assessment framework
Assessment Type
Purpose
Assessment of
1. LOS yield determination
To determine the demand

that can be supplied that is
compliant with the LOS
commitment
Supply
2. Long term supply demand

balance
To identify the year when it

is likely that supply is not
sufficient to maintain the
LOS commitment
Time for possible

augmentation
D/11/050389
QWC
2.2
Hydrologic model
The South East Queensland Regional Water Balance Model was developed to assess the
Level of Service (LOS) objectives for planning and forecasting purposes for the SEQ
Water Grid. This model uses the stochastic analysis program WATHNET which allows the
assessment of the system performance under more extreme events than those in the
historical record.
Table 2 lists the assumptions used, the reasons for the options selected and the section
reference for the results for the modelling scenario.
.
D/11/050389
WATHNET
Model
To determine
yields and
potential
augmentation
date
Purpose
(1) LOS yield

assessment
with 2010
infrastructure
(Column 1)
Assessment
Type
Full desalination production

at 125 ML/d

(PRW) produced to meet
power stations and industrial
demands at all times
PRW maximum production

(142 ML/d) when Grid 12
storages drop below 40%
capacity for addition to
Wivenhoe Dam.
2010 SEQ Water Strategy

Infrastructure
Assumptions
Reason: to assess the LOS yield

impacts of permanent FSV
reductions.
(1) Permanent reductions in the

FSV of Wivenhoe Dam
(Column 4)
(Column 3)
(3) 50%
(2) 25%
(1) 0%
Wivenhoe Dam FSV

permanently reduced by:
Scenario Description
Option
Table 2: Summary of assessment framework showing details of each LOS assessment scenario
1.1.3
1.1.2
1.1.1
(based on
Columns 1,3 & 4)
Scenario Number
Section 3.1
Results
Reference
(in Report)
D/11/050389
WATHNET
Model
To determine
yields and
potential
augmentation
date
Purpose
(2) LOS yield

assessment
with 2010
infrastructure
plus
commissioning
the raised Hinze
Dam
(Column 1)

at 125 ML/d


(142 ML/d) when Grid 12
Wivenhoe Dam
Additional allocation 7,700

ML/a and additional storage
volume 149,656 ML from
commissioning the raised
Hinze Dam (Full Supply
Volume is 310,727 ML).

Infrastructure

reductions due to the
commissioning of Hinze Dam
raising.

FSV of Wivenhoe Dam
(Column 4)
(Column 3)
(3) 50%
(2) 25%
(1) 0%
Wivenhoe Dam FSV

Assumptions
Assessment
Type
Option
QWC
2.1.3
2.1.2
2.1.1
(based on
Columns 1,3 & 4)
Scenario Number
Section 3.1
Results
Reference
(in Report)
D/11/050389
WATHNET
Model
To determine
yields and
potential
augmentation
date
Purpose
(3) LOS yield

assessment
with 2010
infrastructure
plus
commissioning
the raised
Hinze Dam as
well as
Wyaralong Dam
WTP Stage 2
(Column 1)
Additional allocation of
26,995 ML/a for Wyaralong
Dam and transfers of 35,000
ML/a to the Water Grid from
the Scenic Rim (Wyaralong
WTP 74 ML/d).

(142 ML/day) when Grid 12
Wivenhoe Dam

Additional allocation 7,700

ML/a and additional storage
volume 149,656 ML from
Hinze Dam (Full Supply
Volume is 310,727 ML).

at 125 ML/d

Infrastructure

reductions due to proposed
Wyaralong WTP (after Hinze Dam
raising).

FSV of Wivenhoe Dam
(Column 4)
(Column 3)
(3) 50%
(2) 25%
(1) 0%
Wivenhoe Dam FSV

