Bundaberg Flood Protection Scoping Study Stage 1 Review

Bundaberg Flood Protection Scoping Study
Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning
Review of Flood Study and Flood Risk Management Study
IH080900_R2 | 2
February 2016
DILGP-3363-15
Review of Flo od Stu dy an d Fl ood Risk M ana gem ent St udy

Depar tme nt of Inf rast ructu re, Local Gove rn ment an d Planni ng
Review of Flood Study and Flood Risk Management
Study
Bundaberg Flood Protection Scoping Study
Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited

ABN 37 001 024 095
32 Cordelia Street
PO Box 3848
South Brisbane QLD 4101 Australia
T +61 7 3026 7100
F +61 7 3026 7300
www.jacobs.com
© Copyright 2015 Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs.
Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.
Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the
provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance
IH080900_R2 i
Study
Contents
Summary of Review .........................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................3
1.1 Background to review.............................................................................................................................3
1.2 Scope of review .....................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Purpose of this report .............................................................................................................................3
1.4 Limitations statement .............................................................................................................................4
2. Benchmarks and standards used for review ......................................................................................5
2.1 Flood Risk Management Publications .....................................................................................................5
2.2 Flood Study purpose and function ..........................................................................................................6
2.3 Flood Risk Management Study purpose and function .............................................................................6
3. Review of Burnett River Flood Study ..................................................................................................8
3.1 Data supplied and reviewed ...................................................................................................................8
3.2 Review of Burnett River Flood Study objectives and purpose..................................................................8
3.3 Data collection review ............................................................................................................................8
3.4 Flood frequency analysis review.............................................................................................................9
3.4.1 General methodology .............................................................................................................................9
3.4.2 Analysis of results ..................................................................................................................................9
3.5 Hydrological model review.................................................................................................................... 10
3.5.1 Choice of modelling software................................................................................................................ 10
3.5.2 Sub-catchment layout and catchment areas ......................................................................................... 10
3.5.3 Choice of calibration events ................................................................................................................. 10
3.5.4 Calibration quality................................................................................................................................. 11
3.5.5 Adopted modelling parameters ............................................................................................................. 11
3.5.6 Design events and critical durations ..................................................................................................... 11
3.6 Hydraulic model review ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.6.1 Choice of modelling software................................................................................................................ 12
3.6.2 Hydraulic model layout / configuration .................................................................................................. 13
3.6.3 Terrain ................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.6.4 Hydraulic roughness parameters .......................................................................................................... 13
3.6.5 Structures representation ..................................................................................................................... 14
3.6.6 Downstream boundary ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.6.7 Calibration quality................................................................................................................................. 15
3.6.8 Design events ...................................................................................................................................... 15
3.6.9 Flood hazard assessments................................................................................................................... 16
3.6.10 Sensitivity analyses .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.6.11 Climate change assessments ............................................................................................................... 16
3.6.12 Emergency Management assessment .................................................................................................. 16
3.6.13 Nested hydraulic modelling assessments ............................................................................................. 16
3.6.14 Reporting ............................................................................................................................................. 17
3.6.15 Mapping ............................................................................................................................................... 17
IH080900_R2 ii
Study
3.7 Flood study elements not reviewed ...................................................................................................... 18

4. Review of Lower Burnett River Floodplain Risk Management Study .............................................. 19
4.1 Data supplied and reviewed ................................................................................................................. 19
4.2 Commentary on overall FRM approach ................................................................................................ 19
4.3 Review of Flood Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................ 21
4.4 Review of Evacuation Capability Assessment ....................................................................................... 22
4.5 Review of Flood Damages Assessment................................................................................................ 23
4.5.1 Overall Approach ................................................................................................................................. 23
4.5.2 Floor Level Estimation .......................................................................................................................... 23
4.5.3 Stage-damages curves used ................................................................................................................ 24
4.6 Choice of flood management measures................................................................................................24
4.6.1 Process of identification ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.6.2 Process of short-listing ......................................................................................................................... 24
4.7 Options not fully identified .................................................................................................................... 25
4.7.1 Property buy-back scheme ................................................................................................................... 25
4.7.2 Flood refuges ....................................................................................................................................... 25
4.7.3 Catchment storage upstream of Paradise Dam.....................................................................................25
4.7.4 Combinations of options ....................................................................................................................... 26
4.8 Assessment of flood management measures ....................................................................................... 26
4.8.1 MCA development and design.............................................................................................................. 26
4.8.2 MCA sensitivity assessments ............................................................................................................... 27
4.8.3 MCA application ................................................................................................................................... 27
4.8.4 Flood model assessments .................................................................................................................... 28
4.8.5 Costings and concept designs .............................................................................................................. 28
4.8.6 Benefit estimation................................................................................................................................. 29
4.8.7 Assessment of combination of options.................................................................................................. 30
4.9 Assessment of non-structural flood management measures ................................................................. 30
4.10 Review of FRM Reporting and Community Presentation Material ......................................................... 30
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................32
5.1 Conclusions of Burnett River Flood Study review.................................................................................. 32
5.2 Recommendations to progress the Burnett River Flood Study .............................................................. 32
5.2.1 Major influence recommendations ........................................................................................................ 32
5.2.2 Moderate influence recommendations .................................................................................................. 32
5.2.3 Minor influence recommendations ........................................................................................................ 32
5.3 Conclusions of Lower Burnett River Floodplain Management Study review........................................... 33
5.4 Recommendations to improve the Lower Burnett River Floodplain Management Study......................... 33
5.4.1 Major influence recommendations ........................................................................................................ 33
5.4.2 Moderate influence recommendations .................................................................................................. 33
5.4.3 Minor influence recommendations ........................................................................................................ 34
6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 35
IH080900_R2 iii
Study
Appendix A. Cost Estimation Accuracy
IH080900_R2 iv
Study
Summary of Review
Introduction
In January 2013, Bundaberg experienced its largest flood on record. Prior to that flood, the December 2010
flood was the largest flood since 1942 (at that time).
Following the December 2010 flood event, Bundaberg Regional Council (BRC) commissioned GHD to update
the Burnett River Flood Study (GHD, 2004). This engagement produced the Burnett River Flood Study (GHD,
2013).
Following that study, the Lower Burnett Flood Risk Management Study was carried out (again by GHD). An
outcome of this work was the development of the Burnett River Flood Action Plan.
In October 2015, the State Government requested a review of this work to assist in the furthering of the
Bundaberg Flood Protection Study. This review has benchmarked the work against standard industry practice
and a range of accepted industry publications and guidelines.
Review of Flood Study
In general, the Burnett River Flood Study is a comprehensive assessment of flood behaviour in the lower
Burnett River with a specific focus on the flood behaviour in the Bundaberg area. The following comments are
made based on this review:
The flood frequency analysis appears to be consistent with the rainfall-runoff results. This is an
indication of the use of appropriate parameters in the modelling.
The flood modelling approach and application appears to be of a generally high quality based on the
available information
An intendant flood frequency analysis would provide a good check of the outcomes of the flood study
peak flow estimates.
There are some recommendations regarding changes to hydraulic roughness coefficients. However,
these are unlikely to result in significant changes to flood levels
The values reported for losses used for bridges across the river do not seem to be appropriate but this
may be a reporting error. Regardless the effect on flood level estimates would not be significant.
Smaller more frequent floods could have been simulated to add value to the flood risk management
process.
The flood calibration figures could be improved to increase the level of confidence amongst the
community that the model matches recorded flood levels well.
There are some minor improvements possible to the flood maps
Review of Flood Risk Management Study
Overall, the Lower Burnett River Floodplain Management Study is a comprehensive assessment of flood risk
and available options. The study is of a high quality and has been carried out with very high community
expectations and highly diverse views in the community. As well, the timing of the study immediately after the
2013 flood event resulted in the consultation being conducted in a very emotional social environment.
This review has raised only a small number of matters that require further consideration or are areas for
improvement with the benefit of hindsight.
IH080900_R2 1
Study
The process of developing the multi-criteria analysis could have been carried out to derive a more useful tool.
As well, the provision of feedback to the community on the assessment of options that were not taken further
could be improved.
There are some flood risk management options that could have been included in the consideration of options
(see below).
However, even given the above recommendations, the flood risk management study provides a strong basis for
the subsequent progression of a strategic flood risk plan for the Lower Burnett area.
Recommendations for Stage 2 of the Bundaberg Flood Protection Study
An alternative process for comparing flood risk management measures needs to be developed as part
of Stage 2 of the Bundaberg Flood Protection Study.
The provision of feedback to the community on the assessment of options that were not taken further
needs attention.
A number of flood risk management measures need to be considered further including:

o Compulsory land swap/ voluntary house purchase schemes
o Combinations of options to take advantage of offsets from one option on another
o Flood storage options in the entire Burnett River catchment
o Flood refuges and high flood immunity evacuation centres for Bundaberg North.
o Delaying the time of closure of the Tallon Bridge during flood events.
The mapping of flood risk needs to include a spatial representation of the vulnerability of residents
(based on ABS census data) and the spatial distribution of flood damages.
IH080900_R2 2
Study
1. Introduction
1.1 Background to review
In January 2013, Bundaberg experienced its largest flood on record. Prior to that flood, the December 2010
flood was the largest flood since 1942 (at that time).
Following the December 2010 flood event, Bundaberg Regional Council (BRC) commissioned GHD to update
the Burnett River Flood Study (GHD, 2004). This engagement produced the Burnett River Flood Study (GHD,
2013).
Following that study, the Lower Burnett Flood Risk Management Study was carried out (again by GHD). An
outcome of this work was the development of the Burnett River Flood Action Plan.
In October 2015, the state Government announced the start of the Bundaberg Study which includes desktop
reviews of the:
Burnett River Flood Study Final Report (GHD, October 2013)
Lower Burnett Floodplain Risk Management Study (GHD, June 2014); and
The community consultation process that accompanied these studies and the development of the
Burnett River Flood Action Plan.
1.2 Scope of review
The Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP) commissioned Jacobs Australia Pty
Ltd (Jacobs) to carry out this review.
The scope of the review is presented below (based on statements in the DILGP request for quotation):
“Undertake an independent desktop peer review of the Burnett River Flood Study…., the GHD led FRMS
…. developed to date….The desktop review would consider flood model suitability, while the review of the
FRMS …. would reconsider the process to determine the preferred flood mitigation options.”
The proposed outcome of the study was listed as:
“An independent assessment of the flood studies and FRMS that will identify any deficiencies in the
development of the studies and the process and the assessment of flood mitigation options as nominated
in the FRMS.”
1.3 Purpose of this report
This report provides documentation of the outcomes of the reviews listed above. It includes:
an outline of the documents against which the studies were benchmarked (Chapter 2)
an itemised review of key elements of the Burnett River Flood Study (Chapter 3)
an itemised review of key elements of the Lower Burnett Flood Risk Management Study (Chapter 4)
conclusions drawn from the reviews and recommendations for further work (Chapter 5).
IH080900_R2 3
Study
1.4 Limitations statement
The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Jacobs is to provide a review of the
Burnett River Flood Study and the Lower Burnett Flood Risk Management Study in accordance with the scope
of services set out in the contract between Jacobs and DILGP. That scope of services was developed in
association with DILGP.
In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the
absence thereof) provided by GHD, Bundaberg Regional Council, DILGP and/or from other sources. Except as
otherwise stated in the report, Jacobs has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such
information. If the information is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is
possible that our observations and conclusions as expressed in this report may change.
Jacobs derived the data in this report from information sourced from GHD, Bundaberg Regional Council, DILGP
and/or that available in the public domain at the time or times outlined in this report. The passage of time,
manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further examination of the project and
subsequent data analysis, and re-evaluation of the data, findings, observations and conclusions expressed in
this report. Jacobs has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the
consulting profession, for the sole purpose described above and by reference to applicable standards,
guidelines, procedures and practices at the date of issue of this report. For the reasons outlined above,
however, no other warranty or guarantee, whether expressed or implied, is made as to the data, observations
and findings expressed in this report, to the extent permitted by law.
This report should be read in full and no excerpts are to be taken as representative of the findings. No
responsibility is accepted by Jacobs for use of any part of this report in any other context.
This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of DILGP and is subject to, and issued in
accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and DILGP. Jacobs accepts no liability or
responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.
IH080900_R2 4
Study
2. Benchmarks and standards used for review

