Marrakaidam Yield Study: Report No

Technical Report WRD91054
MARRAKAIDAM
YIELD STUDY
Report No. 54/91
JEROME PAIVA
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

POWER AND WATER AUTHORITY
DARWIN
SEPTEMBER 19S11
Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 1 of 70.

SUMMARY
This report describes ·the assessment of Marrakai dam yield with increased
streamflow data, using stochastic streamflow generation techniques.
The long term annual stream flows (1889-1988) at the Marrakai dam site
were estimated by regression analysis of annual streamflow records at Dirty
Lagoon gauging station and rainfall records at Darwin. A long term mean
annual inflow of 1,024,000 MUannum with a coefficient of variation of 0.36
was obtained for the Marrakai dam site.
A lag one Markov model with a 3 parameter log normal distribution was used
to generate 500 year sequences, statistically similar, to the estimated
streamflow record (1889-1988). The generated sequences were
disaggregated into 500 year monthly flow sequences. These monthly flow
sequences were then used in a storage behaviour monthly model to determine
the 0%, 1%, 2% and S% probability of failure yields. Yields were determined
for dam full supply levels from 16.0 m AHD to 24.0 m AHD, and are shown
below.
FSL DAM YIELD
mAHD MUannum
Probability of Failure
0% 1'7~ 2% 5%
16.0 200,000 255,000 279,000 332,000
18.0 347,000 397,000 434,000 487,000
19.0 418,000 464,000 489,000 552,000
19.5 437,000 484,000 506,000 560,000
20.0 455,000 503,000 522,000 567,000
22.0 485,000 528,000 559,000 597,000
24.0 508,000 540,000 564,000 602,000
For a 5% rate of failure the average duration of failure was 3 months for dam
full supply levels from 16.0 m AHD to 24.0 m AHD.

The dam yields were found to be sensitive to the normal variability in

evapo ration.
The river regulation achieved by the dam for a 5% failure rate, ranged from
47.6% to 58.3 'Yo, for dam full supply levels from 18.0 m AHD to 22.0 m AHD.
Expected reservoir filling times were also determined and these ran,ged from
3.5 years to 6.0 years for dam full supply levels from 18.0 m AHD to 22.0 m
AHD.

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
DEFINITIONS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background i
1.2 Aim of Study 3
2 DATA AVAILABILlTY 3
2.1 Streamflow Data 3

2.2 Rainfall Data 3
2.3 Evaporation Data 3
2.4 Storage Volume-Surface Area Data 5
3 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS 5
3.1 General 5
3.1. i Rainfall Runoff Modelling 7

3.1.2 Regression tmalysis and Estimation of Long Term Statistics 8
3.1.3 Stochastic Streamflow Generation 10
3.1.4 Derivation of Month Iy Flows 11
3.1.5 Storage Loss'9s 11
3.1.5.1 Evaporation 11
3.1.5.2 Seepage 12

3.1.6 Balancing Units 12

3.1.7 Yield Analysis 14
3.1.7.1 General 14
3.1.7.2 SafEI Yield Analysis 15
3.1.7.3 Sensitivity of Yield to Evaporation 16
3.1.7.4 Probability of Failure Analysis 16
3.1.8 Probability of Filling Analysis 16
4. RESULTS 18
5. DISCUSSION 22
6. REFERENCES 26
APPENDIX 1 Establishment of Monthly Flow Volumes at

the Dirty Lagoon Gauging Station GS 8170020
APPENDIX 2 Monthly Inflows at Dirty Lagoon GS 8170020

1956-1985

LIST OF FIGURIES
FIGURE 1 RESERVOIR BEHAVIOUR DIAGRAM
FIGURE 2 MARRAKAI DAM - LOCALITY MAP 2
FIGURE 3 ELEVATION/AREA/CAPACITY CURVE 6
FIGURE 4 RAINFAll!... - RUNOFF CORRELATION 1956 - 1985 9
FIGURES MARRAKAI DAM - FULL SUPPLY LEVEL VERSUS YIELD 20
FIGURE 6 SAFE YIELD VERSUS INITIAL STORAGE 23
FIGURE? SAFE YIELD VERSUS GENERATED PERIOD 24

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 CATCHME::NT RAINFALL DATA 4
TABLE 2 LONG TERM RAINFALL DATA 7
TABLE 3 DIRTY LAGOON GS 8170020 8

ANNUAL STREAMFLOW STATISTICS
TABLE 4 LAKE EVAPORATION AND PAN FACTORS 13
TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE MEAN MONTHLY DRAFT 17
TABLE 6 MARRAK;~I DAM YIELD 19
TABLE 7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 21

DEFINITIONS
The following definitions have been adopted in this report (see Figure 1).
Full Supply Level (FSL) The level of the water surface when the
reservoir is at maximum operating level,
excluding periods of flood discharge.
Dead Storage The volume of water stored below the

level of the offtake.
Capacity The volume of the reservoir below the full

supply level (FSL).
Yield (or Draft) The volume of controlled water released

from a reservoir during a given interval of
ti me (in th is case 1 year).
Reservoir Failure Reservoir failure is taken to be any month

the reservoir is unable to supply the yield
(or draft).
Probability of Failure The ratio of the number of years the

reservoir is unable to supply the draft to
the total period of analysis in years.
"b" % Yield The yield from a reservoir with a

percentage probability of failure of b
Safe Yield The yield from a reservoir with a

(0% yield) percentage probability of failure.
Expected Yield The 50% yield obtained after ranking the

yields determined from generated flow
sequences.
Critical Period The period during which a reservoir goes

from a full condition to an empty condition
without spilling in the intervening period.

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
...
0
0
,
<J)
t---"
I
_._-_. __..._.. __.. .--........- ...
I
~-
ANAL V SIS PEflJOD
_.. -----_ .. _-_ _._._._--_ _----_._._---
.. ..
..
A CRITICAL PERIOD
-
1 A CRITICAL PERIOO
.. !
I-
-----------:--1
-c
"I
"... 1- - -~-
L _________,
FULL .
c I
'"
0
I
1
(J)
I-
Z
v
w
I-
Z
o
(J
Q
w
0:::
o
I-
(J)
TIME EMPTY TIME EMPTY '.; ,~
EMPTY \ V \ I ), !
ICI""" YEARS
Page 9 of 70.
-
•
RESERVOIR BEHAVIOR DIAGRAM
Average Duration of Failure The total number of months of failure

divided by the total number of years of
failure.
Time of Filling The time taken for the reservoir to fil!

(with zero extraction) from an empty state
to full supply level.
Expected Time of Filling The 50% time of filling obtained aftm

ranking the times of filling determined
from generated flow sequences.
Regulation Ratio of reservoir yield to mean flow.

of the dam catchment.

1 INTRODUCTIION
1.1 Background
To meet the increasing water demand of Darwin and its environs, preliminary
engineering and environmental investigations were carried out on potential
water sources within the Darwin region (Reference 1). On the basis of these
investigations, three preferred dam sites namely, Warrai on the Adelaide
River, Marrakai on the Adelaide River and Mt. Bennet on the Finnis River were
selected for detailed investigation.
The Marrakai damsite! is situated on the Adelaide River about 2.5 km

downstream of its confluence with Margaret River and close to the Dirty
Lagoon stream gauging station (GS 8170020) (Figure 2). The catchment area
at the dam site is 4,325 km 2 and at a FSL of 20.0 m AHD, 6% (259 krn2) of the
catchment would be inundated.
Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) in their reconnaissance

survey of 1979 (Reference 1) estimated that for a dam with a FSL of 12.5 m
AHD, the safe draft (defined as the highest demand which can be satisfied
without inducing significant shortfalls in supply, assuming the historic
flows to be repeated) was 400 MLlday (145,500 MLlannum). The then
proposed damsite was located near the Upstream Marrakai Crossing gauging
station GS 8170005 (Figure 2).
The safe yield was obtained by storage behaviour analysis of 37 years of

monthly flows (1941-'1977) estimated from separate multiple regression
equations developed for each month of the year. The independent variables
used in the regression analysis were Darwin River monthly runoff, Darwin
monthly rainfall, Manton Dam monthly rainfall and previous monthly runoff.
A different set of regrElssion equations were derived for each of the periods
1941-1946 and 1947-1977.
No indication was made how the regression equations for the period 1941-
1977 were derived. FklW records at GS 8170005 were available only for the
period 1955-1977. However, the period of 37 years of estimated inflows
(1941-1977) used in th'3 above analysis was too short and could not account
for the high variability of the streamflows. Moreover, the period of flow
record (19 years, 1955 to 1974) used in the analysis had significant gaps,
and no mention was made how these gaps were filled or accounted.
In December 1987 (Reference 2) the safe yield of Marrakai dam was reviewed
using monthly inflows from 1900 to 1984 derived by rainfall runoff
modelling, using recorded inflows (1962-1970) and rainfall records from

VAN DIEMEN GULF

BEAGLE GULP
DR014015
DR014016
--"",~DARWIN I ~'J\
t~---
"
1
\ Pine Creek ()\

+ •
/ DR014933
\ ,
'. I \
"
km50
- -
4,0302010010203040
- - -
KILOMETRES
- - - 50km
MARRAKAIDAM
LOCALITY MAP
040-91-01-1290
Fig, 2

1900 to 1984. The USDA rainfall runoff model was used. The model was
poorly calibrated (with 9 years of recorded inflows), and was never verified
with an independent SElt of inflows. No mention was made how the gaps in
the flow record (1962-1970) were filled. A safe yield of 227,500 MLJannum
was obtained using Gould's Probability Matrix method for a dam FSL of 15.00
mAHD.
1.2 Aim of Study
The objective of this study is to reassess the yields of Marrakai dam and its
associated probabilities of failure, with increased flow data, using
stochastic streamflow generation techniques.
2 DATA AVAILABILITY
2.1 Streamflow Data
The Adelaide River is gauged near the damsite at Dirty Lagoon (GS 8170020),
and upstream, at the Upstream Marrakai Crossing (GS 8170005). Margaret
River is gauged 2.5 kilometres upstream of its confluence with Adelaide
River at GS 8170032 (Figure 2).
Continuous stage recording at GS 8170020 commenced in 1963 and is

continuing. To date only 19 discharge measurements have been taken at GS
8170020. At GS 817()005 continuous stage recording commenced in 1956
and to date 190 discharge measurements have been taken. At GS 8170032
continuous stage recording commenced in 1956 and continued until 1978.
During this time 156 discharge measurements were taken.
The data at GS 8170020, GS 8170005 and GS 8170032 have been processed

and monthly discharge volumes for the Dirty Lagoon station (GS 8170020)
derived for the period 1956-1985 (Appendices 1 and 2).
2.2 Rainfall Data
Within the catchment daily rainfall stations and pluviometers have been
operated for different periods from 1926. Table 1 lists the daily rainfall
station and pluviometer information.

