Expert Opinion - Flooding Issues Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
City of Greater Bendigo
October 2016
Project Name Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Report Prepared for City of Greater Bendigo Instructed By Emma Bryant, City of Greater Bendigo Report Author Warwick Bishop Document Number 1957-01R01v01c.docx Report Date 10 October 2016
15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill VIC 3168 Telephone (03) 8526 0800 Fax (03) 9558 9365
ACN 093 377 283
ABN 60 093 377 283
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 2
CONTENTS
1 REPORT AUTHOR 5
2 STATEMENT OF EXPERTISE 5
3 REPORT CONTRIBUTOR 5
4 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 6
5 BASIS OF THIS REPORT 6
6 INTRODUCTION 7
7 BENDIGO URBAN FLOOD STUDY 7
8 SUBMISSIONS 8 8.1 General Comments Regarding Submissions 8 8.2 Response to specific Submissions 8 8.2.1 Submission 18 – 126-128 High Street, Kangaroo Flat 9 8.2.2 Submission 19 – Huntly (Multiple Locations) 10 8.2.3 Submission 28 - Epsom-Huntly Drainage Committee 16 8.2.4 Submission 31 – 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom 17 8.2.5 Submission 45 Strickland Street, Ascot 18 8.2.6 Submission 40 - UDIA Northern Chapter 19
9 CONCLUSIONS 22
10 DECLARATION 22
APPENDICES Appendix A Submissions Responded to by Water Technology
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 8-1 126 – 128 High Street, Kangaroo Flat 10 Figure 8-2 Modelled levee breach locations 11 Figure 8-3 Levee Failure Scenario Mapping 12 Figure 8-3 Cross Section downstream of Sargeants Road 13 Figure 8-4 Submission 19 – Attachment B 13 Figure 8-5 Leans Rd Crossing of Bendigo Creek 14 Figure 8-6 Lot Adjacent to 119 Steins Road, Huntly 15 Figure 8-7 43 Brights Lane, Huntly 15 Figure 8-8 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom 18
Figure 8-9 45 Strickland Street, Ascot 19
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 3
LIST OF TABLES Table 8-1 Summary of Submissions I have reviewed in Detail 8
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 4
1 REPORT AUTHOR
Warwick Bishop Senior Principal Engineer, Director Water Technology Pty Ltd 15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill, VIC 3168
Qualifications:
B.E. (Hons), University of Melbourne, 1993
MEngSci, Monash University, 2000
Affiliations:
Charter Member, Institution of Engineers, Australia
Chair, Engineers Australia, Victorian Water Engineering Branch Committee
Member, International Association for Hydraulic Research
Member, Australian Water Association
Member, River Basin Management Society
Member, Stormwater Victoria
Experience
I am a Director of Water Technology and have over 20 years’ experience in hydrologic and hydraulic investigations, specialising in the development and application of rural and urban hydrodynamic models and their application to flooding, drainage, water quality, sediment transport and environmental values. I also have extensive experience in coastal and estuary modelling including wave, current, oil spill and coastal vulnerability investigations. I have worked extensively in the Murray Darling Basin, principally on environmental hydraulic investigations for the Living Murray Program. I was recently involved in the revision of Australian Rainfall and Runoff, with particular focus on the application of 2D hydraulic models to flooding in urban and rural areas. In 2011 I worked in the Flood Intelligence Unit of SES during the January floods and have provided advice to Catchment Management Authorities over the subsequent period.
2 STATEMENT OF EXPERTISE With my qualifications and experience, I believe that I am well qualified to provide an expert opinion regarding flooding issues related to Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
3 REPORT CONTRIBUTOR
Michael Boulter Project Engineer
Water Technology Pty Ltd
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 5
15 Business Park Drive Notting Hill, VIC 3168
Qualifications:
Bachelor of Engineering (Civil, hons), Bachelor of Science (Chemistry), The University of Western Australia 2008
Affiliations:
Member, Engineers Australia
Area of Expertise:
Key areas of expertise relevant to this report are summarised below.
Assessment of urban flooding including hydrologic and hydraulic modelling
Urban waterway design and management
Application of GIS
Scope of contribution:
Michael undertook data analysis and figure preparation under my supervision.
4 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT
In relation to Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, I have been requested to:
Prepare evidence in relation flooding issues raised in submissions to the Panel that is addressing the Amendment.
Focus on specific submissions as instructed by Council.
5 BASIS OF THIS REPORT
This report is based on:
Bendigo Urban Flood Study, Water Technology 2014
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
ARR Project 15 2D modelling guidelines report, Engineers Australia
Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM), Local Government Infrastructure Design Association (September
2016)
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 6
6 INTRODUCTION
Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme has been prepared by the City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB) with the support of the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA), which is the responsible floodplain authority for the Bendigo Region.
The amendment implements the flood modelling outputs of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study (2013) in the form of flood-related overlays that facilitate the identification of land in flood-prone areas and allow for appropriate conditions to be applied to development to manage flood risks.
The raw modelling outputs from the flood study have been adapted by the Council and CMA to provide mapping layers that delineate areas subject to potential flood risk.
As a general comment, it is always the case that a risk mapping exercise such as a flood study is subject to uncertainties. Whilst best practices are typically applied to define the design flood extents and depths that are mapped, the results will never be perfect. In order to deal with uncertainty, it is common practice in risk management to take a conservative or cautious approach. In the design of structures this is often termed the “safety factor”. In flood risk management this is typically accounted for through applied freeboard. This is the height that a building or levee is built above the design flood level. This additional height partly takes into account the uncertainty in determining design flood levels and extents, as well as the risk of a greater than design-magnitude flood occurring, or other factors such wave action and climate change.
In be able to apply appropriate flood risk management it is necessary to identify all flood-prone land within the floodplain. Once flood-prone areas are identified, individual site conditions can be assessed and appropriate conditions placed on development such as heights or location of works.
The amendment seeks to apply the best available flood information to the planning scheme so that flood risks can be appropriately managed.
7 BENDIGO URBAN FLOOD STUDY
Water Technology completed the Bendigo Urban Flood Study in 2013, which is the basis for the proposed planning scheme amendment. This study involved detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling for Bendigo’s urban areas and outskirts, including Bendigo Creek and its major tributaries and overland flow paths. Flood mapping of the Bendigo Creek Catchment was achieved through a significant and detailed flood investigation that utilised industry best practice.
Prior to the modelling being undertaken, the study method was peer reviewed to ensure the approach was valid. Additionally, the hydrological modelling was reviewed by an independent panel of technical experts appointed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE, now Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, DELWP). This was considered particularly important, given hydrological models can be a significant source of uncertainty for studies of this scale.
Whilst this was a thoroughly reviewed, technically comprehensive study, there are several limitations to the study outputs, as acknowledged in the report. Some of these limitations are summarised as follows:
The 2D model grid size used was 3 m for urban areas and 5 m for semi-urban areas. This resulted in some sub-grid scale hydraulic features not being able to be resolved. Using a finer grid was not practical,
given the size of the study area and the timeframes in which the study needed to be delivered. The grid
sizes adopted are typical for urban flood mapping studies and appropriate for the purposes of the
investigation.
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 7
A great deal of effort was put in to ensuring all significant hydraulic structures were represented within the model. However, given the scale of the model, it is inevitable that some features may have been missed, or have been reconfigured since the information was collected. In such cases, localised flooding details may not be ideally represented, however the overall flood regime would not be impacted.
The available calibration data was of low quality with gauge records not matching with anecdotal information and regional comparisons to nearby gauges. To compensate for this lack of confidence in the available gauge information a variety of checks were performed. Preliminary hydraulic model simulations based on the estimated historic flows were undertaken. Feedback on the results was then received from Council and the NCCMA. This feedback was used to refine the model development.
8 SUBMISSIONS 8.1 General Comments Regarding Submissions
A number of submissions to the planning panel suggest that the flood modelling and mapping is incorrect as it doesn’t match anecdotal evidence of historical flooding for particular events at specific locations. Whilst these reactions are understandable from the perspective of a typical owner or occupier of land, every flood is different, and the fact that a property has not flooded in the past does not mean it will not flood in the future.
Several submissions also present simplified analysis of historic rainfall and flooding, which generally fail to appreciate or take account of the complexity associated with the modelling undertaken for a flood study of this nature. While some valid points are made, they are consistent with the limitations and uncertainties that are already acknowledged and do not detract from the validity or appropriateness of the flood study outputs.