2.1 Flood Risk Management Publications
There are a number of publications that have been used in this review in order to provide a benchmark against
which the GHD/BRC work has been tested. The key publications used for this review and benchmarking
process are described below.
1. Managing the floodplain: a guide to best practice in flood risk management in Australia
(Australian Emergency Management Institute, 2013): This guide is widely recognised as the definitive
guidance for flood risk management in Australia. This guideline was created by the National Flood Risk
Advisory Group (NFRAG), which is a reference group of the Australian – New Zealand Emergency
Management Committee (ANZEMC). While it is noted that this document was published during the flood
studies and flood risk management studies under review here, the basic principles in the document are
very similar to those listed in Floodplain management in Australia: best practice principles and
guidelines (SCARM Report No. 73, 2000). Until 2013, this SCARM document was seen to be by many
as the definitive guidance for flood risk management in Australia in the flood risk management industry.
2. Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987 and Revision Projects): Herein referred to as AR&R, this is the
widely accepted guidance on the techniques to be used in flood assessments in Australia. The 1987
version is a comprehensive stand-alone document that is progressively being reviewed and superseded
by the on-going AR&R Revision Project. The relevant revision projects that have been used in this
review include:
a. Project 1 Development of Intensity Frequency Duration Information across Australia

b. Project 2 Spatial Patterns of Rainfall
c. Project 3 Temporal Patterns of Rainfall
d. Project 6 Losses for Design Flood Estimation
e. Project 10 Appropriate Safety Criteria for People
f. Project 11 Blockage of Hydraulic Structures
g. Project 15 Two Dimensional (2D) Modelling in Urban and Rural Floodplains
h. Project 18 Interaction of Coastal Processes and Severe Weather Events
i. Book 3 – Peak Discharge Estimation released for industry comment
3. Floodplain Development Manual: the management of flood liable land (NSW Department of
Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, 2005). Prior to the publishing of “Managing the
floodplain” (Item 1), this document was widely seen as the best guidance on the flood risk management
process. It is still useful due to the level of detail that it provides on the assessment of flood risk
management measures.
4. Planning for stronger, more resilient floodplains, Part 2 - Measures to support floodplain
management in future planning schemes (Queensland Reconstruction Authority, 2012). This
document is somewhat focussed on land-use planning as a flood risk management measure, but is
useful due to its Queensland context and because of its links to the State Planning Policy (July 2014).
5. State Planning Policy (DSDIP, July 2014) and Draft State Planning Policy Guideline: Guidance on
flood, bushfire and landslide hazards (December, 2013). This document provides guidance on the
level of flood study assessment that is suitable for a range of scenarios. It is also the guidance on
managing the natural hazard of flooding in Queensland. However, many of the detailed
recommendations in this document refer back to Managing the Floodplain (2013).
IH080900_R2 5
Study
6. National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines (National Emergency Management Committee,

2010). This document, also referred to as NERAG, provides a framework for a national approach to the
conduct of emergency risk assessments. It follows an ‘all hazards’ approach including flooding and
provides guidance on risk and probability terminology.
2.2 Flood Study purpose and function
Flood studies are a recognised and somewhat well-defined first step in a flood risk management process.
Managing the Floodplain (2013) states the following in regard to defining a flood study:
“The flood study is a comprehensive technical investigation of flood behaviour that provides the main
technical foundation of a robust management plan. It aims to provide a better understanding of the full
range of flood behaviour and consequences. It involves consideration of the local flood history, available
collected data, and the development of models that are calibrated and verified, where possible, against
significant historic flood events and extended to determine the full range of flood behaviour.
The flood study provides information to update the knowledge hub, inform the community, update
emergency management planning, and limit growth in risk by informing land-use planning measures to
control new development. The degree of sophistication of the flood study should be commensurate with the
outcomes and outputs required from the study and the complexity of the flood situation.”
As well, Managing the Floodplain (2013) provides the context of the Flood Study in regard to the overall flood
risk management framework which is best illustrated in Figure 2-1.
2.3 Flood Risk Management Study purpose and function
As seen in the context diagram presented in Figure 2-1, the Flood Risk Management Study ideally follows the
Flood Study and provides an opportunity to define flood risks and assess a wide range of options to treat and
manage these risks. Managing the Floodplain (2013) states the following in regard to defining a Flood Risk
Management Study:
“The floodplain management study extends the flood study to increase understanding of the impacts of
floods on the existing and future community, and test management options. It provides a basis for
informing the development of a management plan to increase community safety through the treatment of
existing, future and residual risk. Community engagement is vital to the successful development of the
management study. The community should be consulted to allow their concerns, suggestions and
comments about management and options to be considered”.
IH080900_R2 6
Study
Figure 2-1 The Flood Risk Management Framework (taken from Figure 1-1 of Managing the Floodplain, 2013)
IH080900_R2 7
Study
3. Review of Burnett River Flood Study

3.1 Data supplied and reviewed
The data supplied by BRC and GHD that were used in carrying out this review are listed below:
Burnett River Flood Study report (GHD, 2013)
WaterRIDE flood animations of 2013 flood event (6 of)
Flood maps (pdf) from BRC website
ALS data supplied by BRC
BRC brief for the Burnett River Flood Study.
Of note, the flood models (hydrological and hydraulic) were not available for the purposes of this review.
3.2 Review of Burnett River Flood Study objectives and purpose
The early chapters of the Burnett River Flood Study report (GHD, 2013) document the purpose of the flood
study is to:
“inform a new regional planning scheme and provide Council with a sound basis for flood related planning
decisions.”
While these are important objectives of a flood study, there are usually many other purposes and objectives that
a flood study aims to meet. Listed below are some additional objectives that should have been considered in the
development of the Burnett River Flood Study. These may have been intended but not explicitly stated in the
report.
Provide a basis for assessment of flood mitigation measures

Provide information to assist flood emergency management
Build a rapport with the local community and provide confidence in the tools / models developed in the
flood study
Improve the knowledge of flood behaviour.
3.3 Data collection review
Chapter 3 of the Burnett River Flood Study report (GHD, 2013) documents the data collection phase of the
Flood Study. It included
Previous reports;
Aerial and ground based photography;
Topographic data (including historical topography data);
Bathymetric survey (including historical bathymetry data);
Rainfall, stream flow and rating curve data;
Tidal data;
IH080900_R2 8
Study
Details of hydraulic structures (barrage, bridges, embankments);
Historical flood data including:

