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
1.1 Overview 1
1.2 Next steps 3
2. Introduction 4
3. Reliance Statement 6
4. Background 7
4.1 Scope 7
4.2 Level of flood mitigation 9
4.3 Flooding and the Brisbane River catchment 9
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. Dam Operation 20
5.1 Dam operating rules 20
5.2 Alternative Dam Operation Strategies 26
6. Dam Raising Options 32

6.1 Raise Dam crest 2 metres, maintain existing FSV 32
7. Hydrologic Modelling 39
7.1 Model description 39
7.2 Hydrologic modelling 42
8. 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
9. Downstream Flood Mitigation Options 52

9.1 Introduction 52
9.2 Expand Splityard Creek Dam storage 54
ii
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 4
Table 2 Comparative Assessment Criteria 8
Table 3 Historical flood events – peak flow and flood
volume comparison* 11
Table 5 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
Table 8 Summary of potential upstream impacts 37
iii
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 1974 Flood – Brisbane River Hydrology Model 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
Table 19 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 Index
Figure 1 Brisbane River Catchment 15
Figure 2 1893 Flood Hydrograph 16
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
Figure 7 Comparison of 2007 and 2011 gate operating rules
(0 m 3/s to 5,000 m3/s) 23
Figure 8 Wivenhoe lake level and flow – 100 % Full Supply
Volume (0 m3/s to 35,000 m3/s) 25
Figure 9 Wivenhoe lake level and flow – 100 % Full Supply
Volume (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s) 26
Figure 10 Existing gate operating rules – Alternative FSVs (0
m 3/s to 35,000 m3/s) 27
Figure 11 Existing gate operating rules – Alternative FSVs (0
m 3/s to 5,000 m3/s) 28
Figure 12 Existing gate Operating Rules – 2 metre Dam
raising (0 m3/s to 35,000 m3/s) 29
iv
Figure 13 Existing gate Operating Rules – 2 metre Dam
raising (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s) 29
Figure 14 2011 Operating Rules against modified Operating
Rules (0 m3/s to 35,000 m3/s) 30
Figure 15 2011 Operating Rules against modified Operating
Rules (0 m3/s to 5,000 m3/s) 31
Figure 16 Wivenhoe Dam level, inflow and outflow – January
2011 33
Figure 17 Water level and outflow comparison – alternative
FSV 34
Figure 18 Target operating line for Wivenhoe Dam and
Somerset Dam (Seqwater, 2011) 41
Figure 19 Comparison of Seqwater simulated and recorded
hydrographs (Moggill gauge) 42
Figure 20 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 29 Area of land inundated in Brisbane (hectares) –
various flow rates 80
Figure 30 Length of road inundated in Brisbane – various flow
rates 80
Appendices
A Hydrologic Model
B Economic Analysis - Cost Summary
C Economic Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis Results
D Queensland Water Commission Report
E Maps
v
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
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
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
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)
FSV Full Supply Volume
GIS Geographic Information System
GL Gigalitres (one billion litres)
GL/a Gigalitres per annum
HAT Highest Astronomical Tide
4
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
3
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
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
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
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
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 Brisbane’s 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 flood-
prone 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
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 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
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 1974 2011
3 3 3
Catchment Peak flow (m /s) Volume (ML) Peak flow (m /s) Volume (ML) Peak flow (m /s) Volume (ML)
6,053 1,080,976 3,961 551,381 5,519 705,262

Stanley River
Upper Brisbane 8,987 1,718,258 6,121 1,173,460 8,709 1,675,134

River
2,460 501,754 4,423 765,024 5,461 701,832

Lockyer Creek
624 176,593 1,360 197,306 2,289 201,299

Mount Crosby
856 196,825 4,223 631,195 2,446 374,989

Bremer River
TOTAL 3,674,406 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
[8].
358 mm of rainfall in the Upper Brisbane River catchment.
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
Flows into the Wivenhoe Dam area during the 1974 event were approximately half that of the 1893
and 2011 floods; and [9]
[7]
The Port Office gauge recorded a level of approximately 5.5 metres in the 1974 flood.
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
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
[3]
Characteristics of the January 2011 flood include:
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
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
Peak Recorded Level at Port Office without Wivenhoe Dam present Sep 2011
Flood Event (year)
Wivenhoe Dam (metres AHD) FOM (metres AHD)
[7]
1893 8.3* [actual] 4.9 [modelled]
[7]
1974 5.5 [actual] 3.5 [modelled]
[9] [7]
2011 6.46 [modelled] 4.46 [actual]
*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
Linville Peachester
Upper Brisbane Upper Brisbane
Catchment: Catchment: 2.5 hrs
1893: 8,987 m3/s 1893: 1.72 GL Devon Hills

1974: 6,121 m3/s 1974: 1.17 GL
2011: 8,709 m3/s 2011: 1.68 GL
2 hrs
Gatton
Gregors Ck
Peachester
4
hr Rosentretter
s
Cre
ssb 15
hrs
Glenore Grove
Cre rook
ek
Lo
6h
rs
ck
5 Stanley River
hr SOMERSET DAM Catchment:
ye
s
rC
1,312 km2 1893: 6,053 m3/s

8 hrs 1974: 3,961 m3/s
re
Lyons Bridge 2011: 5,519 m3/s

ek
Lockyer
Catchment:
6h
1893: 2,460 m3/s rs WIVENHOE DAM 6,990 km2 Stanley River
1974: 4,423 m3/s Catchment:
2011: 5,461 m3/s
1893: 1.08 GL
O’Reillys Weir 2,974 km2
1974: 0.55 GL
Lockyer 2011: 0.71 GL
Catchment: 1.75
h rs 9,964 km2
2 hrs
1893: 0.51 GL
1974: 0.77 GL
2011: 0.70 GL Lowood 10,012 km2
40 min
Twin Bridge
20 min
Fernvale Bridge
1 hr
Kalbar Rosewood
Mt Crosby Local
Savages Crossing 10,144 km2 Area:
1893: 624 m3/s

4
hr
1974: 1,360 m3/s

s
2.5 hrs 2011: 2,289 m3/s

Burtons Bridge
2.5 hrs
Harrisville Mt Crosby Local
Walloon Area:
4.5 hrs
W
5 Kholo Crossing
hr 639 km2 1893: 0.18 GL
ar
s 1974: 0.20 GL
ril
2011: 0.70 GL
lC
re
Amberley 1 hr
ek
2
913 km
Mt Crosby Weir 10,509 km2
4
hr
s
4.5 hrs
1 hr
David Trumpy Bridge 1,868 km2 Colleges Crossing
Bremer River 3.5 h

rs
Catchment: 3 hrs
1893: 856 m3/s

1974: 4,223 m3/s Moggil 12,597 km2
2011: 2,446 m3/s
Bremer River 5 hrs

Catchment:
1893: 0.20 GL Jindalee 12,888 km2

1974: 0.63 GL
2011: 0.38 GL
5 hrs
City Gauge - Brisbane 13,222 km2
Legend NOT TO SCALE Drawn Designed Client: DEEDI
Peak Flows T.T. T.T. Project: Wivenhoe Options Study – Rapid Assessment
Dam Condition of use:
This document may only be Date: 01/11/2011 Title: Brisbane River Catchment
used by GHD’s client (and any
Location Flood Volumes other person who GHD has This Drawing must not
A Brisbane River Catchment Details TT TT agreed can use this document) be used for
for the purpose for which it has Scale NTS Construction
Drawn Checked
prepared and must not be used
River Name Cumulative Catchment by any other person or for any Original Size
Rev: A
G:\41\24452\Tech\Visio\Catchment_Schematic.vsd other purpose.
A3
Figure 2 1893 Flood Hydrograph
16
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);
3
Late April 1989 (1,700 m /s);
February 1999 (1,900 m3/s);
October 2010 (1,500 m3/s); and
3
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
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.
1
Maritime Safety Queensland 2010
18
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
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 Dam’s 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 Gate operating rules

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
Figure 5 Gate Operating Rules Schematic
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 Gate operating rules
2011 FOM Ver 8 2007 FOM Ver 7

3 3
Min lake level Max lake level Other limits (m /s) Flow Limit (m /s)
(metres AHD) (metres AHD)
W0 67 (FSV) 67.25 no release 0
W1A 67.25 67.5 Colleges Crossing 110

<175
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 Investigation of Options to increase the flood mitigation performance of Wivenhoe Dam 22
3 3
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
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
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.
3 3
Figure 8 Wivenhoe lake level and flow – 100 % Full Supply Volume (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
25
3 3
Figure 9 Wivenhoe lake level and flow – 100 % Full Supply Volume (0 m /s to 5,000 m /s)
5.2 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
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.
3 3
Figure 10 Existing gate operating rules – Alternative FSVs (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
27
3 3
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
3 3
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
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.
3 3
Figure 14 2011 Operating Rules against modified Operating Rules (0 m /s to 35,000 m /s)
30
3 3
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
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
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 Dam’s 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 75.7 77.7
Dam crest flood level 80 82
33
Figure 17 Water level and outflow comparison – alternative FSV
82
80
78
76
Elevation (m AHD)
74
Existing Dam FSL 67m