There is a frequent misunderstanding regarding the relationship between rainfall and runoff, both from a historic flood and design flood point of view. Many people are not aware that a 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) rainfall event has or will not necessarily correspond to a 100 year ARI flood event. The characteristics of rainfall in any particular storm, including duration, the size of the catchment and antecedent catchment conditions all have a significant influence on the magnitude of a resulting flood event. The temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall may also lead to varying flood magnitudes in various waterways within the same greater catchment. Consequently, an anecdotal piece of evidence on a particular flood, location and time cannot easily be paired with an overall ARI calculated for a corresponding ARI rainfall event. 8.2 Response to specific Submissions
I have been requested to specifically address the submissions as listed in below. Each of these is listed under a separate sub-heading below.
TABLE 8-1 SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS I HAVE REVIEWED IN DETAIL
Submission Relevant Address Submission Type Submission Date Number 24/06/2016 18 126-128 High St, Kangaroo Flat Request for Overlay Revision 27/06/2016 19 Huntly (Multiple Locations) Request for Overlay Revision General Comments on the
30/06/2016 28 N/A (General Submission) Study and Lack of Endorsement
28/06/2016 31 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom Request fo Overlay Revision
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 8
Submission Relevant Address Submission Type Submission Date Number General Comments on the Undated 38 45 Strickland St, Ascot Study General Comments on the 30/06/2016 40 N/A (General Submission) Study and Advocating for Landowners/Developers
8.2.1 Submission 18 – 126-128 High Street, Kangaroo Flat
This submission suggests that the subject property should not be included in the proposed LSIO extent.
The key points of this submission are paraphrased, and my opinions presented below. The locality of the area of interest is shown in Figure 8-1.
The property has never flooded in the past.
There are many factors that influence flooding, and the fact that a property hasn’t experienced flooding in the recent past or over many decades, does not mean it will not experience flooding in the future. The method adopted for this study was peer reviewed, and the adopted design flows verified by an independent, expert technical panel. As such, there is confident in the study results and the predicted flood extents.
Stormwater pipes from High Street/Lockwood Rd have been upgraded from 300 mm to 375 mm but this has not been reflected in the modelling.
The purpose of these pipes is to convey stormwater from localised flood events away from this area and into Bendigo Creek. However, the LSIO mapping is based on 100 year ARI flooding in Bendigo Creek, which is governed by upstream flows and will not be significantly mitigated by a minor upgrade in the local stormwater pipe network. Additionally, stormwater pipes of this size only have the capacity to drain urban stormwater for minor events. The City of Greater Bendigo adopts a 10 year ARI design standard for commercial areas (IDM, 2015). In the case of a 100 year ARI magnitude flood in Bendigo Creek, the capacity of these pipes will be significantly exceeded and will not have an appreciable effect on flooding of the subject property.
Mitigation options 2a, 2b and 2c from the study report have since been constructed and therefore the overlay should be removed from the property.
The Bendigo Urban Flood Study modelling was undertaken with the available information at the time, and the proposed overlays have been generated from these modelling results. Mitigation options 2a, 2b and 2c from the study report would not have any significant impact on the design flood extent in the vicinity of the site or change the risk of flooding at the site such that the LSIO could be removed.
Any benefits of the new Wesley Street bridge are more likely to be realised upstream than at the site. Irrespective of the flow behaviour at Wesley Street, there is significant capacity for flood flows to break away from Bendigo Creek upstream (south) of Lockwood Road and make their way to High Street through Kangaroo Flat.
The January 2011 event was not considered in the study, and this has to be at least a 100 year ARI event.
The property did not flood during this event.
Although the total rainfall that fell over the entire January 2011 storm event was greater than the total February 2011 storm, this does not automatically infer that it generated a larger flood peak (or 100
year ARI flood event), as suggested in Submission 18. The January 2011 flood was not significant in
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 9
Bendigo compared to the events used for model calibration. Bendigo has a relatively small upstream catchment area and requires a much shorter, intense storm (3-6 hours duration generally) to cause significant flooding. The January 2011 storm occurred over several days without any short, intense rainfall bursts of sufficient magnitude to cause significant flooding in Bendigo. In contrast the February 2011 storm event included 50 mm over a 5 hour burst which is close to the critical duration for Bendigo Creek.
It is also important to note that the ARI for a rainfall event does not necessarily correspond to the same magnitude ARI for the resultant flood. The duration of the rainfall event, the size of the catchment and antecedent catchment conditions all have significant influence over the magnitude of a resulting flood. The temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall may also lead to varying flood magnitudes in various waterways within a catchment.
FIGURE 8-1 126 – 128 HIGH STREET, KANGAROO FLAT
8.2.2 Submission 19 – Huntly (Multiple Locations)
The key points of this submission are paraphrased, and my opinions presented below.
Bendigo Creek - the modelling of levee failures is wrong.
The modelling of the levee breaches was based on the best estimate of likely failure points. These failure points were determined by looking at low points along the embankment and adjacent modelled flood levels and are shown in Figure 8-2. Where a levee fails depends on a variety of factors, and is difficult to predict with confidence. To assess the potential impact of levee failure in a flood study it is necessary to make some assumptions and choose a selected case or cases for analysis. This is because it is not practical to model every possible levee failure scenario. I believe that the failure points modelled result in a reasonable representation of the potential consequences of a levee breach in this area. The adoption of the SBO2 in this area reflects the uncertainty associated with a possible
breach of the levee and the need to highlight the significant flood risk associated with this.
The locations of modelled levee failures are shown Figure 8-2. These locations are not necessarily more likely than others, but provide a spread of locations that are representative of what may occur.
Figure 8-3 is reproduced from the Bendigo Urban Flood Study report and illustrates the type of
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 10
inundation patterns and flood behaviour that would be expected from levee failure in Bendigo Creek through Epsom and Huntly. It is noted that the land on the east side of Bendigo Creek that is not inundated (in Figure 8-3) could also be subject to flooding if the levee failed in a different location.
The overlay recognises that a levee breach could potentially happen anywhere along the east side of Bendigo Creek between Epsom and Huntly. Flood water would spread out in a north-easterly direction following the general slope of the land. The SBO2 is therefore an appropriate recognition of the risk across the area between the Bendigo Creek channel and the eastern edge of the floodplain through Epsom and Huntly. It is important to note that a levee failure may be caused by a structural failure of the embankment rather than overtopping. This is particularly relevant as the levee bank was formed many decades ago and is not likely to comply with current levee design standards.
FIGURE 8-2 MODELLED LEVEE BREACH LOCATIONS
At the Leans Rd / Bendigo Creek it is highly unlikely that a breach will occur on the east side.
It is true that the embankment on the east side of Bendigo Creek is generally quite high and well above the 100 year ARI flood level in most places. However, it is possible for this levee to fail without overtopping. As an example the Wilson Road and Parfitt Road flood levees in Wangaratta have both experienced structural problems in recent years, despite them being relatively recent and well- constructed embankments. Figure 8-4 below shows the peak flood level in the creek, relative to the floodplain just north of Sargeants Road. This highlights that the creek level is perched well above the floodplain with the potential to break-out to the north-east if the levee fails.
Figure 8-5 shows Attachment B from Submission 19 with red arrows added to highlight how a levee failure anywhere along the section of the creek could result in overland flows through the nominated SBO2 area.
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 11
FIGURE 8-3 LEVEE FAILURE SCENARIO MAPPING
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 12
Terrain section plotted below
100 yr flood surface
creek level
Height of creek above floodplain above
FIGURE 8-4 CROSS SECTION DOWNSTREAM OF SARGEANTS ROAD
Potential levee failure could occur
anywhere along the levee
FIGURE 8-5 SUBMISSION 19 – ATTACHMENT B
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 13
The overlays in the vicinity of Leans Rd are incorrect.
The submission suggests that the area north-east of Leans Road Bridge and south of Leans Road to the east of Bendigo Creek should be SBO2 rather than LSIO. The LSIO in this area is defined explicitly by flows that break-out from Bendigo Creek at Leans Road under existing conditions, where there is a gap in the levee, and not from a modelled failure of the levee. The remaining areas are covered by the SBO2, which is a more generalised area that covers land protected by the levee. These areas may be flooded in the event of a levee breach or failure, recognising there is inherent uncertainty as to where and when a levee failure may occur.
The overlay along the Midland Hwy, south of Buckley’s Road is wrong as the land has never flooded.
As explained previously, there are a number of factors that influence flooding, and the fact that an area hasn’t experienced flooding in the past does not mean it will not experience flooding in the future. Modelling shows that break-out flow from Bendigo Creek can flow through to this location. As the land alongside the Midland Highway is low, water is likely to pond here.
BUCKLEYS LN
FIGURE 8-6 LEANS RD CROSSING OF BENDIGO CREEK
The overlays shown in attachments C and D should not cover the lots identified.
The lot referred to in attachment C (adjacent to 119 Steins Rd, Huntly, Figure 8-7) does not appear to be affected by the LSIO. The submission suggests there is an LSIO on this property. There appears to be some confusion around this point.