o Flood levels
o Gauge level data
o Flood flows
o Dam level data.
The data collection appears to be thorough and appropriate for the purposes of the study.
The review of the previous reports appears to be thorough and provides a good basis for the flood study.
Key to the calibration of a flood model is the quality of the calibration data. The flood study does not appear to
include any assessment of the quality of the flood calibration data. Given the importance of the accuracy of this
data to the flood study, a review of the data quality was warranted. However, given that the critical flood event
for calibration is the January 2013 flood and that the calibration process occurred very soon after this flood
event, the quality of the flood level data for that event (and also for the 2010 and 2011 floods) is likely to be
high.
3.4 Flood frequency analysis review
3.4.1 General methodology
The general approach adopted in the flood frequency analysis appears to be valid and common practice. The
considerations on the period of record are useful. As well, the need to assess a range of scenarios to derive a
homogenous data set is supported.
The probability distributions used are typical of those applied to north-east coast Australian rivers. The use of
the Generalised Extreme Value (GEV) distribution would have been a useful addition as it is one of the more
common distributions used and is recommended by Australian Rainfall and Runoff Revision Project – Book 3
(IEAust, 1999). The adopted fitting method is not reported, nor is the method used to apply flow censoring. This
reduces the confidence in the outputs.
The method of increasing post-dam peak flows by 5% to account for the presence of the dams may be too
simplistic given that the larger flood events are likely to have occurred during very wet periods (with the
exception of the 2013 event). Alternative approaches could have been adopted to derive a homogenous data
set. These alternative approaches could be used in the recommended independent flood frequency analysis
(see below).
3.4.2 Analysis of results
The results of the flood frequency analysis indicate a degree of consistency with the results of the rainfall-runoff
modelling results.
However, there is insufficient data supplied in the report to draw any stronger conclusions over the veracity of
the flood frequency analysis. For example, the different distributions tested are not supplied to ascertain if LP3
is the best fit. In addition, the adopted fitting method is not reported, nor is the method used to apply flow
censoring.
It is also noted that the flood frequency analysis censored events smaller than 3,000 m³/s, approximately
equivalent to a 20% AEP event. The validity of the flood frequency for more frequent events is, therefore, likely
to be limited.
IH080900_R2 9
Study
It is acknowledged that the flood frequency analysis was reviewed by Paul Harding of CMP Engineers Pty Ltd.
His review concluded the following:
“In summary, GHD have followed the standard procedures for undertaking an FFA of the data from the
Walla gauge and have included available historical information. GHD have also undertaken a detailed
analysis to assess the sensitivity of the results to the data used. The uncertainty in the results should be
taken into account when using these results.”
However, given the importance of this flood frequency analysis in validating the outcomes of the design rainfall-
runoff modelling process, it is recommend that an independent flood frequency analysis be commissioned
based on available gauge flood data as this would provide a check against the flood study flood frequency
results and the design rainfall-runoff modelling results.
3.5 Hydrological model review
3.5.1 Choice of modelling software
The hydrologic modelling was undertaken using the URBS runoff-routing model (Carroll, 2004). As the GHD
Flood Study report states:
“URBS is a computer model that uses a network of conceptual storages to simulate the routing of rainfall
excess through a catchment. The URBS model is a distributed nonlinear rainfall routing model which can
account for the spatial and temporal variation in rainfall”.
URBS is a widely used hydrology model and has recently been used as the hydrology model for Brisbane River
Catchment Flood Study: Comprehensive Hydrologic Assessment (2013). The software is an appropriate choice
and adequately meets the needs of the study.
GHD used the split routing methodology which is appropriate for the level of complexity of this study. However,
it may have added an unnecessary level of complexity to the model.
3.5.2 Sub-catchment layout and catchment areas
Based on the documentation in the Burnett River Flood Study (2013), a total of 360 sub-catchments were used
2
to represent the 32,900 km catchment.
Figure 5-1 of the report shows these sub-catchments. They appear to be of a relatively uniform size which is
appropriate for the type of modelling software used. The number of sub-catchments is appropriate to define
flood behaviour downstream of Paradise Dam.
The report states that all five major dams on the catchment (Cania, Waruma, Boondooma, Bjelke-Peterson and
Paradise) are represented in the URBS hydrology model through a storage-level relationship, initial storage
level and outflow conditions defined by level-discharge rating curves. This is an appropriate approach to
simulating the characteristics of these storages as they relate to flood behaviour.
Paradise Dam is the largest storage in the catchment and the study included an assessment of the likelihood of
the starting water level in the dam for a range of design flood events. This was based on a simulation of the
dam’s operation over 107 years (likely to be based on previous rainfall records). While the report does not
reference this assessment, it would appear an appropriate approach and a conservative assumption that the
storage would be full at the start of the flood event appears valid. However, more detail of this assessment is
required to ascertain the sensitivity of this approach on the outcomes.
3.5.3 Choice of calibration events
Five flood events were chosen for calibration of the hydrological model. This is considered to be a suitable
number of events to achieve a calibrated flood model (especially if the range of model parameters used to
achieve that calibration is not large).
IH080900_R2 10
Study
The flood events chosen were:
February 1942 (4th largest on record),
February 1971 (a long duration event with a large volume),
December 2010 ((the second largest flood in the last 40 years)
January 2011 (a smaller recent flood)
January 2013 (the largest flood on record).
Based on the range of flood events chosen and that more recent flood events provide more accurate and
extensive rainfall and flood level data, the choice of calibration events seems appropriate.
3.5.4 Calibration quality
Section 6.5 of the Burnett River Flood Study (2013) provides a summary of the hydrological model calibration
results. Figures 6-6 to 6-10 of the report indicate that the URBS hydrology model matches the recorded flow
data at the Figtree or Paradise Dam gauges. The degree of error / mis-match between the modelled flows and
the recorded flows is within expected limits for a study of this nature recognising the accuracy of the rainfall and
the flow records.
Based on this part of the report, it appears the URBS hydrology model adequately simulates the rainfall-runoff
and storage process in the catchment for the purposes of the study.
3.5.5 Adopted modelling parameters
The adopted model parameters are presented in Section 6.6 of the Burnett River Flood Study (2013). The m
value of 0.8 is consistent with many other URBS and RORB models in Queensland. The alpha and beta factors
appear sensible for the type and size of the catchment simulated. It is noted that the x values are not reported,
nor are any of the catchment parameters (area, slope, % forestation). No justification of the adopted IF value is
provided.
The initial and continuing losses used for the design events (0mm and 2mm/h respectively) were based on the
range of values required for the calibration events. There is a wide range of continuing loss values in the five
calibration events (0.4mm/h to 2.3mm/h). However, if the 2011 event is discarded, which is the smallest of the
five calibration events, then there is general consistency of values (1.5mm/h to 2.3mm/h).
The adoption of the variation of initial loss with flood probability is supported (in the absence of a full Monte
Carlo analysis).
3.5.6 Design events and critical durations
Section 9.3.4 of the Burnett River Flood Study discusses the critical durations assessed. While the range from
24 hours to 72 hours is likely to have spanned the critical duration, it would have been preferable to simulate a
36 hour event as well in that range (as only the 24, 48 and 72 hour events were simulated). The approach of
testing the GTSMR temporal patterns for longer duration events (up to five days) is supported on the basis of
the length of rainfall events in the historical record of flooding.
The comparisons of the design flow hydrographs at Walla for the range of design events and three large
historical events (see Section 9.8 of the Burnett River Flood Study) highlights a good match between the
historical shapes and the design shapes. Hence, the design flood durations chosen are likely to be similar to
those of historical flood events and this adds validity to the flood study.
IH080900_R2 11
Study
The range of design event probabilities assessed is consistent with those requested in the BRC request for
quotation (Appendix I of the Burnett River Flood Study). The events requested were the 2%, 1%, 0.5% and
0.2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood events.
The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) was not listed in the BRC request for quotation. However, it is noted that
the flood study did include modelling of the PMF event. It is appropriate that it was added to the scope as it is
important to understand the possible upper limit of flooding.
The range of flood events is generally suitable for a flood study of this nature. Importantly, it included floods
larger and rarer than the 1% AEP flood event (i.e. the 0.5% and 0.2% AEP events were assessed). As well, the
PMF assessments indicate the possible upper limit of flooding.
However, ideally, a number of more probable / smaller events (eg 5%, 20% AEP) would have been included in
the assessment. These flood events can be used in flood risk management to set floor levels for less critical
infrastructure such as farm sheds, sports fields etc.
It is noted that the flood damages assessment included quantification of flood damages for these smaller
events. Hence, it is likely that these events were simulated and that the flood mapping could have included
these maps at a minimal additional cost.
The comparison of the design flood peaks (derived from the calibrated rainfall runoff model) and those derived
from the flood frequency analysis indicate an adequate match (see Section 9.6 of the Burnett River Flood
Study). The 1% AEP peak flow from the flood frequency analysis is estimated to be between 16,800 m 3/s and
17,800 m3/s. The peak flow derived from the rainfall runoff model was 17,000 m 3/s. The comparisons of the
peak flows derived from the pre-dam scenarios also indicate an adequate match.
3.6 Hydraulic model review
3.6.1 Choice of modelling software
The flood study required the choice of an appropriate flood modelling program. AR&R Project 15 provides
guidance on what type of flood model (eg 1D, 2D, 3D) should be used in certain flood modelling applications. In
regard to 2D flood models, the draft report for AR&R Project 15 states:
“Full 2D models are capable of providing a detailed description of the flow in urban or rural floodplains and
overbank areas. Full 2D models are more computationally demanding than 1D models. This may be a
factor when considering long simulations or real-time forecasting applications. In addition, fixed grid models
may have problems in providing adequate resolution of in-bank flows.”
The Burnett River Flood Study included the use of an integrated 1D/2D model. In regard to the application of
these types of flood models, the draft report for AR&R Project 15 states:
“These integrated models aim to provide a more comprehensive, efficient and accurate representation of a
hydraulic system by making the most of both branched 1D and full 2D model capabilities.”
Considering this guidance, the features of the Burnett River floodplain, the available computer software and
hardware capabilities (now and at the time of the study) and the objectives of the flood study, the adoption of an
integrated 1D/2D model is an appropriate choice.
The choice of TUFLOW flood modelling software is also appropriate given its capabilities and the widespread
use of this software. The finite difference version of the software was used in this study. While a finite element
or finite difference 2D flood modelling approach may have provided more fine detail, the use of a finite
difference with varying grid sizes (see below) achieves much of the detail required with reasonable simulation
times and model stability.
IH080900_R2 12
Study
3.6.2 Hydraulic model layout / configuration
The configuration of the flood model is documented in Chapter 7 of the Burnett River Flood Study (GHD, 2013).
In summary, the model configuration can be summarised as follows:
Paradise Dam to just downstream of Woongarra Pump Station: 2D model with 30m x 30m cells and 1D
channels approximately every 700m;
Just downstream of Woongarra Pump Station to river mouth: 2D model with 15m x 15m cells.
This configuration seems appropriate given the need to simulate long duration floods over a large area. The
interface between the two 2D domains (i.e. 30m domain interfacing with the 15m domain) can possibly result in
mass balance loss and flood model instabilities. The performance of this interface was not able to be reviewed
due to a lack of access to the flood model. If there is substantial mass loss at these interfaces, this can have an
impact on the ability of the model to accurately represent flood behaviour. However, given the high quality of the
flood model calibration, it would be unlikely (but not impossible) to achieve such a calibration quality with a
discernible mass error in the model.
3.6.3 Terrain
The terrain data used in the flood model was not able to be reviewed in detail. This review is limited to the
documentation in Chapter 7.4 of the Burnett River Flood Study (GHD, 2013).
The type and extent of data used seems appropriate for the purposes of the study. The vertical accuracy of the
terrain data is not discussed.
The commentary regarding the terrain used for the simulation of the 1942 flood event is noted and appropriate.
The approach of carrying out a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate that these changes in river mouth bathymetry
have little influence on the flood model performance in Bundaberg is a suitable approach to this issue.
3.6.4 Hydraulic roughness parameters
The hydraulic roughness parameters used in the flood model were not able to be reviewed in detail. This review
is limited to the documentation in Chapter 7.5 of the Burnett River Flood Study (GHD, 2013). The resolution of
Figure 7-2 in the flood study report is not of sufficient quality to enable a detailed review of the selected
hydraulic roughness parameters with respect to the vegetation and other land features visible in the aerial
photography.
However, the following comments are made on the values listed on Figure 7-2 in the flood study report:
The values used do not appear to have been derived from any established publications (eg BCC
Natural Channel Guidelines, 2001).
Agricultural land has been simulated with a Mannings n value of 0.07. There seems to be no
differentiation between the sugar cane areas (which are more likely to have an n value of 0.15 or 0.20)
and the pasture areas (which are more likely have an n value of 0.04). Hence, while an average value
may be close to 0.07 (recognising this would be the average of the reciprocals), the significance of the
sugar cane areas impact on the flooding behaviour (especially in and around Bundaberg) would warrant
the differentiation.
If sugar cane land was to be delineated as a separate land-use, it would also be prudent to consider the
use of a depth-varying Mannings n value as it is expected that the Mannings n value would reduce with
depths much greater than the height of the cane (eg in the order of 2m). This may explain how a