Assumptions
Assessment
Type
Option
QWC
3.1.3
3.1.2
3.1.1
(based on
Columns 1,3 & 4)
Scenario Number
Section 3.1
Results
Reference
(in Report)
2.3
The Regional Water Security Program for SEQ (under the Water Act 2000) establishes the
desired LOS objectives which form a basis for the SEQ Water Strategy and are
implemented through the SEQ System Operating Plan. These objectives provide long
term security of water supply and are defined as follows:
x
During normal operating mode, sufficient water will be available from the SEQ Water
Grid to meet an average regional urban demand of 375 litres per person per day
(including residential, non-residential and system losses).
Sufficient investment in the water supply system will occur so that:

o
Medium Level Restrictions will not occur more than once every 25 years, on
average
Medium Level Restrictions will only reduce consumption by 15 per cent below
the total consumption volume in normal operating mode
Drought response infrastructure will be not be required to be built more than

once every 100 years, on average
Combined regional storage reserves do not decline to 10 per cent of capacity

more than once every 1000 years, on average
Regional water storages do not reach 5 per cent of combined storage capacity
Wivenhoe, Hinze and Baroon Pocket dams do not reach minimum operating
levels
It is expected that Medium Level Restrictions will last longer than six months,
no more than once every 50 years on average.
The Level of Service Yield is the maximum demand that can be supplied, for given
infrastructure and operating conditions, while still meeting the LOS objectives. It is a
modelled maximum supply.
The LOS yields for the cases of 25% and 50% lowering of the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam
permanently were assessed using the same infrastructure and operating conditions as
those for the July 2010 SEQ Water Strategy LOS yield of 485,000 ML/annum.
2.4
Long term water supply demand balance
The demand scenario used to assess the long term supply demand balance was
consistent with the Base Case Demand scenario presented in the 2011 Annual Review of
the South East Queensland Water Strategy (in preparation).
This modelling assumed the Demography and Planning (formerly known as the Planning
Information and Forecasting Unit, PIFU) medium series population growth (May 2011
edition) and that demand would increase over five years, from the actual consumption
levels for 2010/2011 to 200 l/p/d for residential and 130 l/p/d non-residential (including
power stations and losses).
QWC
2.5
Temporary reduction to Wivenhoe Dam FSV
A possible option could be to allow for the temporary lowering of Wivenhoe FSV until the
SEQ total consumption increases to a point when there is a minimum probability of
exceeding 75% FSV. This option is currently being investigated. This may reduce the
need to bring forward significant infrastructure augmentation.
D/11/050389
Results
3.1
LOS yields
Table 3 presents the model results for LOS yield for scenarios of permanent reduction in
the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam.
The SEQ Water Strategy LOS yield for no reduction of FSV of Wivenhoe Dam is 485,000
ML/a.
For a reduction in the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam by 25% the LOS yield is 455,000 ML/a which
is a decrease in the LOS yield of 30,000 ML/a.
For a reduction in the FSV by 50% the LOS yield is 390,000 ML/a which is a decrease of
95,000 ML/a. This is more than three times the reduction in LOS yield for a 25% reduction.
The commissioning of the raised Hinze Dam increases the LOS yield by:
x
15,000 ML/a for Wivenhoe Dam at 100% FSV (Scenarios 1.1.1 and 2.1.1);
20,000 ML/a for Wivenhoe Dam at 75% FSV (Scenarios 1.1.2 and 2.1.2) and;
25,000 ML/a for Wivenhoe Dam at 50% FSV (Scenarios 1.1.3 and 2.1.3).
The increase in LOS yield is greater as the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam decreases. This is
likely to be due to Hinze Dam Raising improving the 40% trigger level statistics which
contributes to a higher LOS yield. However the LOS yield increase due to the raising
becomes limited as shown in Scenario 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 (Table 3).
A similar effect is seen when Wyaralong Dam WTP is included in the model.There is an
increase in LOS yield of only 5,000 ML/a when Wivenhoe Dam is at 100% of its FSV but
an increase of 20,000 ML/a for the 75% and 50% FSV (Scenarios 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 in Table
3).
10
QWC
Table 3: LOS yield for scenarios modelling permanent reduction of FSV of

Wivenhoe Dam
Infrastructure
Wivenhoe
Dam
Strategy 2010
Scenario
number
% FSV
LOS
Yield
Strategy 2010 Plus