72
(100% Capacity)
Dam FSL 64m (75%
70
Capacity)
Dam FSL 60m (50%
68
Capacity)
2m Raise to W4 (100%
66
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
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
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
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 Land impacts may be considered within the bounds of the increased flood
resumption 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 Initial advice gained from the power station operators suggest that the station can
power station 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
Area of impact Impact
Toowoomba constructed as part of the LinkWater – Toowoomba Alliance. It is understood that
water supply 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 While not considered in detail as part of this Study some consideration should be
operations given to the impact on any commercial gravel and sand operations within
(gravel) Wivenhoe Dam.
38
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
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
Figure 18 Target operating line for Wivenhoe Dam and Somerset Dam (Seqwater, 2011)
7.1.1 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
Figure 19 Comparison of Seqwater simulated and recorded hydrographs (Moggill gauge)
12,000
Simulated
Recorded
10,000
8,000
Flow Rate (m3/s)
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
28 Dec 2010 02 Jan 2011 07 Jan 2011 12 Jan 2011 17 Jan 2011 22 Jan 2011 27 Jan 2011
Date
7.1.2 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 Hydrologic modelling

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
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 (S5-
S8) 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 Scenario name Scenario description

number
S0 Base case Wivenhoe Dam in operation using minimum gate opening

operating rule as stated in the 2011 FOM.
S1 Straight to W2 with Peak outflow from the Dam of 3,500 m 3/s is reached as quickly
FSV maintained at as practically possible. Flooding of existing crossings is
100% 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 The steady increase in flow output from the Dam to W4 trigger
flow to W4 with the level with the FSV reduced to 75%. This seeks to have a steady
FSV maintained at increase in peak outflow to the W4 trigger level.
75%
S3 A 2 metre raising of The 2 metre raising of the Dam and the fuse plugs and the FSV
the Dam Wall including at 75%. This seeks to increase the flood mitigation storage
the fuse plug levels volume within the Dam, by both raising the Dam and reducing
with the FSV reduced the FSV. This assumes the W4 trigger level is increased from 74
to 75% 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 2 metre raising of the Dam and the fuse plugs and the FSV
the Dam including the at 100%. This seeks to increase the flood mitigation storage
fuse plug levels with volume within the Dam, only by raising the Dam. This assumes
the FSV kept at 100% 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
S5 Uncontrolled flow to This option assumes the gates are permanently kept open to
3,500 m3/s 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 The minimum gate opening rule is applied until a peak outflow
3
3,500 m /s (not rate of 3,500 m3/s is reached. Outflows are maintained and do
feasible – sensitivity not exceed this flow. Under this option water is temporarily held
only) behind the gates as they are progressively opened.
S7 Restrict releases to The minimum gate opening rule is applied until a peak outflow
3 3
1,900 m /s (not rate of 1,900 m /s is reached. Outflows are maintained do not
feasible – sensitivity exceed this flow rate. Under this option water is temporarily held
only) behind the gates as they are progressively opened.
S8 Reduce FSV to 75% or Maintain the existing 2011 FOM gate opening, with a reduction
50% 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
3
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
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 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 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
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
Table 11 2011 Flood – Brisbane River Hydrology Model
S0 – base S1 - Straight S2 - Steady S3 - 2m S4 - 2m S5 - 3

S6 – Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 S7 – Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m /s
case (2011 to W2 FSV to W4, FSV Dam raise Dam raise uncontrolled S8 – September 2011 FOM
m3/s (not feasible – sensitivity only) (not feasible – sensitivity only)
Parameter FOM) 100% 75% FSV 75% FSV 100% 3,500 m3/s
50%
100% FSV 100% FSV 75% FSV 75% FSV 100% FSV 100% FSV 75% FSV 100% FSV 50% FSV 75% FSV 100% FSV 50% FSV 75% FSV 100% FSV
FSV
3
Peak Inflow to Wivenhoe Dam (m /s) 9,600 10,500 10,500 10,500 9,700 10,500 10,500 10,300 9,600 10,500 10,100 9,700 10,500 10,300 9,600
Peak Outflow from Wivenhoe Dam (m3/s) 7,300 3,900 4,400 5,000 5,800 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,900 1,900 1,900 5,400 6,400 7,300
Peak Water Level in Wivenhoe Dam (m AHD) 74.8 74.0 74.2 74.5 75.0 73.7 74.7 75.2 75.8 75.4 76.3 77.3 74.2 74.5 74.8
Peak Water Level in Somerset Dam (m AHD) 105.2 104.8 104.8 104.8 105.1 104.8 104.8 105.0 105.2 104.8 105.1 105.4 104.8 104.9 105.2
3
Peak Flow Rate at Moggill (m /s) 9,100 7,600 7,600 7,600 8,500 7,600 7,500 7,600 7,600 6,700 6,700 6,700 7,700 8,500 9,100
Estimated Peak Water Level at Moggill (m AHD) 16.9 14.7 14.7 14.7 16.0 14.7 14.5 14.7 14.7 13.2 13.2 13.2 14.8 16.0 16.9
3
Peak Flow Rate at Port Office (m /s) 9,100 7,600 7,600 7,600 8,500 7,600 7,500 7,600 7,600 6,700 6,700 6,700 7,700 8,500 9,100
Est. Port Office Level - LAT/Bar at 0.0m (m AHD) 4.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.9 4.3
Est. Port Office Level - HAT/Bar at 2.7m (m AHD) 4.7 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 4.4 4.7
3
Peak Flow Rate at Moggill (m /s) with Fuse Plug
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8,200 NA 8,500 9,700 NA NA NA
Initiated
Table 12 1974 Flood – Brisbane River Hydrology Model

S0 – base S1 - Straight S2 - Steady S3 - 2m S4 - 2m S5 -
S6 – Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 S7 – Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m3/s
50%
FSV
3
3
Peak Outflow from Wivenhoe Dam (m /s) 4,400 3,500 3,500 3,100 4,700 3,500 2,300 3,500 3,500 1,900 1,900 1,900 2,300 3,700 4,400
3
3
3
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Initiated
Table 13 1893 Flood – Brisbane River Hydrology Model,

S0 – base S1 - Straight S2 - Steady S3 - 2m S4 - 2m S5 -
S6 – Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 S7 – Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m3/s
50%
FSV
3
3
Peak Outflow from Wivenhoe Dam (m /s) 9,700 8,600 8,300 6,700 8,300 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 1,900 1,900 1,900 7,500 8,600 9,700
3
3
3
NA NA NA NA NA 8,300 7,900 9,100 10,800 8,000 9,300 11,100 NA NA NA
Initiated
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 S1 S2 S3 S4
base Straight Steady 2m Dam 2m Dam
Parameter case to W2 to W4, raise FSV raise FSV
2001 FSV FSV 75% 75% 100%
FOM 100%
3
Peak Inflow to Wivenhoe Dam (m /s) 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%

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
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 Level of Service (LOS) Objectives and LOS Yield

‘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
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%
LoS yield (ML/a) 500,000 475,000 415,000
LoS shortfall (ML/a) - 20,000 85,000
Number of years
infrastructure is brought - 3 11
forward
Year of additional
2031 2028 2020
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
x 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
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
Table 18 Alternative Options – Workshop Evaluation Summary
Cost Time Flood mitigation Community impact Environment Risk
Options Description
Expand storage capacity of Splityard Creek Dam (storage for hydro plant)
1 Expand Splityard Creek
and pump out of Wivenhoe into Splityard during the flood event
New flood-mitigation-only Dam. Land cleared of structures/trees, but able to
New flood retention dam
2 be used in non-flood periods, possibly for cropping or non-permanent
– Linville
activities
– Emu Creek
activities
– Bremer River
activities
– Lockyer Creek
activities
Bypass channel for Surface-level channel between Brisbane River and the ocean with
6
Brisbane River resumption of houses required
Channel upstream of Surface-level channel between the Dam and other areas (for example,
7
Wivenhoe to divert flow inland)
Connect flood plains,
Various interventions to divert water into existing flood plains and to convert
8 new wetlands, other
some existing flood areas to permanent wetlands
water ways
Planting vegetation on slopes of dam and upstream to 'absorb' some of the
9 Watershed management
floodwater
Water 'gates' to stop water flowing back up non-flooded branches of flooding

10 Backflow prevention
rivers or localised devises in drainage systems
Levees and floodgates

11 Permanent or temporary barriers to keep floodwaters out of key areas
on major streams
Deploy dredging vessels to remove soil, etc. from river to increase flow
12 Dredge Brisbane River
capacity
Strategic annual water release from Wivenhoe to remove soil, etc. from river
13 Flush Brisbane River
to increase flow capacity
Cost Time Flood mitigation Community impact Environment Risk

Key to colours and scales
0-$50m now-3yrs high very low

very low/ positive very low/ positive
$50m-$300m 3-5yrs moderate low low low
$300m-$1b 5-10yrs moderate moderate moderate

moderate, if scaled up
$1b-$10b 10-20yrs low high high high
>$10b >20yrs very low extreme extreme extreme
53
9.2 Expand Splityard Creek Dam storage
Flood Community
Cost Time Environment Risk
mitigation impact
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 New flood retention dam

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
Flood Community
mitigation impact
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
9.3.2 Lockyer Creek and Bremer River catchments
Flood Community
mitigation impact
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 (S1-
S4), it is likely that a similar percentage reduction in the peak flow rate may occur for the respective
floods.
55
Table 19 Influence of Lockyer Creek and Bremer River flows, base case scenario (S0)
Scenario
Flood Excluding
Parameter Excluding Excluding
event Lockyer Creek
Lockyer Creek Bremer River
and Bremer
flow flow
River flow
2011 Port Office Flow (m3/s) 6,200 7,200 4,400
Port Office Level, LAT (metres AHD) 2.4 3.1 1.3
Port Office Level, HAT (metres