The lot referred to in attachment D (believed to be 43 Brights Lane, Huntly, Figure 8-8) has a very small area covered by the LSIO. The submission suggests that the entire property is diminished by the LSIO when it is covered by only a small area of flooding. In response it should be pointed out that flood overlays are a planning tool to flag properties that may be affected by flooding and require particular conditions associated with a planning permit. In my experience, if only a small part of a lot
is covered by a flood overlay, then it typically does not have a significant impact on the value of that
land or it's potential use (compared to what it would be without the overlay).
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 14
FIGURE 8-7 LOT ADJACENT TO 119 STEINS ROAD, HUNTLY
FIGURE 8-8 43 BRIGHTS LANE, HUNTLY
The application of the SBO2 layer is confusing and misleading, and it should apply to LSIO areas.
The flood overlays intentionally do not overlap, as each overlay has specific requirements in terms of planning approval. The LSIO overlays were developed based on the 100 year ARI flood extents generated in the hydraulic modelling for the Bendigo Urban Flood Study. There are areas outside these extents that are protected by the Bendigo Creek levee through Huntly. These areas have been shown to flood in the event of a levee failure through scenario modelling. It is considered appropriate that overall floodplain is separated into LSIO and SBO areas with the delineation representing the
prevailing flood risk in each area.
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 15
The flood study is criticised for inaccuracy, however I believe that the report demonstrates that appropriate checks and reviews have been undertaken and that an industry best-practice approach was applied to the study.
8.2.3 Submission 28 - Epsom-Huntly Drainage Committee
Submission 28 considers the accuracy of the Bendigo Urban Flood Study in general, rather than looking at particular properties or locations. The key points of this submission and my responses are presented below:
No peer review of the final report and lack of accuracy of the mapping, particularly differences to observed flooding.
The method adopted for the study was peer reviewed and the study results were internally reviewed by Water Technology as the project progressed. Council and CMA also reviewed the study outputs at various stages. The outputs from the study are of a quality and standard consistent with best practice in floodplain mapping.
LiDAR used for the study was captured in 2009 and alterations to the terrain since then have not been accounted for.
The study utilised the most accurate and up-to-date information available at the time of the study. The 2009 LiDAR dataset was the most recent available, and it was not within the scope of the project to collect an additional LiDAR dataset. Where erroneous data was identified within the LiDAR, this was corrected based on site visit data, aerial photography and engineering judgement. Where specific changes to the topography had occurred, these were entered into the model based on data supplied by CoGB. However, it is inevitable for a study of this scale that there will be some cases where the modelled terrain is out of date compared with current conditions. The effect of such discrepancies will need to be assessed by the Council/CMA on a case-by-case basis. Every flood study represents a “snap-shot” in time and will require periodic review and updating, depending on the rate of change in conditions.
The flood study had limited historical flood data with which to calibrate models to. Data that was available often didn’t fit well with the study models.
The limitations of available historical data are acknowledged in the study report (as pointed out by the EHDC). The lack of good quality historical data is a common problem with such flood studies, and there is no simple way to overcome this. The best approach in this situation is to adopt industry best practices, that endeavour to produce the best estimates of flood risk as possible, and review the results as additional information becomes available. It is also appropriate to utilise anecdotal evidence to verify flood model performance.
Calibration to the full range of historic events did have mixed success. In order to compensate for this, a number of additional checks were performed, as detailed in the study report. These included simulating historical events in the hydraulic model and verifying this against recorded flood data and information from Council and the CMA. This process provided additional confidence in the flow estimates, but there is always a degree of uncertainty in such estimates. In order to provide confidence in the approach adopted and the flow estimates determined, the hydrological analysis was reviewed and verified by an external, independent technical panel.
The study does not consider the effects of climate change.
Consideration of climate change was not within the scope of the project. Climate change may increase
the frequency and intensity of rainfall events, which would lead to an increased flood risk within the
catchment. While the predictions of future weather patterns are not exact, on a broad scale it is expected that climate change may increase the frequency of equivalent storm events in the future.
For example, what used to be considered the 5 year ARI event may come to be considered the
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 16
1 year ARI event, the 50 year may become a 20 year, and so on. In terms of this study, it may be useful to consider the larger events modelled (200 year ARI) to understand what the effects of climate change may be, despite it not being explicitly considered.
The flood study should be frequently reviewed as new information/data becomes available, particularly when there are significant floods in the future.
Over time there are likely to be many reasons that a flood study may require revision. There are likely to be changes to the catchment in terms of the built infrastructure of buildings, road-works and drainage system upgrades for example. There may also be changes in vegetation over time. Other factors such as industry standards, new techniques or additional data may trigger a review depending on how significant the changes are and what impact they may have on flood extents or depths. A factor which is also critical will be the degree to which funding and resources are be available to undertake a review.
8.2.4 Submission 31 – 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom
The key points of this submission and my responses are presented below:
Request confirmation that the effect of the Ascot Irrigation Channel was considered in the modelling.
This channel is well represented in the 2009 LiDAR dataset and was included in the model topography.
Statement that floodwaters have never entered the property in 50 years.
There are a number of factors that influence flooding, and the fact that a property hasn’t experienced flooding in the past does not mean it will not experience flooding in the future. The method adopted for this study was peer reviewed, and the adopted design flows verified by an independent panel of technical experts. As such, I have confidence that the model results are a good representation of flood risks across Bendigo.
Request details of the review of hydrological modelling by the independent technical expert panel, details which are not presented in the study report.
The review of the hydrological modelling was managed by DSE (now DELWP), who brought together a panel of experts in the field of flood modelling to undertake the review. This panel produced a report summarising the review, which was used to amend and update the hydrological modelling. This report is held by the CMA. To my knowledge, the names of the members of the review panel were not included in the report and never made available to Water Technology, Council or the CMA.
Open irrigation channel on the north west side of Sergeants Road does not appear to have been considered in the flood study. Nor does it appear to include pipes moving water across Midland Highway.
This channel was included as represented in the 2009 LiDAR dataset. Pipes/culverts that would significantly affect the flood regime were included in the model. Pipes that are designed to convey water for irrigation purposes generally do not have sufficient capacity to have a significant impact on large flood flows. Furthermore, smaller culverts are prone to blockage in large flow events.
Request that the overlay on their property be changed from LSIO to SBO, as submitter believes that flooding is due to an undersized culvert restricting flow in the drain alongside Midland Hwy.
The purpose of the SBO is typically to identify land “…liable to inundation by overland flows from the urban drainage system..”. The urban drainage system refers to the drainage network comprised of underground pipes and minor swales/open drains that convey water from urban catchments with no
significant waterway. In the currently proposed amendment it is also intended to use the SBO to
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 17
identify land that is protected by levee on the east side of Bendigo Creek through Epsom and Huntly. This levee is of uncertain integrity and may be susceptible to failure that could significantly inundate areas to the east of Bendigo Creek.
Flooding of the drain alongside the western side of the Midland Hwy at the subject site occurs primarily due to breakout flows from Bendigo Creek upstream, and hence the application of the LSIO is considered the most appropriate overlay to characterise this flood condition. This is because the LSIO generally applies to land that is subject to inundation flows deriving from waterways but not part of the main flow path or floodway, where depth and velocity is more significant.
FIGURE 8-9 89 SARGEANTS ROAD, EPSOM
8.2.5 Submission 38 - 45 Strickland Street, Ascot
The key points of this submission and Water Technology’s responses are presented below:
Anecdotal evidence from residents has been ignored, particularly for the 1973 and 2011 events.
Among many other historical flooding events, the 1973 and January 2011 events were considered for the purposes of this study. The 1973 was not used as a calibration event for the study as it was considered that other events had better recorded data available.
The submission conflates the idea of a “rainfall” and a “flood” event, which is a common source of misunderstanding in hydrology. It is stated that the 1973 and 2011 events are 100 year and 50 year ARI rainfall events respectively, which has been determined based on the Bureau of Meteorology IFD data. It is important to note that the ARI for a rainfall event does not necessarily correlate to the same ARI for the resultant flood event. Furthermore, the calculated ARI of a particular storm will depend on the duration considered. Among other things, the duration of the rainfall event, the size of the catchment and antecedent catchment conditions all play a large part in the magnitude of a resulting flood event from a particular rainfall storm. The temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall may also lead to varying flood magnitudes in various waterways within the same greater catchment.
Consequently, an anecdotal piece of evidence on a particular flood cannot immediately be paired with an overall ARI calculated for that rainfall event.
Community feedback provided to the NCCMA has not been considered in the flood study, particularly at
73 Howard St regarding historic flood levels.
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 18
This particular evidence has not been included with this submission so cannot be specifically addressed. However, the study report provides detailed commentary on the limitations of the study. Additionally, it is often not possible to directly reconcile the ARI of specific rainfall events with flood events, as discussed above.
