Woongoolba Hydraulic Study 201409 Report PDF

Woongoolba
Hydraulic Study
Prepared by:
Natural Hazards Team
City Planning Branch
Planning Environment Directorate
September 2014
Woongoolba Hydraulic Study
Authors:
Elton Frederic Chong

Blake Boulton
Motiul Kabir
Study for:
City of Gold Coast (the City)
File Reference:
WF18/44
Version history
Version Comments/changes
Changed by Reviewed
Reviewed
and date
by and date by and date
1.0
Draft
BB 08/13
MK 11/13
2.0
Final draft with some modification
EC 11/13
HM 01/14
3.0
Word errors amended and feedback from Assets
EC 11/13
HM 01/14
4.0
New Branding and Reviewed by Corp Comm
EC 03/14
HM 03/14
5.0
Include Q2 Flood Map
EC 09/14
HM 09/14
EC 11/13
Distribution list
Name
Title
Directorate
Branch
Paul Novy
Senior Drainage Planning Technical Officer
Assets
Engineering Services
Namrata Mathur
Project Manager
Projects
Engineering Services
NH Library
Version 5 November 14
woongoolba-hydraulic-study-201409-report.docx
Page 2 of 180
Table of contents
1.
Executive summary .................................................................................................. 10
2.
Introduction............................................................................................................... 14
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
Overview ..........................................................................................................................14
Study objectives ...............................................................................................................14
Limitation statement .........................................................................................................15
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................15
Background............................................................................................................... 16
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.
Woongoolba Study Area ..................................................................................................16

Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme .............................................................................18
Previous studies...............................................................................................................29
Hydraulic modelling approach................................................................................. 35
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Regional and local flooding ..............................................................................................35

Datums ............................................................................................................................35
Data availability ................................................................................................................36
Hydrological inputs ...........................................................................................................49
Hydrodynamic model development ..................................................................................51
Model tidal calibration 2004-2005..................................................................................58
Model flood calibration January 2013 ............................................................................58
One-in-10-year ARI design flood estimation .....................................................................59
5.
Simplistic siltation analysis ..................................................................................... 66
6.
Drainage criteria and scenario testing .................................................................... 75

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Current drainage criteria and practice ..............................................................................75

Performance criteria of present condition .........................................................................76
Status of previous recommendations and upgrades .........................................................81
Upgrade options...............................................................................................................89
Option testing results discussion ......................................................................................97
7.
Preliminary cost benefit analysis .......................................................................... 108
8.
Future upgrading and work.................................................................................... 110

8.1
Program of works ...........................................................................................................110
9.
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 112
10.
References .............................................................................................................. 115
11.
Appendix A 2013 tidal planes ............................................................................. 117
12.
Appendix B Cane land expansion (aerial photo comparisons) ........................ 119
13.
Appendix C model boundaries and results ....................................................... 124
14.
Appendix D structure photos.............................................................................. 136
15.
Appendix E structure drawings .......................................................................... 160
16.
Appendix F December 2012 high tide................................................................. 163
17.
Appendix G January 2013 flood.......................................................................... 164
Page 3 of 180
18.
Appendix H 2012 field photos ............................................................................. 168
19.
Appendix I 2004 flood photos ............................................................................. 175
List of figures
Figure 1
Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme and Woongoolba catchment boundaries17
Figure 2
Original proposed scheme layout (Ref 1) ............................................................... 19
Figure 3
Proposed scheme structures................................................................................... 20
Figure 4
Flood duration curves (Ref 1) .................................................................................. 21
Figure 5
Crop expansion from 1972 (Ref 1) to 2009 .............................................................. 22
Figure 6
Land lower than one metre AHD (highlighted in blue) ........................................... 24
Figure 7
Areas of the Rocky Point cane lands considered unsuitable for crop production
(Source: CSIRO 2007) ............................................................................................... 24
Figure 8
Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme (easement) and minor drains .................. 25
Figure 9
Southern Moreton Bay Ramsar and acid sulphate soil.......................................... 28
Figure 10
DTM data source ....................................................................................................... 38
Figure 11
10-metre hydrodynamic model grid ........................................................................ 39
Figure 12
Ground levels of the 10-metre model grids. ........................................................... 40
Figure 13
Semi-diurnal tidal planes (Source: MSQ) ................................................................ 41
Figure 14
Anecdotal flood levels locations ............................................................................. 44
Figure 15
Location of alert stations ......................................................................................... 46
Figure 16
Maximum height gauges around Woongoolba region ........................................... 47
Figure 17
Bore test site (Source: Material Testing Laboratory) ............................................. 48
Figure 18
One-in-10-year ARI 72 hours temporal patterns ..................................................... 50
Figure 19
URBS hydrological model extent and catchment area .......................................... 50
Figure 20
Model source and sinks ........................................................................................... 52
Figure 21
Model roughness map .............................................................................................. 54
Figure 22
Additional MIKE 11 branches added to the 2004 MIKE 11 branches (shown in cyan)
56
Figure 23
Structures surveyed by Engineering Services in 2010 .......................................... 57
Figure 24
Hydrodynamic model calibration at Kerkin Road alert .......................................... 59
Figure 25
Regional estuarine model and HAT reference points ............................................ 62
Figure 26
Typical high tide used for scenario analysis .......................................................... 64
Figure 27
Simulated HAT and model boundary reference points .......................................... 65
Figure 28
Comparison of cross-sectional survey locations ................................................... 67
Figure 29
Comparison of invert levels along Behms Creek ................................................... 68
Figure 30
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms Creek ......................... 68
Figure 31
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms Creek ......................... 69
Figure 32
Comparison of invert levels along Behms-Centre drain ........................................ 69
Page 4 of 180
Figure 33
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms-Centre Drain .............. 70
Figure 34
Comparison of invert levels along Sandy Creek .................................................... 70
Figure 35
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Sandy Creek .......................... 71
Figure 36
Comparison of invert levels along Pimpama River ................................................ 71
Figure 37
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Pimpama River ...................... 72
Figure 38
Comparison of invert levels along Hotham Creek .................................................. 72
Figure 39
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Hotham Creek ........................ 73
Figure 40
Comparison of invert levels along Intercon Drain.................................................. 73
Figure 41
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Intecon Drain ......................... 74
Figure 42
Major drainage areas ................................................................................................ 77
Figure 43
Original flood duration curve, converted to m AHD (Ref 1) ................................... 78
Figure 44
Location of extraction points ................................................................................... 79
Figure 45
Flood duration curves (Pimpama River) ................................................................. 79
Figure 46
Flood duration curves (Behms Creek) .................................................................... 80
Figure 47
Flood duration curves (Sandy Creek). .................................................................... 81
Figure 48
Location of proposed upgrades from the 1994 study (Ref 2) and status of those
upgrades ................................................................................................................... 87
Figure 49
Location of proposed upgrades from the 2004 study (Ref 3) and status of those
upgrades ................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 50
Location of proposed upgrades from the 2004 supplementary study (Ref 4) and
status of those upgrades ......................................................................................... 88
Figure 51
Location of proposed easements from 2004 study (Ref 3) .................................... 89
Figure 52
Location of Behms Creek and Kerkin Road weir tidal gates ................................. 90
Figure 53
Straightening of Behms Creek................................................................................. 92
Figure 54
Location of widened Behms Creek and Pimpama River ........................................ 94
Figure 55
Flows from sub-catchment 358 are removed.......................................................... 95
Figure 56
Flood curves comparison of locations ................................................................. 101
Figure 57
Scenario analysis results for Location 1............................................................... 103
Figure 58
Figure 59
Figure 60
Figure 61
Figure 62
Figure 63
Figure 64
Figure 65
Figure 66
Scenario analysis results for Location 10............................................................. 107
Figure 67
2013 tidal planes (Source: MSQ) ........................................................................... 117
Figure 68
2013 tidal planes cont. (Source: MSQ) ............................................................... 118
Page 5 of 180
Figure 69
Cane cultivation (1973) ........................................................................................... 119
Figure 70
Cane Cultivation (2011) .......................................................................................... 120
Figure 71
Urbanisation of Upper Woongoolba, aerial photos 2001 (left) and 2011 (right) . 121
Figure 72
Urbanisation of Upper Woongoolba, aerial photos 2001 (left) and 2011 (right) . 122
Figure 73
Changes around Marks Road, aerial photos 2001 (left) and 2011 (right) ............ 123
Figure 74
SKMs 1994 hydrological and hydrodynamic model extent (Ref 2)..................... 124
Figure 75
City of Gold Coasts 2004 hydrological and hydrodynamic model extent (Ref 3)125
Figure 76
City of Gold Coasts 2004 hydrological and hydrodynamic model extent (Ref 4)126
Figure 77
Depth of inundation (peak) for one-in-10-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm
duration (HAT) ........................................................................................................ 127
Figure 78
Depth of inundation (after four days) for one-in-10-year ARI flood with 72-hour
storm duration (HAT) .............................................................................................. 128
Figure 79
Option 1 (additional culverts at Behms Creek) compared with base case (four
days) ........................................................................................................................ 129
Figure 80
Option 2 (automated gates) compared with base case (four days) ..................... 130
Figure 81
Option 3 (Behms Creek straightening) compared with base case (four days) ... 131
Figure 82
Option 4a (10m3/s pump) compared with base case (four days) ......................... 132
Figure 83
Option 4b (15m3/s pump) compared with base case (four days) ......................... 133
Figure 84
Option 5 (widening of Behms Creek and Pimpama River) compared with base case
(four days) ............................................................................................................... 134
Figure 85
Option 6 (detention basin) compared with base case (four days)....................... 135
Figure 86
Behms Creek culverts ............................................................................................ 160
Figure 87
Behms Creek floodgate .......................................................................................... 161
Figure 88
Proposed Behms Creek Bridge upgrade .............................................................. 162
Figure 89
January 2013 flow calibration at Yarrahappini alert ............................................. 166
Figure 90
January 2013 flow calibration at Waterford alert .................................................. 166
Figure 91
January 2013 flow calibration at Hotham alert ..................................................... 167
Figure 92
January 2013 flow calibration at Kerkin Road alert .............................................. 167
Figure 93
Photo locations ....................................................................................................... 168
Figure 94
Depth of inundation (peak) for one-in-2-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm duration
(HAT) ........................................................................................................................ 178
Figure 95
Depth of inundation (after four days) for one-in-2-year ARI flood with 72-hour
storm duration (HAT) .............................................................................................. 179
Page 6 of 180
List of tables
Table 1
Surveyed regions by year ........................................................................................ 36
Table 2
Summary of present climate storm tide estimates (Ref 14) ................................... 42
Table 3
Summary of future (2100) climate storm tide estimates (Ref 14) .......................... 42
Table 4
Anecdotal flood levels obtained from cane farmers .............................................. 43
Table 5
Locations of alert stations. ...................................................................................... 45
Table 6
Unified River Basin Simulator (URBS) model parameters for Pimpama and Logan
River catchment ........................................................................................................ 49
Table 7
Typical Mannings n roughness values................................................................. 53
Table 8
Summary of estimating flood levels ........................................................................ 60
Table 9
Adopted HAT values for model ................................................................................ 63
Table 10
Status of previous upgrades and recommendations (1994 SKM) ......................... 81
Table 11
Inundated area and volume of water from different upgrade scenarios ............... 96
Table 12
Difference in inundation area and volume of water compared with base case .... 97
Table 13
Cane cultivation level and easement width by comparison location. ................. 102
Table 14
Simplistic cost benefit analysis ............................................................................. 108
Table 15
Recommended drainage upgrades ....................................................................... 110
List of photos
Photo 1
Structure 12 (Behms Gate) ..................................................................................... 136
Photo 2
Structure 12............................................................................................................. 137
Photo 3
Structure 17 (road).................................................................................................. 138
Photo 4
Structure 19 (New Norwell Road)........................................................................... 139
Photo 5
Structure 19 (Norwell Road) ................................................................................... 140
Photo 6
Structure 50............................................................................................................. 140
Photo 7
Structure 51............................................................................................................. 141
Photo 8
Structure 52............................................................................................................. 141
Photo 9
Structure 35A (Sandy Creek Gate)......................................................................... 142
Photo 10
Structure 39............................................................................................................. 142
Photo 11
Structure 40............................................................................................................. 143
Photo 12
Structure 26 (Stapylton-Jacobswell Road) ........................................................... 143
Photo 13
Structure 26............................................................................................................. 144
Photo 14
Structure 35B .......................................................................................................... 144
Photo 15
Structure 2 (Pimpama-Jacobs Well Road) ............................................................ 145
Photo 16
Structure 2............................................................................................................... 145
Page 7 of 180
Photo 17
Structure 81 (Wolfes Drain) .................................................................................... 146
Photo 18
Structure 33 (Powerline Road-Marks Road) .......................................................... 147
Photo 19
Structure 30 (Homestead Road) ............................................................................ 148
Photo 20
Structure 13 (Gross Road) ..................................................................................... 149
Photo 21
Structure 1............................................................................................................... 149
Photo 22
Structure 1............................................................................................................... 150
Photo 23
Structure 9 (Norwell Road) ..................................................................................... 151
Photo 24
Structure 9............................................................................................................... 151
Photo 25
Structure 10 (Eggersdorf Road) ............................................................................. 152
Photo 26
Structure 70............................................................................................................. 152
Photo 27
Structure 71............................................................................................................. 153
Photo 28
Structure 72............................................................................................................. 153
Photo 29
Structure 73............................................................................................................. 154
Photo 30
Structure 28 (Burnside Road) ................................................................................ 154
Photo 31
Structure 27 (Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road) .......................................................... 155
Photo 32
Structure 27A .......................................................................................................... 155
Photo 33
Structure 59............................................................................................................. 156
Photo 34
Structure 60............................................................................................................. 156
Photo 35
Structure 60............................................................................................................. 157
Photo 36
Structure 22............................................................................................................. 158
Photo 37
Structure 3 (Unnamed) ........................................................................................... 158
Photo 38
Structure 83 (Schoff Drain) .................................................................................... 159
Photo 39
Structure Unnamed 5 (Schoff Drain) ..................................................................... 159
Photo 40
Overtopping of Zipfs Road near Loves Road (Courtesy of Barry Brooking) ...... 163
Photo 41
Photos taken during 15 December 2012 high tide (Courtesy of Barry Brooking)163
Photo 42
29 January 2013 photo of Pimpama River culvert (Courtesy of Blake Boulton) 164
Photo 43
29 January 2013 Photo of Behms Creek Culvert (Courtesy of Blake Boulton) .. 165
Photo 44
29 January 2013 photo of Zipfs Road inundation (Courtesy of Blake Boulton) . 165
Photo 45
IMG 021.................................................................................................................... 169
Photo 46
IMG 624.................................................................................................................... 169
Photo 47
IMG 631.................................................................................................................... 170
Photo 48
IMG 634.................................................................................................................... 170
Photo 49
IMG 636.................................................................................................................... 171
Photo 50
IMG 637.................................................................................................................... 171
Photo 51
IMG 638.................................................................................................................... 172
Photo 52
IMG 640.................................................................................................................... 172
Photo 53
IMG 644.................................................................................................................... 173
Photo 54
IMG 645.................................................................................................................... 173
Page 8 of 180
Photo 55
IMG 649.................................................................................................................... 174
Photo 56
IMG 650.................................................................................................................... 174
Photo 57
Looking west from concrete bridge (note brewery in background) 10/11/04 ..... 175
Photo 58
Looking south from concrete bridge 10/11/04 ...................................................... 175
Photo 59
Looking south-west from bridge (note quarry on Ormeau Range) 10/11/04....... 176
Photo 60
Looking east from concrete bridge behind Richard Skopps farm 10/11/04....... 176
Photo 61
Photo taken 24/11/04 showing the dead cane plants resulting from inundation
(note quarry) ........................................................................................................... 177
Photo 62
Photo taken 24/11/04 showing cane plants on our farm with good drainage ..... 177
Page 9 of 180
1. Executive summary
The Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme (WFMS) was constructed in the 1960s to mitigate
the impacts of flooding and to promote agricultural activity around the Woongoolba area.
This area, located between the Logan and Pimpama Rivers, is quite low-lying and prone to
flooding, although farming has existed here for many generations. The suburbs of Pimpama,
Norwell, Gilberton, Jacobs Well and Steiglitz are all located within the WFMS.
The WFMS was created in line with Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1936, which
allowed scheme drainage to be constructed for agricultural purposes. The scheme covers
most of the lower floodplain, with a catchment area of about 190km2. The floodplain can also
be affected by flooding of the Logan/Albert River which covers an area of about 3878km2.
The scheme involved the construction of tidal gates and man-made and natural drainage
systems to enable drainage of a 10-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood event in 11
days (based on estimates from this study). Later, the Department of Primary Industries (DPI)
released data indicating that sugar cane should not be inundated for more than three days.
In recent years, the drainage time criterion was increased by Council so that cane will not be
inundated for more than four days for a one-in-10-year 72 hour ARI storm event.
The scheme is bounded by the system of constructed levees to the north and east and by
the Pacific Motorway in the west. Within the scheme itself, the drains intersect the major flow
paths to ensure localised flooding can be drained to the nearest outlet as efficiently as
possible.
Sugar cane cultivation is the main agricultural activity within the WFMS. During the past 30
years, the effectiveness of the WFMS has allowed sugar cane cultivation to expand further
into low-lying areas. Cane is grown in some areas as low as 0.5 metres Australian Height
Datum (AHD) and more than 35 per cent of the land within the scheme has an elevation of
less than one metre AHD. About 55 per cent of the cane cropping land is below Highest
Astronomical Tide (HAT) level.
During the past decade, concerns have been raised on the capacity of the WFMS due to the
ever-changing land use of the upper reaches of the catchment. The catchment has
experienced significant residential, commercial and industrial development. The concerns
relate to over the ability of the drainage scheme to meet the drainage time criteria, which in
turn affects cane crop yield.
To determine the drainage performance, a number of hydraulic models has been developed,
internally and externally over the years, for the WFMS. They were the 1994 WBM Study and
the 2004 study by City of Gold Coast, formerly Gold Coast City Council (GCCC). Both
studies used the one dimensional (1D) hydrodynamic model (MIKE 11) to simulate the flood
flows of the scheme drains. The input of the model is based on the RORB hydrology
software which WBM developed as part of its 1994 study. The 2004 study further refined the
1994 study to take into account new survey data. This 2004 study was subsequently
Page 10 of 180
adopted by Council in 2005, with the new drainage criteria of a one-in-10-year Average
Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood, with a rainfall event of 72 hours duration, being contained by
the schemes drains within a four-day period.
To determine whether the one-in-10-year ARI of 72 hours duration was still valid in 2013 and
beyond, a new 1D/2D hydrodynamic model was developed using the latest hydrological input
and new survey information. Further, the hydrological and hydraulic models are now
calibrated to flood events, especially the January 2013 event. Previous studies were never
calibrated to any flood events. With the development of this new hydrodynamic model, this
study aimed to test the drainage performance criteria in 2013 and to recommend strategies
to ensure the WFMS performs to its design, ensuring flood water drains out of the system
and reduces crop losses.
A number of scenarios were tested to determine if improvements to the drainage
performance could be achieved in the study area.
The analysis indicated minor
improvements can be achieved with major upgrades. However, simple cost benefit analysis
would indicate that the costs far outweigh the benefits. It would be far more beneficial to
ensure that drains and drainage structures were maintained, given the probability of a rain
event occurring annually.
Other than the hydraulic development and assessment, this study also compared various
surveyed information to determine the magnitude of siltation in the schemes drains. The
results of the comparison show that siltation has occurred at most locations.
In summary, the key outcomes of this study are:
Analysis of aerial photography shows significant further expansion of cane farming into
low-lying land between 1973 and 2009.
Analysis of aerial photography and terrain shows that substantial cane farming activity
occurs on land below one metre AHD.
Pimpama River conveys the most flow out of the system, followed by Behms Creek and
Sandy Creek.
Survey works in 1994 and 2012 show that siltation has occurred along most scheme
drains during this period. Maintenance of the schemes drains is critical to ensure the
areas drainage performance is met.A number of mitigation scenarios was tested to
improve the existing WFMS drainage time criteria. The results of the scenario testing
shows there is a fine balance between the cost of the upgrades and the benefit of those
upgrades. For example, among the scenarios tested, the most effective was to construct
a stormwater pump station at high cost. While the least effective, was constructing
automated tidal gates leading to a worsening flooding situation.
The WFMS generally meets City drainage performance criteria (Figures 57 to 66).
However, some low-lying areas along the western boundary of the scheme do not fully
meet the performance criteria. This will lead to localised ponding during minor storm
events due to insufficient grade. It is worth noting that these low-lying areas were
previously wetlands where cane cultivation has expanded during the past 30 years.
Page 11 of 180
Key recommendations:
Collect headloss and flow data across flap gates. The information can be used to inform
future hydrodynamic modelling and to test structure performance, for example, Structures
12 (Photo 2) and 33 (Photo 18).
Monitor drainage time at a number of control points during future flood events for future
hydrodynamic model calibration.
Define a new service level (drainage time criteria) for cane farming land lower than one
metre AHD to take into account the effects of ponding and the expansion of sugar cane
cultivation. Consideration of the 2007 CSIRO study that identified the areas of land which
are unsuitable for crop production to be included in future land use planning.
The results from this study should be used as the basis for future impact assessment
across the WFMS catchment.
Due to the rapid development within the WFMS catchment, for instance, Gainsborough,
Marks Road etc, the hydrodynamic model needs to be updated every two years to take
into account changes in the floodplain and in the upper reaches of the catchment.
For future hydraulic studies, consider the impacts of climate variability including a
projected rise in sea level. Future studies should also take into account infiltration losses
into the groundwater table and evaporation losses.
A Land Use Planning/Hydraulic Master Plan Study should be undertaken to determine