TABLE 1
CATCHMENT RAINFALL DATA
Daily Rainfall Stations
STATION NO. STATION NAME LAT. l.CNG. PERIOD OF RECORD
DR 014000 Adelaide River 1315 13107 1926 1977

Railway Stn.
DR 014207 Adelaide RIver 1312 13109 1942 1946
H.RJ.A.F.C.
DR 014195 Adelaide River 1320 13112 1944 1946
AAS.C
DR 014092 Adelaide River 1314 13106 1956
Post Office
DR 014093 Adelaide River 1315 13106 1957 - 1958
Rice Farm
Runo11 Plot
67 Mile
NR. Dam Site
Stapleton Track
Mount Ringwood
Pluviometers
R 817002C Adelaide River 1319 13058 10.1960 - 06.1963

10.1965 12.1986
R 817002H .. 1318 13103 09.1965 05.1966

09.1966 - present
R 817236 .. 1307 13103 11.1965 -

04.1966
08.1966 -
03.1974
09.1975 - 09.1977
10.1977 - present
R 817007A Red Bank Creek 1322 13058 12.1981 - present
R 817076A Stapleton Creek 1311 13104 08.1973 - 06.1981
R 817076C .. 1312 13100 10.1978 06.1981
R 8170768 .. 1311 13104 10.1978 06.1981

There are however sigrnificant gaps and missing data in the above records
except at the pluviom'3ter station R 817002H (Figure 2) where there is a
continuous record of 1'1 years of daily rainfall from 1978 to 1988. The only
useful long term rainf",11 stations near the catchment are located at Darwin
Post Office (DR 014016), Darwin Airport (DR 014015) and Pine Creek (DR
014933) (Figure 2). Table 2 lists the long term rainfall station information.
2.3 Evaporation Data
Average monthly evaporation figures were available from the Bureau of

Meteorology (Reference 3). The Meteorology Bureau maps provide Class A pan
(guarded) data.
2.4 Storage Volume - Surface Area Data
Figure 3 is a plot of the capacity and surface area curves for Marrallai Dam.
These curves were developed from 2 metre contour maps (scale 1:10,000) of
the reservoir area. The contours were obtained from aeriel photography
(scale 1 :60,000) of thE. Marrakai reservoir area carried out in 1988. The
capacity and surface area curves were used in the study.
3 METHODOL()GY AND ANALYSIS

3.1 General
The study uses a mor,thly time step of a long period of inflows, overflows,
storage losses (evaporation and seepage) and demand, to simulate the
operation of the reservoir.
Due to the high tempclral variability of Australian streams the period of the
flow record (1956-198::;) is too short to define the long term mean annual
runoff at the damsite with any precision. Still longer periods of streamflow
are required for the definition of the statistics such as coefncient of
variation, skew and serial correlation.
It was therefore necessary to derive a long period of inflow for use in the
study. A long period of inflow can be derived by either calibrating a suitable
rainfall runoff model with the available streamflow record and then using
the model to derive streamflows for the period of the available rainfall
record. or by regression, if satisfactory correlation can be achieved with

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
..
o
o
I
56 52 48 44 36 32 40 28 24
SURFACE AREA (10 3 Ha)
20 16 12 8 4 o
3011------~----~----~------~----~----~----~~----~-----L------1------~----~----~----_4
"'
.
"
I
SURr4C£ 4ReA
~
Cf>.PAcrr'< CURVE tREAD DOWN)
'"'" 25
to CURVe (ReAD UP)
-
C 20
J:
«
....E
oz
-
I-
et
15
>
W
-I 10
W
011------~----_r----_.,_----._----_r------r_----,,----_.------._----_.----_.----~
a 400 600 1200 1600 2000 2400 2600 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800
STORAGE CAPACITY (1 03ML)
ELEV ArION/ AREA/CAPACITY CURVE

-
"TI
c• a
Page 16 of 70.
'"
rainfall data.
In either case, once a long period of inflow has been derived, stochastic data
generation techniques (Reference 4) can be used to obtain any number of
statistically similar sequences of any length for use in the study.
TABLE 2
LONG TERM RAINFALL DATA
STATION SITE PERIOD OF RECORD
Darwin Post Office 1868 - 1962

Darwin Airport 1940 - 1989
Pine Creelk 1890 - 1989
3.1.1 Rainfall Runoff Modelling
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rainfall runoff model

(Reference 8) has been used in the Northern Territory. It is a lumped model
and analyses daily rainfall data and estimates monthly runoff data for a
given catchment. The parameters of the model are a catchment index and a
recession constant which simulates base flow recession of the catchment
All attempts to calibrate the USDA model using the available monthly flow
record (1956-1985) and daily rainfall records proved unsuccessful. This is
due to the highly variable nature of the rainfall both spatially and temporally
within the catchment. Much of the rainfall is produced by local
thunderstorms which do not occur uniformly over the study area at any given
time. Therefore, it is possible for a large rainfall to be recorded with no
runoff, and conversely, a flood may occur with apparently no rain. This
effect increases with distance between the rainfall station and the stream
gauging station.
Another rainfall runoff model that has been used in the Northern Territory is
the Monash Model (References 9 and 10). Unlike the USDA model it is a
conceptual model. It models the rainfall runoff process by simulating the
distribution of moisture in the soil subject to several governing para.meters
and requires extensive calibration. The Sacramento Model (Reference 11) is
another conceptual rainfall runoff model that has been used in Australia. It
also simulates the rainfall runoff process. The number of parameters in the

model are several and it requires extensive calibration.
The Monash and Sacramento models cannot produce results any better than
the USDA model with the available rainfall records and therefore were not
tri ed.
3.1.2 Regression Analysis and Derivation of Long Term Annual Inflows
The only stations wrere rainfall records were available for thEl period
(1956-1985) of the available streamflows at the Marrakai dam site (GS
8170020) were Darwin and Pine Creek.
Regression Analysis showed that there was fair correlation (correlation

coefficient-0.78) betwel::n annual streamflows at Dirty Lagoon (GS 8170020)
and annual rainfalls at Darwin (Figure 4). This correlation was used to
estimate the annual flow record at Dirty Lagoon for 100 years (1889-1988)
using the long term daily rainfall record for Darwin. Table 3 shows the
annual streamflow statistics for the recorded (1956-1985) and long term
(1889-1988) periods, at Dirty Lagoon. These estimated annual inflows were
used in the study.
TABLE 3
DIRTY LAGOON
GS 8170020
ANNUAL STREAMFLOW STATISTICS
Period Mean Annual Standard Coefficient Coefficient Serial Hurst

Runoff Deviation of Variation of Skew Correlation Coefficient
Cv Cs Sa Hc
ML ML
1956 - 1,132,266 52,9461 0.47 0.381 0.13 0.72

1985
1889 - 1,024,232 36,9511 0.36 0.050 0.09 0.71

11.:)88

...
0
'"
0
0 a
0
I- c'
~,
0
0 0
0 0 0 a
0 -g
'"
0\
..... Z
\0 CC)
\. oc-
_0-.-10-
<XI <
~ -l --I
-lLU
~ «=
u..
Z=an
0 0 «8=
0 o a: L&.. en
o L&.. - •
0 0
f- '"
~
-l
« CCI
C)
0 :::lZan
0 Z=en
Z=_
,..to. \. «--I
\ o~
--I
<
~no
0
II r ~ 0::
~ u..
I-
Z ~«
-<
Z
-w
0 \ 0
=
L1. \ 00
L1.
w
0 0 \ a
0
r '"
0
Z
0
l-
\ \
\.
/'"'
J.-...J
~
< \
\ r,,)
-' 0
\
w f-' -0
0
II: U
II:
0
0
\ \
\
I , I j I
\ 0
0
0 0 d, d, 0 0
.xl
0
'" 0
'" '"
N
'" ~ ~
(lV>/I'0 ~) O(;OOH g S~ .L V ~~ONOI:l lVONNV
040-01-74-1203
Fig. 4
.. . . .

10
3.13 Stochastic Streamflow Generation
Stochastic streamflow !;leneration techniques make it possible to derive long

synthetic flow sequencl3s (having the same statistical properties as the long
term flow record) from the statistics of the long term flow record
(Reference 4). It is then possible to determine reservoir safe yield from
each sequence. This provides a distribution of values and gives an id,3a of
the confidence which can be placed on the adopted value of the safe yield. To
generate streamflow data it is necessary to select an appropriate goneration
model. The generation model selected would depend on the nature of the
hydrologic time series. It is necessary to identify and measure the trend,
periodic (or seasonal), correlation and random components, if any, in the
data. Time series analysis was carried out on the estimated annua.l inflows
(1889-1988), using the computer program PEST (Reference 5). PEST is a
program for analysing time series. The analysis showed no trend, periodic
(or seasonal) or any significant correlation components in the data. The
Yevjevich test (Reference 4) conducted on the streamflows confirmed that
the computed value of the annual lag one correlation coefficient was not
significantly different from zero (at the 5% level of confidence). Th'3 annual
flows therefore exhibited white noise characteristics. Studies done by
Srikanthan et al (Reference 6) on time series analyses of annual flows of
Australian streams including the Adelaide River at GS 8170002, showed that
the Northern Terriitory streams studied, exhibited white noise
characteristics. However, it was reported (Reference 6) that, apart from
Tasmania, South Australia and the Arid Zone, all the streams studied
indicated mild positive serial correlation. It was suggested (Reference 6)
that even where the hypothesis that the annual streamflow time series is
white noise is not rejl9cted, a lag one auto regressive model be used in
preference to a white noise model. The lag one auto regressive model ( or
AR(1), also called the lag one Markov model) is shown in equation 3.1.
_ 1/2
Xi+1 = X+r1(Xj-X)+tjs(1-r12) .......... 3.1
where Xi+ 1, Xi = annual streamflows for (i+ 1) th and th year
X = mean annual historical streamflow
s = standard deviation of annual streamflows