Hinze Dam
Scenario
number
LOS
Yield
(ML/a)
LOS
Yield
Increase
Strategy 2010 Plus

Commissioning Hinze Dam
Plus Wyaralong WTP Stage 2
Scenario
number
LOS
Yield
(ML/a)
LOS
Yield
Increase*
(ML/a)
(ML/a)
(ML/a)
100%
1.1.1
485,000
2.1.1
500,000
15,000
3.1.1
505,000
5,000
75%
1.1.2
455,000
2.1.2
475,000
20,000
3.1.2
495,000
20,000
50%
1.1.3
390,000
2.1.3
415,000
25,000
3.1.3
435,000
20,000
* comparison with LOS yields after Hinze Dam Raising
3.2
Long term supply demand balance
Figure 1 shows the long term water supply demand balance with the LOS yields for
Wivenhoe at 100%, 75% and 50% of FSV (comparing with 2010 Infrastructure).
Figure 1 shows that new infrastructure would need to be brought forward by about 4 years
to about 2026 from 2030 for a 75% FSV. For 50% FSV, new infrastructure would be
brought forward by about 12 years to 2018 from 2030.
As a comparison, Figure 2 shows the long term water supply demand balance with the
LOS yields for Wivenhoe at 100%, 75% and 50% of FSV with Hinze Dam raising
included.
Figure 2 shows that new infrastructure would need to be brought forward by about 3 years
to about 2028 from 2031 for a 75% FSV. For 50% FSV, new infrastructure would be
brought forward by about 11 years to 2020 from 2031.
D/11/050389
11
QWC
Figure 1: Long term water supply demand balance (with 2010 Infrastructure and
base case demand)
Effect on LOS yield of reducing the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam permanently

(Base case demand 200 L/p/d residential, 130 Lpd non residential)
1,000,000
Scenario Wivenhoe %
900,000
of FSV
800,000
1.1.1
100%
1.1.2
75%
1.1.3
50
Megalitres/year
700,000
Base demand (200 Lpd res, 130 Lpd nonres,

medium series population growth)
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
Year
Figure 2: Long term water supply demand balance (with 2010 Infrastructure plus
Hinze Dam raising and base case demand)
Effect on LOS yield of reducing the FSV of Wivenhoe Dam permanently

(with Hinze Dam Raising)
1,000,000
(Base case demand 200 L/p/d residential, 130 Lpd non residential)
Scenario Wivenhoe %
of FSV
900,000
800,000
2.1.1
100%
2.1.2
75%
2.1.3
50%
Megalitres/year
700,000
Base demand (200 Lpd res, 130 Lpd nonres,

medium series population growth)
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Year
D/11/050389
12
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
QWC
3.3
Frequency of triggering full desalination and PRW addition to

Wivenhoe Dam
Table 4 gives the frequencies of reaching the 60% and 40% triggers. Lowering the FSV of
Wivenhoe Dam increases the frequency of reaching the 60% and 40% triggers.
Table 4: Frequency of reaching 60% and 40% Trigger levels
Scenario Wivenhoe Dam
% FSV
Frequency of
Frequency of
reaching 60%
reaching 40%
1.1.1
100%
Once in 8 years
Once in 35 years
1.1.2
75%
Once in 5 years
Once in 27 years
1.1.3
50%
Once in 2 years
Once in 26 years
D/11/050389
13
QWC
4 Conclusions
The following observations can be drawn from this assessment exercise:
x
Permanent reduction in the full supply volume of 25% will lower the Level of Service
(LOS) yield by about 30,000 ML/a and a 50% reduction would lower it by about 95,000
ML/a.
brought forward by about 4 years (to about 2026 from 2030) for the 25% FSV
reduction based on a forecast demand (Base Case of 200 l/p/d residential and 130
l/p/d non-residential). It should be noted that demand is sensitive to weather conditions
and has been tracking below the Water Strategy target of 200 l/p/d residential, which
could reflect the recent wet climatic conditions.
brought forward by about 12 years (to about 2018 from 2030) for a 50% FSV reduction
based on forecast demand (Base Case of 200 l/p/d residential and 130 l/p/d nonresidential).
The commissioning of the raised Hinze Dam increases the LOS yield by 15,000 ML/a,
20,000 ML/a and 25,000 ML/a for Wivenhoe Dam at 100%, 75% and 50% FSV
respectively.
The proposed Wyaralong WTP Stage 2 (74 ML/d) provides an additional 5,000 to
20,000 ML/a of LOS Yield after Hinze Dam Raising.
Wivenhoe Dam system contributes about 50% of the LOS yield of SEQ. Hence any major
reduction in FSV would need to be carefully considered.
This report does not recommend a particular scenario for adoption as other factors such
as social, economic and environmental may also need to be considered. It provides the
long term water demand/supply balance in SEQ.
Advice from the responsible agency or entity on operational and regulatory impacts such
as increased pumping costs and the Water Resource Plan would have to be considered.
It is therefore considered that permanent reduction of Wivenhoe Dam FSV by 25% and
50% would potentially have significant impacts including:
x
Impacts on the security of supply due to a reduction in LOS yield, particularly in the
severe case of a 50% reduction;
New infrastructure may need to be brought forward about 4 years to meet the LOS
objectives for a 25% reduction and by about 14 years for a 50% reduction;
Cost impact of bringing forward the next supply augmentation;
Increased likelihood of triggering desalination and/or PRW;
Impact on the future bulk water pricing and long term SEQ debt, including an
increase in operational costs, for a 25% and particularly the 50% permanent
reduction scenario; and
Increased likelihood and extent of water restrictions, particularly in the case of the
50% reduction.
D/11/050389
14
QWC
Appendix A: Grid 12 Storages in South East Queensland