suitable calibration to peak flood levels was achieved near Bundaberg with a value of 0.07 where much
of the sugar cane downstream of Bundaberg North was in depths greater than 2m. (this value would
have been representative of the roughness of the area once the sugar cane was completely
submerged)
IH080900_R2 13
Study
The Open Woodland value of 0.077 seems high. The BCC Natural Channel Guidelines (BCC, 2001)
states that this value is appropriate for areas with “trees at 4 metre spacing, some low branches, few
shrubs, few restrictions to walking”. In the absence of a site inspection, this value appears to be a little
high.
The urban value of 0.075 seems a little low based on other flood modelling experiences of the author of
this review. A value of at least 0.10 (and up to 0.30) may have been more appropriate, especially where
the roads have been delineated separately such as in Bundaberg North (see point below).
The Bundaberg town area has been simulated using an urban value of 0.075. The 15m grid resolution
(which actually results in a 10.5m resolution of Mannings n values on cell sides in a TUFLOW model) is
sufficient to have represented roads and urban blocks as separate values. Many of the roads in
Bundaberg (and specifically Bundaberg North where flows are highest) have road corridors (ie
pavement and footpath) in the order of 25m. Hence, at least two cells are being used to simulate the
flow along the road corridor in Bundaberg North where the roads appear to have been mapped
separately. The modelling of the road corridor and the house block areas with separate (and very
different) Mannings n values would have resulted in a good representation of the concentration of flows
in the road corridor. This approach is supported on the basis that the mapping of the road corridor was
from fence to fence. This cannot be verified from the figure in the report.
3.6.5 Structures representation
Section 7.7 of the Burnett River Flood Study (2013) documents the methodology for representing the structures
(bridges, culverts, levees etc) on the floodplain. This review is limited to the information presented in this part of
the report.
The following comments are made on the information presented in Table 7-2 of the report:
Queen Street: The reference to Queen Street in the table is assumed to relate to the road embankment
crossing the floodplain in Bundaberg North (this is confusing as the road embankment is actually Mt
Perry Road). The representation of the embankment in the 2D domain is supported. The numerical
behaviour of the 1D simulated culverts and the 2D/1D interaction is a likely source of model instability
but was not able to be reviewed.
Quay Street Bridge, Railway Bridge and Hinkler Avenue (Tallon) Bridge: GHD has confirmed that there
is a minor error in the report in regard to the form loss listed (the report lists them as total form losses
whereas the values are actually the form losses per metre width of the bridge). While this approach to
form loss definition is commonly used, it is more accurate to use the actual form loss values (input as a
negative value per cell side) and create a polygon that covers only the intended cell sides to apply the
form loss. As a general note, the form losses appear to be low. However, GHD has confirmed that
sensitivity analyses indicated that the flood level results are not overly sensitive to changes in these
bridge form losses. This is expected given the low values for piers only and the moderate river
velocities.
Upper Model Structures: Weirs / Roads: The representation of the roads and weirs across the river as
1D special channels is supported. However, the stability of these structures was not able to be
reviewed. The weir calibration factor of 0.6 for Ned Churchward Weir appears low and would ideally
have been supported by discussion or evidence of the need for this factor.
3.6.6 Downstream boundary
The downstream boundary of the flood model (as reported in the flood study report) is located at the mouth of
the river.
The long-sections presented in Chapter 11 of the flood study report indicate that it is located far enough away
from Bundaberg to have no influence on modelled flood behaviour.
IH080900_R2 14
Study
The value chosen for the design flood events of 1.187mAHD is appropriate if no coincident storm tide and fluvial
flooding is assumed.
However, given the size of the catchment and the possible coincidence of flooding with storm surges (from
cyclones or ex-cyclones), the study could have included some consideration of storm surge coincidence in line
with AR&R Revision Project 18. While the choice of downstream boundary condition would have no influence
on the flood behaviour at Bundaberg (even with a very high storm tide level), it would affect the flood behaviour
near the river mouth. This additional work element should be considered if the flood model results are to be
used for assessments of the possible future port developments on the northern side of the river mouth.
3.6.7 Calibration quality
Chapter 8 of the Burnett River Flood Study (2013) documents the results of the hydraulic model calibration.
Given the importance of replicating the January 2013 flood event, the following comments are made on the
calibration performance documented in the report:
The performance of the flood model to closely replicate the time series of flood levels at the Targo
Street flood gauge (in Bundaberg) indicates that the hydraulic model represents the timing of flooding
and the travel speed of the flood wave very well;
The long-section plot (Figure 8-15 of the report) shows that the flood model adequately represents the
peak flood levels along the length of the flood model. The recorded flood levels at approximate
Chainages 30km and 53km appear to be anomalous records as they are not consistent with the
recorded flood level gradient.
The peak flood level map (Figure 8-16 of the report) shows that the flood model adequately represents
the peak levels over the whole floodplain area. However, the model generally under-predicts flood
levels in the floodplain upstream of Bundaberg. This could be due to the stronger influence of the sugar
cane land on this part of the floodplain (see Section 3.6.4 of this review).
As stated in the report, 76% of flood levels are matched to within 0.2m and 90% of flood levels in North
Bundaberg are matched to within 0.1m. This level of performance in matching flood levels generally
exceeds that seen in flood studies of this nature.
Important for the future use of this flood study, the performance of the flood model to simulate recorded flood
levels in the Bundaberg town area (east and north) is very good. Hence, the flood model calibration provides a
high level of confidence in flood level estimation in the areas where flood mitigation works may be constructed
in the future.
The results of the calibration to the other four flood events (1942, 1971, 2010 and 2011) indicate that the
hydraulic model adequately matches the recorded flood levels. The degree of error / mis-match between the
modelled levels and the recorded levels is consistent with a study of this nature recognising the accuracy of the
inflows and the flood level records.
Based on this part of the report, it appears the TUFLOW model adequately simulates the hydraulic process of
the floodplain for the purposes of the study.
3.6.8 Design events
The range of flood probabilities assessed and simulated in the hydraulic model seems appropriate for the type
of flood study and flood risk management study.
However, ideally, a number of more probable / smaller events (eg 5%, 20% AEP) should have been included in
the assessment. It is noted that the flood damages assessment included quantification of flood damages for
these smaller events. Hence, it is likely that these events were simulated and that the flood mapping could have
included these maps at a minimal additional cost.
IH080900_R2 15
Study
3.6.9 Flood hazard assessments
The report indicates that flood hazard mapping was carried out in accordance with the guidance provided in
QRA 2012. The report notes that this mapping approach was requested by BRC. While this is likely to meet
state government requirements, it should be noted that the QRA flood hazard approach is somewhat flawed and
inconsistent with national guidance on the matter (see AR&R Project 10 and NERAG). A revised flood hazard
mapping approach is likely to result in changes to the hazard rating in a number of areas. However, the material
difference to the Bundaberg area would not be significant.
3.6.10 Sensitivity analyses
Chapter 11 of the Burnett River Flood Study (2013) documents the results of sensitivity analyses carried out on
the flood model results. These assessments are important in a flood study to ascertain if certain flood model
results are highly dependent on certain assumptions made during the development of the models.
Four parameters were chosen for variation to assess flood level sensitivity. These included ocean tailwater
level, river bed levels, hydraulic roughness of the river / floodplain and the major structures on the river near
Bundaberg. The choice of parameters to vary is appropriate.
The results of the sensitivity assessments are well presented in this chapter. The results clearly demonstrate
that the flood model results are not overly sensitive to large changes in the chosen parameters. As well, the
magnitude of the changes (well shown on the secondary axes of the long sections) provides a general
quantification of the relationship between changes in parameters and changes in peak flood levels. For
example, the bed level variations indicated that a 2m change in the river depth values would result in a 0.4m
change in peak flood levels.
It should be noted that if an error in the head loss values for the town reach bridges is confirmed (see Section
3.6.5 of this report), then the sensitivity analysis of the removal of the bridges would need to be repeated.
3.6.11 Climate change assessments
The scenarios assessed for climate change are appropriate and consistent with current state government policy
and guidance (DERM, DILGP and LGAQ, 2010).
The discussion on the rainfall intensity increases (due to climate change) and the resultant increase in peak flow
for the 1% AEP flood event could have been complimented with a quantification of the reduction on probability
of an event like the 2013 event (or the 1% AEP event). For example, the 2050 climate scenario results in the
1% AEP flow increasing to that of the 0.5% AEP event. Hence, the obvious conclusion is that the current 0.5%
AEP event would have an annual probability of 1% AEP by 2050.
During 2015, the Queensland Government commenced development and implementation of a Queensland
Climate Adaptation Strategy (Q-CAS) to address risks to the economy, environment, infrastructure and
communities from current and future climate impacts. This strategy should be considered in the future
progression of any flood risk management measures derived from this flood study.
3.6.12 Emergency Management assessment
The assessment of emergency management appears thorough and comprehensive for a study of this nature. It
forms a strong basis for the assessment of flood risk and evacuation capability assessment documented in the
Lower Burnett Flood Risk Management Study (GHD, 2014).
3.6.13 Nested hydraulic modelling assessments
An additional flood modelling exercise was undertaken by GHD to assess small scale flood behaviour in North
Bundaberg. The origin of this work is not clearly documented in the report (i.e. was it recommended by GHD or
requested by BRC). In any case, the work is a valuable addition to the flood study.
IH080900_R2 16
Study
The conclusions of this assessment seem to be valid and supported by the results. The discussion notes that
there would be an additional temporal variable during a flood due to the changing nature of the area with
buildings and fences being washed away during the event resulting in changes to the flooding patterns. It
should have also been noted that the duration of high velocity-depth products on structures plays a large role in
the likely stability of a structure.
3.6.14 Reporting
The Burnett River Flood Study report (GHD, 2013) is a comprehensive documentation of the flood study. It is
well written and generally easy to read for the technical reader.
Given the high public interest in the flood study outcomes, BRC could have requested that GHD generate a
summary version of the flood study report that was more accessible for the public. For example, it is likely that
the local Bundaberg community would draw confidence from the quality of the flood model calibration. The
performance of the flood model in replicating recorded flood levels is comparatively good. Hence, a clear large-
scale map showing the recorded and modelled flood levels or depths in a particular area, for example
Bundaberg North, would be very useful. It would serve to build confidence in the general accuracy of the flood
model and it subsequent use in assessing flood mitigation measures.
3.6.15 Mapping
The mapping of the flood behaviour in Appendix A (for the city area) is clear and easy to read. However, an
aerial photograph background would provide more context for the public reader (and perhaps this could have
been included in the summary report suggested above). As well, there is a paucity of location labels on these
maps. As a minimum, features such as suburbs, highways, rail lines and noted landmarks (e.g. the mill or the
distillery) could have been identified on these maps.
The flood maps in Appendix A do not include maps of flow intensity or velocity-depth product. These would
have been a useful addition (or could have replaced the velocity maps) in that they clearly show the major
flowpaths and concentrations of flood flow. While the flood hazard maps serve this purpose to some degree, the
high hazard depth areas (with little or no velocity) cannot be distinguished from the high hazard velocity-depth
areas.
One concern in the use of the flood maps in Appendix A is that they do not show a limit of flood mapping. While
this is sometimes obvious from the extent of the flood maps, two common misinterpretations of these types of
flood maps can be made:
The flood models have been developed to assess Burnett River flood events only. Hence, the models
and the study are not aimed at simulating the critical durations and peak flood levels along tributary
watercourses. A clear example is shown on the 1% AEP flood level mapping (Figure A8) of Saltwater
Creek (not labelled but shown as the southern tributary below the “Bundaberg Flood Gauge” label). On
this map, a discernible flood gradient is shown indicating that the local inflows from this urban
catchment are determining the flood gradient. However, it is misleading to interpret this mapping as the
peak flood level in Saltwater Creek as these flows are for a 48 hour flood event and the critical duration
of Saltwater Creek is more likely to be in the order of two hours.
Further, the accuracy of the 15m TUFLOW grid in representing the conveyance characteristics of this
watercourse is likely to be low.
In summary of this point, it is clear from the objectives of the study and the methodology used that it
does not provide peak flood levels for the small tributary watercourses (except where Burnett River
backwater dominates).
Hence, the flood mapping should have either a line indicating the upstream limit of the relevant flood
mapping or removal of that flood mapping in the areas where local inflows dominate over backwater
inundation. More preferable would have been to re-design the flood model with local inflows sufficiently
close to the river area to enable contribution of these catchments but in areas of backwater inundation.
IH080900_R2 17
Study
The other possible misinterpretation of the flood mapping is that the upstream extent of these tributaries
marks the upstream extent of the flood hazard. Again, marking to indicate that the flood maps have
spatial boundaries associated with Burnett River flood events would be useful.
There also appears to be a pdf printing error associated with Figure 13.2 which should present the PMF flood
depths and levels.
3.7 Flood study elements not reviewed
The flood models were not available for the purposes of this review. Hence, the following elements were not
reviewed:
The interface between the hydrological model outputs and the hydraulic model inputs
The detail of the:
o Spatial distribution of thee hydraulic roughness parameters