11
r1 = lag one auto-correlation coefficient of annual

streamflows
tj = random variate from an appropriate distribution

with a mean of zero and unit variance
From studies carried out on 16 rivers which represented the ranges of

streamflow characteristics across Australia, to evaluate lag one annual
Markov models, Srikanthan and McMahon (Reference 7) showed that the 3
parameter log normal distribution is suitable for the generation of the
random variate (ti in equation 3.1), for an annual coefficient of variation
between 0.2 and 1.0.
A lag one Markov model with a three parameter log normal distribution was
therefore used to generate long term annual streamflow sequences, from the
estimated annual streamflow sequence (1889-1988) (Cv=0.36) at the
Marrakai dam site. To obtain a distribution of values for the safe yield, 100
long term flow sequences were generated.
3.1.4 Derivation of Monthly Flows
The generated annual flows were disaggregated into monthly flows llsing the
method of fragments (Reference 4). The ranked approach of selecting
fragments was used. This has been found to be the most satisfactory method
to generate monthly flows (Reference 4).
3.1.5 Storage Losse,s
3.1.5.1 Evaporation
Based on studies carried out on Manton Dam (for a lake depth of 14 metres),
Hoy and Stevens (RefEHence 13) obtained average monthly lake evaporation
guarded pan factors ranging from 0.75 to 1.13 with an annual average value
of 0.93. Garret and Hoy (Reference 14) showed that the lake depth (between
5 and 80 metres) did not influence the annual pan factor in tropical
conditions, although it could influence the monthly pan factors. It was also
shown that the influence on the monthly pan factors was greater in sub-
tropical areas than in tropical areas. Considering the location of Marrakai
dam (in relation to Manton dam (Figure 2) and its depth (20-30 metres), the

12
guarded pan factors obtained for Manton dam (Reference 13) were taken to
be reasonable for Marrakai.
The monthly guarded pan evaporation figures for Marrakai were obtained
from the Bureau of Meteorology Charts (Reference 3).
The pan factors at Manton dam and the pan factors and evaporation figures at
Marrakai are shown in Table 4.
3.1.5.2 Seepage
•
Besides evaporation loss, a further loss occurs from the reservoir mostly
due to seepage through the bed and flanks. The seepage loss depends on the
permeability of the resHrvoir bed and the flanks, and is mostly a loss due to
deep percolation. An estimate of the seepage loss can be determined from
the permeabilities of the soils and rock occuring in the reservoir area.
The reservoir area is generally covered by a layer of alluvium up to 20 m

thick (Reference 15). The alluvium occurring follows an upward fining
sequence from gravel to silt near the surface. There are outcrops of
sedimentary rock composed of mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, quartzite and
chert. The bulk of the rock type is of siltstone of various de!Jrees of
weathering.
The loss of water from the reservoir occuring through the alluvium is small,
due to the silt occuring! at the surface of the alluvium layer. Siltstone which
forms the bulk of the rock type is an impermeable material. All the other
types of sedimentary rock occuring, except for sandstone, a.re also
impermeable. The seepage loss per month from the reservoir was estimated
to be 5 mm per month.
3.1.6 Balancing Units
To facilitate computation of the yield the variables of evaporation, pan

factor, seepage, rainfall directly onto the storage area and lost surface
runoff from the inundated area were combined into a single 'balancing unit'
for each month of the analysis. Balancing units are defined by equation 3.2
(Reference 16). As, only 11 years (1978-1988) of continuous rainfall record
was available within the catchment (at pluviometer station R 817002H),
monthly average balancing units were calculated. Monthly average balancing
units were calculated using the monthly rainfall, mean monthly evaporation

13
TABLE 4
LAKE EVAPORATION AND PAN FACTORS
PAN COEFFICIENT1 EVAPORATION
Month Manton Marrakai Pan i Lake

Dam Dam
Jan 1 .13 1.13 215 243
Feb 1.09 1.09 180 196
Mar 1.06 1.06 195 207
Apr 1 .01 1.01 230 232
May 0.94 0.94 230 216
Jun 0.85 0.85 224 190
Jul 0.79 0.79 258 204
Aug 0.75 0.75 242 181
Sept 0.83 0.83 258 214
Oct 0.88 0.88 275 242
Nov 0.91 0.91 260 237
Dec 1 .10 i .10 250 275
Annual 0.93
1 For Class A with birdguard

14
and pan factor (Table 4) and seepage of 5 mm/month, for the period 1978 to
1985 (common to the periods of recorded inflow 1956-1985 and recorded
rainfall 1978-1988 in the catchment).
BU = (FxE) + RO + S - R .................. 3.2

where:
BU = Balancingi Unit (mm)

F = Pan Conversion Factor
E Pan Evaporation (mm)
R Rainfall (mm)
Fa - Runoff (Flow at damsite divided by catchment area) (mm)
S Seepage (mm)
3.1.7 Yield Analysis
3.1.7.1 General
The yield extracted from a reservoir would depend on the degree of

protection provided against water shortage. This must be in relation to the
drought experience which is a function of the length of streamflow record
examined. To arrive at a reasonable yield requires a statistical analysis of
yields (or storages) and an economically justifiable design yield (or storage).
Safe yield estimates (although, unrealistic) are often used, for comparison
of different storages. The safe yield (or 0% yield) assumes that the storage
will not empty during the period considered. The 1%, 2% and 5% probability
of failure yields are often used design yields. They are adequate to
compensate for droughts of severities not expected more than once in 100,
50 or 20 years. In still drier years, it may be necessary to impose
restrictions on the use of water by the consumers.
In this study the safe yi;3ld (or 0% yield), the 1%, 2% and 5% yields have been
considered.

15
3.1.7.2 Safe Yield Analysis
The sequences of inflow generated and the monthly average balancing units
were analyzed using a storage behaviour model that incorporated a water
balance with a monthly time step.
The monthly water balance used for the storage behaviour model is shown in
Equation 3.3 (ReferencEI 16).
Si = Si-1 + Ii - (BUi x Ai-l X 100) - OJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3

if Si> Smax
then 01 = Si - Smax and Si Smax
where
Si - Storage volume (ML) at the end of month
Si-1 = Storage volume (ML) at the end of month i-1
Smax - Storage volume (ML) at the full supply level
Inflow (ML) in month
Yield (ML) in month i
= Overflow (ML) in month
= Balancing unit (mm) in month
Surface area {hal at the end of month i-1
A constant annual draft was used and distributed as per the recorded
monthly demand used in the 1987 study (Table 5 and Reference 16). The dead
storage was fixed at 3 metres above the river bed. The storage at the river
bed level (approximately 4.0 m AHO) is almost zero. The reservoir capacity
at 7.0 m AHO (dead storage) is 10,000 ML.
The resultant safe yields for each sequence were ranked and the expected
(50%) safe yield determined .

16
3.1.7.3 Sensitivity of Yield to Evaporation
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to study the effect of a change in

evaporation on the exp,ected safe yield of the dam. The expected safe yields
were computed for 10'% changes in evaporation, for dam full supply levels
from 16.0 m AHD to 24.0 m AHD.
3.1.7,4 Probability of Failure Analysis
A water balance simulation of the reservoir was carried out with a constant
annual yield, and the number of months and years of failure determined. This
was repeated for each Qf the sequences generated. The sequences were then
ranked according to the number of months of failure and the probability of
failure computed. Thl3 probabilities of failure were computed for different
constant annual yields, and the 1%, 2% and 5% yields were obtained. The
average durations of failure were also computed.
3.1.8 Probability of Filling Analysis
The number of months required to fill the reservoir was determined from a
water balance simulation of the reservoir with zero yield, and the time of
filling computed for each of the generated sequences. The sequences were
then ranked according to the time of filling and the expected (50%) time of
filling determined.

17
TABLE 5
PERCENTAGE MEAN MONTHLY DRAFT
MrnTH PERCENTAGE (%)
September 11
October 9
November 7
December 5
January 5
February 4
March 5
April 8
May 11
June 11
July 12
August 12
Total 100

18
4 RESULTS
Table 6 lists the results of the yield studies for dam full supply levels
ranging from 16.0 m AHD to 24.0 m AHD. Figure 5 shows the variation of the
expected safe yield, 1%, 2% and 5% yields with dam full supply level. The
regulation achieved by each of the yields have also been shown. Also shown
are the expected aV',Hage durations of failure, the expected maximum
interval between reservoir overflows and the expected times of filling of
the reservoir, for different dam full supply levels.
Table 7 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis of expected safe yield
of the dam to evaporation.

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
"
"
;:
TABLE 6
MARAKKAI DAM YIELD
FSL Expected Yield Reservoir Regulation Average Expected Expected

Duration MaXimum Time
, of Interval of
mAHD M-- % F~:dlure between Fi!!ing
Overflows Reservoir
Months1 Yrs 1 Yrs
Probability of Failure Probability of Failure
0% 1% 27'. 5"4 0% 1% 2% 9%,
16,0 200,000 255,000 279,000 332,000 19,5 24,9 27,2 32.4 3 3 3.0
18.0 347,000 397,000 434,000 487,000 33.9 38.8 42.4 47.6 3 9 3.5
19.0 418,000 464,000 489,000 552,000 40.8 45,3 47.7 53.9 3 24 4.0
19.5 437,000 484,000 506,000 560,000 42.7' 47.3 49.4 54.7 3 24 4.5
20.0 455,000 503,000 522,000 567,000 44.4 49.1 51.0 55.4 3 24 5.0
22.0 485,000 528,000 559,000 597,000 47.4 51.6 54.6 58.3 3 44 6.0
24.0 508,000 540,000 564,000 602,000 49.6 52.7 55,1 58.8 3 227 11.0
-- --
1 for 5% probability of failure

Page 29 of 70.
<D
20
r-------------------------------------------------------~g....
o
o
OJ
0
0
'" .....
CI
-- -
-l
:E
'"0
....,
~-
-
LLl
Vol
=
Vol
1:11:
C)
_J LLl
!:Y =-
..
0
0
>-
C)
.....
Vol
U-
UJ
\ f--
<.)
c::
-
\--.
, I
lJJ
0_
CI
=-
'\ X 1:11:
LLl
\
UJ
Vol
w. LLl
a: 0
1:11:
\
=> 0
-u.
..J
<C
\ ,,
, '"
u. \\
0 \ ' ...>
> \
l::: \
..J \
III
\
b
<C
I
III 0
0
0
a: '"
ll.
If/.
~------_,--------_,--------_r--------._--------r_------_+g
~ ~ ~ 0 00 ~ ~~
~ ~ N ~ ~ - -
(GHVW) lS:l
109-91-74-1316 Fig. 5