As at June 2011
FULL SUPPLY VOLUME
(Megalitres)
Southern
Little Nerang
6,705
Hinze*
161,073
Total Southern
167,778
Central
North Pine
214,302
Somerset
379,849
Wivenhoe
1,165,238
Lake Kurwongbah
14,370
Leslie Harrison
24,868
Total Central
1,798,627
Northern
Baroon Pocket
61,000
Cooloolabin
13,800
Ewan Maddock
16,587
Lake MacDonald
8,018
Wappa
4,694
Total Northern
104,099
TOTAL SEQ
2,070,504
* Based on 2010 SEQ Water Strategy Infrastructure. With Hinze Dam Raising commissioned in July 2011, the
Full Supply Volume is 310,727 ML.
D/11/050389
15
Appendix E
Maps
41/24452/428742
ay
hw
ig
B u rn
et t
ce
h w ay
wa
H ig
ig
IS
BR
D 'A g u
i l a r Hi gh
w ay
N
BA
CALOUNDRA
R IV
EE
ui
la r H
i g hway
D 'Aguilar H igh w
a
KILCOY
CR
'A g
eH
ig h
w
SOMERSET
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
EEK
EM
CO
Ne
Bru c
gh
Hi
ew
En
nd
g la
ay
ER
YARRAMAN
D
ay
Brisbane River
wE
ng
la
nd
RI
WOODFORD
Stanley River
Somerset
Dam
TOOGOOLAWAH
MORETON
BAY
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
EK
RE
NARANGBA
RE
SS
ay
B RO
w
gh
OK
Hi
S TA N L E Y
rH
ya
g
la
ui
Bun
i gh
Bru
D'A
y
wa
ESK
CROWS NEST
Wivenhoe
Dam
Cressbrook
Creek Dam
i gh
wa
Splityard
Creek Dam
COOMINYA
MOUNT NEBO
En
gl
an
d
Perseverance
Dam
re
Ne
M U RP
ay
HY S CREE K
LO
KY
E
Lake
Manchester
Dam
GATTON
R C RE
EK
IPSWICH
ROSEWOOD
IV
BRISBANE
ROCKLEA
BRISBANE
CITY
COUNCIL
ER
ic
Mo
LOGAN
CITY
COUNCIL
to r
wa
nnin
ot
c if
y
HARRISVILLE
SPRINGFIELD
Pa
IPSWICH
CITY
COUNCIL
y
wa
wa
LOCKYER
VALLEY
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
ER
Cu
Hi
Lockyer Creek
Hig
ay
IV E
or
or
GRANTHAM
ER
ic
ci f
hw
Gold Ck
Dam
AN
Pa
TOOWOOMBA
ISB
BR
Enoggera
Dam
MOGGIL
g ham
g hw
EM
Hi
FERNVALE
BR
ar
go
HAMILTON
Atkinson's
Dam
Bremer River
SCENIC
RIM
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Ne
ng
n
la
Cun
ni n
g h a m H ig h w ay
KALBAR
BEAUDESERT
Moogerah
Dam
d
Hi
gh
wa
y
C u n ni n g
h am H i ghw a y
LEGEND
Town
Dam or Lake
Highway
Catchment Boundary
Based on or contains data provided by the State of QLD (DERM) [2011].