the future of the WFMS, with consideration to regional and local plans as well as State
Government policies.
The cost estimates presented in this report are approximates and no cumulative benefit
for drainage upgrades has been undertaken (including the cost of replanting fully
damaged crops). It is recommended that a detailed cost benefit analysis be undertaken
to assess the exact viability of drainage upgrades.
Prepare a detailed database of all hydraulic structures within WFMS for future
hydrodynamic modelling.
Undertake an airborne laser survey of the cane area during planting season and at low
tides, to develop an accurate digital elevation model for hydrodynamic modelling.
Undertake drainage upgrades recommended in the following table.
Page 12 of 180
Priority Proposed upgrades
Description
Clear weed growth

around structure.
For example as seen in Photo Maintenance

29 (private crossing) the pipe
outlet is blocked by debris and
weed.
Clear weed growth and

As seen in Photo 18, the pipe Maintenance (minor works)
repair flap gate (Structure outlet is blocked by debris and
33)
weed.
Remove or Replace
Structures 39 and 40
Remove or replace farm

crossings with low afflux
bridge structures (refer Photo
10 and Photo 11)
Comments
Recommended in 1994 SKM

and 2004 GCCC Studies.
Private crossings.
Replace 35B and clear

weed growth (minor tide
gate)
As seen in Photo 14, the pipe Recommended in 1994 SKM

outlet is blocked by debris and and 2004 GCCC Studies
weed.
(minor works).
Replace Structure 2
(minor road crossing)
Photo 15 and Photo 16 show

the structure is quite small.
Recommended in 1994 SKM

and 2004 GCCC Studies. Minor
Road Crossing
New 800 metre channel

near Structure (83)
Figure 51 shows a channel of

about 800 metres that
connects existing easement
between Gilberton Drain and
Sandy Creek
Recommended in 2004 GCCC

study. Stormwater easement is
required.
Figure 51 shows scheme

drains that are not within
existing easements. Table 10
describes the locations.

study. Stormwater easements
are required.
New easements:
Behms Creek
Negotiations were unsuccessful

in securing easement.
Kerkin Drain
10
Negotiations were unsuccessful

in securing easement.
Upgrade east and west

culverts of Schoff Drain
to 2000 RCP (Structure
83).
Photo 38Error! Reference

source not found. shows the
east culvert and Photo 39
shows the west culvert

Study.
Duplicate the existing

1200mm RCP at Gold
Mine Road Drain.
Photo 36 shows the existing

RCP culvert.

study.
Private crossing.
Private crossing.
Page 13 of 180
2. Introduction
2.1
Overview
In the 1960s, the Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme (WFMS) was constructed to promote
agricultural activity within the flood-prone Woongoolba region. The scheme was first
conceived to enable drainage of a 10-year ARI flood event to 0.9 metres AHD in five days
(based on estimates of this study). The drainage time criteria was later revised, based on
data from the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) which indicated cane should not be
inundated for more than three days. In recent years, the City of Gold Coast has adopted
drainage time criteria of a one-in-10-year ARI flood, with a storm of 72 hours duration being
contained by scheme drains within four days.
It is worthwhile to note that the flood estimation methodology in 1972 is very different to the
present time.
The scheme entails tidal gates and man-made and natural drainage systems, as well as
levees, and was completed in 1977. Since then, the scheme has undergone continuous
improvement from both landholders and the City of Gold Coast. This has included the
installation of large, custom gates at the three major outlets from the system (Pimpama
River, Behms Creek and Sandy Creek) to limit tidal inflow into the scheme. More importantly,
the catchment has experienced significant residential, commercial and industrial
development in the upper reaches. This has raised concerns over the ability of the drainage
scheme to meet the drainage time criteria, thus affecting cane crop yields.
The Citys Natural Hazard Team, in association with Water Modelling Solutions Pty Ltd,
developed a hydrodynamic model using the best available information and methodology to
ascertain the existing WFMS performance. This report documents the modelling
methodology and presents the new one-in-10-year ARI flood maps. It also summarises the
performance of recommended strategies to alleviate the existing flooding problems within the
WFMS.
2.2
Study objectives
The objectives of this study are to:
develop a calibrated hydrodynamic model of Woongoolba catchment
determine the performance of the present WFMS relative to the adopted drainage criteria
investigate siltation of bed level of different rivers, creeks and drains based on available
surveyed cross sections along channels in different years
test different scenarios to find viable drainage upgrades that would improve drainage
performance of the study area
undertake a preliminary cost benefit analysis of different scenarios.
Page 14 of 180
2.3
Limitation statement
The following limitations apply to this study:

2.3.1 General
The hydraulic report was prepared based on information available at the time of writing.
The analysis and overall approach adopted by this study are specifically for internal use.
For this reason, no third parties are authorised to use any content from this report and its
use is prohibited unless written approval is obtained from City of Gold Coast.
City of Gold Coast believes the assessment is accurate for its intended purpose and
disclaims any responsibility for any loss or damage suffered as a result of reliance being
placed on information provided in this report.
The cost benefit analysis undertaken in this study is approximate.
2.3.2 Model grid
The model grid is based on airborne laser surveys conducted between 30 April 2009 and
9 June 2009. Any development or a topographical change to the model grid after this
date is not documented in this report.
The airborne laser survey data acquisition and post-processing have been controlled to
achieve a vertical accuracy of 0.15 metres (rms) and horizontal accuracy of 0.45 metres.
The topographical data is supplemented by hydrographical surveys conducted from

various years, which may influence flood conveyance and storage.
2.4
Acknowledgements
City of Gold Coast acknowledges the Griffith University, Bureau of Meteorology and Marine
Safety Queensland for providing calibration data for this project.
City of Gold Coast also acknowledges the Rocky Point District Cane Growers Organisation
for providing valuable information and assistance to the project team.
Page 15 of 180
3. Background
3.1
Woongoolba Study Area
The Woongoolba catchment extends from the Darlington Range in the west to McCoys
Creek in the south-east and Logan River in the north-east. The suburbs of Pimpama,
Norwell, Gilberton, Jacobs Well and Steiglitz are all located within the WFMS. The total
catchment area of the Woogoolba floodplain is about 190km2 with potential flooding from the
Logan/Albert River catchment, which has an area of about 3878km2. Three major rivers and
creeks flow through the Woongoolba floodplain, the Pimpama River, Behms Creek and
Sandy Creek. The upper catchment consists of steep hills to the east of the Pacific Motorway
while the lower catchment is a flood-prone, flat landscape. About 55 per cent of the floodplain
is below Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) level.
The Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme (WFMS) covers most of the lower catchment area
(Figure 1). It is bounded by a system of constructed levees to the north and east and by the
Pacific Motorway in the west. It also entails scheme drains and natural creeks and rivers
which transect the floodplain, discharging flood flows to the north and east of the scheme,
mainly through Pimpama River and its tidal outlet.
It is worth noting that regional flooding from the Logan or Albert River can also inundate the
Woongoolba area. However, for the purpose of this study, the scheme is not intended to
resolve this type of regional flooding, but rather is intended to mitigate local flooding within
the Woongoolba catchment from the Pimpama River, Behms Creek and Sandy Creek.
Page 16 of 180
Figure 1
Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme and Woongoolba catchment

boundaries
Page 17 of 180
3.2
Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme
The WFMS was created in line with Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1936 to enable
land owners to create a drainage scheme to alleviate flood losses and to increase cane
production (shown by the original plan in Figure 2. The planning for drainage within the
Woongoolba floodplain commenced in the 1960s, entailing the construction and operation of
tidal gates and open drains as well as a number of flood levees (Ref 1). The Local
Government Act 1936 was later repealed by the Local Government Acts of 1993 and 2009,
as outlined below. City of Gold Coast is obliged to maintain the schemes drains in line with
Councils resolution (Ref 18) and the Citys Stormwater Drainage Management Strategy.
Local Government Act 1936

Section 47 (Agricultural Drainage). Part 2
If the Local Authority is satisfied that the Local petition is duly signed by owners
representing a majority of owners of the land within the watershed, it shall appoint a
proper person to prepare a scheme of drainage of the watershed.
Section 802 (Page 389)
The following Acts are repealed
Section 656 1 (b) (Page 329)
To search for, dig, raise and gather on the land and remove from the land any materials
necessary for the exercise of the local governments jurisdiction.
Section 271 (Page 236)
The repealed LG Acts are
the Local Government Act 1993
The construction of the scheme, completed in 1977, was funded jointly by the State
Government, Albert Shire Council and cane growers (via a levy). The levy on the cane
growers was annulled in 1996 after the amalgamation of the Albert Shire and Gold Coast
City councils, now City of Gold Coast.
The total cost of the scheme was about $2 million in 1979. It consists of man-made and
natural drainage channels traversing Pimpama River, Sandy Creek and Behms Creek as
shown in Figure 2.
It also proposed a number of flood levees and tidal gates (Figure 3). The tidal gates were:
Pimpama Outlet (10 culverts, two timber gates)
Behms Creek Outlet (five radial gates)
Ter Meulens Outlet (five radial gates)
Bremerhaven Outlet (five radial gates)
Page 18 of 180
The flood levees were mainly constructed at 1.8 metres AHD (or RL 6.0ft) to prevent the
maximum recorded level during a storm surge of 1.73 metres AHD (RL 5.7ft) from
overtopping and flooding the Woongoolba area. A basin to store and attenuate the flood
flows before they entered the WFMS area was also proposed but never constructed.
Figure 2
Original proposed scheme layout (Ref 1)
Page 19 of 180
Figure 3
Proposed scheme structures
Page 20 of 180
3.2.1 Design flood estimation

A preliminary study of the flood probabilities and an initial proposed design were undertaken
before construction of the scheme. Later, in 1972, an economic analysis and hydrologic
study was undertaken (Ref 1). A simplistic hydrological study was used to determine the
flood probabilities using three representative historical floods. This estimation was later used
to determine the drainage criteria. The flood waters that inundated areas above 1.1 metre
AHD (RL 3.5ft), and which normally took between 11 and 12 days to drain, now took about
five days (Figure 4).
The assessment did not include any tidal influence and hence this was ignored. Based on
the hydrological assessment, the scheme improved the drainage time by about seven days.
Figure 4
Flood duration curves (Ref 1)
Based on recent hydrological studies, it is estimated that that a representative flood of RL

7.0ft in the present study has a one-in-10-year average recurrence interval (a one-in-20-year
ARI estimated by the SKM study, Ref 2).
3.2.2 Expansion of crop land