The Back Creek Catchment has not been given due attention in the flood study. The Taylor Street Culverts were not included in the hydraulic modelling.
As an ungauged catchment, flood estimates for the Back Creek catchment rely on the adopting industry best practices, that endeavour to produce the best estimates of flooding possible. The method adopted for this study was peer reviewed, and the adopted design flows verified by an independent panel of technical experts. As such, I am confident that the study results for this catchment are appropriate.
The culverts on Back Creek under Taylor Street were not included in the original modelling and have subsequently been added to the hydraulic model. Results show that, whilst these culverts have an impact on smaller flood events, their impact on 100 year ARI design flood levels in the vicinity of Strickland Street is minimal. Given there is a reasonable likelihood of culvert blockage based on the vegetation cover in the waterway upstream, the original mapping results are considered appropriate for risk management purposes.
Additional anecdotal evidence has been ignored.
Anecdotal evidence was considered in the study where possible, but there are difficulties with such evidence as discussed above.
Lack of reference to the January 2011 flood in the BUFS
As discussed previously in this report, the January 2011 flood was not as large in Bendigo as the February 2011 flood which is why it was not chosen as a calibration event.
TAYLOR ST CULVERTS
FIGURE 8-10 45 STRICKLAND STREET, ASCOT
8.2.6 Submission 40 - UDIA Northern Chapter
The key points of this submission and my responses are presented below:
Modelling does not account for structures such as fences, dwellings, sheds etc and the council’s policy
should allow for additional or updated information to be taken into consideration;
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 19
The hydraulic modelling for the Bendigo Urban Flood Study is consistent with other urban flood mapping studies, where physical features such as fences, individual dwellings and sheds are not explicitly modelled. With current data and modelling capabilities it is not feasible within such studies to represent every individual physical element across the terrain that may influence overland flow behaviour.
The accepted industry practice is to adopt hydraulic model parameters that allow the model to best represent the terrain, structures and vegetation present. This means that whilst local flow details around individual buildings, for example, are not accurately represented, the overall pattern of floodplain inundation is reproduced with some confidence. Adopting the Bendigo Urban Flood Study modelling and mapping would be consistent with flood mapping that is implemented in planning schemes all over Victoria.
It is the case that at an individual lot-scale or cluster scale there could be refinement in some areas to enhance the resolution of flood analysis as part of a specific planning application (again this is standard practice across the state). However, for planning purposes, no further details or analysis is required for the proposed overlays to be adopted.
While the hydraulic modelling techniques adopted do not explicitly reflect localised effects of such structures, their effect on the overall flood regime is accounted for within the modelling parameters such as model topography and Manning’s roughness.
It will be up to the Council and CMA to consider how additional or updated information is considered in the future.
The proposed schedules do not include clear capacity to consider ground proofing or updated information;
The flood overlays proposed trigger a referral process within the planning scheme where specific consideration of flooding matters are made by Council and the North Central CMA as the relevant floodplain management authority. Through this process the Council and/or the CMA will use the best available and most up-to-date information to assess the flood risk and any impacts in and around a proposed development the site. Therefore, the capacity to consider updated information or other details not included in the BUFS already exists and is routinely applied with respect to flood referrals across Victoria on a regular basis.
Aside from the individual application process, it will be up to the Council and CMA to consider how additional or updated information is incorporated into the planning scheme in the future. Inevitably flood information gradually becomes out of date over time and will require updating at some point in the future. The degree of change must be balanced against the time and expense of new studies to update the information.
If mapping is incorrect and flood overlays have been incorrectly applied to properties, it may unfairly reduce a property’s value, and increase insurance premiums;
Anecdotally, it has been suggested to me that the application of flood overlays does not significantly impact land values, however this is outside my area of expertise.
Good floodplain management requires the identification of properties that are potentially subject to significant flood risk through planning overlays. Any potential impact on land value and insurance premiums is not a consideration in appropriately identifying and managing flood risk to life and property.
Property owners may not be fully aware of the ramifications of the overlay being applied to their property.
Impact of insurance for example;
It is the case that insurance companies will use the best available information to inform their internal
risk assessments, irrespective of whether it is in a planning overlay or not.
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 20
Experience suggests that overall, insurance premiums come down when accurate flood mapping is applied. This is because insurers have better and more accurate information and can better define risks, allowing them to take a less conservative approach.
Property owners should not have to bear the cost of proving their property is not subject to flooding where the flood modelling is shown to be inaccurate.
Whilst there will be areas where the flood mapping can be improved, it is necessary to provide flood overlays as a means of triggering the referral process. This allows for the assessment of whether flood-related planning conditions are necessary at a particular site. This is part of the orderly planning process that minimises risk for individual land owners and for the community more generally.
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 21
9 CONCLUSIONS
With respect to flooding issues related to Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, the following conclusions can be made:
The Bendigo Urban Flood Study is not without its limitations, however the modelling that has been undertaken is fit for purpose in terms of determining the extent of the flood overlays proposed in the planning scheme amendment. A significant amount of technical work was undertaken for this study, which was reviewed by independent technical experts, Council and the NCCMA.
The Bendigo Urban Flood Study and outputs are consistent with industry best practice and similar to flood mapping that has been applied to municipalities all over Victoria in recent times.
No flood study will perfectly replicate every flood that occurs within a catchment, and there is always a degree of uncertainty associated with flood models. The flood extents generated from the Bendigo Urban Flood Study were based on industry techniques available at the time of the modelling, but will not necessarily always align with community recollections of historic floods or expectations of flood behaviour in general.
Application of the proposed flood overlays will result in a better informed planning scheme and more orderly and appropriate assessment of flood risk for any future developments in Bendigo.
10 DECLARATION
I declare that I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have, to my knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.
Warwick A Bishop
B.E. (Hons), MEngSci
10 October 2016
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 22
Melbourne Brisbane 15 Business Park Drive Level 3, 43 Peel Street Notting Hill VIC 3168 South Brisbane QLD 4101 Telephone (03) 8526 0800 Telephone (07) 3105 1460 Fax (03) 9558 9365 Fax (07) 3846 5144
Wangaratta Perth First Floor, 40 Rowan Street PO Box 362 Wangaratta VIC 3677 Subiaco WA 6904 Telephone (03) 5721 2650 Telephone 0407 946 051
Geelong Gippsland PO Box 436 154 Macleod Street Geelong VIC 3220 Bairnsdale VIC 3875 Telephone 0458 015 664 Telephone (03) 5152 5833
Wimmera www.watertech.com.au PO Box 584 Stawell VIC 3380 [email protected] Telephone 0438 510 240
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Page 23
APPENDIX A SUBMISSIONS RESPONDED TO
01R01v01.docx
- 1957
City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme 15 Bourke Drive STRATHDALE VIC 3550 RECEIVED 2 i JtJN 2013 23/6/2016 CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO pljANning department
Greater Bendigo City Council Statutory Planning Department PO BOX 733 BENDIGO VIC 3552
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Proposal to apply a LandSubject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) to 126-128 High St, Kangaroo Flat in planning scheme amendment C221
We refer to your letter of 16 May, 2016 in which you advise that the above property may be affected by the above planning scheme amendment which proposes to implement the Bendigo Urban FloodStudy 2013 (the study).
The 100 year ARI flood mapping produced by the study shows flood water breaking out of Bendigo Creek near and upstream ofthe Wesley St bridge in the vicinity ofCrusoe Rd and flowing down High St to the comer ofHigh St and Lockwood Rd and then onto our property which, our research shows, has never flooded in the past.
Following completion ofthe study the City ofGreater Bendigo has completed 2 projects which would have an effect on flood mapping in the Kangaroo Flat shopping strip.
1. Page 71 ofthe study states all pipes 300 mm and above were included in the model. Since completion ofthe study a section ofthe pipes from Cnr High St and Lockwood Rd to the Bendigo Creek have been upgraded from 300 mm to 375 mm. Therefore, the volume ofwater which could reach our property has been reduced but the City of Greater Bendigo has confirmed that this data has not been reflected in the flood mapping and
2. Page 85 ofthe study lists the replacement ofthe old bridge at Wesley St as a flood mitigation option (option 2c) which the study's modelling shows would result in upstream levels "lowered by 210 mm" (page 90) and therefore less flood water breaking out from the Bendigo Creek. Since completion ofthe study the new bridge, with a higher deck, has been constructed and Water Technology Pty Ltd has confirmed that this data has not been included in the modelling. In addition 2 other suggested flood mitigation options (options 2a and 2b) have also been completed and they have not been included in the modelling either.