o Bathymetry used
o Structure losses used
o 1D elements (culverts, weirs etc)
o The 2D/1D interfacing along the river banks in the upper model
o The 2D/2D interfacing (and the potential for mass loss along this interface)
The overall hydraulic model stability (including an assessment of 1D element stability)
A mass balance check to test how much of the excess rainfall passes through the hydraulic model (this
can assist in identifying errors in the modelling process)
IH080900_R2 18
Study
4. Review of Lower Burnett River Floodplain Risk

Management Study
4.1 Data supplied and reviewed
The basis of this review is the report supplied by BRC entitled Lower Burnett River Flood Risk Management
Study (GHD, May 2014). As well, the Burnett River Floodplain Action Plan: Preliminary Options Assessment
Report (GHD, 2014) was reviewed.
4.2 Commentary on overall FRM approach
As discussed in Section 2.1 of this report, “Managing the Floodplain” (2013) provides a strong basis for
assessing the quality of the Lower Burnett River Flood Risk Management Study (herein called the LBR FRMS).
Specifically in regard to the aims, elements and outputs of the study, Table 4-1 provides a summary of the
requirements as listed in Managing the Floodplain (2013) and how well the LBR FRMS meets these
requirements.
Table 4-1 Flood Risk Management Study Checklist (based on “Managing the Floodplain”, 2013)
Aims of a Flood Risk Management Study Lower Burnett River Flood Risk Management
Study
Increases the understanding of the impacts of floods on the existing and Yes, it would appear that the study increased the
future community from the flood study. understanding although the 2013 flood probably had
a much larger influence on this understanding
Provides a basis for the assessment of management options. Yes, the work appears to be comprehensive and
sufficient to form this basis of assessment.
Needs to be undertaken with the technical rigour to meet the requirements Yes, the work appears to be of a high level of rigour.
of the floodplain management entity and other agencies with flood risk
management roles.
Elements of a Flood Risk Management Study Lower Burnett River Flood Risk Management
Study
The study should identify, quantify and weigh all relevant issues so that Yes, a wide range of issues seems to have been
these can be considered in developing a management plan by which the considered (social, environmental, economic, etc)
community, as a whole, is better off.
A successful management study requires a comprehensive Yes, the approach adopted appears to have drawn
multidisciplinary approach and active public consultation. from a range of disciplines (engineering, planning,
emergency management, economic). As well, the
consultation outcomes indicate a highly active public
consultation period.
The study should provide advice on the mix of practical, feasible and Yes, the study provides this advice.
economic measures necessary to manage the varying flood hazard to the
existing and future community to limit the resultant residual risk to a level
acceptable to the community.
IH080900_R2 19
Study
Outputs of a Flood Risk Management Study Lower Burnett River Flood Risk Management
Study
Review the flood study and other relevant data to understand the current The study includes a comprehensive assessment of
flood risk and consider whether treatment is necessary to reduce this risk. current flood risk. However, flood risk terminology
consistent with national guidance could have
been used.
Compile relevant background information on flood impacts, the Yes, the study does this and the models chosen are
environment, land use, emergency management planning and reliable and valid to the situation.
socioeconomic matters, and – where relevant – build associated
vulnerability models to inform decision making. The methods used for
analysis should be justified based upon their reliability and validity to the
situation.
Review the information in the knowledge hub and the adequacies of Yes, the study draws upon available flood
management strategies to identify areas where improvements may be knowledge and suggests improvements where
necessary in managing risk. knowledge management can be made to reduce
flood risk.
Engage with the community to identify options, provide opinions and raise Yes, the study included extensive engagement with
concerns about options so that people’s views can be considered in the community to identify options.
decision making.
Identify, assess, compare, make recommendations and report on options Yes, the study included a Multi Criteria Analysis
to improve risk management for the community. Options should be tested (MCA) which was built around the assessment of
against the current management practice and existing community social, environmental and economic aspects of
exposure, which requires an understanding of the social, economic and options. However, the MCA developed for this
environmental benefits and costs of options, and their relative benefit and project could have been improved (see Section
effectiveness in managing risk. The assessment provides a basis for 4.8.1).
understanding the level of service provided; the feasibility, practicality and
cost-effectiveness of different options; and constraints that may inhibit
implementation.
Consider the adaptability of options to the potential impacts of climate Yes, the study included an assessment of how
change and advice on adaptability and suitability to any associated climate change would affect the current flood risk.
changing risk profile. However, the study does not seem to consider
the adaptability of flood mitigation options to a
changed flood risk profile.
Assess the cumulative impacts of potential future development on flood Yes, an assessment of future potential floodplain
behaviour, emergency management and associated risk to the existing filling was carried out to understand the impacts of
community. Undeveloped zonings within statutory planning instrument such fill on flood behaviour. However, it was not an
and specific development proposals can provide a basis for this extensive assessment but this is consistent with
assessment. Where relevant, strategies to manage cumulative impacts the expected role of future development in a very
should be assessed. large rural catchment.
Inform strategic land-use planning on the capability of land to support Yes, the study provides a strong basis for future
future development, and the limitations, controls and infrastructure land-use planning.
necessary to support the development at an acceptable level of risk, and
without exacerbating the flood risk of the existing community.
Inform emergency management planning on the limitations to, and Yes, the study adds considerable value to
constraints on, emergency response and their implications for the emergency management planning.
capability of undeveloped land to support future development.
Make updated information available through the knowledge hub. Yes, there appears to be plans to make the
outcomes of the flood study and FRMS accessible
and useful to a range of stakeholders. However, the
flood maps produced could have been improved
as discussed in Section 3.6.15).
Make recommendations to consider when developing a floodplain Yes, the recommendations of the LBR FRMS
management plan. provide a strong basis for the development of a
floodplain risk management plan. However, the
plan is yet to be developed.
IH080900_R2 20
Study
In summary, the LBR FRMS addresses all of the requirements of a flood risk management study as prescribed
by Managing the Floodplain (2013). The minor exception is the assessment of the adaptability of flood
mitigation measures to a changed flood risk profile due to climate change.
4.3 Review of Flood Risk Assessment
The flood risk assessment is documented in Chapter 3 of the report with a cross-reference to the Evacuation
Capability Assessment documented in Chapter 4 of the report.
Essentially, the risk assessment is based largely on the assessment of likelihood (probability) and
consequences (flood behaviour). Section 3.8.1 of the LBR FRMS report provides a good summary of the
elements of a risk assessment. This part of the report acknowledges that:
“the level of flood risk experienced across a floodplain is related to the physical properties of the flood and
the type of receptor experiencing the flood.”
However, the subsequent risk assessment documented in the report seems to focus largely on the physical
properties of the flood with little focus on the type / characteristics of the receptors.
NERAG (2011) provides a good list of elements to consider when assessing the consequences of a disaster.
These include:
People (direct impacts of the emergency on the physical health of people/individuals and emergency
services ability to manage)
Infrastructure (impacts of the emergency on the area’s infrastructure/lifelines/utilities and its ability to
service the community)
Economy (economic impacts to the area)
Social Setting (impacts of the emergency on society and its social fabric, including its cultural heritage,
resilience of the community)
Environment (impacts of the emergency and its effects on the ecosystem of the area, including fauna
and flora)
Public Administration (impacts of the emergency on the governing body’s ability to govern)
Furthermore, the risk matrix used seems to have ascribed probabilities that are somewhat inconsistent with
NERAG (2011). Table 4-2 lists the likelihood level terms used in the LBR FRMS against those in NERAG
(2011).
It is apparent that the LBR FRMS terms are based on rarer flood events (by about a factor of 5 and sometimes
up to a factor of 10). For example, the 5% AEP event has been termed an ‘almost certain’ event. However,
NERAG indicates that this event falls into the ‘likely’ category.
Table 4-2 Assessment of Likelihood Levels used
Likelihood Term Likelihood Level from Likelihood Level from LBR FRMS likelihood
LBR FRMS NERAG (2011) consistent with NERAG
Almost Certain 5% AEP More than 31% AEP No
Likely 2% AEP 31% to 3% AEP No
Possible 1% AEP 3% to 0.3% AEP Yes
Unlikely 0.5% AEP 0.3% to 0.03% AEP No
Rare 0.2% AEP 0.03% to 0.003% AEP No
Very Rare PMF 0.003% to 0.0003% AEP No
Almost Incredible Term not used Less than 0.0003% N/A
IH080900_R2 21
Study
The rarer flood events used in the LBR FRMS are then used to inform the Flood Risk Matrix reproduced below
in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3 LBR FRMS Flood Risk Matrix (reproduced from Table 3-9 in LBR FRMS Report, 2014)
If the NERAG (2011) likelihood level terms had been adopted, the flood events used to map flood risks would
be more common (and therefore smaller). This would have resulted in smaller areas of tolerable and intolerable
risk. Hence, the LBR FRMS flood risk mapping can be seen to be somewhat conservative based on the
approach adopted when benchmarked against NERAG (2011).
The risk matrix used in the LBR FRMS is based largely on the physical properties of the flood with little focus on
the type / characteristics of the receptors. Ideally, the consequence assessment would have included an
assessment of the demographics of the floodplain population to ascertain resilience of local community to
flooding. The type of data required for such an assessment is readily available from ABS census statistics.
As well, the flood risk assessment should also include the spatial distribution of property flood damages to
assist in defining areas of flood risk. However, it should be noted that the GHD commission may not have
included such an assessment. The need for this spatial damages assessment and the need to spatially map the
vulnerability of the community in mapping of total flood risk are discussed further in the recommendations from
this review (see Section 5.4).
4.4 Review of Evacuation Capability Assessment
This element of the LBR FRMS is an important one due to the large number of people on the floodplain that
could be isolated due to floodwaters for a considerable period of time. Further, these types of assessments are
complex as they require an understanding of the dynamics of the flood (rising and falling) as well as the likely
evacuation routes. As well, the predicted behaviour of the floodplain community in the event of a warning also
requires consideration.
The evacuation capability assessment appears to be a very thorough assessment. It covers the major elements
required to quantify and understand the flood evacuation issues and constraints. Over 50 evacuation routes
IH080900_R2 22
Study
were assessed. The outcomes of this assessment are likely to add considerable value to flood emergency
operations.
However, the access of Bundaberg North residents to the south across the Tallon Bridge is strongly linked to
the time available for evacuation. The timing of the closure of this bridge by TMR needs further exploration to
determine if more time is available for evacuations.
4.5 Review of Flood Damages Assessment
A flood damages assessment is a key element of any flood risk management study for the following reasons:
It enables a quantification of the flood damages spatially to allow focussing on the worst areas
It quantifies the total flood damages (long term) which enables flood mitigation options to be assessed
in terms of reductions in flood damages. These reductions form the basis for the benefits of a flood
mitigation measure.
4.5.1 Overall Approach
The approach adopted in the LBR FRMS is a standard approach used in many similar flood risk management
studies. It provides a sound basis for estimating tangible flood damages.
However, the following qualifications listed in Section 5.1 of the LBR FRMS are noted and discussed further
below:
“The estimated damage costs presented herein are an approximation only, and were determined in
accordance with the standard limited methodology normally used in these assessments. The damages are
not intended to represent the full economic impact of a flood event. For instance, building damage is based
on standard recommended “damage curves” rather than actual insurance data, and assessment of
agricultural damage is limited to loss of sugar cane crops and damages to farm buildings only.
Improvements to these estimates could be achieved if recent and specific insurance flood damage
information was available. Nonetheless, the methodology is appropriate for the intended purpose of
highlighting the relative severity of flood impacts in various areas as well as comparing various mitigation
measures. Care should be taken when interpreting the damage and benefit-cost ratios (i.e. the costs in the
benefit cost ratio calculation do not take into account the full range of socio-economic impacts)”.
It is agreed that the short-comings of the flood damages assessment are unlikely to significantly affect “the
relative severity of flood impacts in various areas as well as comparing various mitigation measures”. The final
comment above is to be noted when considering the economic worth of flood mitigation measures. It is likely
that the flood damage estimations are an under-estimate due to the non-inclusion of intangible damages.
Hence, the benefit-cost ratios derived are also likely to be under-estimated. However, the magnitude of under-
estimation is probably no more than a factor of 2 or 3. This means flood mitigation measures with benefit-cost
ratios of less than, say, 0.3 are still likely to be more costly than the total benefits they provide.
4.5.2 Floor Level Estimation
Over 15,000 buildings were assessed in the flood damages assessment which is likely to have covered all
buildings that may be inundated in the PMF event. The method for estimating the floor level was based on a
number of techniques (described in Section C1 of Appendix F). Approximately 70% of building floor levels were
estimated from LiDAR data. It is not clear from the report how approximately 50% of the floor heights above
ground were estimated. The report and the assessment would have benefited from listing the approximate
accuracy bands for the various types of floor level estimation.
Given the high cost of flood mitigation options being considered, it is recommended that a more detailed floor
level survey be carried out.
IH080900_R2 23
Study
4.5.3 Stage-damages curves used
There are a range of stage-damage curves available for use in flood damage assessments. Most are based on
relatively old data. The ones chosen for use in the LBR FRMS are based on the DECCW (2007) data for
residential properties and the ANUFLOOD (Smith and Greenway, 1988) data for commercial properties. While
the DECCW publication is somewhat recent, most of the data which forms the underlying basis for the stage-
damages curves dates from the 1980’s. While the curves have been adjusted for CPI increases over that time,
there has been some criticism of using the older data due to changes in housing stock and the likely higher than
CPI increase in the value of contents (O2, 2012).
4.6 Choice of flood management measures
4.6.1 Process of identification
The LBR FRMS included the significant challenge of engaging with a community that held very diverse views on
flood risk management measures. This is evidenced by the high level of engagement with the community in the
options identification phase. Over 300 ideas / solutions were provided by the community during this period.
Best practice flood risk management dictates that the community be heavily engaged at this stage. This should
build confidence in the community that all possible measures were considered in the process.
The options identified by the community span the full spectrum of types of flood risk management measures
(i.e. planning, structural, flood education, emergency management and property modifications). The LBR FMRS
report provides a well-structured summary of these measures.
4.6.2 Process of short-listing
The process used to short-list the options down to a recommended list is critical to the transparency of the study
to the community. They need to gain confidence that all of the suggested ideas were given a fair assessment
prior to progressing to the next phase of more detailed assessment.
Given that there would always be a limit to the time and budget available for this process, it is inevitable that
some approximations are required to carry out these assessments.
The following graphic shown in Figure 4-1 is taken from Chapter 7 of the LBR FRMS (which was also presented
in Chapter 6 of the Preliminary Options Assessment Report, GHD 2014). It aims to show how the large number
of initial ideas was reduced through three stages of assessment down to a short-list.
While this graphic is useful in communicating the process, it is somewhat confusing to the reader regarding how
many options were included in each stage. Furthermore, first stage of the process which arrives at the “Potential
Flood Mitigation Options” is described as an initial filter carried out by BRC and GHD. Very little else is
documented regarding this phase in either report. In hindsight and recognising the degree of frustration in the
community over the rejection of some of these early stage ideas, this phase could have been better explained in
the report.
As well, it may have been useful to better name these stages (e.g. Stage 1 refinement, Stage 2 refinement etc)
to enable referencing to the stage at which a particular option was discarded.
IH080900_R2 24
Study
Figure 4-1 Process for short-listing options (taken from LBR FRMS, GHD 2014)
4.7 Options not fully identified
As mentioned above, the study identified a very wide range of options for assessment and consideration.
However, there are some types of measures that were not assessed in the study.
4.7.1 Property buy-back scheme
One notable exception is the option of property buy-back schemes (sometimes called voluntary purchase
schemes). These schemes have been successfully implemented in Australia and around the world to affectively
reduce flood risk to individuals and property.
A high-level assessment of a “compulsory land-swap” option is assessed and discussed in Section 10.3 of the
LBR FRMS report.
A more complete assessment would consider the criteria under which properties would qualify and the benefit-
costs of such a scheme. However, it is noted that GHD conclude that BRC could further consider a land-swap
option.
4.7.2 Flood refuges
Another option that has not been fully assessed or mentioned in the LBR FRMS is that of construction of a flood
refuge. This option can be particularly beneficial to urban areas where all evacuation routes eventually are cut
and there would be some people (for whatever reason) who have not evacuated. A flood refuge could take the
form of a building (maybe with multiple uses but suitable as a temporary evacuation centre) constructed on fill in
the vicinity of the Bundaberg North area. Issues to be addressed would include the level of the flood refuge (and
the possible levels of the building) and the risks associated with people staying there during a flood event.
4.7.3 Catchment storage upstream of Paradise Dam
Catchment storage is also an option that could have been included in the long list of options. The reasons for
the omission of this option could have been due to the scope of the study being focused on the lower Burnett
River floodplain. While the study did identify and consider options for increasing the storage at Paradise Dam
(Section 7.5.3 of the LBR FRMS), there was not a broader consideration of flood storage in the catchment
upstream of Paradise Dam. While this review does not seek to provide any detailed assessment of this option,
the following comments are made on the potential for consideration of flood storage upstream of Paradise Dam:
As correctly identified in the LBR FRMS, the volume of storage required to reduce peak flood flows by a
beneficial degree is very large. As a guide, the volume of the 2013 flood passing through Paradise Dam
was 2,500,000 ML. This volume is 1.7 times the flood storage component of Wivenhoe Dam.
The Paradise Dam location provides the most useful location for temporarily storing floodwaters as
nearly all of the catchment at Bundaberg passes through this location.
The construction of a dam in the catchment for flood storage would be best combined with a suitable
location for a water resource storage to further improve the combined benefits of such an option.
The next most obvious location for an effective flood storage is upstream of Mundubbera where the
Upper Burnett River is joined by the Auburn River and the Boyne River. Here, the catchment area is
approximately 70% of that of Paradise Dam. There would be many issues associated with any storage
at this location associated with the inundation of properties (houses, citrus areas etc) and roads.
However, this very high level assessment indicates that there may be merit in assessing the viability of
upstream storage options.
IH080900_R2 25
Study
Further upstream from this location, the potential to attenuate flows reduces considerably due to the
likely need to store water on all three river systems. This would require the construction of three
storages to properly reduce the flood risk downstream.
4.7.4 Combinations of options
While the LBR FRMS included some option combinations, there could have been more assessment of options.