3.4 3.9 2.7
AHD)
3
1974 Port Office Flow (m /s) 5,500 5,000 3,100

3.2 3 2.2
AHD)
1893 Port Office Flow (m3/s) 8,500 9,600 8,000

4.4 4.9 4.2
AHD)
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
9.4 Bypass channel for Brisbane River
Flood Community
mitigation impact
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

Flood Community
mitigation impact
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

Flood Community
mitigation impact
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 Watershed management

Flood Community
mitigation impact
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
9.8 Backflow prevention
Flood Community
mitigation impact
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

Flood Community
mitigation impact
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
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

Flood Community
mitigation impact
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
9.10.2 Flush Brisbane River
Flood Community
mitigation impact
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
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.
3
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.
4
Guidance on the Assessment of Tangible Flood Damages, Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines, September
2002
61
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.
5
For data collection and analysis purposes this includes Brisbane City Council, Ipswich City Council and Esk Shire Council areas
6
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
7
Derived from: Cordell Building Indices, Cordell Housing Index Price (CHIP), Queensland, February 2010
62
Figure 20 Estimated flood damage curve – Brisbane City Council*
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
$ m 2006
600
400
200
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 10000
Residential Damage 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.
8
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
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.
9
This incorporates adoption of the SEQ Water Strategy (2010)
10
For example, the UK Treasury’s 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 Government’s guide – Handbook of Cost Benefit Analysis (Department of Finance & Administration, 2006) but no
specific values are provided.
64
Figure 21 Economic Analysis Methodology
Note: BTE = Bureau of Transport Economics
65
Figure 22 Economic Modelling framework
10.2 Hydrologic modelling

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
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
Figure 23 Combined Stage Damage Curve
10.3.2 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 strategy’s 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
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 re-
estimate 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
Figure 24 Loss probability curve – Brisbane (Illustrative)*
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
Damage $m
$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
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 A desalination plant with approximately 30 Constructed to commence

FSV GL/a capacity, including a capital cost of $1.33 operations from 2027 (3 years
billion14 15 prior to current planning)17.
Additional annual operating costs of existing Required project commencement
16
PRW of $2.8 million per annum 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 A desalination plant with approximately 95 Constructed to commence

FSV GL/a capacity with a capital cost of $2.67 operations from 2019 (11 years
billion18 prior to current planning)17 19
Additional annual operating cost of existing Required project commencement
PRW of $12.8 million per annum 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
Option Costs Timing
New desalination operating costs from 2016 of
$1.09 million/GL/a.
Raise the wall at Capital cost of $395 million. Four year planning, approvals and
Wivenhoe Dam construction period commencing
Capital cost estimate includes for the raising of
by 2 metres in 2012 for Dam raising and
the Wivenhoe Dam wall, plus for road
relocation of roads and other
relocation costs and costs of other facilities
assets impacted.
relocation upstream. This estimate does not
include the cost of raising bridges downstream
of the Dam such as Burtons Bridge at Borallan
or College’s 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.
Raise the heights $67.3 million for College’s Crossing Undertake road diversions
of two downstream of Wivenhoe Dam in
$37.9 million for Burton’s Bridge
strategically one year (2012) for 3,000 m3/s
important bridges immunity.
downstream of
Residual values have been
Wivenhoe Dam –
estimated using a straight line
College’s
depreciation method and the
Crossing (Mt
following economic lives have
Crosby Road)
been used: Dam wall extension
and Burton’s
(50 years), new desalination plant
Bridge – to 2000
3 and associated infrastructure (30
m /s immunity in
years), new roads (20 years) and
one year (2012)
bridges (100 years). In the
including planning
Discounted Cashflow Analysis,
and construction:
residual values have been treated
as negative costs (as opposed to
benefits) i.e. as an offset against
capital costs of options
(implementing a project).
A summary of costs is presented in Appendix B.
10.5 Economic evaluation
10.5.1 Overview
Figure 25 sets out the relationship between the economic analysis inputs and the cost benefit analysis
(including sensitivity testing).
72
Figure 25 Economic analysis and cost benefit analysis
Discounted Cash Flow analysis was used to estimate the net economic worth of options assessed.
Measures obtained were NPV20 and BCR21 for each option incremental to the base case. The following
additional indicators were calculated:
change in AAD value – actual ($ 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
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 NPV ($) for 1893 Flood Event options
74
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
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
3
– Year 1974 Flood Release Rate = 1,900 m /s 50% FSV
3
– 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 $1.3 billion; and
The two best performing options are characterised a substantial reduction in peak flow rates (down to
7600 m3/s)and therefore a very substantial economic benefit and nil capital cost requirements.
.
76
Table 21 Economic analysis – summary results
Option Hydrology Capital Expenditure Items Initial Economic Analysis Initial Economic Damage Analysis
Model
Option FSV Flood Estimated Desal Raise Wall Raise Bridges PV Costs PV Benefits NPV BCR Reduced % Probable
Event Peak Flows Earlier ($million) ($million) ($million) AAD Reduced damage
(m3/s) ($million) AAD ($million)
1893 10,100 - -22.1 -22.1 - -2 -1 3,790

S0 – base case 101 53 1,769
100% 1974 7,800 - 1,174.50 1,174.50 -
(2011 FOM)
2011 9,100 - 579.5 579.5 - 50 26 2,782
¥ 56 29 2,672
1893 9,000 63.4 643.9 580.4 10.2
S1 - Straight to ¥
100% 1974 9,400 63.4 386.3 322.9 6.1 33 17 3,111
W2 FSV 100%
¥ 109 57 1,610
2011 7,600 63.4 1,268.20 1,204.8 20.0
1893 8,800 337.8 731.2 393.4 2.16 63 33 2,524

S2 - Steady to W4, 97 51 1,849
75% 1974 7,900 337.8 1,127.60 789.8 3.34
FSV 75%
2011 7,600 337.8 1,268.20 930.4 3.75 109 57 1,610
1893 7,300 582.9 1408.9 826 2.42 122 64 1,370

S3 - 2m Dam 97 51 1,849
75% 1974 7,900 582.9 1,127.60 544.7 1.93
raise FSV 75%
2011 7,600 582.9 1,268.20 685.3 2.18 109 57 1,610
1893 8,700 245.1 481.7 236.6 1.97 67 35 2,449

S4 - 2m Dam raise
100% 1974 7,700 245.1 759.2 514.1 3.1 105 55 1,690
FSV 100%
2011 8,500 245.1 536 290.9 2.19 74 39 2,301
1893
S5 - uncontrolled ¥ 28 15 3,220
100% 1974 9,500 63.4 321.9 258.5 5.1
3,500 m3/s
¥ 109 57 1,610
2011 7,600 63.4 1,268.20 1204.8 20
S6 – Restrict 1893
Release Rate to
3 1974 7,800 - 1,174.50 1,174.50 - 101 53 1,769
3,500 m /s (not 100%
feasible –
sensitivity only) 2011
Release Rate to
3 1974 7,200 337.8 1,455.80 1,118.00 4.31 126 66 1,291
3,500 m /s (not 75%
feasible –
sensitivity only) 2011 7,600 337.8 1,268.20 930.4 3.75 109 57 1,610
77
Option Hydrology Capital Expenditure Items Initial Economic Analysis Initial Economic Damage Analysis
Model
Option FSV Flood Estimated Desal Raise Wall Raise Bridges PV Costs PV Benefits NPV BCR Reduced % Probable
Event Peak Flows Earlier ($million) ($million) ($million) AAD Reduced damage
3
(m /s) ($million) AAD ($million)
Release Rate to
3,500 m3/s (not 50% 1974 7,100 2,084.40 1,502.60 -581.8 0.72 130 68 1,211
feasible –
2011 7,500 2,084.40 1,315.10 -769.3 0.63 113 59 1,530
sensitivity only)
Release Rate to
1,900 m3/s (not 100% 1974 7,800 63.4 1,174.50 1,111.00 18.5 101 53 1769
feasible –
Release Rate to
3 1974 7,200 401.2 1,455.80 1,054.50 3.63 126 66 1,291
1,900 m /s (not 75%
feasible –
Release Rate to
1,900 m3/s (not 50% 1974 7,100 2,147.90 1,502.6 -645.2 0.7 130 68 1,211
feasible –
2011 6,700 2,147.90 1,668 -479.9 0.78 144 75 929
sensitivity only)
1893 10,100 - -22.1 -22.1 - -2 -1 3,790

S8
September 2011 100% 1974 7,800 - 1,174.50 1,174.50 - 101 53 1,769
FOM 50 26 2,782
2011 9,100 - 579.5 579.5 -
1893 9,000 337.8 643.9 306.1 1.91 56 29 2,672

S8
September 2011 75% 1974 7,200 337.8 1,455.80 1,118.00 4.31 126 66 1,291
FOM 74 39 2,301
2011 8,500 337.8 862.3 524.5 2.55
1893 8,000 2,084.40 1,080.70 -1,003.7 0.52 93 49 1,929