It is submitted that when the combined effect ofitems 1 and 2 above are included in the model it should result in the flood mapping displaying no flooding on our property.
There is, however, further compelling evidence that our property should not be classified as subject to inundation as follows
Document Set ID: 3395676 Version: 1, Version Date: 24/06/2016 The study states on pages 47 and 48 - Item 3.8
^^The designflows indicate that the March 2010, September 2010, andFebruary 2011flood events were approximately <5, 5 and 50 year ARI events respectively at Bendigo and Huntly".
However, not modelled (or even discussed) in the study was the much bigger and significant flood event which occurred in Bendigo, Kangaroo Flat and Harcourt in January, 2011 when a rainfall total of163.8mm was recorded at Bendigo Airport with 130.2 mm ofthat amount recorded from 12 to 14 January 2011. This event resulted in serious flooding, not only in Bendigo, but also in Charlton and Rochester. Serious road damage was caused when, for the first time ever, water flowed over the secondary spillway at Lake Eppalock. Ifthe design model shows the February, 2011 flood event to be a 50 year ARI event then the January, 2011 flood event is certainly at least a 100 year ARI event (or probably even greater) and the writer is prepared to sign an affidavit declaring that it did not result in any flooding of our property whatsoever.
Daily rainfall detail, supplied by the Bureau ofMeteorology for the 3 modelled events, is as follows
Bendigo Airport - Station No 081123 <5 year ARI 5 year ARI 50 year ARI March 2010 September 2010 February 2011 6 47 4 50.6 4 17.6 7 10 5 31_ 5 66.4 8 29 81.6 mm 6 17.6 86 mm 101.6 mm
Daily rainfall detail, supplied by the Bureau ofMeteorology for Bendigo (and Harcourt) for the much more significant event in January, 2011, which was not modelled, (or even discussed), is as follows
Bendigo Airport - Station No 081123 Harcourt - Station No 088118 January 2011 January 2011 10 20.6 10 12.2 11 8 11 18.6 12 40.8 12 53.8 13 25.2 13 26.2 14 64.2 3 day rainfall 130.2 mm 14 73 3 day rainfall 153.00 mm 15 5 15 M 163.8 mm 189.2 mm
We, therefore, submit that our property should not be classified as subject to inundation and a LandSubject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) should not be applied to our property in amendment C221 to the City ofGreater Bendigo planning scheme.
Y^sfeithfully Gavan Conroy ^ For and behalf of Mapy/High Pty Ltd
Document Set ID: 3395676 Version: 1, Version Date: 24/06/2016 Version: 1, Version Date: 24/06/2016 Date: Version 1, Version: ID: 3395676 Set Document
ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION
Plans Updated 8-4-2014 GB3005 Lockwood Drainage Upgrade High St to Bendigo Creek
/
/ .-grw / /^L 249.2801 20 Roaa
^"^odRoac '^'2l.oc*woou
"^(WRoaa
°ocf Road
gTRT 24a.a37l
Survey IAN HANCOCK 06C13 AMENDMENTS Approved IZGEND GENERAL NOTES AUTHORIiy NOTES CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO DeeApi NATHAN SARTOn JAN 14 WCmOTV • earMinB Q tmrmm "S ChedvO IAN FROST tltlUTU11M«fT C6«T« B tmrnovwmm •VBMimsTMnr Acpfovedby GITHAL SAIMRAWEBU 0 CnVTMMW .yw^ iiiiwiitirrifTTgivaiprT LOCKWOOD ROAD oouMmsiwMr TUTI\ft Level Boet RevMsn: PTTCXKMwa • p«cFoe»«ewi»piT mWUMillWlMWT mirm ^ KANGAROO FLAT Scele: iaOO{A1) 1:4aO(AS) Fie: MCTIICM.Kl£ -
iMtt t^neiap*/iBETin TO0r«6«i DRAINAGE UPGRADE GB3005
SMer«TAn9« aatv D m«S.T«KHTrp« Version: 1, Version Date: 24/06/2016 Date: Version 1, Version: ID: 3395676 Set Document
ISSUED FOR © © I© © i©® CONSTRUCTION PIT 2 - Plan View Scale 1:20
CAPACITY ((/sec) 160 160 160 161 160 160 JohSEPIoJP ACTUAL FLOW ll/sec) 160 HO 120 120 120 90 wNh3OO0Ht>Pe 375.^.j,^P^RRJ 17SRRCP RRJ 3OO0RCP RRJ 3OO0RCP PIPE DETAILS 315«RCP RRJ SD20 37SeRCP RRJ SD22 375eRCP RRJ SD20 375efiCP RRJ SD20 375eRCP RRJ SD2C SO 22 3OO0RCP RRJ SD22 SD22 S022SD22 SLOPE/GRADE O.AOX OAOX 0 40X 040% 0 40% 0.41)%
DATUM RL 2A21 100 YR API 5 HQL 9 tH
S 9 DEPTH TO INVERT
«o S CP 9 INVERT LEVEL
FINISHED SURFACE 60
o 9 Co EXISTING SURFACE CO o - App. 0.60 5* Section CHAINAGE 9* 230T6 43.091 22790 20 396 16 464 - 10.966 - 23.436 1.931 3OO0HDPE to have DRAINAGELDNGITUNQINAl SECTION FOR LINE1 lOOmm tall from pt SCALES' HORIZONTAL 1 SOD VERTICAL 1100 to pll 0.35 SEP 1
Beware SOmmPVC Gaernafe)
3OO0HDPE to have Pit Schedule - Lockwood lOOmm Ml from pK topR Pif Infernal internal Outlet Outlet inlet inlet Pit Type FSL Easting Northing Remarks No. Width Length Diameter invert RL Diameter Invert RL Depth (mm) (mm) (mm) (ml (mm) (m) (ml (m) (m) (m)
1 SD44 Endwall 600 900 375 247.099 1949 249.048 253885.541 5924165.770
2 SD27 JP 600 900 375 247.191 375 247.191 2.030 249.221 253908.330 5924162.152 Includes SEP.See Detail this page
3 SD29 SEP 600 900 375 247,363 375 247.393 1,575 248.938 253950.878 5924155.331
4 SD29SEP 600 900 375 247.484 375 247.514 1.416 248.900 253973.403 5924151.866
5 SD23 JP 4 SO 450 375 247.596 375 247,596 1.331 240.927 253993.537 5924148.611
6 S023 JP 450 450 375 247.669 375 247.669 1,200 248.869 254011.674 5924145.719
7 SD29 SEP 600 900 375 247.735 375 247.766 1,146 246.881 254027.940 5924143.165
8 SD29 SEP 600 900 375 247.810 300 247.840 1,059 248.869 254038.769 5924141.435
9 SD23 JP 450 450 300 247.933 300 247.933 0.797 248.730 254061.911 5924137.738
10 SD23 JP 450 450 300 248.008 300 248.008 0.652 248.660 254080.353 5924134.005
11 SD29SEP 600 900 300 248.016 0.631 248.647 254082.264 5924134.531
UIGEND GENERAL NOTES AUTHORiry NOTES AUENDUENTS Approved Date Survey IAN HANCOCK DEC 13 t dccmarr • r&(TMnuM EaTMnu Q utmom liJ5nMc'i0i—t.8tof"tiitoi Ml iii|iiii^>jto AUTvovrr CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO Oettgn NATHAN SARTOn JAN 14 —l^iiuMAitoBepWMB^oirW a «• - •wammum g, ^ umwemiBm M«{UaiCAD ATI OieclieO IAN FROST . 9 mACmfTCAMT w m DormoDM ^tvomtPOOHOHMitni Aepievedby CnHAL SAAWRAWEERA nCMA • p.v Cltew ^VMiL LOCKWOOD ROAD m Level Book RevWon: m JMMVVbv* -A- wiPcmrM KtP . KAWnAROn Fl AT Scale 1SOO(A1) 1M0 ^ HwiMNHtu Pw*wra.meriw rwctk* exstmm•«.tvfe C«M nRAINAr;F l IPFiRARF # ^ BLAvCrrAlttN -yyy- ECQtCf 8*—»ni,Pf,)KllPT€fJlW TPOOrm GB3005 — Version: 1, Version Date: 24/06/2016 Date: Version 1, Version: ID: 3395676 Set Document CONSTRUCTION NOTES TREE NOTES 1. When excavating near trees, hydro excavation 1. An disturbed earthem naturestrlp to be reinstated Is to i>e used. Once tree roots are exposed, a ISSUED FOR witti 50mm topsoll and seed. council engineering representative and council 2. All hard paved naturestripes are to have the pavers artxrrist are to Inspect prior to any tree or root CONSTRUCTION removed, deaned, and reinstated after drainage woria are complete on 100mm CL3 FRC compacted to 95%^ removals 3. Alldriveways to tw reinstated as noted 4. Care Isto tie taken to retain as muchconcrete kerbing as possMe. 