This would have added significantly to the cost and timing of the study as there would be numerous possible
combinations. However, combinations of options are likely to be part of any future flood risk management plan
for the Lower Burnett to take advantage of offsets from one option on another.
4.8 Assessment of flood management measures
4.8.1 MCA development and design
Firstly, the choice of using a multi-criteria analysis/assessment (MCA) is strongly supported. It is very difficult to
assess such a large number of flood mitigation measures with widely varying qualities.
Secondly, the design of the MCA seems generally appropriate for its intended use. The use of social,
environmental and economic criteria to assess each flood mitigation option is appropriate. It is understood that
GHD and BRC developed the 20 criteria and these were presented to the Community Reference Group (CRG)
for discussion and amendment. While this provides a degree of ownership, MCA’s are complex processes and
there are pitfalls in their design. Given that background, the following comments are made on the design of the
MCA:
The inclusion of cost in the criteria is questionable. It is possibly the most influential of all the criteria that
would go into a decision on funding and progression of a scheme. By excluding cost completely from
the weighted scoring process in the MCA, it is possible to compare options with similar scores against
their respective costs. This may appear to over-emphasise the importance of cost in the process.
However, it needs to be recognised that ultimately, cost plays a very major role in government funded
schemes.
Similarly, the benefit-cost ratio could be excluded from the MCA scoring and considered in conjunction
with cost and weighted MCA score. This would enable grouping of the options into four general
categories to assist further development:
o High MCA Score / Low BCR = unlikely to be considered unless under special circumstances
o High MCA Score / High BCR = considered further
o Low MCA Score / Low BCR = not to be considered further
o Low MCA Score / High BCR = consider how low score could be improved to make viable
The criteria listed are not driven towards any over-arching objectives. Ideally, the development of MCA
criteria would be focussed on achieving key scheme objectives. This way, high scoring options (as
measured against the 20 or so criteria) would then by inference largely achieve the over-arching
scheme objectives. Some suggestions for these over-arching scheme objectives are:
o Reduce flood risks to people on the floodplain
o Reduce the economic costs of floods to the local community
o Minimise impacts on the local environment (including visual and cultural heritage)
o Seek to have joint positive outcomes with other economic activities or processes (eg transport,
infrastructure, agriculture)
o Have a positive impact on the local economy and general well-being of the lower Burnett area.
IH080900_R2 26
Study
It is noted that there is no mention of climate change or future flood risk in the assessment criteria which
is important in understanding the degree to which options can adapt to climate change and future
floodplain development.
It may have been useful for the MCA to have been tested on a number of sample options to determine if
expected and consistent results were derived. This would have then enabled further refinement of the
MCA design and/or weightings in consultation with the CRG. While this may appear to some to be
corrupting the process, it is important that the MCA provide outcomes that make general sense.
Thirdly, the use of the CRG in determining the weightings for the 20 criteria and their respective weightings is
also supported. This gives the MCA a degree of ownership by a group that is generally representative of the
local community. Given this, it is not appropriate that this review make comment on the weightings derived.
However, the following observations are made of the weightings derived:
The total weighting for the impacts on terrestrial environment and aquatic / riparian environment is
16.9%. This compares with the impact of all cost elements (implementation and maintenance) of 2.3%.
All of the economic criteria weightings (except for tourism and developable land) outweigh the total cost
weightings.
The total weighting for the impacts on river stability / sedimentation and erosion / scour to floodplain is
16.9%. This compares with the total weightings for impacts on local business / commercial land,
residential properties and municipal infrastructure of 13.3%.
It is noted that the MCA weightings from the CRG differ slightly from those ultimately used by GHD / BRC. While
these differences are minor, there is no explanation given in the reports and this has created some confusion in
the community and the CRG.
Fourthly, the MCA could have been structured to include a number of ‘red-flag’ tests that would identify if an
option had a very low likelihood of adoption due to inherent issues. For example, an option may require
environmental approvals which would be highly unlikely to be granted. This additional attribute in the MCA
would highlight those options that may have significant obstacles in further stages.
4.8.2 MCA sensitivity assessments
The types of observations listed above can be made of any MCA. The highly subjective nature of the MCA
approach is usually inherent in all MCA outcomes.
However, the usual approach for assessing the influence of these issues on final outcomes is through sensitivity
testing. This has been carried out in the LBR FRMS and the sensitivity testing appears to be thorough and adds
considerable value to the process.
4.8.3 MCA application
The LBR FRMS report includes the following commentary on the application of the MCA to the long list of flood
mitigation measures.
“Due to constraints on time and the large number of options and criteria involved in the analysis, the
scoring process has been primarily subjective in nature. In most cases, scores were assigned based on
subjective judgements and then reviewed to ensure consistency. The cost-benefit and cost-related criteria,
for instance, were scored based on order-of-magnitude estimates rather than actual objective estimates.”
This is an important note as it reflects the limited budgets and time that are available for such assessments.
Certain assumptions and approximations are necessary in these types of studies in the absence of a very large
study cost (in the order of $ 1 million) and substantial time. However, these costs and the effort involved needs
to be considered in light of the total net present value of the flood damages of $ 150 million (and substantially
IH080900_R2 27
Study
higher when intangibles are included). Hence, it is possible (but unlikely) that options have been discarded
based on low accuracy cost estimation.
4.8.4 Flood model assessments
The approach of assessing the performance of a wide range of measures / options using the 2013 flood event
as a test event is supported. This has provided a consistent assessment of each modelled option and indicates
its effectiveness on the most important flood in the local history of the area.
Appendix G of the LBR FRMS report provides numerous maps of flood impacts for the options assessed. In
general, these maps as presented were found to be difficult to read and had the potential to considerably add
more value to the process. Notwithstanding this, these maps are a key part of communicating the outcomes of
the assessment of options and they carry considerable importance in the overall FRM process. The following
comments are made on these maps:
The range of colours used to show increases and decreases in flood levels are too narrow. It is not
possible to determine from these maps the magnitude of changes to flood levels in important areas. It
would have been useful to include flood level changes at, say, 10 common locations (as done for the
three dredging option maps in Appendix L)
There are no unique drawing or map numbers on these maps which makes referencing to an individual
map difficult
The inclusion of the Technology Park and Batchlers Road levees on all maps showing the Bundaberg
area is confusing and not clearly explained in the report.
The suburb line marking on the maps does not add value and could have been replaced with lines
showing major road and rail routes to allow reader orientation
While adding more figures to the report, it would have added clarity if the location of the works was on a
separate map clear of the impacts shown. This would have enabled more detail on the composition of
the option to be shown and described (e.g. general heights of levees, approximate number of houses to
be purchased etc).
Table B-2 in Appendix G (the number for this table is not apparent) is an important table and this
information should have been included in the main body of the report.
So, in summary of this point, the approach was adequate but the presentation of the data was not well
executed. This material would have been difficult for the community to understand the outcomes and could have
led to reduced confidence in the process.
4.8.5 Costings and concept designs
Some details of the costings and concept designs of the options have been provided in the LBR FRMS report.
The following comments are made on this information.
The unit rates used in the cost estimates (e.g. cost per m 3 of fill, cost per m3 of concrete, cost per m3 of
dredging) should have been documented in the report.
The cost estimate contingency of 30% would appear to be very low based on the early stage of
investigation. A value of 50% may have been more appropriate (even for the detailed assessments).
Appendix A of this review report provides guidance that indicates 50% is more appropriate for this stage
of project development.
The list of elements included in the cost estimation for dredging costs and levee costs appear to be
comprehensive for this stage of assessment.
IH080900_R2 28
Study
A unit rate of approximately $ 25 / m3 for dredging costs is implied from the costs and volumes listed.
This value seems high compared to the rate of $ 7 / m3 (including a consistent 30% contingency) listed
in Rawlinson’s Australian Construction Handbook (Rawlinson, 2013). However, the rate derived from
the LBR FRMS includes disposal and other environmental management costs. So, a direct comparison
is difficult. It would be useful for the reader to see the elements of this cost. Given the low benefit-cost
ratios of these options, it is unlikely that any change in cost (even a significant one of say 50%) would
result in benefit-cost ratios even close to unity.
The estimation of bridge spans required to achieve a range of flood immunities (Section 9.6 of the LBR
FRMS) is based on the assumption that the entire flood inundation width is required to be spanned. This
is likely to lead to a significant over-estimation of required spans, especially in areas where the
inundation area is dominated by Burnett River back-up flooding. These cost estimates should be
reviewed with less conservative assumptions.
The cost estimate for the Hinkler Avenue viaduct is likely to have been based on a bridge rate per
square metre (as were the regional bridge upgrade cost estimates). The rate used is likely to be in the
order of $ 10,000 / m2 (assuming a 13m wide bridge deck). This rate seems high compared to the rates
used for the regional bridge upgrade cost estimates (more like $ 3,000 / m2).
As with any process of assessing options, the accuracy of cost estimations needs to be carried out to a level
that provides enough confidence that assists the option refinement process. Ideally, in order to avoid discarding
potential viable options to early, cost estimation in the early stages of assessment would be highly optimistic
(i.e. low cost estimates). It is not clear if this approach was adopted in the LBR FRMS.
In summary of the cost estimating process, more information could have been provided. However, it is unlikely
that changes to or improvements of the cost estimation would significantly change the outcomes of the study.
4.8.6 Benefit estimation
The LBR FRMS only contains estimates of tangible flood benefits for some of the structural options considered
in the detailed assessment. It would have been useful for some estimation, however approximate, of the
benefits for the non-structural measures. This approach has been adopted in similar flood risk management
studies.
It also would have been useful to describe the elements of intangible damages and discuss the relative
contribution that these additional damages could make to benefit estimation.
There are some errors in the reporting of the damages and benefits for the North Bundaberg levee option
(Section 9.2 of the report). Table 9-3 lists the damages for the North Bundaberg levee option but the values are
exactly the same as those for the East Bundaberg levee option. As well, the average annual damage listed in
the table is actually the damages for the 20% AEP flood event.
There appears to be a reporting error in the benefit estimation for the Low level north Bundaberg levees option
(Section 9.3 of the LBR FRMS report). However, GHD has confirmed that the documented benefit-cost ratio is
correct and the error is in the damages for each event listed further up in the table. Hence, this reporting error
does not influence the overall consideration of this measure or the conclusions of the report.
The benefits of the town reach dredging (Option 23B) seem very low ($ 5.0 million NPV) when compared with
the 0.4m reduction in flood levels by lowering bed levels by 2m (see Figure 11.3 of the Burnett River Flood
Study) and the flood level reductions shown for Option 23 (in Appendix G). While it is recognised that the
dredging profiles differ between Option 23 and 23B, the report does not provide any further detail on the
reasons for this difference.
IH080900_R2 29
Study
4.8.7 Assessment of combination of options
The LBR FRMS includes assessments of many options. However, more effort could have been made to
develop combinations of options in the detailed assessment phase. For example, as levees in Bundaberg North
resulted in afflux in the river upstream, this option could have been combined with an option that reduced river
flood levels (e.g. town reach dredging). As well, options for large channels constructed through Bundaberg
North could have been assessed in association with compulsory land swap/ voluntary property purchase and a
reduced Bundaberg North levee route.
4.9 Assessment of non-structural flood management measures
Much or the LBR FRMS report is dedicated to the assessment of structural flood risk management measures (or
flood modification measures as referred to in the report). This is appropriate given the large number and
diversity of the options suggested by the community. As well, it is likely and common that the community has a
larger focus on the effectiveness of structural flood risk management measures over non-structural measures.
The assessment of non-structural measures is presented in Chapters 10 and 11. These assessments appear
thorough and comprehensive (noting the commentary on compulsory land swap/ voluntary house purchase
scheme assessment in Section 4.7 of this report). The lack of comments on this work in this report should not
underplay its quality.
As well, the commentary in this report on the assessment of flood modification measures should not detract
from the importance of the recommendations on property modification measures and flood response
modification measures. There are valid and important recommendations in the LBR FRMS report that are likely
to provide significant long-term value to the floodplain community.
4.10 Review of FRM Reporting and Community Presentation Material
The LBR FRMS report is of a high quality with a high degree of detail included (excepting the comments made
in this review where there are some minor errors). The appendices are detailed in nature and support the main
report well.
However, it is understood that this report was not made available to the public. While it is appreciated that it is a
relatively technical and detailed report, the non-disclosure of the report can breed a level of mistrust in the
community.
It is also recognised that there are considerable challenges in communicating the outcomes of the flood
mitigation option selection back to the community. The Burnett River Floodplain Action Plan: Preliminary
Options Assessment Report (GHD, 2014) was part of this communication process. While the intent of the report
is good, the following comments are made on this report:
The report is well structured and adds value to the process. The language used in the report is
deliberately less technical than the FMRS report to aid in community understanding.
The discussion of the nine selected flood modification options is clear and well structured. It could have
been complimented by a short summary (e.g. 1/3 page) of the assessment at the end of each section
that listed the general flood benefits, costs, benefit-cost ratio, key environmental issues and key project
risks.
The report has a strong focus on the flood modification options assessed and chosen. The LBR FMRS
contains many very good recommendations on property modification and response modification
measures. It is not clear why these have not been incorporated into this report and the BRC Flood
Action Plan. It gives the impression that the Flood Action Plan only includes flood modification
measures.
IH080900_R2 30
Study
In regard to the discussion of options in the LBR FRMS, the following comments are made:
Overall, as mentioned above, this part of the report (Chapters 7, 8 and 9) is well structured and well
written.
Some of the discussion of options appears to be poorly worded. The reasons for not considering the
option further are listed very early in the discussion of the option. This gives the reader the impression
that the conclusion on the option was drawn prematurely. It may have been more constructive to
discuss all options in a consistent structure with a section on the features, then the benefits and then
the costs and impacts. This discussion could then be summarised in a short consistent table which
could clearly show that the benefits of the option (event conservatively high estimates) were outweighed
by the costs and impacts (even if these were conservatively low estimates).
Chapter 7 is a key part of the report as it includes the discussion on the assessment of many options
raised by the community. There is a need for more emphasis on the reasons for not furthering the
assessment of many long-list options. Many of these options have a strong level of support within the
community. There is a need to explain, in a manner that is easy to understand why these options were
not considered further. The structure used in Chapter 9 (and the Preliminary Options Assessment
Report) is a good one to consider using for all options.
Given the importance of explaining to the community the reasons for not progressing with some options,
it may have been useful to have produced some stand-alone discussion papers (say 8 pages long)
which specifically discussed these options and provided a clear justification for the decision to not
proceed further.
It is recognised that the suggestions here are over and above what is normally expected of a FRMS and
that these suggestions would have added costs and time to the project. These points are not criticisms
but suggestions with the benefit of hindsight.
IH080900_R2 31
Study
5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions of Burnett River Flood Study review
Overall, the Burnett River Flood Study is a comprehensive assessment of flood behaviour in the lower Burnett
River with a specific focus on the flood behaviour in the Bundaberg area. The flood modelling approach and
application appears to be of a generally high quality based on the available information.
However, there are a few areas of concern that are either opportunities missed or areas for improvement. These
are discussed in the recommendations section below.
Based on this review and acknowledging the recommendations below, the flood study provides a suitable basis
for the subsequent flood risk management study and planning scheme development. It should be noted that the
review presented here has been somewhat constrained by the availability of information and these limitations
are listed in Section 3.7.
5.2 Recommendations to progress the Burnett River Flood Study
The following recommendations are made to assist to progress of the Burnett River Flood Study. They are listed
as minor, moderate of major (in regard to their relative significance to the quality and reliability of the flood
study).
In general, the “Major Influence“ recommendations should be addressed as part of the next stage of the
Bundaberg Flood Protection Study and prior to developing the 10-year action plan. However, the “Moderate
Influence“ and “Minor Influence“ recommendations could be addressed at a suitable future opportunity.
5.2.1 Major influence recommendations
An independent flood frequency analysis should be carried out to provide confidence in the design flood
estimations which are a key outcome of the flood study.
5.2.2 Moderate influence recommendations
The hydraulic roughness coefficients should be reviewed based on the comments made in Section
3.6.4 of this report. If these changes result in substantial changes to flood levels and calibration quality,
then this would be a major issue and the flood model may require re-calibration.
The head loss values used for the structures should be reviewed based on the comments in Section
3.6.5 of this report. If there is a gross error in the model (as opposed to a reporting error) then this
would be a major issue and the model may require recalibration (depending on the sensitivity of the
flood levels to the required correction).
5.2.3 Minor influence recommendations
It would be beneficial to simulate and map a number of more probable / smaller events (eg 5%, 20%
AEP)
The flood calibration figures could be enlarged and improved to better communicate to the community
the high quality of the flood model’s replication of the January 2013 (and other event) flood levels.
The flood maps should show a limit of validity to avoid misinterpretation of the maps.
Maps of flow intensity or velocity-depth product would be useful to present.
IH080900_R2 32
Study
5.3 Conclusions of Lower Burnett River Floodplain Management Study review
Overall, the Lower Burnett River Floodplain Management Study is a comprehensive assessment of flood risk
and available options. The study is of a high quality and has been carried out in a challenging environment with
very high community expectations and highly diverse views in the community.
This review has raised only a small number of matters that require further consideration or are areas for
improvement with the benefit of hindsight. These are discussed in the recommendations section below.
Based on this review and acknowledging the recommendations below, the flood risk management study
provides a strong basis for the subsequent progression of a strategic flood risk plan for the Lower Burnett area.
5.4 Recommendations to improve the Lower Burnett River Floodplain Management