The expansion of sugar cane cultivation into low-lying areas during the past 30 years has
increased cane inundation problems. Cane is grown in some areas as low as 0.5 metres
AHD. Aerial photos, taken in 1973 and 2011, reveal the extent of this expansion into lowlying areas (Figure 5). Comparisons of aerial photos are also shown in Figures 69Error!
Reference source not found. and 70 (Section 12).
Page 21 of 180
Figure 5
Crop expansion from 1972 (Ref 1) to 2009
This expansion to low-lying areas is also evident in the topographical information (2m DTM)
as shown in Figure 6. An estimated 35 per cent of the area within the Woongoolba Flood
Mitigation Scheme has an elevation of less than one metre AHD (Error! Reference source
not found.). To mitigate persistent flood problems, the cane farmers constructed numerous
Page 22 of 180
local drainage channels. The City is responsible for maintaining drains within easements and
private land owners are responsible for maintaining their own drains. Based on a 2007
CSIRO study, these low-lying areas in the WFMS were found to be unsuitable for crop
production (Figure 7, Ref 5). Figure 8 shows these minor drains and the layout of the
drainage scheme today.
Figure 6
Land lower than one metre AHD (highlighted in blue)
Page 23 of 180
Figure 7
Areas of the Rocky Point cane lands considered unsuitable for crop
production (Source: CSIRO 2007)
Page 24 of 180
Figure 8
Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme (easement) and minor drains
Page 25 of 180
3.2.3 Drainage performance criteria

Cane crop yield is significantly affected by flood inundation time. Based on the 1993 DPI
guidelines, a drainage network must drain a one-in-two-year ARI event within three to four
days (Ref 2). However, these guidelines mainly target floodplains along Queenslands wet
tropical coast, which means that the one-in-two-year ARI event differs from region to region,
especially in the Gold Coast region.
To determine the WFMSs acceptable performance criteria and to provide a strategy for
future maintenance, Albert Shire Council engaged SKM in 1994 to undertake the
Woongoolba Drainage Study. From the study, SKM recommended that the existing drainage
network should be able to accommodate at least a two-year ARI storm without significant
loss of yield (Ref 2). The City later undertook a number of stormwater capital works
programs, recommended by the SKM studies, to maintain and upgrade the schemes
infrastructure to prevent crop loss due to flooding.
3.2.4 Rapid urbanisation

However, during the past decade, more pressure has been placed on the WFMS due to the
ever-changing land use of the upper reaches of the catchment. Large developments have
occurred in the upper Woongoolba catchment which, in turn, have changed the flood runoff
characteristics, from natural infiltration to roof and paved areas. Although City of Gold
Coasts no worsening requirements for stormwater drainage apply for all new
developments, the rate of urbanisation may change catchment hydraulic characteristics.
Comparison of development changes are shown in Figure 71 (Section 12). Some of the
major development changes are around the Gainsborough Greens Golf Club, Marks Road,
and Yatala Industrial Area.
To assess the potential changes to the catchment hydraulic characteristics, the City
undertook further studies in 2004 (Ref 3 and 4) to improve on the work undertaken by SKM
and to review the drainage performance criteria. Based on these two studies, Council, at a
meeting in 2005, adopted the criteria that a one-in-10-year ARI flood with a storm duration of
72 hours must be contained in the schemes drains within a four-day period (Ref 18).
3.2.5 Ramsar and water quality

The Convention of Wetlands, the Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that
requires signatories to maintain the ecological characters of important wetlands. The
Southern Moreton Bay Ramsar/Marine Park is located near the WFMS so stormwater
outflow and quality needs to be properly controlled so as not to interfere with ecological
sensitivity of this protected area (Figure 9).
In addition, there is acid sulphate soil in the Woongoolba area. Any disturbance through
excavation or drainage maintenance can contribute to water pollution and consequently to
fish kills.
Page 26 of 180
Figure 9
Southern Moreton Bay Ramsar and acid sulphate soil
Page 27 of 180
3.2.6 Regional and local plans

At the time of writing this report, the State Government had yet to finalise the Single State
Planning Policy that will replace the State Planning Policy 1/92 (Development and the
Conservation of Agricultural Land). Therefore, no information on the state planning policy
was available for inclusion in this study.
The State Government is also reviewing the SEQ Regional Plan (2005-2031) that will provide
strategic directions and policies for the Gold Coast region. Until these two policy documents
have been finalised, it is difficult to determine any future planning and policy for the
Woongoolba area.
Furthermore, City of Gold Coast will soon release the new 2015 City Plan for community
consultation. A new drainage criteria and planning direction may be developed for the
Woongoolba area based on community feedback. However, at the time of writing, no
information was available for this study.
3.2.7 Maintenance agreement

The City is bound to maintain the scheme irrespective of the abandonment of the benefitted
area levy. Its maintenance obligations are enforceable by the signatories to the scheme and
by the successors of each signatory owner.
3.3
Previous studies
3.3.1 An Economic Evaluation of the Proposed Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme

(Ref 1).
In 1972, the Department of Local Government undertook a study to investigate a scheme to
alleviate flood problems in the Woongoolba area, based on a request from Albert Shire
Council and affected cane farmers.
A system of floodways, levee banks and outlet structures was proposed as the WFMS. A
representative flood based on historical information was derived to enable the performance
of the scheme to be determined.
As part of the study, a cost benefit analysis was conducted to assess viability of the
proposed scheme. It was determined and reported that the capital cost of the proposed
scheme was about as $1.2 million (1972 values) and the annual maintenance cost was
estimated to be about $2000.
3.3.2 Woongoolba Drainage Study (Ref 2)

Albert Shire Council engaged Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) in 1994 to evaluate the WFMS
condition and to determine the performance capacity of the WFMS as well as to provide a
strategy for future upgrades for the scheme.
Page 28 of 180
A RORB hydrologic model and a MIKE11 hydraulic model of the region were developed for
the study. The model boundaries and extents are provided in Section 13.
The summary of the study is as follows:
WFMS layout was based on 1991 aerial photos with drains and structures based on 1994
ground surveys.
A hydrological model (RORB) was developed for Woongoolba with 33 sub-catchments

using 1987 Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR) and rainfall and temporal patterns
(rainfall distribution); No calibration was made.
An estimated rainfall Intensity Frequency Duration (IFD) of 236mm for the one-in-twoyear ARI flood with 72-hour storm duration
A 1D hydrodynamic model (MIKE 11) was developed using 1994 survey information,
subdivided into various catchments (Old Sandy Creek, Wolfs Drain, Kerkins Drain and
Sandy-Behm Creek). A total of 38 structures was included.
The flood storage for the model was estimated from the 0.5 metre contours and 1991
aerial photos.
As a model boundary, the study used an artificial tidal prediction at Jacobs Well,
Cabbage Tree Point and the Logan/Albert River confluence using Brisbane Bar tidal
constituents.
The study considered future development based on the 1994 Strategic Plan.
Performance Criteria: one-in-two-year ARI 72-hour storm contained within three to four
days.
Evaluate performance of present system.
An upgrades strategy with estimated cost of $1.3 million was proposed.
Maintenance is important.
The study found that the western and upper portion of the WFMS were susceptible to
flooding. A number of upgrade scenarios was tested using the hydrodynamic model, with
recommendations to replace and upgrade structures made in the report.
3.3.3 Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme Hydraulic Review (Ref 3)

In 2004, the Citys Design/Technical Service Branch undertook an internal review of the 1994
SKM study. The review included upgrading the MIKE11 model to the latest survey
information and incorporating structures that were upgraded since 1994. The review also
indentified drains that are Scheme Drains with significant value and hence a number of
upgrade scenarios was tested, including drainage realignment or re-profiling works.
The same RORB hydrologic model results from the 1994 study were used in this review.
However, some modifications were made. The RAFTS model results were incorporated into
the model of the Yatala catchment. The MIKE11 hydraulic model also was modified. The
four separate models were merged into one model. The model boundaries and extents are
provided Section 13.
A summary of the study is as follows:
Page 29 of 180
The WFMS layout was based on the 1991 aerial photos and drains and structures were
based on 2004 ground surveys
A hydrological model (RORB) was developed for Woongoolba with 33 sub-catchments

using 1987 ARR rainfall and temporal patterns (rainfall distribution); No calibration was
made.
Some modification to the Yatala inflows were made based on the RAFTS model.
The one-in-10 year ARI was estimated based on a factor of 1.6 from the one-in-two-year
ARI event.
An estimated rainfall IFD of 236mm for the one-in-two-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm
duration
A single 1D hydrodynamic model (MIKE 11) was developed using 2004 survey
information. A total of 38 structures was included.
The flood storage for the model was estimated from the 0.5 metre contours and 1991
aerial photos.
As a model boundary, the study used an artificial tidal prediction at Jacobs Well,
Cabbage Tree Point, the Logan/Albert River confluence and Pimpama using tidal
constituents.
Future development was considered, increasing flows by 30 per cent.
Performance Criteria: one-in-two-year ARI 72-hour storm contained within three to four
days.
Evaluate performance of present system and proposed upgrades.
10 new upgrade strategies.
Structure 26 ($240,000)
Structure 10 ($150,000)
Sandy Creek ($150,000)
Structure 39/40 ($50,000)
Structure 59/60 ($30,000)
Councils Resolution was adopted based on the outcome of study.
The review developed 10 recommended upgrades to be implemented. An estimate of these

works was also determined.
3.3.4 Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme Supplementary Report (Ref 4)
Both the original 1994 SKM and the 2004 studies used the one dimensional (1D) model
(MIKE 11) to simulate the complex flood flows. However, the 1D model is limited to the
cross-sectional information and estimated flood storage. This means that those models did
not include accurate flow representation of the Woongoolba floodplain. A supplementary
study was initiated in 2004 in which a two dimensional (2D) model (MIKE FLOOD model)
using a 30-metre grid bathymetry was developed to simulate the complex flood flow.
The previous recommendations of the original 2004 study were revisited in this study and it
was determined that the new 2D model results supported the original findings, in particular
for inundation times and upgraded structure sizes.
The summary of the study is the same as for 2004 except that:
Page 30 of 180
A 2D hydrodynamic model (MIKE Flood Model) was developed based on a 30-metre

model grid.
The grid was based on 2001 airborne laser survey data.
The flood storage was calculated using the 2D model grid.
The present condition was evaluated and compared with the previous 1D study.
Five strategies were revised.
3.3.5 Logan Floodplain Filling Study (Ref 9)

Logan City Council commissioned Australian Water Engineering (AWE) in 1990 to undertake
the floodplain filling study for the Logan River and its tributary floodplain areas.
A hydrological model for the Logan River, the Albert River and several tributaries of Logan
River was developed using the RORB software program. The model was calibrated to the
January 1974, February 1976 and February 1991 flood events for which the design flows
were derived from the calibrated model for a range of design flood events. These included
one-in-100-year, one-in-50-year and one-in-10-year flood events.
A hydraulic model was also developed using the WILCELL computer program. The model
was calibrated to the January 1974 flood event. A range of flood scenarios, the one-in-100year, one-in-50-year and one-in-10-year flood events was then developed.
The results of this study were used to determine the flood planning level for the Citys current
Planning Scheme.
3.3.6 Logan River Flood Study Hydrological Modelling (Ref 6 and 7)

In 2008, WRM Water and Environment was commissioned to review the Citys hydrological
model for the Logan/Albert and Pimpama river catchments. A new URBS hydrological model
was calibrated against various historical flood events, for instance, the April 1990, February
1991 and January 2008 events. The model was also verified against January 1974, May
1980 and April 1998 historical flood events.
The calibrated model was used to derive the design flood discharges from two-year ARI to
2000-year ARI and PMF for all storm durations up to 120 hours.
In 2013, City of Gold Coast further reviewed the 2008 WRMs hydrological model and study.
The model was further calibrated to the January 2013 flood event. The inflows from that
study were used as inputs for the hydraulic model in this study.
For the Pimpama catchment, the model was calibrated to November 2004, June 2005 and
January 2008, and verified against February 2004 historical flood events in the WRM study.
The calibrated model was used to estimate design flood discharges for two to 2000-year
Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) and PMF for storm durations of up to 120 hours. In 2013,
the model was further calibrated for the January 2013 flood event.
Page 31 of 180
Further discussion of this hydrology study is contained in Section 4.4 of this report.
3.3.7 Logan River Catchment Hydraulic Study (Ref 8)

In 2007, the City, in association with DHI Water & Environment developed a hydraulic model
based on the MIKE software to determine the flood planning level for the Logan/Albert
Rivers. The model is based on a 40-metre grid cell with hydrological input from the 1992
AWE study (Ref 9).
This model, calibrated to the January 1974 flood, is subsequently used for development
assessment.
3.3.8 Logan River Catchment Hydraulic Study (Ref 10)

In 2013, City of Gold Coast developed a new hydraulic model for the Logan River to take into
account new information (such as new airborne laser survey data). The model, calibrated to
the January 1974 and January 2008 flood events, was used to determine various design
events from Q2 to PMF. The hydrological input was based on the 2013 hydrological review
(Ref 7).
3.3.9 Pimpama River Catchment and Stormwater Management Plan (Ref 11)
Gold Coast City Council commissioned BMT WBM in 2008 to undertake the Pimpama
Stormwater and Catchment Management Plan.
The study determined a number of stormwater management strategies was required to
ensure the water quality of the river and creeks as well as the estuarine system are not
affected by pollution. The plan is currently being implemented by Catchment Management.
3.3.10 Pimpama River Estuary Ecological Study (Ref 12)

Gold Coast Water (GCW) commissioned SKM to assess the ecological health of the
Pimpama River estuary and to determine the sustainable quantity of reclaimed water that
may be released to the Pimpama River estuary from the Pimpama Water Reclamation
Facility.
The study focused on the Pimpama River downstream of the Kerkin Road tide gates and the
southern extent of Moreton Bay. An environmental data collection project was undertaken
from July 2003 to June 2004.
The following information from that study is relevant for calibrating the hydraulic model of
this study:
tide level measurements (10 sites at 15-minute intervals for three months from midSeptember to mid-December 2003)
Page 32 of 180
tide current measurement (ADCP measurement at six locations every 30 minutes for one
complete tidal cycle during a spring and a neap tide.
3.3.11 Gold Coast Estuarine Modelling Study (Ref 13 and 24)

A study was undertaken by the Griffith Centre for Coastal Management Research in 2006 to
provide a detailed picture of the tidal characteristics of the Broadwater and to enable the
simulation of the whole water circulation within the water body.
A calibrated tidal model was developed which was subsequently used to determine the tidal
planes and boundary for the hydraulic model developed for this study.
3.3.12 Storm Surge Study (Ref 14)

City of Gold Coast engaged GHD in 2013 to quantify the likelihood of coastal inundation by
storm tides caused either by severe tropical cyclones or extra-tropical storm systems. GHD
provided an estimate for the present and future storm tide levels based on present and future
climatic conditions.
This was used as present and potentially future storm surge tailwater conditions for the
3.3.13 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Assessment (Ref 25, 26, 27 and 28)
Gold Coast Water (GCW) engaged SKM to undertake a study to determine seasonal storage
to maximise the use of recycled water and minimise discharges of recycled water to the
environment as part of the Pimpama Coomera Water Future project.
The Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project could provide this seasonal storage
whereby a number of investigations that will be required prior to the establishment of an
operational ASR scheme.
A groundwater model was developed for this study using MODFlow.
Page 33 of 180
4. Hydraulic modelling approach

The following section documents the hydraulic model development for the Woongoolba
catchment and the model calibration.
4.1
Regional and local flooding
The general approach of simulating a regional flood event is to develop and to calibrate the
hydrological model to derive parameters that are used to determine design discharge. The
output is then used as input into the hydrodynamic models to develop flood levels.
In simple terms, the science of hydrology is to convert rainfall data into discharges (or flows).
On the other hand, the science of hydrodynamic modelling is to convert those discharges
into water level and velocity.
A regional flood occurs where heavy rainfall falls into the water catchment areas, especially
in the upper reaches, and flows down along the river then out to the floodplain. Severe
flooding occurs when these flood flows coincide with very high tides (for example storm
surges). A regional model, using a 2D approach, is generally developed to simulate the
complex flows in the floodplain and to simulate flows in constricted areas such as bridges
with piers.
Other types of flooding that can occur include stormwater flooding (due to blockage), and
flash flooding (due to very heavy rainfall within a short period of time). These are generally
categorised as localised flooding for which a 1D local stormwater model is generally
developed.
4.2
Datums
Datums used in this study are as follows:

4.2.1 Horizontal datum
The horizontal coordinates used in this report are in Map Grid of Australia 1994 (MGA94)
Zone 56.
4.2.2 Vertical datum

The vertical coordinates are referenced to Australian Height Datum (AHD) 1992.
Where reference is made to State datum, the conversion factor of -0.082 is used to convert
to AHD.
Page 34 of 180
4.3
Data availability
A large amount of data is required to develop a hydraulic model. This includes, but is not
limited to, topographic and bathymetric surveys, structure surveys, etc.
For model calibration, surveyed and recorded water levels, as well as anecdotal evidence,
are required.
4.3.1 Airborne Laser Survey (ALS)

The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) engaged
AAMHatch to capture Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data for southern Queensland in
2009. The LiDAR data for the Gold Coast area was captured during five flights between 30
April 2009 and 9 June 2009. It has a vertical accuracy of 0.15 metres and a horizontal
accuracy of 0.45 metres.
This LiDAR data was subsequently used to develop City of Gold Coasts Digital Terrain
Model (DTM).
For the Woongoolba area, most of the ground survey data was sourced from
photogrammetric information. It is recommended that future ALS survey data be undertaken
for this area during planting season and at low tide.
4.3.2 Bathymetric and cross-section survey

Several cross-sectional surveys have been undertaken within the WFMS and Broadwater
area. The first of these was conducted in 1993 by Albert Shire Council and was used as the
primary input of the 1994 SKM study. Since 1994, surveys have been conducted at regular
intervals as summarised in Table 1.
Analysis of cross-sectional surveys at similar locations shows significant differences between
the cross-sections. This is to be expected, as a number of dredging campaigns have been
undertaken within the scheme.
Further comparisons of surveys are discussed in Section 5.
Table 1
Surveyed regions by year
Year
Region
1993
Most drains within the scheme
2004
Most drains within the scheme
2007
Hotham Creek and Pimpama River downstream of rail line to Kerkin Road
Page 35 of 180
Year
Region
2009
Sandy Creek and Oppman Drain
2010
Behms Creek
2012
Intercon Drain
4.3.3 Digital Terrain Model (DTM)

By using the ALS and survey information, City of Gold Coast has developed a five-metre
Digital Terrain Model on which the hydrodynamic model grid was based. The following
figures show the data source and the 10-metre model grid extent as well as the ground level
used in the model grid.
The 10-metre model grid was selected based on the need to balance design flood simulation
time and the need for simulating flows within the drainage scheme. That is, the smaller the
model grid, the longer it will take to simulate one design flood event (Figure 12).
Page 36 of 180
Figure 10
DTM data source
Page 37 of 180
Figure 11
10-metre hydrodynamic model grid
Page 38 of 180
Figure 12
Ground levels of the 10-metre model grids.
4.3.4 Structure survey

Several structure survey campaigns have been undertaken within the WFMS. One of the
most comprehensive surveys, which consisted of a comprehensive campaign to survey all of
the major structures within the scheme, was conducted in 1993 by Albert Shire Council.
City of Gold Coasts Engineering Services Directorate comprehensively surveyed of all
structures within the scheme in 2010. This included those structures that had been schemed
since the 1993 survey, as well as the minor structures in the scheme.
Comparison of the structure survey (in different years) shows significant differences. In many
cases, this is likely due to structure upgrades or replacement of aging infrastructure. In some
cases, the 2010 survey appears to be more detailed (and inferred to be more accurate) than
the preceding survey.
Further comparisons of surveys are discussed in Section 5.
4.3.5 Tidal information

The tides around Woongoolba floodplain can range from 1.18 metres AHD (Kerkin Road) to
1.53 metres AHD (Rocky Point) for HAT. This 35 centimetre difference in water level
subsequently affects the outflow from the WFMS. Generally, most of the outflows are through
the Pimpama outlet because it has a lower tide level than the Logan River. Furthermore,
Logan River base/flood flows influence the water level which, in turn, restricts outflows from
Sandy Creek and Wolfes Drain.
Page 39 of 180
The following figure shows the tidal planes for semi-diurnal tides. The actual values have
been obtained from Marine Safety Queenslands 2013 tidal plane chart (Refer Section 11).
Figure 13
Semi-diurnal tidal planes (Source: MSQ)
Figures 25 and 27 show the HAT reference points and modelled HAT extent
As well as tidal planes, storm surges can also influence outflow from WFMS. For the
purpose of this study, these storm surge values were not adopted for the one-in-10-year ARI
flood event. However, future studies must consider climatic variability (refer Table 2 and
Table 3
Table 2
Summary of future (2100) climate storm tide estimates (Ref 14)
ARI
Gold Coast Seaway
Logan River mouth
2.04
2.50
2.10
2.58
20
2.23
2.70
50
2.33
2.80
100
2.41
2.90
Page 40 of 180
ARI
Gold Coast Seaway
Logan River mouth
200
2.50
3.05
500
2.58
3.30
2,000
2.68
3.60
for storm surge estimates).

Table 3
Summary of present climate storm tide estimates (Ref 14)
ARI
Gold Coast Seaway
Logan River mouth
1.16
1.60
1.25
1.69
20
1.37
1.80
50
1.47
1.88
100
1.54
1.94
200
1.62
2.00
500
1.69
2.10
2,000
1.78
2.36
Table 4
Summary of future (2100) climate storm tide estimates (Ref 14)
ARI
Gold Coast Seaway
Logan River mouth
2.04
2.50
2.10
2.58
20
2.23
2.70
50
2.33
2.80
Page 41 of 180
ARI
Gold Coast Seaway
Logan River mouth
100
2.41
2.90
200
2.50
3.05
500
2.58
3.30
2,000
2.68
3.60
4.3.6 Observed flood levels

Several flood events have occurred since the scheme was first developed. Some of these
have been regional flooding (from the Logan/Albert catchment) while some have been from
local events. Most observed flood levels are for the 1974 flood event where peak water levels
within the WFMS were caused by regional flooding.
In addition, anecdotal evidence of observed levels was obtained from local residents which
was later marked and surveyed by City surveyors, as shown in Figure 14 and summarised in
Table 4.
An abnormally high tide occurred on 14 and 15 December 2012. While this did not overtop
the gates or levee system at Pimpama River, Behms Creek or Sandy Creek, some localised
flooding occurred within the drainage scheme (Refer Section 16 for photos).
Table 5
Anecdotal flood levels obtained from cane farmers
No
Location
Flood Level
(m AHD)
Date
Photo (refer
Section 18)
Remarks
Mischke Property
3.08
Jan 1974
Photo 48
Base of power pole
Near Structure 26
1.51
25/1/2012
Photo 47
Not over structure
Skopp Property
0.67
10/11/2004
Photo 42
See photos
Near Structure 19
1.45
25/1/2012
Photo 40
Not over structure
Near Eggersdorf
Rd
1.60
2010
Photo 49
Various events in
2010
Near Structure 9
1.36
25/1/2012
Photo 41
Not over structure
Page 42 of 180
Figure 14
Anecdotal flood levels locations
An estimated one-in-10-year flood occurred between 27 January 2013 and 1 February 2013
due to the path of Ex-Tropical Cyclone Oswald. Heavy rainfall was experienced in the upper
reaches of the Logan River, Albert River, Pimpama River and the Gold Coast Hinterland.
Refer to Section 16 for photos of WFMS on 29 and 30 January 2013.
Page 43 of 180
For the rainfall report, please refer to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) report on this event
(Ref 15).
4.3.7 Alert stations
A number of BOM alert stations, which collect real time water level (WL) and rainfall data
(RF),.exist within the Woongoolba catchment This data is useful to calibrate against
historical flood events as it provides the shape and the magnitude of flood hydrographs.
Table 5 lists the locations of the alert stations and their date of installation and Figure 15
shows the locations graphically.
In addition, alert stations provide an indication of the water level within the schemes drains
at the beginning of a flood event. The long-term average water level may also be derived.
Table 6
Locations of alert stations.
CBM
Location
Date
installed
Owner
Type
540295
Steiglitz Wharf
4/4/2003
the City
WL & RF
540294
Kerkin Road
21/5/2002
the City
WL & RF
540408
Norwell
9/12/2010
the City
WL & RF
540377
Stewarts Road
Unknown
the City
WL & RF
540376
Hotham Creek
Unknown
the City
WL & RF
540236
Carbrook
(Riedel Rd)
18/3/1998
BOM/LCC
WL & RF
A survey was undertaken in April 2013 to determine the extent of discrepancies in alert
station recordings. It is worth noting that future model calibration to recorded water levels
must be checked against the estimated error as shown below:
Stewards Road alert estimated error of about 84cm
Norwell Road alert estimated error of about 8cm
Kerkin Road alert estimated error of about 3cm
Hotham Creek alert estimated error of about 294cm
Page 44 of 180
Figure 15
Location of alert stations
Page 45 of 180
4.3.8 Maximum height gauges

City of Gold Coast maintains a number of maximum height gauges that are dotted across the
Gold Coast region (Figure 16). About 10 such gauges are within the Woongoolba region.
These gauges are normally surveyed after a large flood event to estimate the height of the
flood. For this study, the flood event used for calibration was not large enough for the gauges
to record the flood height.
Figure 16
Maximum height gauges around Woongoolba region
Page 46 of 180
4.3.9 Geotechnical and groundwater data

Some geotechnical and groundwater data is available from the City of Gold Coasts Material
Testing Laboratory. Other groundwater data/models are available from Gold Coast Water
(Ref 25, 26, 27 and 28). However the information was not obtained or used in the present
study due to time limitation.
Figure 17
Bore test site (Source: Material Testing Laboratory)
Page 47 of 180
4.3.10 Evaporation
Although evaporation is important, in terms of flood extent after four days, there is a lack of
information that can be used in the hydrodynamic modelling. It is envisaged that future
hydrodynamic modelling should take into account evaporation losses.
Evaporation data can be obtained from the Long Paddock website longpaddock.qld.gov.au/
4.4
Hydrological inputs
The hydrological model derives design discharges for the hydrodynamic models based on
the methodology outlined in Section 2 of Volume 1 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff 1998
(Ref 16). It is divided into the Logan/Albert River and Pimpama region as shown in Figure 19.
The rainfall data is based on the citywide study undertaken by AWE in 1992 (Logan) (Ref 9)
and 1998 (Pimpama), (Ref 19). On the other hand, the temporal patterns (rainfall distribution)
are based on the 2008 WRM Review Study (Ref 17) and other hydrological factors are based
on the recent hydrological study (Ref 7) which is summarised in Table 6 below.
The temporal patterns used in the present study and those used in the 1994 and 2004
studies are shown in Figure 18. This shows that rainfall peaked in the first four hours from
previous studies. For the present study, the rainfall peaked at the middle of the 72-hour
storm. This has some ramifications as the earlier peak flood will flow out of the WFMS
before the next peak (which is about 32 hours away) which is evident in the three peaks of
the previous floods. More importantly, the semi-diurnal nature of the tide in this region will
peak about every 12 hours which can influence the flood extent of the design storm event.
Table 7
Unified River Basin Simulator (URBS) model parameters for Pimpama and
Logan River catchment
Parameter
Pimpama
Logan
(channel lag parameter)
0.3
0.2
(catchment lag parameter)
2.5
m (catchment non-linearity parameter)
0.75
0.75
Forest factor
0.5
0.5
The one-in-2-year ARI flood and one-in-10-year ARI flood and 72-hour duration storm for the
2010 planning horizon was used for this study as this was the basis of the Council resolution
for the drainage time performance (Ref 18). No climate variability factors have been applied
to the rainfall intensities.
Page 48 of 180
Temporal Patterns (Rainfall Distribution)

35.0%
WRM 2008 (Present Study)
AR&R 1987 (SKM Study)
30.0%
Termporal Pattern
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Duration (18 Periods of 4 hour Duration)
Figure 18
One-in-10-year ARI 72 hours temporal patterns
The URBS subcatchments is shown in the following figure.
Figure 19
URBS hydrological model extent and catchment area
A brief description of Logan/Albert Rivers and Pimpama River catchment hydrology is briefly
described as follows:
Page 49 of 180
4.4.1 Pimpama River catchment hydrology

The Pimpama River catchment consists of Pimpama River, Hotham Creek and McCoys
Creek with a total area of about 125.6km2. The catchment was divided into 49 subcatchments based on Catchment Level 3 and Waterways GIS layer, 5 metre DTM and 2009
Aerial.
The model was calibrated against seven historical flood events, including the recent January
2013 floods. The Initial loss (IL) of 10mm and continuing loss (CL) of 1.2mm/hr were used
for one-in-10-year ARI 72-hour duration.
4.4.2 Logan River catchment hydrology

The Logan River catchment consists of Teviot Brook, Albert River, Logan River, Behms
Creek and Sandy Creek with a total area of about 3878km2. The catchment was divided into
251 sub-catchments.
The model was calibrated to 10 historical flood events, including recent January 2013 floods.
An IL of 10mm and a CL of 1.2mm/hour were used for one-in-10-year ARI 72-hour duration.
4.5
Hydrodynamic model development
A hydrodynamic model was developed to convert the discharges from the hydrological model
into water levels and to dynamically simulate complex flood flows and velocity in a floodplain.
These models are based on the MIKE software platform which is capable of simulating
complex flow, especially in areas where there are complex canal and hydraulic structures
(Ref 20). The software takes advantage of the 2D topographical grid, that simulates complex
flow paths and flood plain storage, and the 1D hydraulic structures that simulate flow
constriction.
The software version used for this study is MIKE Flood 2011 Service Pack 7. For further
details of the MIKE software, please refer the MIKE User Manual (Ref 20).
4.5.1 Model grid

As previously mentioned in Section 4.3, City of Gold Coast develops and maintains a Digital
Elevation Model for the city. This 2009 DTM is the basis of the hydrodynamic model grid that
simulates the complex flood flows.
The final model grid is shown as Figure 11.
4.5.2 Model boundary

The hydrological input for the hydrodynamic model has been previously discussed in Section
4.4. For the 2D component, the inputs are incorporated as source points at each of the sub-
Page 50 of 180
catchment centroids (Figure 20). For the 1D component, it is incorporated as a point and
distributed source.
A total of 58 inflows, 19 in MIKE 11 and 39 in MIKE 21 was assigned in the Woongoolba
hydraulic model.
Figure 20
Model source and sinks
In addition to the rainfall source, the Woongoolba hydrodynamic model has seven tidal
boundaries and two river boundaries (the Logan and Albert Rivers). The tidal boundaries are
based on the modelled 2013 tidal planes using a calibrated estuarine model (Ref 13). The
tidal planes are provided in Section 11.
4.5.3 Eddy viscosity
A global eddy viscosity (velocity-based) value of 1.0m2/s, estimated based on the following
equation, is applied for the floodplain. It is used mainly to parameterise flow eddies.
Page 51 of 180
e = 0.1 Depth
4.5.4 Model roughness
The key calibration parameter for the hydrodynamic model is the floodplain roughness or
Mannings M roughness coefficient. Based on literature review and past studies, the
following roughness values were adopted (Table 7).
Table 8
Typical Mannings n roughness values
Description
Mannings M
Mannings n
Road
50
0.020
Waterways
40
0.025
Open space/short grass (no trees)
30
0.033
Forest/dense brush
8.33
0.120
Mangroves
16.67
0.060
Seagrass
28.5
0.035
Low density (>2000m2 block/acreage/golf

course)
25
0.040
Medium density (1000-2000m2 block)
22.22
0.045
High density (<1000m2 block/high rise)
13.33
0.075
The above values are from recommended values from:
Chapter 7 of Australian Rainfall and Runoff 1998 (Ref 16)
Chapter 9 of the Queensland Urban Drainage Manual 2008 (Ref 21)
Chapter 4 of the Department of Main Roads Road Drainage Design Manual (Ref 22)
Appendix C of Brisbane City Councils Natural Channel Design Guidelines (Ref 23)
A roughness map was developed from aerial photography and City of Gold Coasts Landuse
GIS layers, as shown in Figure 21 (below).
Page 52 of 180
Figure 21
Model roughness map
4.5.5 Model network