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
.-::1
';:
";!
.;:
TABLE 7
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Change in evaporation Expected Safe Yield (MUa)
FSL m AHD
22.0 20.0 19.5 19.0 18.0 16.0
0% 485,000455,000437,000418,000347,000200,000
-10% 535,000494,000473,000452,000379,000223,000
(+ 10.3%) (+8.6%) (+8.2%) (+8.1%) (+8.9%) (+11.5%)
+10% 439,000418,000401,000384,000318,000179,000
(-9.5%) (-8.1 %) (-8.2%) (-8.1 %) (-8.4%) (-10.5%)
Page 31 of 70.
I\)
-,
22
5 DISCUSSION
In this report, Marrakai dam yields have been determined for probabilities of
failure 0%, 1%, 2% and 5%, using increased streamflow data and stochastic
streamflow generation techniques.
Annual streamflows at the Marrakai dam site were estimated for a '100 year
period (1889-1988) from Darwin rainfall (1889-1988), using a regression
relationship between recorded streamflows at Dirty Lagoon and Darwin
rainfall for the period 1956 to 1985. The mean annual runoff of the
estimated streamflows was 1,024,000 Mllannum with a coefficient of
variation of 0.36. A la~l one Markov model was used to generate a number of
sequences, statistically similar to the estimated 100 year streamflow
record (1889-1988). These generated sequences were then disaggregated
into monthly flows. The monthly flow sequences were then used in a storage
behaviour monthly modl31 to determine the 0%, 1% , 2"10 and 5% yields (Table
6).
The maximum interval between reservoir overflows varied from 3 years to

227 years (for a 5% failure rate), for dam FSLs from 16.0 m AHD to 24.0 m
AHD (Table 6). The initial storage condition in the analysis could therefore
be critical in the detElrmination of the reservoir yield. Safe yields were
determined (using 100 year generated sequences) by storage behaviour
analyses (for a FSL 20.0 m AHD) for varying initial storages. The safe yield
from an initially empty reservoir (FSL 20.0 m AHD) was about 80% less than
that from an initially full reservoir (Figure 6). An initial storage of at least
40% of full storage was required in the storage behaviour analysis (for a FSL
20.0 m AHD), to overcome the effect of the initial starting 'condition on the
safe yield (Figure 6).
In the storage behaviour analysis, the effect of the initial condition of the
reservoir on the yield can be removed by using sufficiently long inflow
sequences (Reference 4). Flow sequences of periods ranging from 100 years
to 500 years were generated and a storage behaviour analysis carried out
(for a FSL of 20.0 m AHD) for each set of sequences, and the respective safe
yields determined. A ~Ienerated period of 400 years was required to remove
the variability of the safe yield (Figure 7). In the study, therefore, 500 year
long inflow sequences were generated and used in storage behaviour analyses
to determine the safe yi'eld, 1%, 2% and 5% yields.
For a probability of failure of 5%, the yields obtained varied from 332,000
MLiannum to 602,00 MLlannum, for dam full supply levels 16.0 m AHD to
24.0 m AHD. It was seen (Figure 5) that the rate of decrease in the yield (for

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
...
0
0
I
55r-~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
"
'"
I
,.", 60
') l'r~ ~y--O---O ,~} 0
'"
'"
IJ\
45
.......
E
:::s
c:: 40
cj/
c:
ro
"-
..J
...::E0 35
.... FSL=20.0mAHD
~ 100 YEAR FLOW SEQUENCES
0
..J 30
ill
>-
ill 25
/
U.
<
U)
20
15
10il------~----_,------~----_.------~----_.------r_----_,------,-----_.------------~
o 20 40 60 60 100
INITIAL STORAGE (%FULL)

..,.,
- -.
Page 33 of 70.
C I') SAFE YIELD VERSUS INITIAL STORAGE

J\)
(~
Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
<> 60
"",
0
'"
..
~
'"'"
'" ,- --~-=-20.0mAHD
.......
E
::;)
§ 55 _ 10%
....
(\l
...J
\ CONFIDENCE LIMIT
...0~
....
'-"
0
...J
UJ
>-
UJ
Lt.. 50
«
(f)
\"'", \
EXPECTED \\
VALUE
\,
\.\.
-.
90% ~
I CONFIDENCE LIMIT ---..
45 ~ ~ ~
o 100 200 300 400 500 600
GENERATED PERIOD (YEARS)
- -.
'"rI
Page 34 of 70.
""'-oJ SAFE YiElD VERSUS GENERATED PERIOD

N
.j>.
25
each metre decrease in the height of the dam), increased significantly, below
19.0 m AHD for 0%, 1%, 2% and 5% failure rates.
The river regulations provided by the dam (for 1%, 2% and 5% probabilities of
failure), varied from 38.8% to 58.3% for dam full supply levels 18.0 m AHD to
22.0 m AHD. In Australia, typical values for river regulation provided by
dams are in the range 50-70%, and rarely exceed 70% due to net evaporation
losses. The median regulation for Australian reservoirs is about 65%
(Reference 4).
The sensitivity analys'is (Table 7) indicated that for normal variability in

evaporation, the dam yield was sensitive to evaporation. This indicates that
the accuracy of the yield estimates would be fairly dependant on the
accuracy of the evaporation loss estimates. The monthly pan evaporation
figures for Marrakai, used in the study, were obtained by interpolation from
the evaporation charts of the Meteorological Bureau (Reference 3). The
evaporation charts provide broad estimates of average monthly pan
evaporation (Reference 3). The pan factors used in the study were those for
Manton Dam (Section 3.1.5.1). It is recommended that future yield
estimation studies concentrate on better evaluation of the evaporation
losses.
The stream flows at Dirty Lagoon (GS 8170020) used in the analysis, for the
period 1962-1985, were obtained from a rating curve derived from 18
discharge measurements taken at Dirty Lagoon from the years 1963 and 1964
(Appendix 1). The highest discharge measured had a stage level of 8.04 m
AHD and the highest flood recorded to date was 10.40 m AHD. The flows
above the stage of 8.04 m AHD were determined from an extension of the
rating curve, based on Chezy's formula. As, the Dirty Lagoon station is
tidally affected at th~3 low stages, the flows at the low stagHs were
obtained from the sum of the flows at Upstream Marrakai (GS 8170(05) and
Margaret River (GS 8'170032). All flows before 1962 were also obtained
from the sum of the flows at Upstream Marrakai and Margaret River, as, the
Dirty Lagoon station was not established until 1962.
The flood flow rating at Dirty Lagoon therefore needs to be confirmed and
developed, if required, and also those at Upstream Marrakai and Margaret
River. It is recommended that flood discharge measurements be increased,
especially, above the I~auge levels of the highest discharge measurements:
8.04 m AHD at Dirty Lagoon, 7.61 m AHD at Upstream Marrakai and 8.39 m AHD
at Margaret River. In the short term, it is recommended that the flood plains
at Dirty Lagoon, Upstream Marrakai and Margaret River be modelled and the
flood rating curves extended. It is suggested that a 2 dimensional l1ydraulic
model be used to model the flood plains.

26
6 REFERENCES
1 SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION (1971) - ".Qar.wjn Water
Supply Future Source - Apprajsal Study" - Northern Territory of
Australia DepartmElnt of Transport and Works.
2 STEWART, B.J. and BAKER, A. (1987) - "Marrakaj pam Safe Yield Studies"
Internal File Records - Water Resources Division, Power and Water
Authority.
3 BUREAU OF METE,OROLOGY (1988) - "Climatic Atlas of Australia", Map Set

3, Evaporation.
4 McMAHON, T. and MEIN, R. (1986) - "River and Reservojr Yield", Water

Resources Publications, Colorado.
5 HYNDMAN, R. J. (987) - "PEST - A Program for Time Series Analysis",

Statistical Consulting Centre, University of Melbourne.
6 SRIKANTHAN, R., McMAHON, T.A. and IRISH, J.L. (1983) - ''Time SHries
Analyses of Annual flows of Australian Streams", Journal of Hydrology,
Volume 66 : 213-~~26.
7 SRIKANTHAN, R. and McMAHON, T.A. (1978) - "A review of lag one_

Markoy Models for generation of annual flows", Journal of Hydrology,
Volume 37 : 1-12.
8 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (1963) -"~

Conservation Service Handbook", Hydrology Supplement, Section 4.
9 PORTER, J.W. and McMAHON, T.A. (1971) - "A Model for the Simulation of
Streamflow from Climatic Records", Journal of Hydrology, Volume 13
297-324.
10 WILLING AND PARTNERS (1989) - "Pine Creek Region Surface WC@L

Resources Assessment" - Power and Water Authority.
11 WEEKS, W.O. and HEBBERT, R.H.B.(1980) - "A comparison of Rainfall -

Runoff Models", Nordic Hydrology, Volume 11, No.1 : 7-24.
12 PAIVA, J. (1991) - "Warrai pam Yield Reappraisal" - Power and Water

Authority Report No. 53/91.

27
13 HOY, R.D. and STE,PHENS, SK (1979) - "Field Study of I ake Evaporation.

Analysis of Data frqm Phase 2 Storages and Summary of Phase 1 and
Phase 2", AWRC Technical Paper No. 41.
14 GARRET, D.R. and HOY,R.D. (1978) - "A study of monthly lake to pan....
coefficients using a numerical lake model", Proceedings of Hydrology
Symposium, Institution of Engineers, Australia: 145 - 149.
15 GUTTERlDGE HASKINS & DAVEY PTY LTO (1990) - "Marrakai Dam Site
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations" - Power and Water Authority.
16 STEWART, B.J. (1i~86) - "Darwin River Dam Safe Yield Analysis ami..
Minimum Storage Predictjye Model" - Power and Water Authority
Directorate Report 30/1986.