S8
September 2011 50% 1974 7,100 2,084.40 1,502.60 -581.8 0.72 130 68 1,211
FOM 105 55 1,690
2011 7,700 2,084.40 1221.3 -863 0.59
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
Figure 29 Area of land inundated in Brisbane (hectares) – various flow rates
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Flow rates m3/ sec
Figure 30 Length of road inundated in Brisbane – various flow rates
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
Flow rate m3 / sec
Main Roads & Motorways (kms) Total KMs road inundated
80
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 %CV

annual daily
traffic
Mount Crosby Road Colleges Crossing 9,539 4.2
Brisbane Valley Highway Brisbane Valley Highway north of 8,580 10.5

Lovers Lane
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 Brisbane Valley Highway Junction 500 6.0
Mount Glorious Road 500 6.0
Warrego Highway 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
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 Queensland’s bulk water pricing; and
Analysis using the actual damage curves from January 2011 rather than the scaled 2007 damage
curves.
82
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
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
12. References
12.1 Queensland Water Commission

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
12.4 Brisbane City Council24
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
[14] City Design, Brisbane River Flood Study, 1999
[15] Allens Arthur Robinson, Seqwater – Response to Mr Babister’s 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
Appendix A
Hydrologic Model
Results
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
GHD
DRAFT - NOT FOR EXTERNAL USE
Wivenhoe Dam Flood Mitigatiion Options, Rapid Assessment - Cost Summary

Nov-11
Water Desalination Plant Wivenhoe Dam Raising Bridge Raising
Wyaralong Water 95MLD 300MLD

WTP and Pipeline (30GL/annum) (100GL/Annum) 2m Dam Raising 4m Dam Raising Colleges Burtons Crossing
% ($millions) % ($millions) ($millions) % ($millions) ($millions) % ($millions) ($millions)
Direct costs 286 890 1787 202.7 671.8 34.76 19.4

Design Costs 6% 17.2 5% 44.5 5% 89.4 6% 12.2 6% 40.3 15% 5.2 2.9
Construction Supervision incl 5% 44.5 5% 89.4 6% 12.2 6% 40.3 incl incl
Owners Costs 6% 17.2 5% 44.5 5% 89.4 10% 20.3 10% 67.2 6% 2.1 1.2
Contingency 15% 48.1 30% 306.9 30% 616.6 60% 148.4 60% 491.8 60% 25.2 14.1
Escallation Allowance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total estimate (Direct and Indirect) 368.5 1329.9 2671.8 395.7 1311.4 67.3 37.6
Evaluation Year (starts) 2023 2023 2018 2012 2012 2012 2012
Assumed Capex Expenditure Profile 2 years 4 Years 5 years 4 years 4 years 2 years
Year 1 30% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Year 2 70% 5% 5% 5% 5% 95% 95%
Year 3 25% 15% 45% 45%
Year 4 65% 20% 45% 45%
Year 5 55%
Economic Assumptions
Discount Rate 7%
Eventuation Period Year 0 = 2011 and Year 20 = 2031
Sensitivity parameters:
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)
- 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.
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 LS 1 10000 $10,000 $300,000 $300,000
Clearing of existing road and services Sq m 35000 5 $175,000 $50 $1,750,000
$0 $0
Excavation $0 $0
Excavation Right Embankment cu m 34000 5 $170,000 $25 $850,000
Excavation Left Embankment cu m 12400 5 $62,000 $25 $310,000
$0 $0
Earthworks $0 $0
Left Embankment $0 $0
Rip Rap cu m 141857 30 $4,255,710 $100 $14,185,700
River Gravel cu m 10800 20 $216,000 $80 $864,000
Clay Core cu m 9600 7 $67,200 $25 $240,000
Sand Filter cu m 4640 30 $139,200 $100 $464,000
Gravel Filter cu m 2640 30 $79,200 $100 $264,000
River Run Fill cu m 68528 20 $1,370,560 $50 $3,426,400
Rolled Sandstone - bulk fill cu m 312213 6 $1,873,278 $25 $7,805,325
$0 $0
Right Embankment $0 $0
Rip Rap cu m 63179 30 $1,895,370 $100 $6,317,900
River Gravel cu m 2400 20 $48,000 $80 $192,000
Clay Core cu m 8800 7 $61,600 $25 $220,000
Semi Pervious Soil cu m 6160 20 $123,200 $25 $154,000
Sand Filter cu m 6160 30 $184,800 $100 $616,000
Gravel Filter cu m 6160 30 $184,800 $100 $616,000
River Run Fill cu m 22872 20 $457,440 $50 $1,143,600
Rolled Sandstone - bulk fill cu m 85815 6 $514,890 $25 $2,145,375
$0 $0
Protection works $0 $0
Wave Wall 0.7 m lineal m 4600 350 $1,610,000 $1,000 $4,600,000
SUB TOTAL $13,498,248 $46,464,300
Spillway Riasing
General
Hydraulic Model LS 1 75000 $75,000 $250,000 $250,000
$0 $0
Retaining Walls (92 m type A, 190 m type B 27 m removable panels) $0 $0
$0 $0
Approach Embankment Type A $0 $0
Concrete cu m 286 350 $100,100 $2,500 $715,000
Reinforcing t 75 1200 $90,000 $3,000 $225,000
Excavation cu m 133 20 $2,660 $100 $13,300
$0 $0
Gravity Retaining Wall Type B $0 $0
Concrete cu m 595 350 $208,250 $2,500 $1,487,500
Reinforcing t 76 1200 $91,200 $3,000 $228,000
$0 $0
Retaining Wall around Inlet structure (removable panels) $0 $0
Concrete cu m 9 350 $3,150 $2,500 $22,500
Reinforcing t 3 1200 $3,600 $3,000 $9,000
Removable panels sq m 84 200 $16,800 $1,000 $84,000
$0 $0
Retaining Wall Around Spillway Structure $0 $0
Left Bank Vertical Wall Raise $0 $0
Remove existing road m 130 50 $6,500 $500 $65,000
Excavation cu m 1911 15 $28,665 $25 $47,775
Concrete cu m 1100 400 $440,000 $2,500 $2,750,000
Cut off Trench cu m 86 350 $30,100 $5,000 $430,000
Reinforcement t 160 1200 $192,000 $3,000 $480,000
Compacted Select Backfill cu m 1458 15 $21,870 $35 $51,030
$0 $0
Right Bank Vertical Wall Raise $0 $0
Left Bank Vertical Wall Raise $0 $0
Remove existing road m 100 50 $5,000 $500 $50,000
Excavation cu m 3600 15 $54,000 $25 $90,000
Concrete cu m 1050 400 $420,000 $2,500 $2,625,000
Cut off Trench cu m 72 350 $25,200 $5,000 $360,000
Reinforcement t 157 1200 $188,400 $3,000 $471,000
Sand Filter cu m 420 30 $12,600 $100 $42,000
Compacted Select Backfill cu m 2622 15 $39,330 $35 $91,770
$0 $0
Spillway Strengthening (done Wivenhoe Alliance 2003-5) $0 $0
$0 $0
Deflector Wall Modifications (assumes extend wall or new wall and gates OK) $0 $0
Modify / extend existing deflector baffle LS 1 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000
$0 $0
Existing Fuse Plug Modifications (raise by 2m) $0 $0
Concrete Training Walls cu m 254 $0 $2,500 $635,000
Bulk Fill cu m 8032 $0 $35 $281,120
Clay Core cu m 722 $0 $25 $18,050
Items from GHD 2001
Filter Zones cu m 459 $0 $100 $45,900
Rip Rap cu m 8032 $0 $100 $803,200
$0 $0
$0 $0
Access Tracks / Bulkhead Doors $0 $0
Track to service bridge LHS each 1 30000 $30,000 $100,000 $100,000
Track to service bridge RHS each 1 30000 $30,000 $100,000 $100,000
Sliding Bulkhead for 3t gantry each 1 50000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000
$0 $0
Left Bank Control Building and Misc $0 $0
Bulkhead Door each 1 10000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000
Reinforce Viewing Window each 1 1000 $1,000 $5,000 $5,000
Electrical cable portal each 2 500 $1,000 $2,000 $4,000
Winch cable portal each 1 63750 $63,750 $200,000 $200,000
Water quality bulkhead winch motors (3hp) each 6 6000 $36,000 $10,000 $60,000
Water sampling pumps each 11 500 $5,500 $3,000 $33,000
3t gantry crane wheel motors each 4 2000 $8,000 $10,000 $40,000
Relocate Flood Alert Systems each 2 300 $600 $10,000 $20,000
Radial Gates Securing Mechanism each 5 5000 $25,000 $25,000 $125,000
SUB TOTAL $2,325,275 $18,488,145
Raising of Existing Spillway Bridge
Removal of existing deck units

saw cutting lineal m 1063 10 $10,630 $100 $106,300
coring lineal m 396 10 $3,960 $350 $138,600
general preparation LS 1 10000 $10,000 $200,000 $200,000
$0 $0
Demolition of existing headstocks $0 $0
Demolition LS 1 50000 $50,000 $250,000 $250,000
$0 $0
Concrete Works (incl reinforcement) $0 $0
pier columns cu m 155 1000 $155,000 $2,500 $387,500
pier headstocks cu m 444 2000 $888,000 $3,500 $1,554,000
blade piers cu m 25 1000 $25,000 $2,500 $62,500
abutment footings cu m 40 800 $32,000 $2,500 $100,000
abutment piers cu m 4 1200 $4,800 $2,500 $10,000
abutment headstocks cu m 20 1000 $20,000 $2,500 $50,000
insitu kerbs cu m 29 500 $14,500 $2,000 $58,000
relieving slabs cu m 14 450 $6,300 $2,500 $35,000
$0 $0
Place, grout and stress existing Dus each 80 1500 $120,000 $4,000 $320,000
New traffic barriers lineal m 250 350 $87,500 $1,000 $250,000
asphalt surfacing sq m 1075 40 $43,000 $250 $268,750
SUB TOTAL $1,470,690 $3,790,650
Approach Bridges to Connect with existing road bridge
Concrete Works (incl reinforcement)