The 2D model simulates complex flows in the floodplain. However, it is limited to the model
grid size which means local drainage networks are not properly modelled. To resolve this, a
1D network was developed to simulate flows in drains. It represents all of the 'scheme drains'
as MIKE11 branches within the model.
In addition, several non-scheme drains were also added to ensure proper connectivity
between the major flow paths. The extent of the MIKE 11 component is shown in Figure 22.
As well as the model network that was modified, new cross-sectional information (refer
Section 4.3) was incorporated into the model. To ensure conformity, the information was
added based on following order of preference:
latest survey first
then older survey
data extracted from DTM (where no cross-sectional information was available).
Where it has been necessary to use cross-sections extracted from the DEM using GIS, this
has been clearly identified in the models cross-section ID. It should be noted that the
Page 53 of 180
proposed design cross-sections for locations with scheduled dredging have not been built
into the model at this stage.
4.5.6 Model structures

A comprehensive structure survey campaign had been undertaken by Engineering Services
in 2010 which was included in the 1D model simulating flow constriction. The survey included
culvert sizes, culvert lengths, upstream and downstream invert levels and crowns of roads.
The location of structures surveyed in 2010 is shown in Figure 23.
The structures are numbered similarly to the 1994 study with some additional numbers for
new structures which were identified in the 2010 surveys.
Page 54 of 180
Figure 22
Additional MIKE 11 branches added to the 2004 MIKE 11 branches (shown

in cyan)
Page 55 of 180
Figure 23
Structures surveyed by Engineering Services in 2010
Page 56 of 180
4.5.7 Hydrodynamic parameters

Hydrodynamic parameters for the models are important to control model initialisation and
stability. The default values were kept as standard except for Delta. Delta was modified from
0.5 to 0.85 to promote model stability.
The hydraulic resistance for each of the scheme drains has been manually specified and set
to Manning's n of 0.03.
4.5.8 Initial water level conditions

The initial conditions have been set as water levels at multiple locations along each model
branch. The initial water levels in the scheme drains were used as -0.5m AHD and the tidal
level as 0m AHD respectively.
4.5.9 Flood storage calculation

The flood storage calculation is now based on the 10-metre model grid. The estimated flood
storage calculation in previous modelling was based on 1D MIKE models.
4.6
Model tidal calibration 2004-2005
Two known tide recording campaigns have been used to calibrate the regional estuarine
model (discussed in Section 4.8). The 2004 campaign was part of the PREES project
whereby the water levels and ADCP (current) were collected around the Pimpama River (Ref
12). The 2005 campaign was part of the GEMS project (Ref 13 and 24). The water levels
and ADCP (current) were collected at a number of locations along the Logan and Albert
Rivers as well as within the Broadwater.
4.7
Model flood calibration January 2013
In January 2013, very intense rainfall fell on the upper reaches of the Logan and Nerang
catchments. This caused flooding in and around Logan as well as of parts of Woongoolba.
Much data is available for this flood event, making it ideal for model calibration. The first step
was to undertake a hydrological model calibration at a number of key locations (refer Section
17 for photos and calibration plots). Further details of hydrological model calibration are
documented in the 2013 hydrological study (Ref 7). The Bureau of Meteorology also has
prepared a report for this event (Ref 15).
Once calibrated, the hydrological model is used to convert the rainfall to inflows which are
subsequently used as inputs for the hydrodynamic model for calibration. The tidal
boundaries of the model are sourced from the regional estuarine model (Ref 13).
Figure 24 shows that while the model produced a reasonable match, in terms of shape of the
water plot, the peak flow differed by about 0.5 metre to the recorded water level at Kerkin
Page 57 of 180
Road. More importantly, the model performed quite well in the falling limb of the hydrograph.
This is useful in determining the drainage time of the WFMS.
Kerkin Road ALERT

1.5
Recorded
Modelled
Water Level (mAHD)
0.5
-0.5
-1
26/01/2013
0:00
26/01/2013
12:00
27/01/2013
0:00
27/01/2013
12:00
28/01/2013
0:00
28/01/2013
12:00
29/01/2013
0:00
29/01/2013
12:00
30/01/2013
0:00
Date
Figure 24
4.8
Hydrodynamic model calibration at Kerkin Road alert
One-in-10-year ARI design flood estimation
As previously described in Section 3.2, in 2005 Council adopted the one-in-10-year ARI flood
with 72-hour storm duration as the drainage performance criteria for the WFMS (Ref 18).
This was an increase from the original one-in-two-year ARI flood proposed in the 2004 study
(Ref 3). An estimated one-in-two-year ARI is shown in Figure 94.
However, previous modelling attempts were all based on a 1D model approach which is
limited to the cross-sectional information and flood storage assumption (Ref 1, 2, and 3). To
better model the drainage time criteria, the study uses a calibrated 2D hydrodynamic model
with fine model grid resolution. That is, using a 10-metre model grid size and 1D model
network for simulating flows in drains.
More importantly, this study develops a calibrated hydrological model and uses the latest
survey information and data to derive the one-in-10-year ARI flood estimation. The following
table summarises the previous methodology and data to derive the drainage performance
criteria.
Page 58 of 180
Table 9
Summary of estimating flood levels

DLG 1972
(Ref 1)
SKM
1994 (Ref 2)
GCCC 2004
(Ref 3 and 4)
City of Gold
Coast 2013
(current study)
Hydrological model
NA
RORB
NA
URBS
Hydrology
Estimated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
(rainfall data)
(five representative
floods)
(1987 AR&R)
(1987 AR&R)
(1999 AWE - GC)

(1992 AWE- Logan)
Hydrology (temporal
pattern/rainfall
distribution)
NA
1987 AR&R
1987 AR&R
2008 WRM
Calibration
NA
None
None
January 2013
One-in-10-year ARI
flood estimation
NA
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
(1987 AR&R
methodology)
(SKM with factor

of 1.6)
(1987 AR&R
methodology)
Artificial MHWS
Artificial MHWS
Modelled HAT
(three stations)
(three stations)
(modelled)
1991 Aerial
2001 ALS and

ground surveys
2009 ALS and

ground surveys
1994 survey
2004 survey
2010 survey
1D
1D
2D (10m) and 1D
(MIKE 11)
(MIKE 11)
(MIKE flood)
Tide
NA
Topography
Structures
NA
Hydrodynamic model
2D verification
(MIKE flood)
4.8.1 Hydrological input

The hydrological input in this study is based on the recently completed hydrological review
study described in Section 4.4). The one-in-10-year ARI 72-hour duration for 2010 planning
horizon rainfall was used for this study.
Page 59 of 180
4.8.2 Tailwater boundary

An important model input is the tailwater boundaries which could include tidal conditions or
river water level. As the Woongoolba area is located in a floodplain, a number of tidal
boundaries and one river condition boundary are required to simulate the design flood event.
The tidal boundaries are sourced from the calibrated estuarine model (Ref 13) which shows
the extent of the model and tidal plane reference points. The model is calibrated to 20032004 data (Ref 13) as well as the 2005 data (Ref 12).
To simulate the one-in-10-year ARI design floods, the highest astronomical tide (HAT) was
simulated and compared to the 2013 tidal planes (Section 11). The 10 tidal boundaries were
then applied to the model as shown in Table 8 and Figure 25.
Page 60 of 180
Figure 25
Regional estuarine model and HAT reference points
Page 61 of 180
Table 10 Adopted HAT values for model
Location
Tailwater peak
(m AHD)
Tide station
/interpolation
Comments
Logan and Albert
1.61
Logan and Albert

junction
SKM adopted 1.01m AHD (MHWS)
Cabbage Tree Point
1.44
Cabbage Tree Point
Jacobs Well
1.29
Jacobs Well
Couran Cove
1.03
Couran Cove
BND 10
1.03
Couran Cove
BND 7
1.31
Interpolated
Interpolated between Jacobs Well

and Rocky Point
BND 4
1.43
Interpolated

and Rocky Point
BND 3
1.47
Interpolated

and Rocky Point
BND 1 and 2
1.53
Rocky Point
*Source: Semidiurnal Tidal Planes 2013, Marine Safety Queensland
A typical tidal cycle, as seen in Figure 26, was used to simulate the HAT tidal conditions.
Page 62 of 180
1.5
Couran Cove
Rocky Point
Tide Level (m AHD)
0.5
-0.5
-1
10/01/2010 0:00
9/01/2010 0:00
8/01/2010 0:00
7/01/2010 0:00
6/01/2010 0:00
5/01/2010 0:00
4/01/2010 0:00
3/01/2010 0:00
2/01/2010 0:00
1/01/2010 0:00
Figure 26
Time
Typical high tide used for scenario analysis
The figure below shows the regional estuarine performance against the 2013 tidal planes.
Page 63 of 180
Figure 27
Simulated HAT and model boundary reference points
Page 64 of 180
5. Simplistic siltation analysis

A simplistic analysis of the changes in survey data is made to determine the siltation that has
taken place between different survey locations (Figure 28).
A comparison was undertaken for the following drains and creeks:
Behms Creek
Sandy Creek
Pimpama River
Hotham Creek
Intercon Drain
Based on the analysis, the results show that siltation has occurred in most locations. The
results also show that recent dredging activity has increased the depth of some of the drains.
The comparisons are shown as Figure 29 to Figure 40.
Page 65 of 180
Figure 28
Comparison of cross-sectional survey locations
Page 66 of 180
5.1.1 Behms Creek

The comparison for Behms Creek (shown in Figure 29 below) shows a clear trend towards
siltation between 1994 and 2009.
Figure 29
Comparison of invert levels along Behms Creek

Behms Creek
1.5
Ground Level (m AHD)
0.5
-0.5
-1
2012 (source: M11 2012)
1994 (source: M11 2004)
-1.5
-2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Chainage (m)
Figure 30
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms Creek
Page 67 of 180
Behms Creek
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
2012 (source: M11 2012)
1994 (source: M11 2004)
-2
-2.5
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Chainage (m)
Figure 31
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms Creek
A clear trend towards siltation is shown for Behms-Centre drain between 1994 and 2009
(refer Figure 32 below).
Figure 32
Comparison of invert levels along Behms-Centre drain
Page 68 of 180
Behms Centre
1
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
2009 (source: M11 2012)
-2
1994 (source: M11 2004)

-2.5
-3
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Chainage (m)
Figure 33
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms-Centre Drain
5.1.2 Sandy Creek

It is difficult to determine whether there is siltation in Sandy Creek (shown in Figure 34
below).
Figure 34
Comparison of invert levels along Sandy Creek
Page 69 of 180
Sandy Creek
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
2012 (source: M11 2012)
1994 (source: M11 2004)
-1.5
-2
0
10
15
20
25
30
Chainage (m)
Figure 35
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Sandy Creek
5.1.3 Pimpama River

It appears that Pimpama River has experienced significant siltation during the past 10 years
(shown by Figure 36 below).
Figure 36
Comparison of invert levels along Pimpama River
Page 70 of 180
Pimpama River
1
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
2007 (source: M11 2012)
1994 (source: M11 2004)
-2
-2.5
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Chainage (m)
Figure 37
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Pimpama River
5.1.4 Hotham Creek

It is difficult to determine a trend from the comparison of surveyed levels along Hotham
Creek (shown in Figure 38 below).
Figure 38
Comparison of invert levels along Hotham Creek
Page 71 of 180
Hotham Creek
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
2007 (source: M11 2012)

1994 (source: M11 2004)
-2
-2.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Chainage (m)
Figure 39
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Hotham Creek
5.1.5 Intercon Drain

Based on results shown in Figure 40, there has been siltation over the years at the Intercon
Drain.
Figure 40
Comparison of invert levels along Intercon Drain
Page 72 of 180
Intercon
1
0.5
-0.5
-1
2012 (source: M11 2012)

-1.5
1994 (source: M11 2004)
-2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Chainage (m)
Figure 41
Comparison of cross-sectional information along Intecon Drain
Page 73 of 180
6. Drainage criteria and scenario testing

The following section describes the drainage criteria for WFMS and various upgrades that
were tested by the calibrated hydrodynamic model for future capital works.
6.1
Current drainage criteria and practice
Sugar cane is highly tolerant to short-term flooding in comparison to other crops. However,
sugar cane losses occur when the flood inundation persists over extended periods (Ref 2).
Furthermore, according to SKMs report, waterlogging within the sugar cane root zone over
long periods can lead to lower yields. The optimal ground water level should fluctuate
between 0.5 to two metres below the soil surface to ensure adequate soil moisture during
prolonged dry periods.
These flooding and waterlogging criteria provide the basis for the design of the WFMS.
6.1.1 Drainage time performance criteria

City of Gold Coast has adopted the following as the drainage time criteria for WFMS: a onein-10-year ARI 72-hour storm contained within four days.
This criteria is based on studies undertaken in 2004 (Ref 3 and Ref 4) but later modified and
adopted by Council in 2005 (Ref 18). It is worth noting that the original criteria was a one-intwo-year storm (Ref 2 and Ref 3). An estimated one-in-2 year ARI flood event is shown in
Figure 94 and after 4 days after the peak flood (Figure 95).
A reference datum of one metre AHD is used to determine performance of the WFMS to be
contained within the drains. This is based on the ground level being below HAT (1.53 metres
AHD at Rocky Point) as shown in Figure 6. In addition, the bank level of the drains differs
across different drainage areas and along the creeks and rivers (as described in Section 5).
To indicate the flood water is contained within the drain, an indicative one metre AHD is
used.
The drainage time criteria starts at the onset of the flood, that is the start of the hydrograph
rising limb. This means that the peak flood is about one day after the onset of the flood
(based on the adopted temporal pattern).
6.1.2 Development assessment

At the time of writing this report, City of Gold Coasts development guidelines require all
development applications to include a stormwater quantity management plan (SMP). This
applies to Material Change of Use (MCU), Reconfiguration of Lot (ROL) and Operational
Works (OPW) applications.
Page 74 of 180
In simple terms, a development should not cause any nuisance flooding impacts on
properties upstream or downstream. The SMP should achieve the principles and intentions
of the policies and guidelines of the:
City of Gold Coasts Constraint Code, especially its Flood Constraint Code
City of Gold Coasts Land Development Guidelines
The Department of Energy and Water Supplys Provisional Queensland Urban Drainage
Manual (Ref 21).
6.2
Performance criteria of present condition
In the previous study, three areas were divided geographically to determine the performance
criteria of the WFMS (Ref 2). For this study, the same three geographical areas were used
(as shown in Figure 42):
Pimpama River and its tributaries (Hotham Creek, Kerkins Drain, Norwell Drain and
Oppman Drain
Behms Creek and its tributaries (Gross Drain, Gilberton Drain and Schoff Drain)
Sandy Creek, Old Sandy Creek, Gems Drain, Wolfes Drain and Bremmerhavers Drain).
Page 75 of 180
Figure 42
Major drainage areas
To evaluate the performance of the present WFMS, the one-in-10-year ARI flood was
estimated, as discussed in Section 4.8, for high condition. The performance of the drainage
system was compared against the original flood duration curve (Figure 43 created from
Figure 4) as documented in the 1972 study (Ref 1). A comparison of the 2004 results also
was made.
It is worth noting that the design flood estimation has changed significantly since the 1960s.
Hence the comparisons of the following flood curves are indicative, not absolute.
Page 76 of 180
Original flood duration curve, converted to m AHD (Ref 1)

The following figures show the extraction points and the comparison of the flood curves from
various studies. It is worth noting that the 1994 SKM study determined that part of Sandy
Creek, Oppman Drain, Gilberton Drain and Gems Drain did not meet the initial one-in-twoyear ARI criteria (Figure 44).
Figure 43
Page 77 of 180
Figure 44
Location of extraction points
6.2.1 Pimpama River

The performance of Pimpama River and its tributaries is shown in Figure 45 and in flood
figures in Section 13 (model results). The present peak design flood is about one day after
the onset of the flood. It will take about four days to drain flood waters to one metre HD and
another one day to drain to the initial water level of the model (assumed to be the normal
water level in the drain). In terms of a 10-year ARI at the peak, as shown in Figure 77, the
flood extends to most of the WFMS and the flood depth to about one metre.
After four days, there are still pockets of flood affected areas (Figure 78). It should be noted
that the evaporation parameter of the hydrodynamic model is not used due to the lack of
information. Generally, these affected areas can take days to drain or evaporate.
The previous 1994 study stated that the performance of the WFMS within Pimpama River
generally can drain within three days in most areas with the exception of the upper reaches,
or western region, (Ref 2). However, this is mainly due to the temporal pattern that was used
in the study and not the actual performance of the WFMS. This is evident in the three flood
peaks that are shown in the following figure.
The performance of the WFMS here is within the adopted drainage criteria, with pockets of
inundation, and is below the 1972 drainage design criteria.
Flood Duration Curves

2.5
Before Construction of Proposed Scheme (1972)
After Construction of Proposed Scheme (1972)
Hotham (2004 Study)

Hotham
Flood Level (m AHD)
Pimpama (2004 Study)
1.5
Pimpama
0.5
-0.5
-1
0
10
11
12
Days
Figure 45
Flood duration curves (Pimpama River)
Page 78 of 180
6.2.2 Behms Creek

The performance of Behms Creek and its tributaries is shown in Figure 46 and in flood
figures in Section 13 (model results). As previously mentioned, the present peak design flood
is about one day after the onset of the flood. It will take about four days to drain flood waters
to one metre AHD and another two days to drain to the initial water level of the model
(assumed to be the normal water level in the drain). In terms of a 10-year ARI at the peak, as
shown in Figure 77, the flood extends to most of the WFMS and the flood to a depth of about
one metre.
After four days, there are still pockets of flood affected areas which can take days to drain or
evaporate.
In comparison with the previous 1994 study, the performance of the WFMS means it can
generally drain within three days in most areas of Behms Creek (Ref 2). This is true for the
present study, as performance of WFMS here is within the adopted drainage criteria and well
below the 1972 drainage design criteria.