APPENDIX 1
ESTABUSMENT OF MONTHLY FLOW VOLUMES

AT THE: DIRTY LAGOON GAUGING STATION
GS 8170020

POWER AND WATER 1',UTHORITY
ESTABl:'ISBMENT OF MONTHLY FLOW VOLUMES

AT THE DIRTY LAGOON GAUGING STATION
GS 8170020
Prepared by:
U ZAAR
,vATER RESOURCES DIVISION
AUGUST 1990

-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NOS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF FIGURES ii
LIST OF TABLES iii
ABBREVIATIONS iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. R..l\TING CURVE FOR GS8170005 3
3. RATING CURVE FOR GS8170032 7
4. RATING CURVE FOR GS8170020 9
5 GENERATION OF HONTHLY TOTAL VOLUMES 13

-u-
LIST OJ' FIGmu;S I'AGE NOS.
1.1 Location Map ..

')
2.1 Rating Curves for GSB170005 (Marrakai)
2.2 Extrapolation of Rating Curves for GS8170005 6
3.1 Rating Curve f·or GS8l70032 (Margaret) B
4.1 Cross Section at Dirty Lagoon 10
4.2 Rating Curve for GS8170020 (Dirty Lagoon)
5.1 Dirty Lagoon vs Marrakai + Margaret Monthly Volumes 14

(up to 750 000 MLl
5.2 Dirty Lagoon vs Marrakai + ~llirgaret Monthly Volumes 15

(below 100 000 MLl
5.3 Dirty Lagoon vs Marrakai + Margaret Monthly Volumes 15

(below 20 000 :ML)
5.4 l-'..arrakai vs Margaret Monthly Volumes

(below 650 000 ML)
5.5 Ma.rrakai vs Margaret Monthly Volumes 18

(below 160 000 ML)
5.6 Darwin River Dam Annual Runoff vs Dirty Lagoon 19

&~nual Volumes 1960 - 1969
5.7 Darwin Annual Rainfall vs Dirty Lagoon Calculated 20

Annual Volumes (Dirty Lagoon based)
5.B Darwin Annual Rainfall vs Dirty Lagoon Calculated 21

Annual Volumes (Marrakai based)

-lll-
LtS,!, OF ,.ABLES PAGE NOS.
2.1 Equations to Rating Curves for Marrakai 5
3.1· Rating Table for Margaret River Gauging Station 7
4.1 Results of Best Curve Fitting Techniques for 11
Dirty Lagoon GS 8170020

5.1 Available Usable Height Record and Catchment Areas 13
5.2 Monthly Flow Volumes for Dirty Lagoon 22-24

-i v-
ABBREVIATIONS
The following abbreviations are used in the text:
A.H.D .•••.•..... Australian Height Datum
C.T:F •.•••.....• Cease to flow
Dirty Lagoon .... Adelaide River, Dirty Lagoon Gauging Station
GS8170020 -
G. H •••••••••••• • Gauge Height
Margaret •....•.. Margaret River, Upstream Marrakai Crossing Gauging
Station GS8170032
Marrakai ........ Adelaide River, Upstream Marrakai Crossing Gauging
Station GS8170005

-1-
1_ INTRODUC~ION
The Marrakai dam site is situated close to Dirty Lagoon gauging

station (figure 1.1). To undertake yield studies for the proposed
dam, monthly disc:tlarge volumes at the site need to be established.
This report details how monthly volumes are obtained for the Dirty
Lagoon gauging station.
Because Dirty LagQon is tidal effected and its gauging record does
not cover some years which the upstream stations do, it is
necessary to establish monthly discharge volumes for the upstream

stations GS8170032 Margaret River and GS8170005 Marrakai., whose
waters converge and flow through the dam site (figure 1.1). The sum
of the volumes from these stations is used to estimate or
substantiate the monthly discharge volumes at Dirty Lagoon.
Rating curves for all three stations are developed and monthly flow
volumes generated.

-2-
,
0;
2 SKm
~~ iiiiiiiiiiiiill~ iiiiiiiiiiiiii ~:J
\
i NORT~ERN I
, ~
ITennant creek" -,
i TERR T'ORY . II LOCATION MAP
I
\ Alice Springs i
, .
; --- .~--- .. j
Fig. 1.1

-3-
2. RATrNG CURVE FOR GS8170005 (MARRAXAI)

UPSTREAM MARRAKl'.I CROSSING GAUGING STATION ON THE ADELAIDE
RIVER
There are 187 discharge gaugings recorded for the Upstream

Marrakai Crossing gauging station {Marrakai} obtained throughout
the years 1956 to 1989. A plot of these gaugings is shown in
figure 2.1.
Below a gauge height of two metres the points appear divided into
three groups. These are correlated to distinct time periods:
(il from 1956 to 1964

(ii) 1965 to 1976
(iii) and 1976 to 1989.
These groupings are due to changes in the control, viz. a shifting

sand bar and the building of a sheet piling weir in septembe=
1976. Hence three rating curves have been developed (figure 2.1){
each with a different cease to flow (C.T.F.) level. Table 2.1
details the three rating curves. Because of the lack of high flow
gaugings from 1965 onwards, those from the first group were
utilized for all the groups thus enabling extension of the curves
to be based on gaugings as much as possible.
Extension to the curves has been achieved by use of the A..JR method
and regression analysis of the flow gaugings. There is a reliable
limit to the extension of 7.77 m gauge height, as above this level
the cross section broadens markedly and flooding on the plains
occurs with the exact behaviour of the river remaining unknown.
The curve however, has been extended above this mark so as to
obtain at least a rough minimum estimate of flow.
Figure 2.2 details three extrapolated curves obtained from various

techniques. Also shown in figure 2.2 are high flow gaugings from
Dirty Lagoon (downstream from Marrakai) and Tortilla Flats
(upstream from Harrakai) gauging stations which are plotted

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
1~1 1------
10
,
I "',
N
~
61
17
V I
I">
0,
0
I»,
I~
41 ---l 11
l--l --·11-----1-----
~
RATING CURVES;
III
For 1976 to 1986
--II)
....
dl
E 21 /0
1965 to 1976
1956 10 1964
l-
I ,
-
(!)
l1J
I
rj"
~x ------~-i---------
l1J 1 "
L
x"'x~{~llf~o~.~o--------~-----
Cl
~
_-.b I
I
:::l
.8
«
Cl
.61 ......""',J. .x' ---------
• ~t------------t------------
.' 0
.<1- x ............ * ........00_-'/

"
1------------
________..J
.J>" ...... ... >t:' 0 ~
<0;
bO ()
.... , . ; : . ........ r " --------- --------i---------~--------- - - - -

••
1-" -"
MAXIMUM FLOOD LEVEL 10.2m GH (12.945m AHD)
.2 I 1 I I I I
.00001 .001 1 100 1000 10000 100000
DISCHARGE (CUMECSI
..,.,
1P.~
flOW GAUGINGS RECORDED FROM 1956 10 1989 al GS8170005 and RATING CURVES DEVElOPED
Page 47 of 70.
--
!'.:>
-5-
against the maximum gauge height at Marrakai for the day on which
the flow occurred. Each of the three different ly extrapolated
curves fit between the upstream and downstream sets of gaugings
giving confirmation of the location of the curves. The curve
marked by a solid line shown in figure 2.2 was obtained by
regression analysis of the flow gaugings and yielded the best
results from statistical tests on the goodness of fit and hence
was adopted.
UBLK 2 1
EQUATIONS TO RA~rING CURVES FOR UPSTREAM HARRAKAI CROSSING,
GS8l70005.
CURVE RANGE EOUATION CQRREIrATIQN
~g:: H !::Ql!iEU I:: UH~

1 0.00 - 0.50 Q = 1662.34H12.90 0.813
1/12/56 - 31/12/64 0.50 - 1.15 Q - 1.49H2.86 0.868
C.T.F. = 0.3 1.15 - 7.77 Q = 1.58H2.45 0.995
*7.77 - 10.50
2 0.00 - 0.80 Q = 2.45H11.13 0.714
1/1/65 - 23/9/76 0.80 - 1.05 Q = O.89H6.S9 0.888
C.T.F. = 0.64 1.05 - 2.47 o = 1.08H2.aa I 0.979
2.47 - 7.77 Q = 1. 58H2 .~6 0.997
*7.77 - 10.50
3 0.00 - 0.90 Q = 259. 62E79.35 0.950
24/9/76 - 0.90 - 1.17 Q = 0.22Hl1.24 0.942
C.T.F. - 0.8 1.17 - 1. 77 Q - 0.72H3.83 I 0.980
1. 77 - 7.77 Q - 1. 58E' .46 0.997
*7.77 - 10.50
Q = Discharge in c:umecs (m 3 s- 1 )
H = Gauge height in metres
* estimate by extrapolation