In consideration of the State permitting use of this data you acknowledge
and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data
(including accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or suitability)
and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in
negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage)
relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing
or be used in breach of the privacy laws.
Major Watercourse
Minor Watercourse
Paper Size A4
0
10
15
20
25
Kilometres
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
G:\41\24452\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\4124452_100_A4.mxd
Job Number
Revision
Date
Project Locality
Level 4, 201 Charlotte St Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia
T 61 7 3316 3000
Figure 1
F 61 7 3316 3333
E bnemail@ghd.com
2011. Whilst every care has been taken to prepare this map, GHD and DATA CUSTODIANS make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose
and cannot accept liability and responsibility of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be
incurred by any party as a result of the map being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.
Data source: DERM - Catchment Boundary, Local Government Area, Waterways, Roads, Dams; Geoscience Australia - 250k Topo Data. Created by: TH
41-24452
0
13 Nov 2011
W www.ghd.com
Brisbane River 282.4 km (upper Brisbane at Linville)
Emu Ck 10.7 km (upper Brisbane)
R EEK
EY
TA N L
RI
Stanley River
EM
CO
R
YA
E
CR
EK
SB
RO
OK
CR
E
Brisbane River
E
CR
Lockyer Ck 110.1 km (at Murphys Creek)
S C R EEK
MURPH Y
ER C
R EE
B RISB A NE
IL
ER
RIV
RR
ER
EM
WA
Ma Ma Ck 21.2 km
Tenthill Creek 29.8 km
BR
Lockyer Creek
VE
CR
EE
RI
LO
Y
CK
Bremer River 70 km
Laidley Ck 50 km Bremer
River
LEGEND
Town
Wivenhoe Dam
Detention Basins
Catchment Boundary

Major Watercourse
Minor Watercourse
Paper Size A4
0
10
15
20
25
Kilometres
Job Number
Revision
Date
41-24452
0
10 Nov 2011
Detention Basin Overview

T 61 7 3316 3000
F 61 7 3316 3333
E bnemail@ghd.com
Data source: DERM - Catchment Boundary; Geoscience Australia - 250k Topo Data; Seqwater - Wivenhoe Dam. Created by: TH
W www.ghd.com
Beam Creek
f
!
Somerset
Dam
Stanley River
Catchment
TOOGOOLAWAH
f
!
Cressbrook
Creek
f
!
f
!
f
!
f
!
MORETON
BAY
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Waterfall
Gully
M
Stanley
Gully
ou
nt
Be
o
pp
Siverton
Creek
Ro
ad
Bris
Es
ba n
lley
e Va
Brisbane River
Catchment
hway
H ig
f
!
f
!
k - Ki lc
f
!
oa
oy R
O'Sheas
Bridge
Haslingdens
Bridge
f
!
Reedy
Creek
Meirs
Gully
Coal Creek
f
!
Gallanani
Creek
f
!
SOMERSET
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
p
- H am
f
!
ESK
f
!
oa
to n R
Middle
Creek
Esk Creek
Bri sban
e Va
l
ley
Hi
f
!
gh
wa
y
MORETON
BAY
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Deep Creek
Wi
Es k
A. & P.M.
Conroy
Bridge
ve
nh
oe
So
f
!
Tea Tree
Creek
er
se
t
oa
d
f
!
Five Mile
Creek
f
!
Wivenhoe
Dam
f
!
Tea tree
Gully
Ro a
Northbrook
Creek
N o rthb
f
!
roo k P a rkw ay
Kipper
Creek
f
!
BRISBANE
CITY
COUNCIL
Ga
t to
n - Es
k
Logan
Creek
Bris
ns
Da
LOCKYER
VALLEY
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Ro
ad
At
ki
ns
Va
COOMINYA
Lockyer Creek
Catchment
Atkin s o
b an
Splityard
Creek Dam
l le y
High
way
Wes t R
oa d
m
o n D a R oa d
Atkinson's
Dam
C lare n d o
nR
f
!
Fernvale
bridge
oa
f
!
LEGEND
f
!
Town
Highway
Catchment Boundary
Bridge
Main Road
Dam or Lake
Major Watercourse
Local Road
Wivenhoe Dam Water Level at 77m (AHD)
Minor Watercourse
LGA Boundary
1:200,000 (at A4)

0
Kilometres

Job Number
Revision
Date
41-24452
0
13 Nov 2011
Wivenhoe Dam Locality

T 61 7 3316 3000
F 61 7 3316 3333
E bnemail@ghd.com
Data source: GHD - Dam Level at 77m; DERM - Catchment Boundary, Road, Watercourse; Geoscience Australia - 250k Topo Data; Seqwater - Wivenhoe Dam, Bridge Locations. Created by: TH
W www.ghd.com