2.5
Flood Level (m AHD)
Behms (2004 Study)

Behms
1.5
0.5
-0.5
0
10
11
12
Days
Figure 46
Flood duration curves (Behms Creek)
6.2.3 Sandy Creek

The performance of Sandy Creek and its tributaries is shown in Figure 47 and in flood figures
in Section 13 (model results). As previously mentioned, the present peak design flood is
about one day after the onset of the flood. It will take about 3.5 days to drain flood waters to
one metre AHD and another two days to drain to the initial water level of the model (assumed
to be the normal water level in the drain). In terms of a 10-year ARI at the peak, as shown in
Figure 77, the flood extends to most of the WFMS and the flood depth to about one metre.
Page 79 of 180
After four days, there are still pockets of flood affected areas which can take days to drain or
evaporate.
In comparison with the previous 1994 study, the performance of the WFMS means it can
generally drain within three days in most areas of Sandy Creek, with the exception of the
western region (Ref 2). This is true for the present study as performance of the WFMS here
is within the adopted drainage criteria and well below the 1972 drainage design criteria.

2.5
Flood Level (m AHD)
Sandy (2004 Study)

Sandy
1.5
0.5
-0.5
0
10
11
12
Days
Figure 47
6.3
Flood duration curves (Sandy Creek).
Status of previous recommendations and upgrades
A number of proposed upgrades to the WFMS was made in the 1994 study (Ref 2) and 2004
study (Ref 3). The proposed works are considered and reviewed by key stakeholders within
the scheme. The following table summarises the status of these upgrades.
Note: The structure numbering is shown in Figure 23.
Table 11 Status of previous upgrades and recommendations (1994 SKM)
Drain
Existing and proposed

structure upgrade
2013 status
Remarks
Not attempted
Ecologically sensitive
Recommended in 1994 study (Ref 2)
Pimpama River
Desilt Pimpama River bed.
Behms Creek
Completed in 2004
Structure 12 replace
5/2500x3600 radial gates and
(4/3000x3000 gates
lower invert to RL -1.60m
Behms Gate/Outlet
Refer Error! Reference
Page 80 of 180
Drain

structure upgrade
2013 status
Remarks
AHD.
constructed at RL -1.6m AHD)
source not found. and

Error! Reference source
not found.
4/3000x1500 RCBC with
4/3000x2100 RCBC at IL 1.50m AHD.
Completed in 2004
New Norwell Road
(4/3000x2100 gates

source not found.
3/3000x1200 RCBC with
3/3000x2100 RCBC at IL 1.00m AHD.
Completed in 2004
Norwell Road
(4/3000x2100 RCBC

source not found. and
Error! Reference source
not found.
(Adjacent 2/1800 RCP

removed)
Completed between 2010 and Private road

2013
source not found., Error!
(Replaced by low flow
Reference source not
50 1/1600 RCP;
structures)
found. and Error!
1/1800x1800 RCBC (existing)
Reference source not
50 1/ 1680 RCP & 1/
51 2/1050 RCP;
1750x1700 RCBC (Constructed found.
1/2100x1500 RCBC (existing) at RL -1.0m AHD)
Remove Structures 50, 51
and 52 or replace by low
afflux structures.
52 1/1600RCP; 1/1500 RCP 51 1/1370 RCP; 1/1050 RCP;

(existing)
1/2100x1520 RCBC
constructed at RL -1.00 to 1.15m AHD
52 1/1520 RCP; 1/1680 RCP
constructed at RL -1.30m AHD
Completed (time unknown)
Structure 35A replace
Sandy Gates (RT
1/2450x1850 by
Meukens)
2/2450x2500, and lower to RL (3/3000x2400 gates
constructed at RL -0.70m AHD) Refer Photo 9
-0.70m AHD.
Remove Structures 39 and 40 Not completed
or replace by low afflux
39 3/1200 RCP
structures.
Sandy Creek
Private road
Refer Photo 10 and Photo
11
40 3/1520 RCP
Structure 26 replace 6/1200 Completed between 2010 and
2013
RCP with 3/2400x1500
RCBC, and lower to RL (3/2100x1800 & 2/ 2100x2000)
1.00m AHD.
RCBC constructed at RL -1.0m
Stapylton-Jacobswell
Road (Gems Drain)
13
Page 81 of 180
Drain

structure upgrade
2013 status
Remarks
AHD)
Desilt Sandy Creek near

Structure 40.
Completed (email
confirmation)
40 6/1520 RCP (existing)

40A 2/525 RCP; 2/600 RCP
(existing)
Fully replace Structure 35B,
west branch outlet of Sandy
Creek.
Not completed
Sandy Gates
Refer Photo 14
35B 1/1800 RCP (existing)
Oppman Drain
Structure 10 lower
1/3050x2100 RCBC to RL 1.30m AHD.
Completed between 2010 and Eggersdorf Road

2013
Refer Photo 25
(2/3100x2100 RCBC
Remove Structures 70, 71, 72 Completed in 2010

and 73 or replace by low
70 1/1680 RCP constructed
afflux structures.
at RL -1.10m AHD
71 1/1220x1200 RBC
72 1/1680 RCP
Repair Structure 28 (install
headwall)
Gems Drain
Private road
Refer Photo 26, Photo 27,
Photo 28 and Photo 29
Burnside Road
Refer Photo 30

28A 1/600 RCP (existing)
headwall)
27 4/1200x900 RCBC
(existing)
Stapylton-Jacobs Well
Road
32
Kerkin Drain
Remove Structures 59 and 60 Completed in 2004

Private road
Refer Photo 33, Photo 34
Page 82 of 180
Drain

structure upgrade
2013 status
Remarks
structures.
structures)
and Photo 35
59 1/X 1520 RCP. RCP

constructed at RL -0.880m
AHD
60 2/1200 Dia. RCP

constructed at RL -0.73m AHD
Fully replace Structure 2,

west branch outlet of Sandy
Creek.
Not completed

16
2 1/1500x600 RCBC
(existing)
Wolfes Drain
Pimpama Jacobs Well

Road
Fully replace Structure 81
60 2/525 RCP (Existing)
(1/1050 RCP constructed at RL

-0.2m AHD)
16
Repair Structure 33
(Downstream Face/Flap
Gate)*
Not completed
Swamp Road (Wolfes

Drain)
Powerline Road/Marks
Road
Refer Photo 18
33 3/900 RCP (Existing)
Bremmerhavern Repair Structure 30 (Install

Headwall)
Drain
Homestead Road
Refer Photo 19
30 3/1200 RCP; 1/900RCP

(existing)
Gross Drain
Repair Structure 13 (repair

concrete spalling)
Gross Road
Refer Photo 19
13 3/1200x1050 RCBC
(existing)
Repair Structure 1 (repair flap Completed (time unknown)
gate)

22
Schoff Drain
Page 83 of 180
Drain

structure upgrade
2013 status
Remarks

headwalls)
Completed (verified using

aerial photos)
Skopps Road
Norwell Road
3 2/1200 RCP; 1/450 RCP

(existing)
Norwell Road
Repair Structure 9 (repair

concrete spalling)

24
1 3/3050x1650 RCBC
(existing)
Recommended in 2004 Study (Ref 3)
Behms Creek
Not completed
Stormwater easement
channel between Structure 22
and 50
Re-grade 800m section of
drain to IL -1.2m AHD.
Completed in 2004
Refer Figure 51
Upstream of Structure 59.

Refer Photo 33
Kerkin Drain
Approx. 1200m of material to

be removed.
Stormwater easement for
abovementioned channel
(between Structure 59 and 1)
Not completed
Refer Figure 51
Re-grade 1000m section

downstream of Goldmine
Road.
Completed in 2004
Near Structure 22.

Refer Photo 36
Approx. 1000m of material to

be removed.
Sandy Creek
Construction of new channel

diversion to straighten creek
alignment at start of Schoff
Drain. Channel approx. 80m
long, 12m top width, 5m
width.
Not completed
Stormwater easement for

abovementioned channel
(between Gilberton Drain and
Sandy Creek)
Not completed
Junction of Sandy Creek

and Schoff Drain (Near
Structure 83)
Refer Photo 37

and Schoff Drain (near
Structure 83)
Refer Figure 51 and Photo
37
Schoff Drain
Upgrade east end culvert to

1/2000 RCP (Existing 1075
Not completed
Structure 83 (Schoff west
Page 84 of 180
Drain

structure upgrade
2013 status
RCP)
Remarks
side drain)
Refer Photo 38
Upgrade east end culvert to

1/2000 RCP (Existing 1075
RCP)
Not completed
Structure 83 (Schoff east

side drain)
Refer Photo 39
Goldmine Road Duplicate existing 1200 RCP

Drain
Not completed
Goldmine Road Drain,

near Structure 22.
Refer Photo 36
Recommended in 2004 Study (Ref 4) revised highlighted in blue

Structure 26 replace 6/1200 Completed between 2010 and
2013
RCP with 4/2400x1800
RCBC, and lower to RL (3/2100x1800 & 2/2100x2000
1.00m AHD.
RCBC constructed at RL -1.0m
AHD)
Sandy Creek
Improve the capacity and

connectivity of upper Sandy
Creek through Ludcke
property (existing alignment
through Ludcke property or
new 80m long channel)
Not completed
Kerkin Drain
Structure 10 lower
2/3050x2100 RCBC to RL 1.30m AHD (flap gates to be
cost evaluated).

and Schoff Drain (near
Structure 83)
Private Road
11
Completed between 2010 and Eggersdorf Road

2013
Refer Photo 25
(2/3100x2100 RCBC
Remove Structures 59 and 60 Completed in 2004

or replace with low afflux
structures.
structures)
59 1/X 1.52m RCP
AHD
(cost revised from $27,000 to

13
Refer Figure 51 and Photo

37
Remove Structures 39 and 40 Not completed

structures. (cost revised from 39 3/ 1.2m RCP
$7,000 to $50,000)
40 3/ 1.52m RCP
Oppman Drain
Stapylton-Jacobswell
Road (Gems Drain)
Private road
Refer Photo 33, Photo 34
and Photo 35
Page 85 of 180
Drain

structure upgrade
2013 status
$30,000)
60 2/1200 Dia. RCP

AHD
Remarks
* Marks Road - There are some changes along Marks Road due to the development around the prawn farm and sand mining
area (Refer Section 3.23.2 for details). However, these changes have not been incorporated into this study as the changes
are still ongoing.
The location of the upgrades is shown in the following figures.
Figure 48
Location of proposed upgrades from the 1994 study (Ref 2) and status of
those upgrades
Page 86 of 180
Figure 49
Location of proposed upgrades from the 2004 study (Ref 3) and status of
those upgrades
Figure 50
Location of proposed upgrades from the 2004 supplementary study (Ref 4)

and status of those upgrades
Page 87 of 180
It was noted in the 2004 study that a number of easements should be established to ensure
connectivity along the WFMS (Figure 51).
Figure 51
6.4
Location of proposed easements from 2004 study (Ref 3)
Upgrade options
The previous sub-section describes the proposed upgrade strategies outlined in the 1994
(Ref 2) and 2004 (Ref 3) studies. Additional upgrade strategies are proposed and tested in
this study. The new strategies are tested against the base case which is the one-in-10-year
ARI 72-hour duration storm with HAT tailwater as the adopted drainage criteria.
6.4.1 Option 1 - Additional gates at Behms Creek outlet

The Department of Main Roads plans to upgrade Behms Creek in 2015 (as shown in
drawings in Section 15). An opportunity exists to add two additional box culverts/tide gates at
Behms Creek as part of the road upgrade. To test this scenario, two additional tide gates
were added to the existing structure at the Behms Creek outlet (as shown in Figure 52) with
the same dimensions as existing gates (i.e. 3m x 3m). It is assumed that upgrade works
would include the removal of the northern bank to ensure that this area would not interfere
with the flow out of the culverts.
The existing tidal gates, labelled as Structure 12, are shown in Photo 1 and Photo 2.
Page 88 of 180
Figure 52
Location of Behms Creek and Kerkin Road weir tidal gates
Page 89 of 180
6.4.2 Option 2 - Automated tide gates at Behms Creek and Kerkin Road Weir
Previously, automated radial gates were proposed and installed at Behms Creek and
Pimpama (Kerkin Road). These are Structures 12 and 59 shown in Figure 52. However,
they were removed due to vandalism and replaced with steel gates (refer Section 15 for
drawings). To test the functionality of automated gates, a scenario was created in which they
were operated based on the tide prediction at the Gold Coast Seaway tide station.
The operation of the gates was set up as follows:
All gates are open if the tide level is <-0.2 metres AHD or 0.8 metres AHD to lowest at
falling tides.
All gates are closed when the tide level is >= -0.2 metres AHD at rising tide or peak to 0.8
metres AHD at falling tides.
6.4.3 Option 3 Straightening Behms Creek

To allow efficient flow, Behms Creek needs to be straightened as shown in Figure 53. A
typical drainage cross-section was used with a bed level estimate based on upstream and
downstream cross-sections of the branch.
Page 90 of 180
Figure 53
Straightening of Behms Creek
Page 91 of 180
6.4.4 Option 4 - Pump assisted drainage

Scenarios were modelled to test the practicality of pump assisted drainage. Stormwater
pump stations have been built at a number of locations, for instance, Lake Street Pump
Station in Cairns.
One scenario was modelled with a 10m3/s pump upstream of both Behms Creek and Kerkin
Road weir tide gates. The other scenario was set up with a 15m3/s pump upstream of both
Behms Creek and Kerkin Road weir tide gates.
6.4.5 Option 5 Channel widening

A scenario with widening Behms Creek and Pimpama was tested to ensure efficient flow out
of the WFMS. For Behms Creek, it is from Norwell Road downstream to the tide gates while
Pimpama River is from the confluence with Oppman Drain to the Kerkin Road tide gates
(Figure 54).
Page 92 of 180
Figure 54
Location of widened Behms Creek and Pimpama River
6.4.6 Option 6 Detention basin

A detention basin was originally proposed for the WFMS but was never constructed (Ref 1).
A detention basin scenario was created to determine whether attenuating the flood will assist
in draining out flood waters. To simulate this scenario, an entire sub-catchment flow is
removed from the model (Figure 55). The catchment is located on the western area of
WFMS, near Eggersdorf Road. The total flow area removed was about 13.5km2.
Page 93 of 180
Figure 55
Flows from sub-catchment 358 are removed
Page 94 of 180
6.5 Volume and area of inundation