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
10
•
~~~
~~ '".,..
to
8 "'.
• .
- '"
• ~: ~ "
• r- L....
oO/ ~".
... x ...
Xx x..
- ""oo
6
•
. • ------01 ~~
-'"~~.
~
~
. ..........
-
x
x t;h
o
~
10 4 ~ ." -
<:> x x
0
0
r...
..... •
«)
(/)
2 --'" & '. "
(.!)
, ..... "..'
I
~
<tI
~
,.....
~~
~
.
.......--
(/) • t .. ,,,,. •
Q)
....
'-
Q) 1
It • It·
~ ....
....~~-
.......
.. • GS817005 FLOW GAUGINGS
~
E DISCHARGE AT TORTILLA FLATS vs
• • MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT MARRAKAI ON THE SAME DAY •
I- 0.7 • 0\
:r: DISCHARGE AT DIRTY LAGOON vS
0 x MAXIMUM HEIGHT AT MARRAKAI ON THE SAME DAY
w 0.5
:r:
w
C)
:::::>
«
(!)
0.3
_.. AIR METHOD
J
- REGRESSION ANALYSIS BASED ON FLOW
HEIGHT OF 1.54 m
GAUGINGS ABOVE A GAUGE
--- REGRESSION ANALYSIS BASED ON FLOW

HEIGHT OF 1.29 m
GAUGINGS ABOVE A GAUGE
I I
0.1
1 10 100 1000 2000
DISCHARGE (CUMECSI
."
cO" EXTRAPOLA TlON OF RATING CURVES FOR GS8170005
"
Page 49 of 70.
!'>
~
-7-
:3. RATl:NG COltVE rOR GS8~ 70032 (MARGARET)

UPSTREAM MARRAlCI.l: CROSSl:NG GAUGl:NG STATl:ON ON THE MARGARET
Rl:VER
From 1957 to 1977, 153 flow gaugings for the Hargaret River
gauging station have been obtained. A plot of all these points is
shown in figure 3,,1.
As there is little scatter and a wide range of gaugings a line of

best fit was fitted by eye. The resulting rating table is given
,
in table 3.1 be 1m••
TABLE J .1
RATING TABLE FOR HARGARET RIVER GAUGING STATION
I STAGE III Dl:SCHARGE

CG. H. 1
1 0.450 0.0010
2 0.633 0.0306
3 0.720 0.0710
4 0.870 1.13
5 1.108 4.71
6 2.273 31. 9
7 2.973 57.5
8 3.853 90.0
9 6.059 1140
*10 10.00 225
*estimate by extrapolation
The maximum gauge height for a flow gauging undertaken was 6.059m
(8.3895 rn A.H.D.). Above this level extrapolation of the curve
proves difficult because large scale flooding is likely to occur
due to local topography. The curve has been extended above this
mark so as to obtain at least a rough minimum estimate of flow.
It is realised that this estimate is likely to be largely
undervalued.

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
10 l()
<D
8 -----~ --~.-.-.--- --"-- -- . I N
r
. . I
C')
6 - • -- o I
• DISCHARGE GAUGINGS o
'I m
I
4 ---. t o
,;r::
, "<t
o
--E
l-
2 -
I
-,
V'
/'
I
CI
W
I
w 0.9
• ~
•
/. •
Cl - ,
::> 0.7 ,
<1; ""
CI •
0.5
•
-
•
0.3 1-- ,
MAXIMUN FLOOD LEVEL 10.04rn GH (12.785m AHDI

0.1
0.001 0,01 0.1 1 10 100 200
DISCHARGE ICUMECS)
."
'p. RA TlNG CURVE FOR MARGARET RIVER GAUGING STATION GS8170032
Page 51 of 70.
c:..>
.....
-9-
,,_ RATING CURVE FOR GS8170020

DIRTY LAGOON GAtlGING STATION ON TO ADELAIDE RIVER
There are only 18 recorded flow gaugings for the Dirty Lagoon
. gauging station obtained from the years 1963 and 1964. The
largest flow measured during this period has a height of 8.04 m.
A.H.D. The highel;t flood level recorded to date stands at 10.80 m
A.H.D.
Unlike Marrakai and Margaret River gauging stations, Dirty

Lagoon's flood plain is well defined as the station is set between
two hills whose height is higher than any foreseeable flood level.
A survey of the cross.,-section through the recorder site was
undertaken on 4t::J. July 1990. The cross sect ion extends to a
height of over 1].5 m A.H.D. which thus allows extrapolation of
the rating curve based on cross section properties. The cross-
section was slightly altered so as to run perpendicular to the
flow (figure 4.1)"
Using the gauged discharges and the cross-section, a number of

curve fitting teChniques were employed to yield a line of best
fit, which could then be extrapolated to the maximum recorded
flood level. These techniques included logarithmic regloession,
A-JD method, p2/S regression, and the AR2/3 method. The best fit
was achieved with logarithmic regression for the low stages and
the A-JD method for the higher stages. Results are given in table
4.1. The final CUl:ve is shOw-n in figure 4.2.
Because Dirty Lagoon is significantly tidally affected a C.T.F.

level was chosen above which the daily tidal affect is minimal.
This carne to 1.40 m A.H.D.
r •

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
20 ..,
to
N
~
~,
g,
15 ,/
/ o
;g
(
-o
E
10
,
::c
<t;
z
o-
~
t-
«
~
..J
ill
5
"- "\A ./' - .. _. " -
o
•
~
-5 - --~- ..-.. _...... _.
0.0 300.0 600.0 900.0 1200.0 1500.0

DIS! ANCE 1m)
-n
ca"
Page 53 of 70.
.t::..
•--.. CROSS·SECTION AT DIRTY LAGOON USED FOR EXTRAPOLATION OF RATING CURVE
-11-
TABLE 4.1
RESULTS OF BEST CURVE FITTING TECHNIQUES FOR DIRTY LAGOON.
GAUGED STAGE (AJiD) IGAUGED DISCHARGE 1RATED DISCHARGE

METHOD: LOGARITHMIC REGRESSION
1. 40 1- 44
i
2.69 101 110 I
2:85 118 120 1
3.34 150 151
,
3.55 176 165
3.66 184 172
3.70 190 175
4.42 231 226
4,52 223 1232
5.15 1264 1271
5.16 1297 1272
-
5.20 297 275
5.39 297 289
5.49 289 298
METHOD: A..JD
5.66 1317 317
5.82 343 339
5.87 331 347
8.04 1290 1285
*10.80 - 3446
*13.5 - 17096
*extrapolated curve

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
40 CD
~,
I
'"oo,
0>,
...
<>
o
20
~
I/J
4.)
- '-
G>
VI
-E I
~
t-
:c
c:J
w
:r:
10
8 ..----- ----
~
-
--~.
-
,
c:J
:::> ,
tv
<t:
c:J 6 . :-
-
4
•
./
• •
V
• FLOW GAUGINGS
2 I I ~
100 200 400 600 800 1000 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
DiSCHARGE (CUMECSj
"
Ip~
Page 55 of 70.
.j::oo.
"-> RATING CURVE FOR GS8170020 DIRTY LAGOON

-13-
5. GENERATION OF MONTHLY TOTAL VOL'OKES
For each gauging station, total daily and monthly volumes were
generated through the corporate water processing area 'PRIVATE'.
The usable height; record available for each station is given in
table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1
AVAILF3LE USABLE HEIGHT RECORD AND CATCHMENT AREAS
RIVER STA~~rON GS NUMBER URR RANGE CATCHMENT

NAMil AREA sa kIn
Adelaide R U!S Marrakai GS8170005 1956 to 1606
Crossinq present
l-'.a rgaret R U!S ~!arrakai GS8170032 1957 to 1978 2560
Crossinq
Adelaide R Dirty Lagoon GS8170020 1962 to 1986 4325
t,
The catchment area of Dirty Lagoon, which encompasses Margaret and

Marrakai catchment areas is only 159 sq kIn greater than the sum of
the latter two. It is therefore expected that the sum of the
monthly volumes Erom the two upstream stations should be almost
equal to that at Dirty Lagoon. A plot of these monthly volumes,
where a full record was available, is given in figures 5.1, 5.2
and 5.3.
The volumes are .overall fairly equal with the line of best fit
lying at 45 degrees to the axes as is expected. Above 550,000 ML,
volumes from Dirt;y Lagoon are much higher. This is because the
reliable limit of the rating curve has been exceeded for the
Marrakai and Margaret stations and the volumes generated. do not
take adequatly in~o account flood plain flow, whereas Dirty Lagoon
does. For these higher volumes therefore, those generat,ed 'from
Dirty Lagoon are suggested as being more accurate as the tidal
effect would be minimal. However both volumes have been derived
and are given in table 5.2.

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
~
1000 I I I I I I I I I
#
IV . ~
~
~ 900 . . -- - - - - - . . 'v':.' ~
- x
...J
~
IY~ " ' . ~
0
'"
0
- 8 0 0 -
r 600 I I · • . " I
I- • ,
UJ 400 ....
,
.fo
~ 300 < / , 1 1 --4 1 1 j 1 I I
ex.: 100~.
« .
~
o
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
DIRTY LAGOON MONTHLY VOLUMES {MLlx10 3
."
ca" DIRTY LAGOON VS MARRAKAI + MARGARET MONTHLY VOLUMES (UP TO 750.000 MLl
Page 57 of 70.
0.
......
-15-
,
100
90
i
II
,
II i
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I! I,X
I i-<--- ; I •
...oo,
'"oo,
g 80
I
I
I
I 'v<~/V .• '",
f-'X
~:J 70
V
<~
(!l-
c:w 60
• V I
,,
<w . I
:::E~
+::> 50
•
• V ,
V
-J
<0
:::.:: > LI. 0
I,
< >- .
c:
c:-J
<:J: 30
. . .1/ I
I
I
I
:E~
°
:E 20
I I. VI . •
i
I
I,
10 '1/
• l ••
...~ --.;• ,i"
•.
1
j
I I,
~.
I I
I
I, I
o I I I I I
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
DIRTY LAGOON MONTHLY VOLUMES (ML) x10 3
DIRTY LAGOON vs MARRAKAI ~ MARGARET
MONTHL Y VOLUMES (MLl VOLUMES BelOW 100.000 ML Fig. 5.2
20
~~/
I
I I
I I
I
I
18 i
I, •
-
I .
•
IV""<-:;
1
1/ •
I
I
•
I
I / °1
• I
I 1/ I
,
,I
•
/ II
.I '/•
.I I
/' I
I
-j
I •
I,
I
2
•
I/, • I •
o~
I·
:1 • II I,I
• ~•• t! • I