Somerset
Dam
TOOGOOLAWAH
M
ou
nt
Be
pp
o
Ro
ad
Bris
Es
o
k - Kilc
y Ro
ad
e
ba n
y
Valle
H ig
hwa
ESK
W iv
Bri sban
e
oa d
me
Hi
gh
So
Va l
l ey
oe -
to n R
e nh
p
- Ham
Esk
rs
wa
y
et
Ro
P a r kw
ay
N o rthb
or
t
k
oo
br
rook P a r k w ay
Ga
tto
n - Es
k Ro
ad
Wivenhoe
Dam
Bris
COOMINYA
ban
Splityard
Creek Dam
e
Va
l l ey
High
w ay
Wes t R
oad
A tk ins
on
sD
am
Ro
ad
k in
At
LEGEND
Town
House
House - unaffected
Infrastructure - Power
Infrastructure
a m Ro a
d
s on D
Major Watercourse
Minor Watercourse
Highway
Main Road
Local Road
1:200,000 (at A4)

0
Atkinson's
Dam
Kilometres
C larend o
nR
oa
Dam or Lake
Wivenhoe Dam Water Level at 77m (AHD)
Nature Refuge
Protected Areas
Endangered RE - Dominant
Endangered RE - Sub-dominant
Of Concern RE - Dominant
Of Concern RE - Sub-dominant
Remnant Vegetation that is a Least Concern RE
Job Number
Revision
Date
41-24452
0
17 Nov 2011
Wivenhoe Dam Locality