5. Any street signs'/furniture removed during construction are to be reinstated In the same place once works are complete YMca ^^''oretecarpa. Sawcuttrench width of !j •£^-UZS0RCP ^S02D concrete driveway and rebwiale BeeVuarr fakea • ^52 High Street 'A„.. once construction complete -.i^PpfUji Dt/e isoepvg-iv 22^cp Water 1OO0C CL Remove all aaphalt car partt area and reinstate once complele. Urtemerfdng to be rekwtated ood Road STATION DATA PIT SETOUT Point § Description Easting Northing Level Point t Pit # Easting Northing 901 STN1 2S4030.008 5924122.750 248.637 I 253665.551 5924165.776 902 STN2 2S»Sl.aS2 5924137.365 249.209 2 253906.622 5924162.102 9(U STN3 2&»92.27l 5924165.870 249.290 3 3 253950.678 5924155.331 1142 PSU 1660 254111.614 5924104.064 248.744 4 4 253973.403 5924151.666 5 5 253993.436 5924146.111 6 6 254011.632 5924145.335 7 7 254027.659 5924143.169 8 a 254036.766 5924141.416 9 9 254061.909 5924137.723 10 10 254060.367 5924134.797 11 11 254062.264 5924134.531 Surwy DEC 13 LEGEND GENERAL NOTES AUTHOBmr WTES AMENDMENTS Approved Date NATTIAN SARTOn JAN 14 MTHOflfTV CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO Oaten t iLKnmv • mmunuwi Q ownionr ijmmt >• 1 atlap.H n ••*)• * OkM IAN FROST 6 M • iwuTamwivr cwwnet • tM CONSTRUCTION NOTES TREE NOTES 1. Alldisturbed earthem naturestrip to be reinstated 1. When excavating near trees, hydro excavation ISSUED FOR witb 50mm topsoU and seed. Is to be used. Once tree roots are exposed, a 2. Allhard paved naturestrlpes are to have the pavers councflengineering representative and courtd CONSTRUCTION removed, cleaned, and reinstated after drainage worlcsare artx>r1st are to Inspect prior to any tree or root complete on 100mm CL3 PRCcompacted to95%MT removals 3. Alldriveways to be reinstated as noted 4. Care Is to be taken to retain as much concrete kerblng as possible. 5. Any streetsigns'/fumlture removed during corwtnjctlon are to be reinstated Inthe same place onoe worksare complete Raplaca anllre coneieia drtvenvty btwww teotpeth ^O'-ocfovootfRoad and kerb laybecfc Ramove axMng 3OO0RCP during conatncSan of Replace andra concrsts now37S0ftCP drtvaway twtween footpath and kerb laytwck Replece entire concrete ®^ockwood Road driveway between footpath and kerb layback "CP RRJ SD20 :i^''?3OO0n?^5—tv Conabuct S044 wWi ^pna* Tiue 2r2m 3000mm Rock beaching as showiL FRN/Rgate Construct SeP In kerb "RJSOa) and Gormact to Pit 2. See datal page 4 Lockwood Roao ®^ocicwoodRoart ^'-ockwood Road ...CWre*riije ConairucI new conoMe ^0RCP dwytretwoenlaytradt and footpath Sa'valionArmy lockwoof Road Area In front of currently ''•Ofhaf Remove SeeTrMnole ®'!'SAna3OO0Rcp ood Road Remove artd leooneliud taytreck Remove leybaCIt end reconstruct as SD1 MN HANCOCK DEC IS AUENDHCNTS Approved GENERAL NOTES AinnoRmr notes 12GEND CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO NATHAN SAmOn JAN 14 LANFItOeT BMNcm • m«m«PAu« Miuminum GmM. MIARAWCBIA MiMimxiwHr LOCKWOOD ROAD eei,au<&«WR 1:200 (A1) 1;400(A3) numtiMiicuHT KANGAROO FLAT N SmCCVMW -(^ KACTNOIKU ^ VMTVR lETt* • TTM GB3005 ^ —HWUM ^ •fMMCHrtUPNVV DRAINAGE UPGRADE « mmtiiM A MMVr tTAnOM Daily Rainfall - 081123 - Bureau ofMeteorology Page 1 of2 AiRiraliin (lovcmmcnt Daily rainfall Obeervations of Daly raintal are nominaly made at 9 am local dock time and record the total for the pmviouB24 hours. RainftiU includes el fonrs of predpttalion ttial read) ttw ground, such as rain, drizzle, hal and snow. About rainfalldata station: Bendigo Akport Number: 81123 Opened: 1991 Now: Open Lat: 38.74* S Lon: 144.33* E Elevation: 208 m Key: UnRs" mm 12.3 • Not quaBtycontroled. ;" Part of accumulated total 1 1 zeie 1 4m peb 1 Hv air May 1 •Am j Jut Aug Asp Oet { Nev Dec 1sl 13.2 14.2 0 0 0 0 0.8 13.0 12 0 12 19.4 2nd 0 0 0 0 0 02 1.0 3.6 2.0 0 0 12 3rd 0 0 0 0 02 0.4 02 0 0 0 0 132 4th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 50.6 0 0 10.2 Sth 0 3S 2.0 0 4S 0.2 0 2.6 31.0 0 0 0 6th 0 0 47.0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 7th 0 0 10.0 32.4 0 02 02 02 0 82 0 22.0 6th 0 0 29.0 0 02 0 02 0 0 0 1.6 8.6 9th 0 0 5.8 0 0 1.6 02 0 2A 0 0 172 iOth 0 0.2 02 8.0 0 12 0 15.6 02 0 0 02 11th 0 11J 0 1.0 0.8 0 14.0 16.6 02 0 0 0 12th 0 12.8 0 02 0.4 02 02 9.0 02 0 0 0 13th 0.4 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 42 18.6 112 0 14th 0 0 0 0 0 0 25.4 0 0 112 132 0 15th 0 0 0 02 0 02 9.0 9.8 0 202 0 0 16th 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 6.8 0 122 0 12 17th 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 0.8 0.8 0 02 02 0 leth 0 0 0 0 02 52 0 0 0 02 0 2.6 IOth 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 4.0 272 02 0 0 0 20th 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 02 5.6 0 0 0 6.4 21st 0 0 0 5.6 0 12 0 02 0 0 0 02 22nd 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 02 02 0 0 0 0 23td 0 02 0 0 0 02 0.2 0 0 102 0 0 24th 0 0 0 20.4 0 0 0 12 0 02 0 0 2Sth 0 0 0 5.6 22.4 20.6 02 11.4 0 0 202 0 2eth 0 0 0 0 19.0 172 0 72 0 0 32 0 27th 0 0 1.0 02 02 0 02 4.6 0 0 24.0 0 28th 0 0.2 0 0 1.0 0.4 0 1.0 1.4 0 382 0 29lh 0 21.4 2.6 172 1.6 15.0 0 0.2 0 0 0 30th 0 0 02 52 10.0 5.6 0 0.2 12 0.4 0 31st 0 0 0 OA 0 53.8 0 Highest Daily 13.2 14.2 47.0 32.4 22.4 20.6 2SA 272 50.6 53.6 382 " 22.0" MonthlyTotal 13.6 43.8 118.4 76S 71.6 682 78.0 139.0 96.2 1372 1162 103.6 Annual total for 2010 « 1060.4 mm Summary statistics for all yaars MOW 1 1 Peb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Up ! Oct Nov [ Dec Mean 34.5 32.7 29.6 29.8 46.5 52.6 542 50.1 49.9 392 46.1 40.0 Medan 23.4 22.2 22.0 22.6 33.4 47.5 572 482 45.4 322 42.6 30.4 Highest Daily 64.2 66.4 64.6 45.4 45.6 45.0 302 362 50.6 542 43.6 60.8 I4tri 5th 16th lOtn 12th 1st 24th 30lh 4th 24tn 5lh 27th 20t: 2011 1996 2014 1992 2014 2003 1992 2010 2000 2004 1999 Data wkhin Ihe table whicti are in italics represent otiservatlons which have not t>een ftjilyquality controBed, a process wfiich may take a numtier of mortths to conplde. Whilethese data may be correct, you should exerdse caution Intheir use. For otiservations of daily ralnfal which span more than one day it Indicates that there is some uncertainty assodaled wlh the exact data on which the daly rainfelloccurred. Gaps occur ki the tat)le where a valid observation is net avaiatrie. This is frequently associated withthe otrserver being urravailable (where obaervations are undertaken manually), a feHure In the otisenrlng equipment, or when an event has produced suspect data. ProductCods: IDCJACOOOe reference. 24471026 COPYRIGHT The copyright for any data Is hdd in ttte Commonwealth of Australa and the purchasershalgiveacfcnowledgement of the source in rafarence to thedata.Apart from dealngsunder theCopyright Act, 1969, thepurchaser ^all not reproduce, mcxfify orsupply (try saleorotherwise) thesedata without written pennission. Ifyou need more information, you can contact us via the Climate Data & Information Bnksat: http://wvirw.bom.gov.au/ln6ida/corrtacls.shlmi LiABIUTY Whte every effortis made to supplythe best data availablethis miy not be possible Inallcases. Wisdo not giveany warranty,nor accept any lebiRy In relation to the Informationgrvan. except that RabiMy (Ifany), that is required by law. Pagecrsated Wed 16 Jun 2016 09 14:D1AM EST Document Set ID: 3395676 Version: 1, Versionhttp://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display... Date: 24/06/2016 15/06/2016 Daily Rainfall - 081123 - Bureau ofMeteorology Page 1 of2 Aintniliin Ciovemment hiitraij i>r Mrtfrtrclopv Daily rainfall Obssrvatiom of Daiy raintall are nomiitaHy made at 9 am local dock tima and record thalolalfoftha previous 24 hours. RahifeJIIncludes al fonra of predpHatbn dial read* the ground, such as rain, drizzle, hal and snow. About ralnfeiH data station; BendlgoAirport Number: 81123 Operted: 1901 Now: Open Lat: 36.74* S Lon: 144.33' S Elevation: 206 m Key: Unlsa mm 12.3 • Not quaSty oontroBed. i * Part of accumulated total 2011 1 ! Hb Mv Apr 1 Iky Jun J«il Au. , 6k) I Od Nov 1 Om 1 let 0 0 7.8 0 0 02 0 02 0 42 0 0 2nd 0 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0 0 1J 02 0 0 0 0 4th 0 17.6 0 0 0 5.0 7.6 0 0 0 0 0 ah 0 66.4 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 0 6th 0 17.6 0 0 0 1.6 0.6 2.4 0 22 0 0 Tlh 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 