o 2 4 G 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 :22
DIRTY LAGOON MONTHLY VOLUMES {MLl x10 3
DIRTY LAGOON vs MARRAKAI + MARGARET
MONTHL Y VOLUMES IMU VOLUMES BELOW 20,000 ML Fig. 5.3

-16-
Below 100,000 ML the discharge volumes at Dirty Lagoon are best

estimated by the sum of Marrakai and Margaret' s volumes as the
water level is well below flood level for these stations, whereas
Dirty Lagoon is significantly affected by tides in the lower
stages.
As Dirty Lagoon gauging station was not established until 1962 all
volumes prior to that date are based on the sum of Marrakai and
Margaret volumes_
Similarly, as Margaret R. station closed in 1978, monthly volumes

post 1978 are based on- Marrakai and Dirty Lagoon volumes. To
estimate the volumes for the drier months, known monthly volumes,
(prior to 1978) for Marrakai were plotted against those for
Margaret in order to establish a correlation (figure 5.4, 5.5) from
which the Margaret volumes are then estimated. The derived monthly
volumes are given in table 5.2.
A generalised check on annual flow volumes for Dirty Lagoon was

achieved be plott~ing against Darwin River Dam annual runoff and
Darwin annual rai_nfall. The resultant plots are shown in figures
5.6, 5.7 and 5.8. Correlations are observed, however the higher
volumes are more scattered in figure 5.7. Exact correlation is not
expected as the <mnual rainfall values are Darwin based a.nd Dirty
Lagoon is located some 70 km south of Darwin and rainfall can vary
largely over such distances. As an order of magintude check on the
derived annual volumes, rainfall was multiplied by Dirty Lagoon
catchment area and fractioned to obtain 25% and 50'\ runoff
estimates. These lines are drawn in on the figures. For the Dirty
Lagoon based volumes only one exceeds the 50% runoff line.

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
800 U)
U)
N
~
a
----j--+--~~~---L--.-
o•
700 --------------1----1---1---
(") '"o•
o.... ~
x
::::; 600 ,_ _ _~---L. /
V;T'---1----I---- 1
-
::;t
r-------t----I--l-~-I-
(/')
UJ
~
"""
:::) 5 0 0 I . /
-'
o
.//
>
>-
..J
:r:
I-
Z
400
. /v: . ·---I---J- -
I
o • • .....
::;t 300 • • • -.J
I
I~!--I-~---' ~-r--i-----t-f-~--I---
:;(
~
<;(
0:
0: 200
<;(
::;t
[7.-....-.. .
100
t •••
. ~
-~ --- .
• •-
•.•~.! •
.... -.;II! ••
• •
I • •• til
o
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Ll50 500 550
-n MARGARET MONTHLY VOLUMES iMLix10 3

<E"
Page 60 of 70.
Ol
" MARRAKAI VS MARGARET MONTHLY VOLUMES BELOW 650,000 ML
*"'"
Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
100
90 .. .~.-
c-.
•
. ..
L/ •
....
'"
N
~
-- '"
oo
o
o
V
(l')
a•
M
0 • ~
f'
T" 80
~
X
...J V
-
~
(j)
70 •
V
/.
•
•
•
lU
,
~
::J
...J 60 • /' --~~
V
0
> • 0
>-
...J
50 r--.
I
I-
Z
0
•
•
•
/
/ • - .. • ,~
40
~
V •
00
I
~
~
« 30 •
V
/. --"
•
. ... - .
.~
0: • ••
0:
« ••0 •
~
f.
20
10
.: L V • ..
• • V· •
J0
~.-.
t.
o
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
MARGARET MONTHLY VOLUMES IMU x10 3
11
rF/
Page 61 of 70.
sn
Ol
MARRAKAI vs MARGARET MONTHLY VOLUMES BELOW 160,00 ML
Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
40 ....
II>
::'!
•
t()
0..... 36 --- . - -- --- '"J
o
!1>
x
~
..I
::=
~
32 - ,_. ~.
>--'
~
V o
~
UI
::= /'
:::>
...I 28 /'"
0
> l/I~ I
:;:
0
24
T
....J
U.
..I 20 /
«:::>
z
z
«
16 - V -- -
•
-
I
I-'
<D
Z
0 /'
/ I
0 12 . "
(!) /'
«..I
>-
8 -- L - -
I-
~
0:
Ci 4 v-: • ,
~~
o
o
--
1 2 3
-
4
--------_._ ... __.-
5
-~ ---
6
_.- .__ . _. __.. .. -
_
7 8
---
9
~- .. -.- .....,.......-
10 11
_.... -.-.
12
----
13 14
--- -
15 16
-n DARWIN RIVER DAM ANNUAL RUNOFF iML) x104

<p.
Page 62 of 70.
O"!
0) DARWIN RIVER DAM ANNUAL RUNOFF vs DIRTY LAGOON ANNUAL VOLUMES 1960·1969
-20-
- - -
L9Z1 £0 06 0'1'0
o
o -aw
<0
~ \ N U)
.",
-C"
\
,
\
I <:
co
\
\
, o z
o
.q 0
\
, I N 0
I
\ <!:I
. ·\1 o
<:
-I
I '\ • I o
II \
, N
N >-
I-
I! I,
\
,
i 0::
I
,I
•
'
\
I
,
, ,
•
I
I o
o -
a
[\,1
o C/)
I
\1 '~
N UJ
::E
::>
t, o -I
, I II
.-.'
\
1 o 0
,
, , ,, co >
I \ \ ~
.-E
I \ -I
0->, "
,,
I
,,
,
I •
•
I
I
,,
, 1
•
,
r\ •
I -E
•..J
<:
::>
z
Z
.
\ <:
\
•..J
!
I
\
,, \ .:(
I , l.L
z a
1\, o UJ
I 1"" ,,
1\ o ~ l-
<:
''\ '" ll:

I ,,
\
\
, •...1
...J
=>
Z
,,
,
\
\
, «
:::l
<.)
...J
0 \
\
o z <:
1--0 ~
,, \
o z <.)
(9 , I \j N
« z
1\
~
<: \
z 0
1\,,,
I
...J I
~>- <:
, \
I
, I ,
a
a :;; <!:I
0
l- •
,
, o 0:
<:
CC W
0:
I
,,
, « ...J
0 <: \ l:l
,, \
\ >-
X
l- I
, I, \
\ o I-
I--....J z , o 0::
...J W
I
I
\
,
co a
<: ::?: ,
U. :c \
, \
,,
(I)
>
Z ,,
I
\
()
I , o
1--« I-
0: «
, a ....J
....J
Z
0
I I \
\
\
,
<0 <:
u.
Z
I--
:;;
cc
<: '1"'"", ,, \1 o
o
<:
0::
a
X
,,
,,
\
,
\
'" ....J
<:
::>
I .. - \ ,, \
\
\ a
:z
z
~~ o <:
ll)O ,, \
N
(\Ill)
, , \
\
~
', \\
,
\
,
I
,. \ 3:
0::
" o <:
...o co
N
o a
gO~X 11"4 3~nlOJ\ l'Q'nNN'v' Q31'v'lnOWO NOOO'v'l Al/::lIQ
Fig. 5.7

Page 64 of 70. Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
DIRTY LAGOON CALCULATED ANNUAL VOLUME

B-g 'O!J
(MARRAKAI BASEDl ML x105
o .,. aJ
~ ~
en '"o .,.rv '"co w

rv
w
OJ
.p.
o
o ,, '" i
0
>-
::0
,
., I ,,
,,
I
~ tv
\
,
Z 0 ~-
0 \
, ~
z>- ,,
\
z \
, X
c .p.
v_
>-
r-
0
0 I
, »
::0
::0
\
,, I:Z:
>- , '2
I ~-
Z (J)
0
\
. , I
"r->- 0
I
r-
\1, ,2
,"11
<
U>
aJ
0
0
,, I I, ,
I
I I>
,-
,-
-I
0
33
,
\ X
--I \
~. ~
0
\
,, 0
::0_
r- 0 -l
:>
\
0
-<
G')
0
0
v
>
~
rv
\1, I
,-
»
0-
Z ::0 0 ,
0 , 0 II
1\
\ I
(") :E I
o
>- Z
\
,, 2
r- ,
(")
c
» ~
.p. I \ I 0
-
z 0 >-
r-
:>c
--I : >,
Z 0
\ I
,I'
l
-l
0
\
~
I
m r- • \
, -'-
s:
o :' ::t! ~
(J)
\
,, I m -
>-
z z
Z
>,
.1
»
0
0
.\ • ,
,,
I
!
i
Z
, l
-
>-
C
>-
r-
r-
0'
_.3
~
aJ
0
I I
\
\
,
,
::0
m
>-
-
\1 ,,
0
<:
0 3 ,, !
r-
-' 10
, II.
C
:: 0
0
, •
\
, - , I
m •
(/) 0 \
,,
-::>:
::0
::0
'"0
tv
0
•
•
J
\\ \\ t •
\
\
,
>-
r: :- \
\
:> \
'".p.0 I \ I
,,
CO
:>
0 I \
\
, I
~\ [
(/)
m tv
I ""..-, .\ I
II
-
0 en
0
0
\
04()·90·03·1267
-tZ-

-22-
TABLE :; 2
. .
MONTHLY FLOW VOLUMES -
~OR DIRTY LAGOON . .
MEGALITRES .
1956 1957 H58 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
/57
SEP 03 710 14 258 2 552 0' 0 0 03 0
OCT 50 3 303 0 62 140 02 0 0 03 0
•
NOV I 975 2 3000 3 118 3400 2 1810 10240 5430 0 25340 0
,,
DEC 162800 2 99400 4570 2 48000 3 16630 8970 16860 13260 672000 59200 2
206000'
JAN 228600 3 89900 214000 2 46300 41000 249000 1 131000 55200 80000' 530000
FEB 438000 111300 24850 3 413000 75800 592000 351000 91200 3798 1292818
'
559000'*
MAR 845000 2 86500 19180 2 493000 1 77300 54300 243000 321000 1211521 105800
...
597000'"
APR 21500 3 22930 417000 2 45000 8120 1220 84.S00 1300 178000 5120
MAY 5340 3 1229 7950 39300 510 26 1324 742 1280 560
JUN 2366 68, 1977 3101 24 10 n 64 195 151
JUL 1610 616 1060 1450 02 0 0 0 12 16
AUG 1060 145 546 2 903 02 0 a 02 0 0
TOTAL 1706301 416720 691265 1093718 221886 915768 833486 494896 2172146 1993665
109162':;
• 1259847
i. Gauge height has exceeded the reliable limit for one or both of the
Marrakai and Margaret stations: on which the volume is based~
2. Sum based on Marrakai-Margaret correlation.

3. Volume estimated by general trend
4~ Volume derived from Dirty Lagoon as others not available
* Volume a.s obtained by 3~'U of Marrakai and Margaret where the limits have
been exceeded . .

-23-
TABLE :;.2 Conti::lued ••.

.
!
1966 19671 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
'I
SEP 0 0 100 a 0 446 19 3 811 526
.
OCT 183 0 52 13 a 573 12 2150 2229 1572
,
NOV 638 a 105 1214 4442 8400 1034 23800 5440 8030
DEC 56600 1653 5100 16430 25700 119400 2944 40200 78800 59200
JAN 68300 129000 SISCO 19990 39700 76100 191000 .525000 20200e 458000
FEB 687000 25.27800 1365310 190000 249000 147500 1314950 1050700 912000 920000
90~DOO* 54.2000· 460000* 678000" 444000,1- 586000·
MAR 115000 512000 J.252950 30760 742000 723000 1 822000 2555400 1111660 2795700
S780CO'" 438COO~ 1020000• 707000"" 61.3000*
APR 10110 8650 15530 21430 184000 88900 22300 204000 133000 40000 2
MAY 1670 115000 3010 1100 16180 4287 2534 11200 6880 6810
JUN 692 5420 1080 02 757 1102 1231 4010 2207 23-93
JUL 48 1450 557 0 157 51; 359 1890 895 1650
AUG a 429 573 0 0 332 57 1040 316 929
TOTAL 1540241 3301402 1197607 280937 1261944 1170557 2358440 4419393 2456238 4295310
1677502 • 2695867
~
1119490
• 2511293
• 1583578 • 1778610•