The inundation area and volume of water within Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme, after
scenarios of three days and four days of one-in-10-year ARI 72-hour floods are presented in
Table 11. Comparison with the base case is summarised in Table 12.
A number of maps has been generated and provided in Section 13.
Table 12 Inundated area and volume of water from different upgrade scenarios
Maximum possible
inundation*
Inundation after
three days (after two
days of tailwater
peak)
Inundation after
four days (after three
days of tailwater
peak)
Area
(hectares)
Volume
(ML)
Area
(hectares)
Volume
(ML)
Area
(hectares)
Volume
(ML)
4,380.57
20,626
2,475.7
5,133
1,775.36
2,421
4,374.37
20,559
2,450.18
5,030
1,757.91
2,367
4,578.59
22,133
2,887.78
7,287
2,196.44
3,797
4,401.64
20,497
2,455.97
4,991
1,755.92
2,343
4,173.37
19,377
2,078.29
3,679
1,498.64
1,811
4,071.07
18,784
1,899.42
3,112
1,446.18
1,742
4,305.45
19,885.49
2,279.7
4,226
1,608.03
1,985
4,192.64
19,174.62
2,316.67
4,613
1,662.43
2,193
Base
Option 1
Two additional gates at Behms
Creek
Option 2
Auto gates
Option 3
Option 4a
3
10m /s pump
Option 4b
3
15m /s pump
Base
Option 1
Creek
*calculated from maximum water level at each model cell at any time
Page 95 of 180
Table 13 Difference in inundation area and volume of water compared with base case
Reduction of
maximum possible
inundation*
Reduction of
inundation after
three days (after two
days of tailwater
peak)
Reduction of
inundation after
four days (after three
days of tailwater
peak)
Area
(hectares)
Volume
(ML)
Area
(hectares)
Volume
(ML)
Area
(hectares)
Volume
(ML)
6.2
67
25.52
103
17.45
54
-198.02
-1,507
-412.08
-2,154
-421.08
-1,376
-21.07
129
19.73
142
19.44
78
207.2
1,249
397.41
1,454
276.72
610
309.5
1,842
576.28
2,021
329.18
679
75.12
740
196.00
906
167.33
435
187.93
1,451
159.03
520
112.93
228
Option
Option 1
Creek
Option 2
Auto gates
Option 3
Option 4a
3
10m /s pump
Option 4b
3
15m /s pump
Option 5
Widening of Behms Creek and
Pimpama River
Option 6
Detention basin
Note: Blue denotes increase; red denotes decrease compared with base
6.5
Option testing results discussion
6.5.1 Base case

Generally, the one-in-10-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm is currently contained within the
schemes drains in four days, as discussed in Section 6.1 6.1 and 6.26.2 . However, there
are small pockets of inundation that can take a number of days to drain or evaporate. It is
worth noting that the hydrodynamic model does not include evaporation losses which can
further reduce the flood extent.
Page 96 of 180
Figure 77 shows the flood depth (peak) for a one-in-10-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm
duration and HAT tailwater condition. On the other hand, Figure 78 shows the flood depth
(after four days) for the one-in-10-year ARI flood with storm duration of 72 hours.
6.5.2 Option 1 - Additional gates at Behms Creek outlet

This option includes adding additional culverts/gates at Behms Creek. It had negligible
improvement on drainage performance in terms of inundated area and volume of flood water
(Table 11 and Table 12).
Also, the drainage time did not improve significantly, as shown in Figures 57 to 66.
To illustrate the improvement, or lack of it, Figure 79 shows the differences in inundation
area after four days. About 17.45 hectares (one per cent) of the flood inundation area was
reduced by this option, mainly near the confluence of Hotham Creek and Pimpama River,
about 600 metres west of Norwell Road near Pimpama River, west of New Norwell Road
upstream of Kerkin Road and Behms Creek tide gates and north and south of Wohlsen
Road. There is little sugar cane cultivation where the inundation area was reduced upstream
of Kerkin Road and Behms Creek tide gates.
6.5.3 Option 2 - Automated tide gates at Behms Creek and Kerkin Road Weir
This option added automated tide gates at Behms Creek and Pimpama outlets. This actually
worsened existing drainage conditions by inundating a greater area and containing a greater
volume of water than the base case scenario (Table 11, Table 12 and Figures 57 to 66). This
may be due to the inefficient operation of the gates combined with the complex natural flood
water flows. Figure 80 shows the increase in flood levels compared with the base case. The
study also shows worsening of flood inundation by 421 hectares (24 per cent of the
inundation area).
It is also worth noting that the automated gates were previously installed but removed due to
vandalism.
6.5.4 Option 3 - Straightening Behms Creek

This option, by straightening Behms Creek, did not improve drainage performance
considerably in terms of the inundated area and volume of flood water (Table 11 and Table
12). The drainage time also did not improve significantly, as shown in Figures 57 to 66.
The model results show an additional 21 hectares were inundated at peak flood compared
with the base case, although the overall volume of water was reduced. Figure 81 shows
differences in the inundation area, with a reduction of about 19.44 hectares (one per cent) in
the flood area compared with the base case after four days.
The inundation areas reduced are mainly near the confluence of Hotham Creek and
Pimpama River, about 600 metres west of Norwell Road, west of Norwell Road upstream of
Page 97 of 180
Kerkin Road and Behms Creek tide gates and north and south of Wohlsen Road. It was also
noted that more than 10 centimetres of flood inundation improvement occurred near the start
of the straightening of Behms Creek (Figure 81 and Figure 53).
6.5.5 Option 4 - Pump assisted drainage

Pump assisted drainage was the only option that showed significant improvement to
drainage performance in terms of the inundation area and volume of water (Table 11 and
Table 12). In a scenario using 15m3/s pumps, after four days of flood there was a 19 per cent
reduction in the inundation area and it contained 28 per cent less water. The drainage time
also improve considerably from this scenario (as shown in Figures 57 to 66).
Although this option performed better than others, there are very high costs involved in
establishing and maintaining this option (refer to Table 13).
Figures 82 and 83 respectively show the differences in inundation areas after four days of
10m3/s and 15m3/s pump assisted drainage.
6.5.6 Option 4 Widening of Behms Creek and Pimpama River

By widening Behms Creek and Pimpama River, this option aims to flush flood waters out of
the Woongoolba system as quickly as possible. The model result shows this option will
reduce the inundated area by about 167 hectares after four days (Table 11 and Table 12).
However, it did not improve the drainage time, as shown in Figures 57 to 66, when compared
with the base case. More importantly, this option has very high establishment and
maintenance costs and there would be an environmental cost to this ecologically sensitive
area.
Figure 84 shows differences to the inundation area after four days compared with the base
case.
6.5.7 Option 5 Detention basin

The option of a detention basin was suggested in the 1972 study but was never constructed.
To test this option, a very large detention basin was constructed theoretically in the western
region of the WFMS. The model result shows that this option produces a lower flood peak at
locations 1, 4 and 8 (Figures 57 to 66 and Figure 64) and reduces flood inundation by 113
hectares after four days. However, this did not significantly improve the overall drainage
performance, as shown in Table 11 and Table 12 as well as Figures 57 to 66. Due to the
high construction cost (Table 13), this option is also not economically viable.
Figure 85 shows differences in the inundation area after four days compared with the base
case.
Page 98 of 180
6.5.8 Flood curve comparisons

To determine the performance criteria of the different options, water level plots of all options
were generated at ten locations, as shown in Figure 56.
Furthermore, for these locations a desktop analysis was undertaken to determine, from aerial
photographs, either the level at which cane was growing or the overbank level where it was
not grown. Where an easement existed, the easement width was also determined. The
results of this analysis are shown as Table 13.
Page 99 of 180
Figure 56
Flood curves comparison of locations
Page 100 of 180
Table 14 Cane cultivation level and easement width by comparison location.
Location
Easement width
(m)
Level of cane (m AHD)
Location 1
30
0.85
Location 2
30
0.50
Location 3
35
1.10
Location 4
n/a
0.00
Location 5
30
1.50
Location 6
45
0.30
Location 7
n/a
0.50
Location 8
28
0.50
Location 9
30
0.50
Location 10
n/a
0.30
Page 101 of 180
Figure 57
Scenario analysis results for Location 1
Figure 58
Page 102 of 180
Figure 59
Figure 60
Page 103 of 180
Figure 61
Figure 62
Page 104 of 180
Figure 63
Figure 64
Page 105 of 180
Figure 65
Figure 66
Page 106 of 180
7. Preliminary cost benefit analysis

A preliminary cost benefit analysis was undertaken for the different drainage upgrade
scenarios considered in this study.
To determine the effects of flooding on sugar cane it is necessary to determine, for each
area, the crop class and its susceptibility to flood damage. The severity of sugar cane
damage depends on the age, maturity and class of cane flooded and the duration of flooding.
A simple method was developed for this study to determine sugar cane crop loss, as
described below.
The cost described in the table is calculated for only one flood and is based on:
the reduction of inundated areas within WFMS by different scenarios
expected cane yield of 70 tonnes per hectare and a sugar cane price of $38 per tonne
(provided by City Asset Branch officer and sugar cane grower)
full damage of sugar cane after four days of one-in-10 year ARI 72-hour duration flood
after four days and three days
no inclusion of cost for replanting damaged sugar cane
an approximate drainage upgrade cost provided by the Citys Asset Branch where not
specified.
Table 13 shows preliminary costs of drainage upgrades and the reduction in sugar cane loss
for different upgrade scenarios described in Section 6. It is intended to be used only for the
purpose of capital works budgeting. To access viability of drainage upgrades, calculating
cumulative loss reduction, considering the lifetime of the drainage infrastructure upgrade,
replanting costs etc, is recommended.
Works associated with privately owned farm structures have been excluded.
The results presented in Table 14 show that Option 6 (widening Behms Creek and Pimpama
River) and Option 7 (construction of a detention basin) are not feasible due to high
construction costs.
Table 15 Simplistic cost benefit analysis
Options
Approximat
e cost of
drainage
upgrades
($ million)
Option 1 - Two additional

gates at Behms Creek
3.5
Loss reduced from

scheme
(drainage time four
days)
Loss reduced from

scheme
(drainage time three
days)
1.Tonnes 2. ($ million) 1.Tonnes
2. ($
million)
1,221
0.07
0.05
1,786
Page 107 of 180
Options
Approximat
e cost of
drainage
upgrades
($ million)
Loss reduced from

scheme
(drainage time four
days)
Loss reduced from

scheme
(drainage time three
days)
1.Tonnes 2. ($ million) 1.Tonnes
2. ($
million)
Option 2 - Auto Gates
1.5
-29,476
-1.12
-28,846
-1.09
Option 3 - Straightening
Behms Creek
1.0
1,361
0.052
1,381
0.52
20*
19,370
0.74
27,819
1.06
30*
23,043
0.88
40,340
1.53
11,713
0.45
13,720
0.52
7,905
0.30
11,132
0.42
Option 4a - 10m /s pump
Option 4b - 15m /s pump
Option 5 - Widening of
Behms:
Behms Creek and Pimpama 7 to 10
River
Pimpama:
10 to 16
Option 6 - Detention basin
50 to 100
Notes:
1. Based on 70 tonnes/hectare
2. Based on $38/tonne
3. Based on 10 per cent probability of a storm occurring every year
4. * Cost of drainage upgrade estimate based on Cairns Regional Councils website
(http://www.cairns.qld.gov.au/about-council/media-and-public-notices/mediareleases/releases/resilient-role-model
5. Far greater benefit gained by diversifying funds elsewhere
6. The risk of not proceeding with drainage capital works may expose the City to insurance
claims for damages, as CSIRO provided evidence that this land was marginal and
therefore unsuitable for crops.
Page 108 of 180
8. Future upgrading and work

8.1
Program of works
Previous studies, 1994 SKM (Ref 2) and 2004 GCCC (Ref 3) recommended a number of
upgrades to increase efficiency of the WFMS (described in Table 10). This study tested
additional drainage upgrades, with the recommended key drainage upgrades presented in
Table 15.
Apart from a capital works program, maintenance of the scheme drains will ensure flood
flows are not restricted. This can be done, either by weed removal or channel re-profiling.
Table 16 Recommended drainage upgrades
Priority
Proposed upgrades
Description
Comments
Clear weed growth

around structure.
As seen in Photo 29
(private crossing) the pipe
outlet is blocked by debris
and weed.
Maintenance
Clear weed growth and

repair flap gate (Structure
33)
As seen in Photo 18, the

pipe outlet is blocked by
debris and weed.
Maintenance (minor works)
Remove or replace
Structures 39 and 40
Remove or replace farm

crossings with low afflux
bridge structures (Refer
Photo 10 and Photo 11)
Recommended in 1994 SKM and

2004 GCCC Studies. Private
crossings - cane growers did not
agree to remove these structures.
Replace 35B and clear

weed growth (minor tide
gate)
As seen in Photo 14, the

pipe outlet is blocked by
debris and weed.

2004 GCCC Studies. Minor works.
Replace Structure 2
Photo 15 and Photo 16

show the structure is quite
small.

2004 GCCC Studies. Minor road
crossing
New 800m channel near

Structure 83
Figure 51 shows a channel

of about 800m that
connects existing easement
between Gilberton Drain
and Sandy Creek

Study. Stormwater easement is
required. Negotiations failed to
secure the easement.
New easements:
Figure 51 shows scheme

drains that are not within
existing easements. Table
10 describes the locations.

Study. Stormwater easements are
required.
Behms Creek
Kerkin Drain
Negotiations failed to secure the
Page 109 of 180
Priority
Proposed upgrades
Description
Comments
easement.
Upgrade east and west

culverts of Schoff Drain to
2000 RCP (Structure 83)
Photo 38 shows the east

culvert and Photo 39 shows
the west culvert

Study.
Private crossing.
10
Duplicate the existing

1200mm RCP at Gold
Mine Road Drain
Photo 36 shows the

existing RCP culvert.