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

Asphalt sq m 32200 40 $1,288,000 $250 $8,050,000
Roadbase type 2.1 cu m 9660 50 $483,000 $100 $966,000
Drainage lineal m 4600 15 $69,000 $75 $345,000
$0 $0
Lighting $0 $0
Lighting 100 m intervals alternate sides each 50 6000 $300,000 $15,000 $750,000
SUB TOTAL $2,140,000 $10,111,000
Saddle Dam No 1 Downstream Raising
General
$0 $0
Earthworks $0 $0
Excavation OTR cu m 2760 2.5 $6,900 $15 $41,400
Excavation Rippable Rock cu m 2300 10 $23,000 $50 $115,000
Rip Rap cu m 1274 30 $38,220 $100 $127,400
Transition Zone cu m 978 15 $14,670 $75 $73,350
Miscellaneous Fill cu m 16208 6 $97,248 $25 $405,200
Items from GHD 2001
$0 $0
Protection Works $0 $0
Roadbase on crest (300 thick) sq m 920 12.6 $11,592 $100 $92,000
Hydromulch sq m 5750 1.5 $8,625 $10 $57,500
SUB TOTAL $210,255 $986,850
Saddle Dam No 2 Downstream Raising
General
$0 $0
Earthworks $0 $0
Rip Rap cu m 3966 30 $118,980 $100 $396,600
Miscellaneous Fill cu m 46074 6 $276,444 $25 $1,151,850
Clay Core cu m 5074 7 $35,518 $25 $126,850
$0 $0
Hydromulch sq m 6250 1.5 $9,375 $10 $62,500
SUB TOTAL $543,537 $2,323,400
Coominya Saddle Dam
General
$0 $0
Earthworks $0 $0
Rip Rap cu m 2475 30 $74,250 $100 $247,500
Miscellaneous Fill cu m 7983 6 $47,898 $25 $199,575
$0 $0
Hydromulch sq m 3984 1.5 $5,976 $10 $39,840
SUB TOTAL $263,434 $1,284,735
Up Stream Impact rectification
Minor road improvements 9m wide sq m 10000 350 $3,500,000

creek rehabilitation works LS 1 300000 $300,000
Additional land resumption sq m excl
Power Station impacts (plug) LS 1 500000 $500,000
Other impacts costs (enviro, commecial comp.) LS 1 750000 $750,000
SUB TOTAL $5,050,000 $5,050,000
Diversion Road downstream of dam main wall - 3000 cumec immunity
Bridge Works (650m x 12 wide) sq m 7800 6000 $46,800,000

Diversion roadworks (5200m x 12m wide) sq m 62400 420 $26,208,000
Intersection works sum 1 2000000 $2,000,000
SUB TOTAL $75,008,000 $75,008,000
Total Estimated Items $168,939,580

Environmental control during construction percent 10 $16,893,958
Unestimated Items percent 10 $16,893,958
Total Construction Works $202,727,496
Owners Costs percent 10 $20,272,750

Engineering Design and Planning percent 6 $12,163,650
Construction Supervision percent 6 $12,163,650
Total dam Capex (exclu contingency $247,327,545
Contingency - dam works percent 60 $148,396,527
TOTAL ALL COSTS* $395,724,072

*excludes land resumption costs
Appendix C
Economic Analysis - Sensitivity Analysis
Results
Base Summary
Peak Flow Rate at Port Office reduction in % reduction in Probable damage of Probable damage
PV Costs PV Benefits NPV ($) BCR
(m3/s) AADs ($ m) AADs event relative to Jan 2011
Year 2011 Flood ($ m) ($ m) $ $
Base Case Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100 50 26% 2,782 110 - 579,483,505 579,483,505
Straight to W2 100% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 63,429,584 1,268,233,552 1,204,803,969 19.99
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100 50 26% 2,782 110 - 579,483,505 579,483,505
Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 63,429,584 1,268,233,552 1,204,803,969 19.99
Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m3/s 50% FSL 6700 144 75% 929 - 1,743 2,147,871,555 1,668,029,565 - 479,841,990 0.78
Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 m3/s 50% FSL 7500 113 59% 1,530 - 1,142 2,084,441,971 1,315,113,361 - 769,328,609 0.63
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7700 105 55% 1,690 - 983 2,084,441,971 1,221,353,743 - 863,088,227 0.59
Steady Increase to W4 75% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 337,802,083 1,268,233,552 930,431,469 3.75
Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 m3/s 75% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 337,802,083 1,268,233,552 930,431,469 3.75
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 8500 74 39% 2,301 - 372 337,802,083 862,292,439 524,490,356 2.55
2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels 100% FSL 8500 74 39% 2,301 - 372 245,116,642 535,998,283 290,881,641 2.19
2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels 75% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 582,918,725 1,268,233,552 685,314,828 2.18
Year 1974 Flood

Base Case Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 1,174,473,935 1,174,473,935
Straight to W2 100% FSL 9400 33 17% 3,111 438 63,429,584 386,322,337 322,892,753 6.09
Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 63,429,584 1,174,473,935 1,111,044,351 18.52
Release Rate = 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 1,174,473,935 1,174,473,935
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 1,174,473,935 1,174,473,935
Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 9500 28 15% 3,220 548 63,429,584 321,935,281 258,505,697 5.08
Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s 50% FSL 7100 130 68% 1,211 - 1,462 2,147,871,555 1,502,632,597 - 645,238,957 0.70
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7100 130 68% 1,211 - 1,462 2,084,441,971 1,502,632,597 - 581,809,374 0.72
Steady Increase to W4 75% FSL 7900 97 51% 1,849 - 823 337,802,083 1,127,594,126 789,792,042 3.34
Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s 75% FSL 7200 126 66% 1,291 - 1,382 401,231,667 1,455,752,788 1,054,521,121 3.63
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 7200 126 66% 1,291 - 1,382 337,802,083 1,455,752,788 1,117,950,705 4.31
2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels 75% FSL 7900 97 51% 1,849 - 823 582,918,725 1,127,594,126 544,675,401 1.93
Year 1893 Flood

Base Case Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100 - 2 -1% 3,790 1,118 - - 22,140,975 - 22,140,975
Straight to W2 100% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 63,429,584 643,870,562 580,440,978 10.15
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100 - 2 -1% 3,790 1,118 - - 22,140,975 - 22,140,975
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 8000 93 49% 1,929 - 743 2,084,441,971 1,080,714,317 - 1,003,727,654 0.52
Steady Increase to W4 75% FSL 8800 63 33% 2,524 - 149 337,802,083 731,239,313 393,437,229 2.16
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 337,802,083 643,870,562 306,068,478 1.91
4% Real Discount Rate
Year 2011 Flood ($ m) ($ m) $ $
Straight to W2 100% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 53,705,987 1,595,990,916 1,542,284,928 29.72
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100 50 26% 2,782 110 - 729,242,976 729,242,976
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7700 105 55% 1,690 - 983 2,235,576,775 1,536,995,671 - 698,581,104 0.69
Steady Increase to W4 75% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 416,342,664 1,595,990,916 1,179,648,252 3.83
Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 m3/s 75% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 416,342,664 1,595,990,916 1,179,648,252 3.83
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 8500 74 39% 2,301 - 372 416,342,664 1,085,139,954 668,797,291 2.61
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9400 33 17% 3,111 438 53,705,987 486,161,984 432,455,997 9.05
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 1,478,000,426 1,478,000,426
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7100 130 68% 1,211 - 1,462 2,235,576,775 1,890,967,141 - 344,609,634 0.85
Steady Increase to W4 75% FSL 7900 97 51% 1,849 - 823 416,342,664 1,419,005,180 1,002,662,517 3.41
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 7200 126 66% 1,291 - 1,382 416,342,664 1,831,971,896 1,415,629,232 4.40
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 53,705,987 810,269,974 756,563,986 15.09
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100 - 2 -1% 3,790 1,118 - - 27,863,003 - 27,863,003
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 8000 93 49% 1,929 - 743 2,235,576,775 1,360,009,935 - 875,566,839 0.61
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 416,342,664 810,269,974 393,927,310 1.95
2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels 75% FSL 7300 122 64% 1,370 - 1,302 637,506,563 1,772,976,651 1,135,470,087 2.78
10% Real Discount Rate
Year 2011 Flood ($ m) ($ m) $ $
Straight to W2 100% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 66,265,032 1,040,659,469 974,394,437 15.70
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100 50 26% 2,782 110 - 475,499,955 475,499,955
Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 66,265,032 1,040,659,469 974,394,437 15.70
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7700 105 55% 1,690 - 983 1,877,004,631 1,002,191,857 - 874,812,774 0.53
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 8500 74 39% 2,301 - 372 269,624,426 707,561,151 437,936,725 2.62
Year 1974 Flood