Study
The following recommendations are made to improve the Lower Burnett River Floodplain Management Study.
They are listed as minor, moderate of major (in regard to their relative significance to the quality and reliability of
the study outcomes).
In general, the “Major Influence“ recommendations should be addressed as part of the next stage of the
Bundaberg Flood Protection Study and prior to developing the 10-year action plan. However, the “Moderate
Influence“ and “Minor Influence“ recommendations could be addressed at a suitable future opportunity.
5.4.1 Major influence recommendations
The design MCA needs to be reconsidered. It is not suggested that the outcomes of the MCA are
fundamentally flawed. It is more that the MCA process could be better utilised to provide transparency
and clarity to decision making. An alternative process for comparing flood risk management measures
needs to be developed as part of Stage 2 of the Bundaberg Flood Protection Study.
The provision of feedback to the community on the assessment of options that were not taken further
needs attention. Succinct discussion papers dedicated to types of options (e.g. one for dredging, one for
diversion channels) with easily understood graphics and maps could be a part of this feedback.
Compulsory land swap/ voluntary house purchase schemes need to be part of any future considerations
for a flood mitigation plan.
Combinations of options should make up any future flood risk management plan for the Lower Burnett
to take advantage of offsets from one option on another
Options for storage in the entire Burnett River catchment should be considered. However, there is not
an obvious location without significant issues.
Flood refuges and high flood immunity evacuation centres need to be considered further for Bundaberg
North.
The timing of the closure of the Tallon Bridge needs further exploration to determine if more time is
available for evacuations.
The mapping of flood risk needs to include a spatial representation of the vulnerability of residents
(based on ABS census data) and the spatial distribution of flood damages.
5.4.2 Moderate influence recommendations
The flood damages assessment should be improved with more detailed floor level survey and the
derivation of new flood damages curves based on the 2013 flood. This latter item would be expensive
IH080900_R2 33
Study
but valuable in the long-term and could be coordinated with new flood damage curves that could be
derived from other recently flooded parts of Queensland (eg Brisbane, Ipswich, Gayndah etc).
A sensitivity assessment should be carried out with alternative damages curves to ascertain the degree
to which these curves affect flood damages and subsequent benefit estimation
The process of short-listing needs to be more clearly explained to the community
The maps depicting changes to flood levels from flood modification options need to be improved to
more clearly show the changes.
5.4.3 Minor influence recommendations
Flood risk assessment should be carried out with terminology consistent with national guidance
(NERAG, 2011)
Minor reporting errors in some of the benefit tables should be corrected
IH080900_R2 34
Study
6. References
Australian Emergency Management Institute (2013) Managing the floodplain: a guide to best practice in flood
risk management in Australia
Australian Rainfall and Runoff (1987)
Australian Rainfall and Runoff Revision Projects
Brisbane City Council (2001) Natural Channel Guidelines
DSDIP (July 2014) State Planning Policy
DSDIP (December, 2013) Draft State Planning Policy Guideline: Guidance on flood, bushfire and landslide
hazards
GHD (2004) Burnett River Flood Study
GHD (2013) Burnett River Flood Study Final Report
GHD (2014) Lower Burnett Floodplain Risk Management Study (draft)
National Emergency Management Committee (2010) National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines
NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, (2005) Floodplain Development Manual:
the management of flood liable land.
Queensland Government (2013) Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study: Comprehensive Hydrologic
Assessment
Queensland Reconstruction Authority (2012) Planning for stronger, more resilient floodplains, Part 2 - Measures
to support floodplain management in future planning schemes.
SCARM (2000) Floodplain management in Australia: best practice principles and guidelines - Report No. 73
IH080900_R2 35
Study
Appendix A. Cost Estimation Accuracy