T 61 7 3316 3000
F 61 7 3316 3333
E bnemail@ghd.com
W www.ghd.com
Map ID Site Description
Gallanani
Creek
f
!
A. & P.M.
Conroy
Bridge
f
!
ESK
Esk Creek
eV
al l
ey
Hi
f
!
gh
Deep Creek
ay
Ro
ad
f
!
-E
sk
f
!
o
a tt
Tea Tree
Creek
12.08
2 West of Kholo Road overpass
34158
16.53
3 1 km West of Brisbane Valley Hwy
24490
17.35
4 West of Seminary Road
23830
~~~~
5 Bris. Valley Hwy North of Lovers Lane
8580
10.5
6 Sandy Creek (North Branch)
7600
11
7 Rd 412 Forest Hill - Ferny Road
2900
16
8 Rd 411 Coominya Connection Road
2800
16
9 Rd 414 Esk - Hampton Road
4100
14
6
WivenhoeSomerset Rd
10 Brisbane Valley Highway Junction
500
11 Mount Glorious Road
500
Mount Crosby
12 Colleges Crossing
9539
4.18
Source: ht t p:/ / 131940.qld.gov.au/ Traf f ic-Census.aspx; 2009 Nort h Coast Region Traf f ic Census; 2009 Met ropolit an Traf f ic Census
f
!
Five Mile
Creek
f
!
Kipper
Creek
nt
!
f
f
!
ou
11
No r t hb r o o k P a rk wa
m
n
"
)
Wivenhoe
Dam
Tea tree
Gully
Northbrook
Creek
Gl
or
io
us
d
Ro a
Logan
Creek
COOMINYA
b an
e Va
t io n R o
a
Con n ec
10
m
n
"
)
7
ou
nt T
a r am
pa Ro a
d
ad
Fernv
ill
a le R o
H
t
f
!
FERNVALE
le R o a
d
Lake
Manchester
Dam
Fe rn va
Lockyer Creek
Catchment
R oad
f
!
nR
Burtons
Bridge
La k e
Ro
ad
n
m
"
)
m
n
"
)
M a n ch e
ar
re g
o Hig hw ay
Ro
ad
o ad
Mt Crosby
Weir
f
!
m
n
"
)
Colleges
12 Crossing
Kholo
Bridge
m
n
"
)
oo
a ll a
rR
m
n
"
)
ew
lle
g
f
!
m
n
"
)
os
Ta
m
n
"
)
-M
a rb
ur g
Ro
st e
f
!
Ro
u
ar b
ad
rg
ad
Geh rke R oa d
Lo w o
od
Fo
r es t
-M
inde
Savages
Crossing
LOWOOD
ri
gh
tv
iew
f
!
Fernvale
bridge
o ad
R
H ill - F
er n
va
le
d
oa
r es
n d o n R oa d
f
!
K h ol o
Co
om
C la r e
Twin
Bridges
Fo
ad
MOUNT NEBO
m
n
"
)
i n ya
Atkinson's
Dam
Mo un t Glo r o u s R o a d
i
Ro
l l ey H
ig h
wa
y
Wes t R
oa d
bo
Bris
tN
Splityard
Creek Dam
un
Brisbane River
Catchment
Mo
m
n
"
)
Karr
a b in
-R
os e
o
wo
dR
o ad
Bremer River
Catchment
IPSWICH
B r is b
e
an
Rob er ts
on R oa
d
ROSEWOOD
Ro
ad
ay
B risban
Middle
Creek
%CV
40240
hw
!
f
m
n
"
)9
Brisbane Valley
Hwy
AADT
1 Wim Site Bremer River
H ig
f
!
Road/Region
Warrego Hwy
Coal Creek
am
f
!
Cu
gh
in
nn
LEGEND
m
n
"
)
f
!
Major Watercourse
LGA Boundary
Minor Watercourse
Catchment Boundary
Town
Highway
Dam or Lake
Bridge
Main Road
Traffic Count Location

Local Road
1:225,000 (at A4)
0
Kilometres
G:\41\24452\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\4124452_110_A4mxd.mxd
Job Number
Revision
Date
41-24452
0
13 Nov 2011
Traffic Count Data

T 61 7 3316 3000
F 61 7 3316 3333
E bnemail@ghd.com
W www.ghd.com
GHD
201 Charlotte Street Brisbane QLD 4000
GPO Box 668 Brisbane QLD 4001
T: (07) 3316 3000 F: (07) 3316 3333 E: bnemail@ghd.com.au
GHD 2011
This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose
for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission.
Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited.
Document Status
Rev
No.
0
Reviewer
Author
Name
J. Williams
N. Davis
T. Loxton
S. Kanowski
T. Turner
41/24452/428742
C. Berry
Approved for Issue

Signature
Name
Signature
W. Traves
Date
19.11.11

GDH Raising Wivenhoe Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GDH Raising Wivenhoe Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Employment,

Economic Development and

Investigation of Options to increase the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam

Level of flood mitigation

Flooding and the Brisbane River catchment

Brisbane River flooding

Historical flood events

Frequent Moderate Flood Events

Other flood influences

Dam operating rules

Alternative Dam Operation Strategies

Dam Raising Options

Raise Dam crest 2 metres, maintain existing FSV

Level of Service (LOS) Objectives and LOS Yield

Mechanisms to defer new infrastructure requirements

Operation of desalination and purified recycled water

Downstream Flood Mitigation Options

Expand Splityard Creek Dam storage

Investigation of Options to increase the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam

New flood retention dam

Bypass channel for Brisbane River

Channel upstream of Wivenhoe Dam to divert flow

Connect flood plains, new wetlands, other waterways

Levees and walls

9.10 Brisbane River

10. Economic Analysis

10.2 Hydrologic modelling

10.3 Benefits Flood Damage Analysis

10.4 Costs capital and operating

10.5 Economic evaluation

11. Summary and Recommendations

12.1 Queensland Water Commission

12.3 Department of Environment and Resource Management

12.4 Brisbane City Council

12.5 Other references

Comparative Assessment Criteria

Historical flood events peak flow and flood

Semidiurnal Tidal Planes 2011 (Maritime Safety

Gate operating rules

Increasing flood capacity of Wivenhoe Dam

Summary of potential upstream impacts

Investigation of Options to increase the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam

Adopted scaling factors for combined flows to the

Hydrologic model scenarios

2011 Flood Brisbane River Hydrology Model

1974 Flood Brisbane River Hydrology Model

1893 Flood Brisbane River Hydrology Model,

Probable Maximum Precipitation Design Flood

Summary of scenarios tested

Probability of reaching Grid 12 Dam triggers for

Alternative Options Workshop Evaluation

Influence of Lockyer Creek and Bremer River flows,

Key costs and timing assumptions

Economic analysis summary results

Brisbane River Catchment

1893 Flood Hydrograph

1974 Flood Hydrograph

2011 Flood Hydrograph

Gate Operating Rules Schematic

Comparison of 2007 and 2011 gate operating rules

Comparison of 2007 and 2011 gate operating rules

Wivenhoe lake level and flow 100 % Full Supply

Wivenhoe lake level and flow 100 % Full Supply