Base Case Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 963,724,244 963,724,244
Straight to W2 100% FSL 9400 33 17% 3,111 438 66,265,032 316,999,970 250,734,938 4.78
Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 66,265,032 963,724,244 897,459,211 14.54
Release Rate = 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 963,724,244 963,724,244
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 963,724,244 963,724,244
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7100 130 68% 1,211 - 1,462 1,877,004,631 1,232,997,533 - 644,007,098 0.66
Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s 75% FSL 7200 126 66% 1,291 - 1,382 335,889,458 1,194,529,920 858,640,462 3.56
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 7200 126 66% 1,291 - 1,382 269,624,426 1,194,529,920 924,905,494 4.43
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 66,265,032 528,333,283 462,068,251 7.97
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100 - 2 -1% 3,790 1,118 - - 18,167,959 - 18,167,959
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 8000 93 49% 1,929 - 743 1,877,004,631 886,789,019 - 990,215,612 0.47
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 269,624,426 528,333,283 258,708,858 1.96
Desalination Built 6 Years Earlier
Year 2011 Flood ($ m) ($ m) $ $
Base Case Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100
Straight to W2 100% FSL 7600
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100
Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 7600
Restrict Release Rate to 1,900 m3/s 50% FSL 6700
Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 m3/s 50% FSL 7500
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7700
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 8500 74 39% 2,301 - 372 564,686,825 862,292,439 297,605,614 1.53
2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels 100% FSL 8500
Year 1974 Flood

Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s 100% FSL 7800
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800
Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 9500
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7100
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 7200 126 66% 1,291 - 1,382 564,686,825 1,455,752,788 891,065,963 2.58
Year 1893 Flood

Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 8000
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 564,686,825 643,870,561 79,183,736 1.14
20% Increase Cost & 20% Reduced Benefits
Year 2011 Flood ($ m) ($ m) $ $
Straight to W2 100% FSL 7600 109 57% 1,610 - 1,063 76,115,500 1,521,880,263 1,445,764,762 19.99
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100 50 26% 2,782 110 - 695,380,206 695,380,206
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7700 105 55% 1,690 - 983 2,501,330,365 1,465,624,492 - 1,035,705,873 0.59
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 8500 74 39% 2,301 - 372 405,362,500 1,034,750,927 629,388,427 2.55
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9400 33 17% 3,111 438 76,115,500 463,586,804 387,471,304 6.09
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 101 53% 1,769 - 903 - 1,409,368,721 1,409,368,721
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7100 130 68% 1,211 - 1,462 2,501,330,365 1,803,159,117 - 698,171,248 0.72
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 7200 126 66% 1,291 - 1,382 405,362,500 1,746,903,346 1,341,540,846 4.31
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 76,115,500 772,644,674 696,529,173 10.15
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100 - 2 -1% 3,790 1,118 - - 26,569,170 - 26,569,170
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 8000 93 49% 1,929 - 743 2,501,330,365 1,296,857,180 - 1,204,473,185 0.52
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 9000 56 29% 2,672 - 405,362,500 772,644,674 367,282,174 1.91
20% Benefits Increase
Year 2011 Flood ($ m) ($ m) $ $
Straight to W2 100% FSL 7600 131 69% 1,610 - 1,063 63,429,584 1,521,880,263 1,458,450,679 23.99
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100 60 31% 2,782 110 - 695,380,206 695,380,206
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7700 126 66% 1,690 - 983 2,084,441,971 1,465,624,492 - 618,817,479 0.70
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 8500 89 47% 2,301 - 372 337,802,083 1,034,750,927 696,948,844 3.06
Year 1974 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9400 40 21% 3,111 438 63,429,584 463,586,804 400,157,221 7.31
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 122 64% 1,769 - 903 - 1,409,368,721 1,409,368,721
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7100 156 81% 1,211 - 1,462 2,084,441,971 1,803,159,117 - 281,282,854 0.87
Steady Increase to W4 75% FSL 7900 117 61% 1,849 - 823 337,802,083 1,353,112,951 1,015,310,868 4.01
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 7200 151 79% 1,291 - 1,382 337,802,083 1,746,903,346 1,409,101,263 5.17
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9000 67 35% 2,672 - 63,429,584 772,644,674 709,215,090 12.18
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100 - 2 -1% 3,790 1,118 - - 26,569,170 - 26,569,170
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 8000 112 59% 1,929 - 743 2,084,441,971 1,296,857,180 - 787,584,791 0.62
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 9000 67 35% 2,672 - 337,802,083 772,644,674 434,842,591 2.29
2 Metre Raise to W4 & Fuse Plug Levels 75% FSL 7300 146 76% 1,370 - 1,302 582,918,725 1,690,647,575 1,107,728,850 2.90
20% Benefits Reduction
Year 2011 Flood ($ m) ($ m) $ $
Straight to W2 100% FSL 7600 88 46% 1,610 - 1,063 63,429,584 1,014,586,842 951,157,258 16.00
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 9100 40 21% 2,782 110 - 463,586,804 463,586,804
Uncontrolled Flow to 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 7600 88 46% 1,610 - 1,063 63,429,584 1,014,586,842 951,157,258 16.00
Restrict Release Rate to 3,500 m3/s 50% FSL 7500 91 48% 1,530 - 1,142 2,084,441,971 1,052,090,689 - 1,032,351,282 0.50
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7700 84 44% 1,690 - 983 2,084,441,971 977,082,995 - 1,107,358,976 0.47
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 8500 59 31% 2,301 - 372 337,802,083 689,833,951 352,031,868 2.04
Year 1974 Flood

Base Case Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 81 42% 1,769 - 903 - 939,579,148 939,579,148
Straight to W2 100% FSL 9400 27 14% 3,111 438 63,429,584 309,057,870 245,628,286 4.87
Release Rate = 1,900 m3/s 100% FSL 7800 81 42% 1,769 - 903 63,429,584 939,579,148 876,149,564 14.81
Release Rate = 3,500 m3/s 100% FSL 7800 81 42% 1,769 - 903 - 939,579,148 939,579,148
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 7800 81 42% 1,769 - 903 - 939,579,148 939,579,148
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 7100 104 54% 1,211 - 1,462 2,084,441,971 1,202,106,078 - 882,335,893 0.58
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 7200 100 53% 1,291 - 1,382 337,802,083 1,164,602,231 826,800,147 3.45
Year 1893 Flood

Straight to W2 100% FSL 9000 44 23% 2,672 - 63,429,584 515,096,449 451,666,865 8.12
Sep 2011 FOM 100% FSL 10100 - 2 -1% 3,790 1,118 - - 17,712,780 - 17,712,780
Sep 2011 FOM 50% FSL 8000 75 39% 1,929 - 743 2,084,441,971 864,571,453 - 1,219,870,518 0.41
Sep 2011 FOM 75% FSL 9000 44 23% 2,672 - 337,802,083 515,096,449 177,294,366 1.52
Appendix D
Queensland Water Commission Report
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
i
QWC INFORMATION MATERIAL ONLY
Document Control
Date Author/Reviewer Description Version
7/10/2011 Wendy Auton First draft 1
7/10/2011 Mark Askins Review 2
7/10/2011 Rolf Rose Review 2
7/10/2011 Wai-Tong Wong Review 2
7/10/2011 Abel Immaraj Review 3
19/10/2011 Wendy Auton Additional runs with Hinze Dam 4

raising and Wyaralong Water
Treatment Plant
19/10/2011 Wai-Tong Wong Review 4
19/10/2011 Mark Askins Review 4
19/10/2011 Abel Immaraj Review and Approval 4
20/10/2011 Gayle Leaver Approval 4
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
Table of Contents
1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................2
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
3 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 LOSyields .........................................................................................................................10
3.2 Longtermsupplydemandbalance ....................................................................................11
3.3 FrequencyoftriggeringfulldesalinationandPRWadditiontoWivenhoeDam ..................13
4 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 14
APPENDIXA:GRID12STORAGESINSOUTHEASTQUEENSLAND .................. 15
D/11/050389 iii
Abbreviations
FSV Full Supply Volume in Megalitres when the dam is at

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

Grid 12 Storage
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 Queensland Water Commission
SEQ South East Queensland
WATHNET Model Generalised Water Supply Headworks Simulation Using

Network Linear Programming Model
2010 Price Path Bulk water price review in November 2010 (residential
Review consumption increasing from 180 L/p/d in 2011 to 200
l/p/d by 2018)
2010 SEQ Water Infrastructure as per 15 July 2010 SEQ Water Strategy
Strategy including Tugun desalination, Purified Recycled Water,
Infrastructure 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.
x 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 non-
residential).
x 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.
x 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.
1
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 Project’s 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 QWC’s prior review and
approval.
D/11/050389 2
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;
x 2010 Infrastructure with the commissioning of Hinze Dam Raising; and
x 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 Supply

that can be supplied that is
compliant with the LOS
commitment
2. Long term supply demand To identify the year when it Time for possible
balance is likely that supply is not augmentation
sufficient to maintain the
LOS commitment
D/11/050389 3
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 4
Table 2: Summary of assessment framework showing details of each LOS assessment scenario
Assessment Assumptions Option Scenario Description Scenario Number Results