Taken from 56R-08, Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in the Building and General Construction
Industries (AACE, 2012)
IH080900_R2

Bundaberg Flood Protection Scoping Study Stage 1 Review

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

Bundaberg Flood Protection Scoping Study Stage 1 Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bundaberg Flood Protection Scoping Study

Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning

Review of Flood Study and Flood Risk Management Study

Review of Flo od Stu dy an d Fl ood Risk M ana gem ent St udy

Bundaberg Flood Protection Scoping Study

Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited

3.7 Flood study elements not reviewed ...................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A. Cost Estimation Accuracy

Review of Flood Study

There are some minor improvements possible to the flood maps

Review of Flood Risk Management Study

Recommendations for Stage 2 of the Bundaberg Flood Protection Study

A number of flood risk management measures need to be considered further including:

Burnett River Flood Study Final Report (GHD, October 2013)

1.2 Scope of review

The proposed outcome of the study was listed as:

1.3 Purpose of this report

1.4 Limitations statement

2. Benchmarks and standards used for review

a. Project 1 Development of Intensity Frequency Duration Information across Australia

6. National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines (National Emergency Management Committee,

2.2 Flood Study purpose and function

2.3 Flood Risk Management Study purpose and function

3. Review of Burnett River Flood Study

Burnett River Flood Study report (GHD, 2013)

WaterRIDE flood animations of 2013 flood event (6 of)

Flood maps (pdf) from BRC website

ALS data supplied by BRC

BRC brief for the Burnett River Flood Study.

3.2 Review of Burnett River Flood Study objectives and purpose

Provide a basis for assessment of flood mitigation measures

3.3 Data collection review

Aerial and ground based photography;

Topographic data (including historical topography data);

Bathymetric survey (including historical bathymetry data);

Rainfall, stream flow and rating curve data;

Details of hydraulic structures (barrage, bridges, embankments);

Historical flood data including:

3.4 Flood frequency analysis review

3.4.1 General methodology

3.4.2 Analysis of results

3.5 Hydrological model review

3.5.1 Choice of modelling software

3.5.2 Sub-catchment layout and catchment areas

3.5.3 Choice of calibration events

The flood events chosen were:

February 1942 (4th largest on record),

February 1971 (a long duration event with a large volume),

December 2010 ((the second largest flood in the last 40 years)

January 2011 (a smaller recent flood)

January 2013 (the largest flood on record).

3.5.4 Calibration quality

3.5.5 Adopted modelling parameters

3.5.6 Design events and critical durations

3.6 Hydraulic model review

3.6.1 Choice of modelling software

3.6.2 Hydraulic model layout / configuration

3.6.4 Hydraulic roughness parameters

3.6.5 Structures representation

3.6.6 Downstream boundary

3.6.7 Calibration quality

3.6.8 Design events

3.6.9 Flood hazard assessments