7.0 0 0 0.4 0 8th 0 0 0 0 0 OS 0 6.4 0 02 8.0 0 9th 0 0 1.0 0 0.4 0 0 0.2 0 10 4.6 0 1«h 20.6 0 12.4 19.0 0 0 0 14.8 1.4 0 272 0 11th 8.0 3.6 0 21.6 1.2 02 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 52 12th 40.6 6.2 0 0 1.8 0 0 0.2 02 04 0 02 13th 25.2 0 0 0.4 1.4 0.4 12 0 02 0 0 0 14th 64.2 0 6.6 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 12 0 15th 5.0 0 0 0 0 02 02 02 0 0 0 0 16th 0.2 0 0 0 0 02 0.4 4.0 0 0 82 0 17th 0 0.4 0 0 0 1.8 152 14.6 0 0 0 0 lah 0 0.2 0 0 0 02 3.6 8.4 0 0 0 02 19th 0 32.0 0 0 0 02 02 9.4 0 0 6.0 26.4 20th 0 0.4 0 0 0 02 0 0 i 0 5.0 0 2181 0 0 0 1.4 0 7.4 0 02 4.0 02 0 0 2 days 22nd 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 23rd 0 0 0 0.2 72 IS 0 02 0 102 02 0 24th 0 0 16.0 0 0.8 1.4 62 0 0 0 0 0 2ah 0 0 0.2 0 0 02 1.6 02 0 02 1.4 0 2ah 13J 0 0 0 0 02 02 0 0 0 1.0 0 27th 0 7.8 0 0 0.4 02 0 0 0.2 0 52 0 2eth 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 02 0 29th 0 0 0 0.2 02 02 0.6 43.6 4.4 0 0 30th 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.6 0 31st 0 0 0.2 12 0 0 0 Highest Daily 64.2 66.4 16.0 21.6 72 7.4 152 14.8 43.6 102 27.8 28.4 MordhlyTotal 177.8 1S.2 46.0 43.0 15.6 22.6 53.8 70.2 50.0 242 70.6 34.4 Annual total for 2011« 761.0 mm Sunwnary statistics for all years 1 Jun Jul Aug Nev StaHstk Jae Pd> 1 Mw 1 *** Iky i Swi Get j OM j Mean 34.5 32.7 29.6 29.8 46.5 62.6 542 50.1 492 392 46.1 40.0 Medtan 23.4 222 22.0 22.6 33.4 47.S 57S 462 45.4 32.0 422 30.4 Htghest Daily 64.2 66.4 64.6 45.4 45.6 45.0 302 362 so.e 542 432 602 14tPl sw i6in lom i2tn 191 24tn 30t^ 4t^ 24tn 601 271(1 :oti 2011 1996 2014 1992 2014 2003 1992 2010 2000 2004 1999 Data wlhin the table which are In Kaltcs represent observationswhich have not been fully qudlycontroBed, a process v^lch may take a number of monthsto complete.Whilethese data may Irecorrect,you should exercise caution kitheir use. Forobservations ofdaRyraintallwhichspot more than one day It hdieates that there Is some uncertainty associated withthe exact date on which the daUyrainfalloccurred. Geps occur inthe table where a validobservation is notavaRable.This Isfrequentlyasaodeted withthe observer being unav^labie (whm observations are undertaken manually}, a talure in the observkig equipment, w when an event has produced suspect data. I^oduet Cods: lOOlACOOCS reference: 2447t049 COPYRIGHT The copyrlghl forany data IsheldInthe Commonwealth of AustraBa and the purchasershaBgiveadmowledgamenl ofthe source Inneferwrce to thedata. ApartfromdeaDngsunder the CopyrightAd, 1966, the purchaser shall not reproduce, modify or supply(byaale or otherwise)these data without wrttlen pemiisslon. Ifyou need more Information,you can corrtad us via the CBmate Data & Inforrmdlonlinksat: httpy^r^.bom.gov.au/lnside'contacts.shtml •ABILITY Whileevery effortis made to supplythe best data availablethis may not be possiile InaBcases. We do not giveany warrarrty,nor accept arty BablBty Inrelation to the Informationgiven, except that BablBty ^ any), that Is required by law. Document Set ID: 3395676 Version: 1, Versionhttp;//www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?pnccObsCode=136&p_display... Date: 24/06/2016 15/06/2016 Daily Rainfall - 088118 - Bureau ofMeteorology Page 1 of2 Auslnliin (lovemmem . , hiiieau Daily rainfall Observations of DaOy rainMI are norrtiraly iTBdeat 9 am local docktime and reoord the total for the prevbue 24 hours. Rainfall includes aBforms of predpltation that reach ttw ground, such as raJn. drizzle, hal and snow. Alaoutrainfalldata Station; Harcoint Number: 6B118 Opened: 1968 Now: Open Let; 37.00'S Lon: 144.26* E Elevation: 335m Key: Unks > rrcm 12.3- Not quslty controlled. 1 - Pait of aocianulaled total 2011 i 1 Fsb i Msr Apr May 1 Jun Jul Aog : Sep j Oet Nov Ose 1 Ist 0 0 11.6 0 0 0 0 05 0 75 0 0.6 2nd 0 0 0 0 2.2 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 3rd 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 4th 0 1.6 0 0 0 1.8 5.6 0 0 0 0 0 SIh 0 72.2 0 0 0 0 6.4 0 0 0 0 0 6th 0 4.4 0 0 0 2.6 6.8 3.0 0 15 0 0 7th 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 4.6 3.4 0 0 0 0 8th 0 0 0 0 0 3.8 0 0.8 0 35 5.0 0 9th 0 0 0.8 0 15 0.8 D 0.8 1.0 25 3.0 0 10th 12.2 0 6.8 20.8 0 0 0 11.0 15 05 105 0 11th 18.6 3.8 0 20.6 25 05 3.0 1.0 15 0 0 95 12th 53.8 6.8 0 0.6 3.8 0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0 13lh 26.2 0 0 1.6 2.8 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 14th 73.0 0 1.0 1.8 2.8 0 15 0 0 0 0.8 0 15th 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16lh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.8 0 0 4.0 0 17th 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 105 19.6 0 0 0 0 18th 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 65 135 0 0 0 i 19th 0 24.8 0 0 0 2.6 0.6 6.8 0 0 10.4 58.8 2 days 20th 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 0 10.6 0 7.4 0 2l8t 0 0 0 9.6 0 115 0 0 4.4 3.4 0 0 22nd 6' 0 0 1.0 15 3.0 0 0.8 0 5.4 0 0 23rd 0 0 0 0.6 175 65 0 0 0 9.4 0 0 24tii 0 0 13S 0 4.6 0.6 6.6 0 0 0 0 0 2»h 0 0 2.6 0.2 05 0 1.8 0 0 15 0 15 2691 7.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 05 1.0 27th 0 7.4 0 0 2.0 0 0 0 i 0 295 0 28lh 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 0 0 2.6 0 0 0 2 days 29th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 485 75 0 0 30th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 0 15 0 31 St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Highest Dally 73.0 72i 13.8 20.8 175 115 105 19.6 48.2 9.4 295 9.4 Monthly Total 196.8 120.8 36.4 56.8 43.0 40.0 57.6 K.8 73.2 425 72.8 415 Annual total for 2011 - 846.8 mm Summary statistics for all years Statistk Jan ! Psb Msr Ape May Jim 1 J«il auq : Sw> ! Oet Nov Otc Mean 45.5 40.9 37.0 47.8 63.1 68.2 725 77.0 67.1 645 63.9 39.8 Median 38.6 21.4 25.4 42.8 S2.S 68.6 735 81.0 63.0 585 475 315 Highest Daily 73.0 72.2 46.6 49.5 64.8 43.6 54.6 58.0 485 75.4 68.8 56.4 Uttl 5m 6m 22r(J 15m 22na 16m 30m 29m 24m 27m 7m 2011 2011 2010 1970 1974 1987 1990 1992 2011 3000 2010 2008 Data wkhkithe taUe whichare in laHcerepresent obeetvaliora wftich have not been fuly qualitycontroited.a process whichmay take a number of morrths tocomplete. While ttieee data may beeorred.you diouM exercise caution in th^ use. For ottservations ofdaly rainfoB v4ilch span tnore than one day Itbdicates that there is some uncertaintyessodded withtha exad date on whichthe deityrainfaH occurred. Gaps occurkithe tablewherea valid observation is notavailable. ThisIsfrequantly associated with the observerbeingunaveilabie (Mftera obeetvattons are undertaken manually), a foAure inthe observingequipment, or whan an event has produced suspect data. Preduet Code: IDCJAC0009 reference: 24471178 COPYRIGHT Thecopyright foranydateis heldIntheCommonvrealh ofAustralia andIhe purchaser shaB giveacknowledgement ofthesourceinreference to the data. ApartfromdeaBngs underthe Copyright Act,1968,the putchaeerstiallnot reproduce, morSfy or supply(try sale or otherwise) tliesa data withoutwrittenpermission.Ifyou need more kiformaBon. you can contad us viathe Ornate Data &Information Nnks at: hBpy/w^.bom.gov.au/insiddcontacts.8html UABILiTY Whileevery effortis made to supplyIhe best data avaltabtothis maynot be possible Inaltcases. Wb do not giveany warranty,nor accefk any labilityinrdatton to the infbmiation given,except that Rablllty (Ifany),that is required by law. Document Set ID: 3395676 Version: 1, Versionhttp://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_ticcObsCode=136&p_display... Date: 