Type Reference
(Column 3) (Column 4) (based on (in Report)
(Column 1) Columns 1,3 & 4)
Wivenhoe Dam FSV

permanently reduced by:
x 2010 SEQ Water Strategy
(1) LOS yield Infrastructure (1) Permanent reductions in the (1) 0%
1.1.1 Section 3.1
assessment FSV of Wivenhoe Dam
x Full desalination production (2) 25%
with 2010 1.1.2
infrastructure at 125 ML/d (3) 50%
Reason: to assess the LOS yield
1.1.3
x Purified Recycled Water impacts of permanent FSV
(PRW) produced to meet reductions.
power stations and industrial
Purpose demands at all times
To determine x PRW maximum production

yields and (142 ML/d) when Grid 12
potential storages drop below 40%
augmentation capacity for addition to
date Wivenhoe Dam.
Model
WATHNET
5

Type Reference
Wivenhoe Dam FSV

x 2010 SEQ Water Strategy
(2) LOS yield Infrastructure (1) Permanent reductions in the (1) 0%
2.1.1 Section 3.1
assessment FSV of Wivenhoe Dam
with 2010 2.1.2
infrastructure at 125 ML/d (3) 50%
2.1.3
plus x Purified Recycled Water impacts of permanent FSV
commissioning (PRW) produced to meet reductions due to the
the raised Hinze power stations and industrial commissioning of Hinze Dam
Dam demands at all times raising.
x PRW maximum production
(142 ML/d) when Grid 12
Purpose storages drop below 40%
capacity for addition to
To determine Wivenhoe Dam
yields and x Additional allocation 7,700
potential ML/a and additional storage
augmentation volume 149,656 ML from
date commissioning the raised
Hinze Dam (Full Supply
Model Volume is 310,727 ML).
WATHNET
D/11/050389 6

Type Reference
Wivenhoe Dam FSV

(3) LOS yield
assessment x 2010 SEQ Water Strategy
with 2010 Infrastructure (1) Permanent reductions in the (1) 0%
3.1.1 Section 3.1
infrastructure FSV of Wivenhoe Dam
plus 3.1.2
commissioning at 125 ML/d (3) 50%
3.1.3
the raised x Purified Recycled Water impacts of permanent FSV
Hinze Dam as (PRW) produced to meet reductions due to proposed
well as power stations and industrial Wyaralong WTP (after Hinze Dam
Wyaralong Dam demands at all times raising).
WTP Stage 2
x PRW maximum production
(142 ML/day) when Grid 12
storages drop below 40%
Purpose capacity for addition to
Wivenhoe Dam
To determine x Additional allocation 7,700
yields and ML/a and additional storage
potential volume 149,656 ML from
augmentation commissioning the raised
date Hinze Dam (Full Supply
Volume is 310,727 ML).
Model
x Additional allocation of
WATHNET 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).
D/11/050389 7
2.3 Level of Service (LOS) Objectives and LOS Yield
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).
x 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
o Medium Level Restrictions will only reduce consumption by 15 per cent below
the total consumption volume in normal operating mode
o Drought response infrastructure will be not be required to be built more than

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

more than once every 1000 years, on average
o Regional water storages do not reach 5 per cent of combined storage capacity
o Wivenhoe, Hinze and Baroon Pocket dams do not reach minimum operating
levels
o 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).
8
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 9
3 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);
x 20,000 ML/a for Wivenhoe Dam at 75% FSV (Scenarios 1.1.2 and 2.1.2) and;
x 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
Table 3: LOS yield for scenarios modelling permanent reduction of FSV of

Wivenhoe Dam
Infrastructure Strategy 2010 Strategy 2010 Plus Strategy 2010 Plus

commissioning the raised Commissioning Hinze Dam
Hinze Dam Plus Wyaralong WTP Stage 2
Wivenhoe Scenario LOS Scenario LOS LOS Scenario LOS LOS

Dam number Yield number Yield Yield number Yield Yield
(ML/a) Increase (ML/a) Increase*
% FSV (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
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
1.1.1 100%
800,000 1.1.2 75%
1.1.3 50
700,000
Base demand (200 Lpd res, 130 Lpd nonres,

medium series population growth)
Megalitres/year
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
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

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

medium series population growth)
Megalitres/year
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Year
D/11/050389 12
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 Frequency of Frequency of

% FSV
reaching 60% reaching 40%
1.1.1 100% Once in 8 years Once in 35 years
D/11/050389 13
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 non-
residential).
x 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.
x 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;
x 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;
x Cost impact of bringing forward the next supply augmentation;
x Increased likelihood of triggering desalination and/or PRW;
x 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
x Increased likelihood and extent of water restrictions, particularly in the case of the
50% reduction.
D/11/050389 14
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
ay
hw
ig
H
et t
B u rn
D'A
Bru
g
ui
ce
la
y
wa
rH
H ig
i gh
ig
H wa
h
ya
h w ay
Bun y
w ay
i l a r Hi gh
BR
IS
D 'A g u
BA
CALOUNDRA
N E
R IV
ER
YARRAMAN
ay
w
D
ig h
ay 'A g
w ui
eH
gh la r H
Hi i g hway D 'Aguilar H igh w
nd
Bru c
K a y
g la EE
En
R
CR
ew KILCOY
E
V
RI
R
WOODFORD
N
Y S TA N L E Y
CO
O SOMERSET
EEK
R REGIONAL
Stanley River
C
U
COUNCIL
EM
Somerset
Dam
Ne
wE
Brisbane River TOOGOOLAWAH MORETON
BAY
ng
EK
la
RE
nd
REGIONAL
C
Hi
OK
gh
COUNCIL
w
B RO
ay
NARANGBA
SS
RE
ESK
C
CROWS NEST
Cressbrook Wivenhoe
Creek Dam
Perseverance Dam
Dam
y
wa Splityard
i gh COOMINYA Creek Dam MOUNT NEBO
H
d
an
R
gl
HAMILTON IV E
En
Atkinson's
W
FERNVALE ER
AN
w
Dam
ar
Enoggera ISB
Ne
go
re
Hi HY S CREE K Dam BR
g hw M U RP Lake
ay Manchester Gold Ck
Dam BRISBANE
Dam
LO
C
KY GATTON MOGGIL ROCKLEA
E R C RE
TOOWOOMBA
EK
GRANTHAM BRISBANE
IPSWICH CITY
Pa
ROSEWOOD
ay COUNCIL
ci f
hw
ic
M
Lockyer Creek ot
g
ER
Hi
e IV
or
or R
IPSWICH SPRINGFIELD
wa
G ER wa
y
y
h
EM
CITY
Hig
LOCKYER
BR
Pa
COUNCIL
g ham
c if
VALLEY
ic
Mo
REGIONAL LOGAN
nnin
to r
CITY
wa
Cu
COUNCIL HARRISVILLE
y
COUNCIL
Bremer River
SCENIC KALBAR
RIM BEAUDESERT
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Ne
Moogerah
w
ng g h a m H ig h w ay
E
ni n Dam
Cun
la
n d
Hi
gh
wa
y
C u n ni n g
h am H i ghw a y
LEGEND
Town Dam or Lake 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
Highway Catchment Boundary and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data
(including accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or suitability)
Major Watercourse and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in
negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage)
Minor Watercourse relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing
or be used in breach of the privacy laws.
o
Paper Size A4 Job Number 41-24452
0 5 10 15 20 25 Revision 0
Date 13 Nov 2011
Kilometres
Map Projection: Transverse Mercator
Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Project Locality Figure 1
G:\41\24452\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\4124452_100_A4.mxd Level 4, 201 Charlotte St Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia T 61 7 3316 3000 F 61 7 3316 3333 E bnemail@ghd.com W www.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
Brisbane River 282.4 km (upper Brisbane at Linville)
R
K
E
E V
CR RI
R EY
YA S TA N L
O Emu Ck 10.7 km (upper Brisbane)
CO
R EEK
C
Stanley River
U
EM
Brisbane River
EK
E
CR
OK
RO
SB
E S
CR
Lockyer Ck 110.1 km (at Murphys Creek)

S C R EEK
MURPH Y
K
R EE
Y ER C B RISB A NE
CK
LO RI
VE
R
K
EE
CR
ER
Lockyer Creek RIV L
IL
ER
RR
Ma Ma Ck 21.2 km EM
WA
BR
Tenthill Creek 29.8 km