1 . . Gauge height has. e:tceeded the reliable limit for one or both of the
Marrakai and Margaret stations on which the vol~T.e is based.
3. Volume e3timated by general trend
-4. Volul'!'.e derived from Dirty Lagoon as other3 not available
* Volume as obtained by awn of Marrakal and Margaret where the limits have
been exceeded.

-24-
TABLE 5 2 Continued ...
:1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984, 1985
SEP 450 198 0 02 02 10090' 0' 0' 562' 648'
OCT 220 29 0 110' . 0' 11140' 0' 637 2 40 2 ,3 1760.2
,
N.OV 578 :164 36200' 78' 4230' 27200' 0' .2000 3 142 1800 2
i
DEC 9HO 65700 34500 2 28000' 48600' 94000 2 4600' 4500 3 8700 2 3370 2
I -,
JAN 115700 155000 199000 250000= 149000 2 400000' 4900 2 232000 58300'· 383000
FEB 399000 399000 334000 1499400 1177400 324000 42800 2 1302520 94200' 106000
914000 2 739000 2 • 530000'-;'i*
MAR 1678700 13£000 305000 370000 844000 273000 498COG 795000 80100 2 46900 2
796000· 450000 2 •
APR 69700 14280 2000.2 75400' 16920' 8250 2 80100"' 353000 68400() 152000
324000 2 *'
MAY 7180 128 407' 2C00 3 1790' 620' 1180 2 9790' 6590 2 1650'
JUN 1824 301 45' 400' 599' 200 2 ris l 1250 2 1520 2 513 2
!
JUL 897 253 i 0' 205' 284 2 153 2 0' 557 2 1070 2 573 2
AUG 434 52 0' 02 41' a' 0' 30e 2 150 2 568'
TOTAL 2284123 772705 911152 2225593 2242864 114865.3 631756 2701562 936446 698782
14014-23
• 16401~3' 1410464l 192904Z 576446
1. Gauge height ha3 ·exceeded the reliable limit for one or both of the
Marrakai and Margaret stations on which the volume is based~

3. Volume estimated by general trend
4. Volume derived from Dirty Lagoon as others not available
* Volu..me-' as obtained by -sum of Marrakai and Margaret where the limits have
been exceeded.

APPENDIX 2
MONTHLY INFLOWS AT DIRTY LAGOON GS 8170020

1956-1985

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
Monthly Inflow Volumes at Dirty Lagoon GS 8170020

1956-1985
YEAR SEP ocr ffJV Dn; JAN Fm MAR APR MAY JON JUL JIDJ 'IOTA!..
1956- 0 50 975 161800 228600 438000 845000 21500 5340 2366 1610 1060 1706301 !iL
1957- 710 303 3000 99400 89900 111300 86500 22930 1229 687 616 145 416720 MI.
1958- 14 0 118 4510 214000 24850 19180 417000 7%0 1977 1060 546 691265 ML
1959- 258 6 3400 48000 46300 413000 493000 45000 39300 3101 1450 903 1093718 ML
1960- 552 140 1810 16630 41000 75800 77300 8120 510 24 0 0 221886 ML
1961- 0 0 10240 8970 249000 592000 54300 12.."0 28 10 0 0 915768 ML

1962- 0 0 5430 16860 131000 351000 243000 84800 1324 72 0 0 833486 ML
1963- 0 0 0 13260 55200 91200 321000 13430 742 64 0 0 494896 IlL
1964- 0 0 25340 20600 80000 3798 59700 178000 1280 195 12 0 1091625 IlL
1965- 0 0 0 59200 530000 559000 10580 5120 560 151 16 0 . 1259847 ML
1966- 0 183 638 56600 68300 687000 71500 10110 1670 692 48 0 1540241 ML
1967- 0 0 0 1653 129000 904000 51200 8650 115000 5420 1450 429 1677602 ML
1968- 100 52 105 5100 51500 542000 578000 15530 3010 1080 557 573 1197607 ML
1969- 0 13. 1214 16430 19990 190000 30760 21430 1100 0 0 0 280937 ML
1970- 0 8 4442 25700 39700 249000 742000 184000 16180 757 157 0 1261944 ML
1971- 446 573 8400 119400 76100 147500 723000 88900 4287 1102 517 332 1170557 ML
1972- 19 12 1034 2944 191000 460000 438000 22300 2534 1231 359 57 1119490 ML
1973- 3 2150 23800 40200 525000 678000 1020000 204000 11200 4010 1890 1040 2511293 IlL
1974- 811 2229 5440 78800 202000 444000 707000 133000 6880 2207 895 316 1583578 ML
1975- 526 1572 8030 59200 458000 586000 613000 40000 6810 2893 1650 929 1778610 ML
1976- 450 220 578 9440 115700 399000 796000 69700 7180 1824 897 434 1401423 HI..
1977- 198 29 1164 65700 155000 399000 136000 14280 728 301 253 52 772705 ML
1978- 0 0 36200 34500 199000 334000 305000 2000 407 45 0 0 911152 ML
1979- 0 110 78 28000 250000 914000 370000 75400 2000 400 205 0 1640193 ~IL
1980- 0 0 4230 48600 149000 739000 450000 16920 1790 599 284 41 1410464 ML
Page 69 of 70.
Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010
YEAR SEP ocr WI nll: JAN rnl J1l\R APR 11AY Jtm JUL AUG 'MAL
19&1- 10090 11140 27200 94000 400000 324000 273000 8250 620 200 153 0 1148653 r:n.,
1982- 0 0 0 4600 4900 42800 498000 80100 1180 178 0 0 631758 r:n.,
1983- 0 637 2000 4500 232000 530000 795000 353000 9790 1250 557 308 1929042 r:n.,
1984- 562 40 14 8700 58300 94200 80100 324000 6590 1520 1070 75<J 576446 IlL
1985- 648 1760 1800 3370 383000 106000 46900 152000 165<J 513 573 568 698782 IlL
HEANS 513 708 5889 44738 179083 380982 422381 87356 8629 1162 543 283 1132261 ML
ST.nv. 1828 2078 9453 50022 148254 259651 292947 111628 21460 1325 590 357 529461 ML
c.v. 3.564 2.936 1.605 1.118 0.828 0.682 0.694 1.218 2.487 1.140 1.087 1.264 0.468
SKEII 5.297 4.683 2.106 1.720 1.125 0.318 0.153 1.722 4.580 1.624 0.921 1.014 0.381
SE.OO. -0.068 -0.044 -0.218 0.013 -0.129 0.290 0.085 0.191 -0.012 0.239 0.342 0.218 0.135
Page 70 of 70.

Marrakaidam Yield Study: Report No

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marrakaidam Yield Study: Report No

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report WRD91054

Report No. 54/91

WATER RESOURCES DIVISION

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 1 of 70.

FSL DAM YIELD

16.0 200,000 255,000 279,000 332,000

18.0 347,000 397,000 434,000 487,000

19.0 418,000 464,000 489,000 552,000

19.5 437,000 484,000 506,000 560,000

20.0 455,000 503,000 522,000 567,000

22.0 485,000 528,000 559,000 597,000

24.0 508,000 540,000 564,000 602,000

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 2 of 70.

The dam yields were found to be sensitive to the normal variability in

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 3 of 70.

2.1 Streamflow Data 3

3 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS 5

3.1. i Rainfall Runoff Modelling 7

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 4 of 70.

3.1.6 Balancing Units 12

3.1.8 Probability of Filling Analysis 16

APPENDIX 1 Establishment of Monthly Flow Volumes at

APPENDIX 2 Monthly Inflows at Dirty Lagoon GS 8170020

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 5 of 70.

FIGURE 1 RESERVOIR BEHAVIOUR DIAGRAM

FIGURE 2 MARRAKAI DAM - LOCALITY MAP 2

FIGURE 3 ELEVATION/AREA/CAPACITY CURVE 6

FIGURE 4 RAINFAll!... - RUNOFF CORRELATION 1956 - 1985 9

FIGURES MARRAKAI DAM - FULL SUPPLY LEVEL VERSUS YIELD 20

FIGURE 6 SAFE YIELD VERSUS INITIAL STORAGE 23

FIGURE? SAFE YIELD VERSUS GENERATED PERIOD 24

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 6 of 70.

TABLE 1 CATCHME::NT RAINFALL DATA 4

TABLE 2 LONG TERM RAINFALL DATA 7

TABLE 3 DIRTY LAGOON GS 8170020 8

TABLE 4 LAKE EVAPORATION AND PAN FACTORS 13

TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE MEAN MONTHLY DRAFT 17

TABLE 6 MARRAK;~I DAM YIELD 19

TABLE 7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 21

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 7 of 70.

Dead Storage The volume of water stored below the

Capacity The volume of the reservoir below the full

Yield (or Draft) The volume of controlled water released

Reservoir Failure Reservoir failure is taken to be any month

Probability of Failure The ratio of the number of years the

"b" % Yield The yield from a reservoir with a

Safe Yield The yield from a reservoir with a

Expected Yield The 50% yield obtained after ranking the

Critical Period The period during which a reservoir goes

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 8 of 70.

TIME EMPTY TIME EMPTY '.; ,~

Average Duration of Failure The total number of months of failure

Time of Filling The time taken for the reservoir to fil!

Expected Time of Filling The 50% time of filling obtained aftm

Regulation Ratio of reservoir yield to mean flow.

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 10 of 70.

The Marrakai damsite! is situated on the Adelaide River about 2.5 km

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) in their reconnaissance

The safe yield was obtained by storage behaviour analysis of 37 years of

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 11 of 70.

VAN DIEMEN GULF

\ Pine Creek ()\

Viewed at 15:07:03 on 29/07/2010 Page 12 of 70.