Study.
Private crossing.
Although the initial cost of a pump assisted scenario is very high, this scenario produces
better results in terms of reducing crop loss from flood and improving drainage time criteria
(Table 11, Table 13 and Figures 57 to 66).
Page 110 of 180
9. Conclusion
The Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme (WFMS) was developed in the 1960s to
encourage agricultural activity in the region. The scheme entails construction and operation
of tidal gates and man-made and natural drainage systems. There is also a system of
constructed levees in the north and east of the Woongoolba region, whose function is to
drain local flooding to the nearest outlet.
During the past 30 years, sugar crop cultivation has expanded further into low-lying areas
which means the performance of the schemes drains is at maximum design capability. In
some areas, cane is grown in areas where the elevation is less than one metre Australian
Height Datum (AHD), which is generally below Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) level.
Furthermore, the upper reaches of the catchment are constantly changing due to residential
and industrial developments.
Over the years, many hydraulic studies have been undertaken, recommending a number of
drainage upgrades. Since 1994, the scheme has been continuously modified and upgraded
to ensure City of Gold Coasts adopted drainage criteria can be met. Council adopted the
performance criteria that a one-in-10-year ARI flood of 72 hours duration must be contained
within the schemes drains within four days.
To determine the drainage performance, this study used a new and comprehensive 1D/2D
numerically coupled MIKE FLOOD hydraulic model. This has been developed with a
drainage network using the City of Gold Coasts five-metre Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
and extensive cross-sections as well as various structure surveys collected over the years.
The model of this study has been calibrated to the Australia Day 2013 flood event that
showed the model performed reasonably well in terms of the shape of the hydrograph.
However, the model was below the estimated peak flood at Kerkin Road Weir Alert. Once
model calibration was completed, a number of scenario tests was undertaken to determine
whether drainage upgrades could improve the drainage performance. The analysis indicated
minor improvements could be achieved with major upgrades. However, simple cost benefit
analysis would indicate that the costs far outweigh the benefits. It would be far more
beneficial to ensure that drains and drainage structures were maintained, given the
probability of a rain event occurring annually.
In summary, the key outcomes of this study are:
Analysis of aerial photography shows significant expansion of cane farming further into
low-lying land between 1973 and 2009.
Analysis of aerial photography and terrain show that substantial cane farming activity
occurs on land below one metre AHD (HAT range from 1.29 to 1.53 metres AHD for this
region). This means that some areas within the WFMS are unable to drain to the
schemes drains leading to local ponded areas.
Pimpama River conveys the most flow out of the system, followed by Behms and Sandy
Creek.
Page 111 of 180
Survey works in 1994 and 2012 show that siltation has occurred along most scheme
drains during this period. Maintenance of the schemes drains is critical to ensure the
drainage performance is met.
The results from this study differ from those of previous studies. There are fundamental
differences between hydrological and hydrodynamic methodologies and datasets
compared with previous studies. This study has undergone more rigor than previous
studies. For instance, the model in this study uses the latest hydrological inputs (rainfall,
temporal patterns etc) with latest survey information and was calibrated to the most
recent flood. Previous studies have not used such comprehensive data and rigor,
especially calibration to historical flood data.
A number of flood mitigation scenarios was tested to improve the existing WFMS
drainage time criteria. Of the scenarios tested, the most effective was constructing a
storm water pump station but this is very costly. On the other hand, constructing
automated tidal gates can actually worsen a flood situation through improper operation of
the gates. The outcome of testing shows there is a fine balance between the cost of the
upgrades and the benefit of those upgrades.
The WFMS generally meets City of Gold Coasts drainage performance criteria (Figures
57 to 66). However, some low-lying areas to the west of the scheme do not fully meet
the performance criteria and insufficient grades will lead to local ponding. It is worth
noting that these low-lying areas were previously wetlands into which cane cultivation has
expanded during the past 30 years. Infiltration into groundwater and evaporation losses
were not accounted in this study. This can influence the flood extent and drainage time.
Key recommendations:
Collect headloss and flow data across flap gates. The information can be used to inform
future hydrodynamic modelling and to test structure performance. For example,
Structures 12 (Error! Reference source not found.) and 33 (Photo 18)
Monitor drainage times at a number of control points during future flood events for future
hydrodynamic model calibration.
Define a new service level (drainage time criteria) for cane farming land lower than one
metre AHD to take into account the effects of ponding and the expansion of sugar cane
cultivation. Consideration of the 2007 CSIRO study that identified the areas of land is
unsuitable for crop production to be included in future land use planning.
The results from this study should be used as the basis for future impact assessment
across the WFMS catchment.
Due to the rapid development within the WFMS, for instance, Gainsborough, Marks
Road, etc, the hydrodynamic model needs to be updated every two years to take into
account changes in the floodplain and in the upper reaches of the catchment.
For future hydraulic studies, consider impacts of climate variability including a projected
rise in sea level. Future studies should also take into account infiltration losses into the
groundwater table and evaporation losses.
A Land Use Planning/Hydraulic Master Plan Study, with consideration to regional and
local plans as well as State Government policies, should be undertaken to determine the
future of the WFMS.
The cost estimates presented in this report are approximates and no cumulative benefit
for drainage upgrades has been undertaken (including the cost of replanting fully
Page 112 of 180
damaged crops). A detailed cost benefit analysis to assess the exact viability of drainage
upgrades is recommended.
Prepare a detailed database of all hydraulic structures within the WFMS for future
Undertake Airborne Laser Survey of the cane area during planting season and at low
tides to develop an accurate digital elevation model for hydrodynamic modelling.
Undertake drainage upgrades recommended in Table 14.
Page 113 of 180
10.
References
Department of Local Government. An Economic Evaluation of the Proposed

Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme. September 1972
SKM. Woongoolba Drainage Study, July 1994.
GCCC. Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme Hydraulic Review. 2004.
GCCC. Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme Hydraulic Review Supplementary

Report. 2004
CSRIO. Future Use of Rocky Point Cane Landscapes, Gold Coast. July 2007.
WRM. Logan River Flood Study Hydrological Modelling Report.

September 2009.
GCCC. Hydrological Study 2013. October 2013.
GCCC. Logan River Flood Study. August 2007.
AWE. Logan River Floodplain Filling Study. November 1992
10
GCCC. Logan River Catchment Hydraulic Study. June 2013.
11
BMT WBM. Pimpama River Catchment and Stormwater Management Plan Report.
12
SKM. Pimpama River Estuary Ecological Study Report. 2006.
13
Mirfenderesk, H. Broadwater Study Site Investigation Report. Griffith Centre for Coastal
Management Research Report 26-04. 2006
14
GHD. Gold Coast Storm Tide Study. February 2013.
15
BOM. Ex-TC Oswald Floods. January and February 2013.
16
The Institution of Engineers Australia. Australian Rainfall and Runoff A Guide to

Flood Estimation. 1998.
17
WRM. Revision of Design Rainfall Temporal Patterns for Gold Coast Catchments.
November 2008.
18
GCCC. Council Meeting Minutes. 28 November 2005.
19
AWE. Review of Gold Coast Rainfall Data. Final Report. May 1998.
20
DHI. MIKE FLOOD 1D-2D Modelling User Guide. 2011
21
Queensland Department of Energy and Water Supply. Provisional Queensland Urban

Drainage Manual. 2013.
Draft Report.
Page 114 of 180
22
Queensland Department of Main Roads. Road Drainage Design Manual. June 2002.
23
Brisbane City Council. Natural Channel Design Guidelines. November 2003.
24
GCCC. Regional Broadwater Model. January 2011.
25
SKM. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Assessment. Assessment of Existing Data.

December 2003.
26
SKM. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Assessment. Aquifer Identification. December

2004.
27
SKM. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Assessment. Hydraulic Assessment. June 2008.
28
SKM. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Assessment. Recovery Efficiency (RE) Modelling.
May 2008.
Page 115 of 180
11.
APPENDIX A 2013 TIDAL PLANES
Figure 67
2013 tidal planes (Source: MSQ)
Page 116 of 180
Figure 68
2013 tidal planes cont. (Source: MSQ)
Page 117 of 180
12.
APPENDIX B CANE LAND EXPANSION (AERIAL PHOTO COMPARISONS)
Figure 69
Cane cultivation (1973)
Page 118 of 180
Figure 70
Cane Cultivation (2011)
Page 119 of 180
Figure 71
Urbanisation of Upper Woongoolba, aerial photos 2001 (left) and 2011 (right)
Page 120 of 180
Figure 72
Urbanisation of Upper Woongoolba, aerial photos 2001 (left) and 2011 (right)
Page 121 of 180
Figure 73
Changes around Marks Road, aerial photos 2001 (left) and 2011 (right)
Page 122 of 180
13.
APPENDIX C MODEL BOUNDARIES AND RESULTS
Figure 74
SKMs 1994 hydrological and hydrodynamic model extent (Ref 2)
Page 123 of 180
Figure 75
City of Gold Coasts 2004 hydrological and hydrodynamic model extent (Ref 3)
Page 124 of 180
Figure 76
City of Gold Coasts 2004 hydrological and hydrodynamic model extent (Ref 4)
Page 125 of 180
Figure 77
Depth of inundation (peak) for one-in-10-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm duration (HAT)
Page 126 of 180
Figure 78
Depth of inundation (after four days) for one-in-10-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm duration (HAT)
Page 127 of 180
Figure 79
Option 1 (additional culverts at Behms Creek) compared with base case (four days)
Page 128 of 180
Figure 80
Option 2 (automated gates) compared with base case (four days)
Page 129 of 180
Figure 81
Option 3 (Behms Creek straightening) compared with base case (four days)
Page 130 of 180
Figure 82
Option 4a (10m3/s pump) compared with base case (four days)
Page 131 of 180
Figure 83
Option 4b (15m3/s pump) compared with base case (four days)
Page 132 of 180
Figure 84
Option 5 (widening of Behms Creek and Pimpama River) compared with base case (four days)
Page 133 of 180
Figure 85
Option 6 (detention basin) compared with base case (four days)
Page 134 of 180
14.
APPENDIX D STRUCTURE PHOTOS
The following section shows the photographs of key structures taken as part of the 2010
surveys.
Photo 1
Structure 12 (Behms Gate)
Version 5 November
14
Page 135 of 180
Photo 2
Structure 12
Version 5 November
14
Page 136 of 180
Photo 3
Structure 17 (road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 137 of 180
Photo 4
Structure 19 (New Norwell Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 138 of 180
Photo 5
Structure 19 (Norwell Road)
Photo 6
Structure 50
Version 5 November
14
Page 139 of 180
Photo 7
Structure 51
Photo 8
Structure 52
Version 5 November
14
Page 140 of 180
Photo 9
Structure 35A (Sandy Creek Gate)
Photo 10 Structure 39
Version 5 November
14
Page 141 of 180
Photo 12 Structure 26 (Stapylton-Jacobswell Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 142 of 180
Photo 14 Structure 35B
Version 5 November
14
Page 143 of 180
Photo 15 Structure 2 (Pimpama-Jacobs Well Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 144 of 180
Photo 17 Structure 81 (Wolfes Drain)
Version 5 November
14
Page 145 of 180
Photo 18 Structure 33 (Powerline Road-Marks Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 146 of 180
Photo 19 Structure 30 (Homestead Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 147 of 180
Photo 20 Structure 13 (Gross Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 148 of 180
Version 5 November
14
Page 149 of 180
Photo 23 Structure 9 (Norwell Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 150 of 180
Photo 25 Structure 10 (Eggersdorf Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 151 of 180
Version 5 November
14
Page 152 of 180
Photo 30 Structure 28 (Burnside Road)
Version 5 November
14
Page 153 of 180
Photo 31 Structure 27 (Stapylton-Jacobs Well Road)
Photo 32 Structure 27A
Version 5 November
14
Page 154 of 180
Version 5 November
14
Page 155 of 180
Version 5 November
14
Page 156 of 180
Photo 37 Structure 3 (Unnamed)
Version 5 November
14
Page 157 of 180
Photo 38 Structure 83 (Schoff Drain)
Photo 39 Structure Unnamed 5 (Schoff Drain)
Version 5 November
14
Page 158 of 180
15.
APPENDIX E STRUCTURE DRAWINGS
Figure 86
Behms Creek culverts
Version 5 November
14
Page 159 of 180
Figure 87
Behms Creek floodgate
Version 5 November
14
Page 160 of 180
Figure 88
Proposed Behms Creek Bridge upgrade
Version 5 November
14
Page 161 of 180
16.
APPENDIX F DECEMBER 2012 HIGH TIDE
The December 2012 high tide is shown in the following photographs.
Photo 40 Overtopping of Zipfs Road near Loves Road (Courtesy of Barry Brooking)
Photo 41 Photos taken during 15 December 2012 high tide (Courtesy of Barry Brooking)
Version 5
November 14
Page 162 of 180
17.
APPENDIX G JANUARY 2013 FLOOD
The post-January 2013 flood high tide is shown in the following photos
Photo 42 29 January 2013 photo of Pimpama River culvert (Courtesy of Blake Boulton)
Version 5
November 14
Page 163 of 180
Photo 43 29 January 2013 Photo of Behms Creek Culvert (Courtesy of Blake Boulton)
Photo 44 29 January 2013 photo of Zipfs Road inundation (Courtesy of Blake Boulton)
Version 5
November 14
Page 164 of 180
Figure 89
January 2013 flow calibration at Yarrahappini alert
Figure 90
January 2013 flow calibration at Waterford alert
Version 5
November 14
Page 165 of 180
Figure 91
January 2013 flow calibration at Hotham alert
Figure 92
January 2013 flow calibration at Kerkin Road alert
Version 5
November 14
Page 166 of 180
18.
APPENDIX H 2012 FIELD PHOTOS

This section comprises photographs taken during a field visit on 2 November 2012.
Figure 93
Version 5
November 14
Photo locations
Page 167 of 180
Photo 45 IMG 021
Photo 46 IMG 624
Version 5
November 14
Page 168 of 180
Photo 47 IMG 631
Photo 48 IMG 634
Version 5
November 14
Page 169 of 180
Photo 49 IMG 636
Photo 50 IMG 637
Version 5
November 14
Page 170 of 180
Photo 51 IMG 638
Photo 52 IMG 640
Version 5
November 14
Page 171 of 180
Photo 53 IMG 644
Photo 54 IMG 645
Version 5
November 14
Page 172 of 180
Photo 55 IMG 649
Photo 56 IMG 650
Version 5
November 14
Page 173 of 180
19.
APPENDIX I 2004 FLOOD PHOTOS
This section comprises photographs taken by Richard Skopps during the November 2004 floods.
Photo 57 Looking west from concrete bridge (note brewery in background) 10/11/04
Photo 58 Looking south from concrete bridge 10/11/04
Version 5
November 14
Page 174 of 180
Photo 59 Looking south-west from bridge (note quarry on Ormeau Range) 10/11/04
Photo 60 Looking east from concrete bridge behind Richard Skopps farm 10/11/04
Version 5
November 14
Page 175 of 180
Photo 61 Photo taken 24/11/04 showing the dead cane plants resulting from inundation (note
quarry)
Photo 62 Photo taken 24/11/04 showing cane plants on our farm with good drainage
Version 5
November 14
Page 176 of 180
Figure 94
Version 5
November 14
Depth of inundation (peak) for one-in-2-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm duration (HAT)
Page 177 of 180
Figure 95
Version 5
November 14
Depth of inundation (after four days) for one-in-2-year ARI flood with 72-hour storm duration (HAT)
Page 178 of 180
This Page is Intentionally Left Blank
Page 179 of 180
Council of the City of Gold

Coast
PO Box 5042 GCMC Qld 9729
P 1300 GOLDCOAST
E mail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au
W cityofgoldcoast.com.au
Page 180 of 180

Woongoolba Hydraulic Study 201409 Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Woongoolba Hydraulic Study 201409 Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Woongoolba

Natural Hazards Team

City Planning Branch

Planning Environment Directorate

Woongoolba Hydraulic Study

Elton Frederic Chong

City of Gold Coast (the City)

Final draft with some modification

Word errors amended and feedback from Assets

New Branding and Reviewed by Corp Comm

Include Q2 Flood Map

Senior Drainage Planning Technical Officer

Executive summary .................................................................................................. 10

Woongoolba Study Area ..................................................................................................16

Regional and local flooding ..............................................................................................35

Simplistic siltation analysis ..................................................................................... 66

Drainage criteria and scenario testing .................................................................... 75

Current drainage criteria and practice ..............................................................................75

Preliminary cost benefit analysis .......................................................................... 108

Future upgrading and work.................................................................................... 110

Program of works ...........................................................................................................110

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 112

References .............................................................................................................. 115

Appendix A 2013 tidal planes ............................................................................. 117

Appendix B Cane land expansion (aerial photo comparisons) ........................ 119

Appendix C model boundaries and results ....................................................... 124

Appendix D structure photos.............................................................................. 136

Appendix E structure drawings .......................................................................... 160

Appendix F December 2012 high tide................................................................. 163

Appendix G January 2013 flood.......................................................................... 164

Appendix H 2012 field photos ............................................................................. 168

Appendix I 2004 flood photos ............................................................................. 175

Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme and Woongoolba catchment boundaries17

Original proposed scheme layout (Ref 1) ............................................................... 19

Proposed scheme structures................................................................................... 20

Flood duration curves (Ref 1) .................................................................................. 21

Crop expansion from 1972 (Ref 1) to 2009 .............................................................. 22

Land lower than one metre AHD (highlighted in blue) ........................................... 24

Woongoolba Flood Mitigation Scheme (easement) and minor drains .................. 25

Southern Moreton Bay Ramsar and acid sulphate soil.......................................... 28

DTM data source ....................................................................................................... 38

10-metre hydrodynamic model grid ........................................................................ 39

Ground levels of the 10-metre model grids. ........................................................... 40

Semi-diurnal tidal planes (Source: MSQ) ................................................................ 41

Anecdotal flood levels locations ............................................................................. 44

Location of alert stations ......................................................................................... 46

Maximum height gauges around Woongoolba region ........................................... 47

Bore test site (Source: Material Testing Laboratory) ............................................. 48

One-in-10-year ARI 72 hours temporal patterns ..................................................... 50

URBS hydrological model extent and catchment area .......................................... 50

Model source and sinks ........................................................................................... 52

Model roughness map .............................................................................................. 54

Structures surveyed by Engineering Services in 2010 .......................................... 57

Hydrodynamic model calibration at Kerkin Road alert .......................................... 59

Regional estuarine model and HAT reference points ............................................ 62

Typical high tide used for scenario analysis .......................................................... 64

Simulated HAT and model boundary reference points .......................................... 65

Comparison of cross-sectional survey locations ................................................... 67

Comparison of invert levels along Behms Creek ................................................... 68

Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms Creek ......................... 68

Comparison of cross-sectional information along Behms Creek ......................... 69

Comparison of invert levels along Behms-Centre drain ........................................ 69