Bremer River 70 km
Laidley Ck 50 km Bremer River
LEGEND
Town Wivenhoe Dam Based on or contains data provided by the State of QLD (DERM) [2011].
Detention Basins Catchment Boundary and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data
Major Watercourse and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in
Minor Watercourse relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing
o
Paper Size A4 Job Number 41-24452
0 5 10 15 20 25 Revision 0
Date 10 Nov 2011
Kilometres
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Detention Basin Overview
Level 4, 201 Charlotte St Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia T 61 7 3316 3000 F 61 7 3316 3333 E bnemail@ghd.com W www.ghd.com
G:\41\24452\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\4124452_101_A4.mxd
Data source: DERM - Catchment Boundary; Geoscience Australia - 250k Topo Data; Seqwater - Wivenhoe Dam. Created by: TH
Beam Creek f
! MORETON
Somerset BAY
Dam
REGIONAL
Stanley River
TOOGOOLAWAH COUNCIL
Catchment
f
! Cressbrook
f
!
Waterfall
Creek Gully
f
!
Stanley
M
ou
Gully
nt
Be
f
!
Siverton
pp Creek
o
Ro O'Sheas Haslingdens
f
!
ad
f
! Bridge Bridge
f
!
oa d
k - Ki lc oy R
Brisbane River Es
Bris
Reedy
ba n
Catchment Creek
e Va
f
!
lley
Meirs
H ig
Gully
hway
f
! Coal Creek
f
! Gallanani
Creek
SOMERSET
f
! A. & P.M.
Conroy
Bridge
REGIONAL
COUNCIL f
!
ESK
Esk Creek
f
! Middle
Creek
f
!
d Bri sban MORETON
oa e Va
p to n R l ley Deep Creek
- H am Hi BAY
Es k gh
Wi
wa REGIONAL
ve
y
nh
COUNCIL
oe
So
-
f
!
m
Tea Tree er
se
Creek t R
oa
Northbrook
f
!
d
Creek
Five Mile
Creek f
! N o rthb
roo k P a rkw ay
Wivenhoe
Tea tree
Gully f
! Dam
f
! Kipper
Creek
d
Ro a
f
!
Logan
BRISBANE
k
Creek
n - Es
CITY
COUNCIL
t to
Ga
Splityard
Bris Creek Dam
b an
e
Va
l le y
COOMINYA High
way
Lockyer Creek
Wes t R
oa d
Catchment
Atkin s o
ns
Da
m
Ro
LOCKYER ad m
o n D a R oa d
ns
VALLEY ki
At
f
!
REGIONAL Atkinson's Fernvale
Dam C lare n d o bridge
nR
COUNCIL oa
d
f
!
LEGEND
Town Highway Catchment Boundary Based on or contains data provided by the State of QLD (DERM) [2011].
f
! Bridge Main Road Dam or Lake
and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data
Major Watercourse Local Road Wivenhoe Dam Water Level at 77m (AHD) and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in
Minor Watercourse LGA Boundary relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing
o
1:200,000 (at A4) Job Number 41-24452
0 1 2 3 4 5 Revision 0
Date 13 Nov 2011
Kilometres
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Wivenhoe Dam Locality
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
Based on or contains data provided by the State of QLD (DERM) [2011].
and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data
and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in
relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing
Somerset
Dam
TOOGOOLAWAH
M
ou
nt
Be
pp
o
Ro
ad ad
o y Ro
k - Kilc
Es
Bris
ba n
eValle
y
H ig
hwa
y
ESK
W iv
e nh
Bri sban
oa d
oe -
e Va l
p to n R l ey
- Ham Hi
So
Esk gh
me
wa
y
rs
et
Ro
d
a
ay
k P a r kw
oo N o rthb
h br rook P a r k w ay
t
or
Wivenhoe
Dam
ad
k Ro
n - Es
tto
Ga
Splityard
Bris Creek Dam
ban
e
Va
l l ey
COOMINYA High
w ay
Wes t R
oad
A tk ins
on
sD
am
Ro
ad a m Ro a
s on D d
k in
At
Atkinson's
Dam C larend o
nR
oa
d
LEGEND
Town Major Watercourse Dam or Lake Endangered RE - Dominant
House Minor Watercourse Wivenhoe Dam Water Level at 77m (AHD) Endangered RE - Sub-dominant
House - unaffected Highway Nature Refuge Of Concern RE - Dominant
Infrastructure - Power Main Road Protected Areas Of Concern RE - Sub-dominant
Infrastructure Local Road Remnant Vegetation that is a Least Concern RE
o
1:200,000 (at A4) Job Number 41-24452
0 1 2 3 4 5 Revision 0
Date 17 Nov 2011
Kilometres
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Wivenhoe Dam Locality
f
! Coal Creek Road/Region Map ID Site Description AADT %CV
Warrego Hwy 1 Wim Site Bremer River 40240 12.08
f
! Gallanani
Creek
2 West of Kholo Road overpass
3 1 km West of Brisbane Valley Hwy
34158
24490
16.53
17.35
f
! A. & P.M.
Conroy
Bridge
Brisbane Valley
4 West of Seminary Road
5 Bris. Valley Hwy North of Lovers Lane
23830
8580
~~~~
10.5
f
!
ESK Hwy 6 Sandy Creek (North Branch) 7600 11
m
n!
f
Middle
Creek 7 Rd 412 Forest Hill - Ferny Road 2900 16
"
)9
Esk Creek
f
!
B risban 8 Rd 411 Coominya Connection Road 2800 16
eV
al l Deep Creek 9 Rd 414 Esk - Hampton Road 4100 14
ey
Hi Wivenhoe-
gh 10 Brisbane Valley Highway Junction 500 6
ay Somerset Rd
w
11 Mount Glorious Road 500 6
f
! Tea Tree
Creek
Mount Crosby 12 Colleges Crossing
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
9539 4.18
ad
f
!
Ro
Northbrook
f
!
sk
Five Mile Creek y

No r t hb r o o k P a rk wa
-E
m
n
Creek
n
o
a tt
"
)
G
11
M
Wivenhoe
!
f f
!
ou
Kipper
nt
Tea tree Dam Gl
Creek or
Gully io
us
f
!
Ro a
Logan
Creek
d
m
n
Brisbane River Splityard
Mo
un
"
Creek Dam
) Catchment
tN
Mo un t Glo r o u s R o a d
8 bo i
e
Bris Ro
b an ad
COOMINYA e Va
l l ey H
Wes t R ig h MOUNT NEBO
oa d wa
y
d
m
n
a
t io n R o
"
) 10
Con n ec
f
!
Atkinson's Fernvale
Dam bridge
Twin
f
! f
!
i n ya
m
n
C la r e
n d o n R oa d Bridges Savages
om
"
)
Crossing
Co
M
ou
nt T 7
a r am FERNVALE
pa Ro a
d LOWOOD
ad
t H ill - Fernv a le R o
r es
Fo
Lake
d
le R o a
Manchester
Dam
d
Lockyer Creek
Fe rn va
f
!
oa
R
Burtons La k e
M a n ch e
Catchment
le
Bridge st e
va
rR
R oad o ad
er n
o ad
tv iew
H ill - F
gh
nR
n
m
ri
B
inde
ad
"
)
r es t
-M
Ro
6
ad
f
!
Fo
m
n
Ro
rg
od
u Mt Crosby
ar b
Lo w o
K h ol o
"
)
Weir
5
m
n
Geh rke R oa d
f
! Colleges
"
)
W
f
!
ar
12 Crossing
m
n
re g
o Hig hw ay Kholo
ad
Bridge
"
)
Ro
4
m
n m
n
ur g
"
) m
n
a rb
3
"
) "
)
-M
2
Ta 1
d
lle
oo
g a ll a
ew
Ro
ad
os
R
Bremer River Ro
ad
ay
o ad e
o dR an
hw
wo Catchment IPSWICH B r is b
os e
H ig
-R
a b in
Karr
am
Rob er ts
ROSEWOOD on R oa gh
d in
nn
Cu
LEGEND
m
n
"
) Traffic Count Location
Major Watercourse LGA Boundary Based on or contains data provided by the State of QLD (DERM) [2011].
Minor Watercourse Catchment Boundary and agree that the State gives no warranty in relation to the data
Town (including accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or suitability)
f
!
Highway Dam or Lake and accepts no liability (including without limitation, liability in
Bridge Main Road negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage)
relating to any use of the data. Data must not be used for marketing
Local Road or be used in breach of the privacy laws.
o
1:225,000 (at A4) Job Number 41-24452
0 1 2 3 4 5 Revision 0
Date 13 Nov 2011
Kilometres
Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 Traffic Count Data
G:\41\24452\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\4124452_110_A4mxd.mxd Level 4, 201 Charlotte St Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia 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 Reviewer Approved for Issue

Author
No. Name Signature Name Signature Date
0 J. Williams C. Berry W. Traves 19.11.11
N. Davis
T. Loxton
S. Kanowski
T. Turner

GDH Raising Wivenhoe Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GDH Raising Wivenhoe Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Department of Employment,

Economic Development and

6. Dam Raising Options 32

9. Downstream Flood Mitigation Options 52

10. Economic Analysis 61

11. Summary and Recommendations 83

1.3 Next steps

Table 1 List of abbreviations

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

100% FSV 67 metres AHD (100% Full Supply Volume)

75% FSV 64 metres AHD (75% Full Supply Volume)

50% FSV 60 metres AHD (50% Full Supply Volume)

FSV Full Supply Volume

GIS Geographic Information System

GL Gigalitres (one billion litres)

GL/a Gigalitres per annum

HAT Highest Astronomical Tide

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

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

4.1.1 Wivenhoe Dam Study

Table 2 Comparative Assessment Criteria

Potential benefits Costs

4.1.2 Preliminary Optimisation Study

4.2 Level of flood mitigation

4.3 Flooding and the Brisbane River catchment

4.5 Brisbane River flooding

4.5.1 Riverine flooding

4.5.2 Backwater flooding

4.5.3 Storm surge

4.6 Historical flood events

1893 1974 2011

6,053 1,080,976 3,961 551,381 5,519 705,262

Upper Brisbane 8,987 1,718,258 6,121 1,173,460 8,709 1,675,134

2,460 501,754 4,423 765,024 5,461 701,832

624 176,593 1,360 197,306 2,289 201,299

856 196,825 4,223 631,195 2,446 374,989

TOTAL 3,674,406 3,318,366 4,159,049

*Source: Seqwater – Simulated Historical Flood Event Hydrographs

4.6.1 1893 Flood

4.6.2 1974 Flood

4.6.3 2011 Flood

1893: 8,987 m3/s 1893: 1.72 GL Devon Hills

1,312 km2 1893: 6,053 m3/s

2011 FOM combined with alternative FSVs;