24/06/2016 15/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 Document Set ID: 3397734 Version: 1, Version Date: 28/06/2016 C \ Epsom-Huntly Drainage Committee I RECEIVED 244 Midland Hwy, Epsom Vic 3551 3 0 JUN 201S Cny OF GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING DEPARTMENT State the grounds on which the Bendigo Urban Flood Study amendment Is supported or opposed, including any supporting evidence; and, if opposed indicate what changes (if any) you wish the City to make to the amendment. Submission by the Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee (EHDC) - 29^^ June 2016 The Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee is a community elected committee of6 members that represent the Epsom and Huntly district. The members are all residents ofthe area and have extensive experience in relation to localised flooding. Many members have several generations of flood experience over their substantial landholdings. The committee have held public meetings and have been very proactive in consulting with the community over flooding issues. The EHDC developed and produced a flood mitigation concept plan for the area and then secured a $250,000 grant from the Government to help fund more detailed investigations and designs. The EHDC have been intimately involved in the Bendigo Urban Flood Study though our review function of various drafts that the CMA produced. As we identified areas of concern with the accuracy ofthe study, we became increasingly frustrated that the CMA (as project managers) were unable or unwilling to provide solutions. We make the following Statements. Peer Review. There was a peer review process undertaken ofthe flood study methodology but there has been no peer review ofthe actual accuracy of the outcomes detailed in the final report. At the first challenge to the accuracy of the flood study during a VCAT hearing, the local residents demonstrated that the flood study did not align with what locals had observed during actual flood events. There are residents that have flood study mapping that shows water on areas oftheir property where water has never been. There are other residents that have mapping that shows no water when there actually is water. The second group ofresidents feel that they have had a win and will obviously choose not to make a submission. Statistically, this means that the Council will not get the feedback required to fully appreciate the true level ofdiscrepancy in the flood study. The next major flood event will certainly provide the residents with an opportunity to gauge the accuracy ofthe flood study. Topographical and Physical Survey. Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data for the region was made available from the NCCMA. LiDAR was available in 1 m and 10 m grid resolutions for the Document Set ID: 3400168 Version: 1, Version Date: 30/06/2016 entire catchment. The LiDAR data was captured in 2009. There has been exponential growth and development since 2009. Some developments suchas supermarkets and sport centers havedrastically altered the landscape and water courses. There are residential estates that have been built post 2009 that have put over1 metreoffill inareas that were essentially swamps previously. This development has significantly reduced the natural retention capacity and accelerated the runoff into the waterways. The EHDC has presented video evidence to Council showingthe speed at which the Bendigo Creekcan reach the levee bank and water flowing the wrong way out drainage pipes. The flood study assumes 100% flow in the drainage pipes in a downstream direction. Flow out of the pipes inan upstream direction will have a dramatic effect on flood modeling and overland flows. The EHDC are not confident that the Flood Study Final report incorporates the most recent developments. Base data. TheBendigo Urban Flood Study had limited historical data to workwithat the beginning. By its ownadmission, the Flood Study struggled to find data from various flood events that correlated to other flood events. A variety of reports produced overtimefrom various consultants also failed to provide a consistent database for the FloodStudy.Some of these studies and reports were then not considered further because they did not fit the assumed model. The actual Bendigo Urban Flood Study Final Report dated November 2013 islittered with disclaimers and comments on the lack ofdata available or justifications for using an alternative methodology. The following are but a few: • WaterTechnology PtyLtd does not warrant this document is definitive nor free from error and does not accept liability for any loss caused, or arising from, reliance upon the information provided herein, (page ii] • Thehydrologic RORB model was calibrated overa range of recent events with mixed success. The available calibration data was oflow quality with gauge records notmatching with anecdotal information and regional comparisons to nearby gauges. (Page iii] •Areview ofthe gauge data qualitycodesat bothsites identified that the while the event data was available, it was of poor quality and extrapolated beyond the minorflood level (approximately 60m3/s). Examination of the flood hydrographs for these events show fairly flattened peaks, not • reaching a sharp peakthat mightbe expected (particularlyat the Bendigo gauge location where the hydrograph would respond quickly to urban runoff). (Page 14} • Notably, only the Bendigo Airport rainfall gauge lies within the Bendigo Creek catchment, with all other gauges outside the catchment boundary. (Page 14) • Areview of the stream flowgauge data quality codes at both sites identified that both the flow and level data was of poor quality and extrapolated when flows were greaterthanapproximately minor flood Document Set ID: 3400168 Version: 1, Version Date: 30/06/2016 level. Examination of the flood hydrographs for these events show fairly flattened peaks, not reaching a sharp peak that might be expected. (Page 20} It was also noted that the Bendigo Creek at Bendigo Gauge barely recorded a rise in water level for the February 2011 event despite photos, videos and anecdotal evidence indicating a significant flood event through central Bendigo. (Page 20) The RORB model calibration for the March 2010 flood event at Huntly is not ideal however it is considered that the gauge data is in error and the calibration cannot be improved further. It is difficultto fit the calculated hydrograph due to the erroneous flattened peaks recorded in the gauge data. The difference in observed and estimated peak flow at Huntly is 72%, while the difference between estimated and observed flood volume is 19.5%. The fit of the calculated to observed rising and falling limbs is considered good at the Huntlygauge. It was not possible to calibrate at the Bendigo gaugedue to poor gauge data includingminimal flow readings throughout the March event. (Page 24) Due to the poor quality ofdata available for calibration, the achieved fit of calculated to observed data was generally poor, particularly for peak flow. Therefore alternative methods to determine Kc values were investigated, to comparethese estimatesto the parameter estimates from calibration. (Page 30) Thedesignlosseswere not based on the lossesadopted in the calibration events. Lossesapplied for the March 2010,September 2010 and February 2011 are highly dependent on antecedent catchmentconditions and are not suitable for design flood estimation. (Page 31) Thedesignlosseswere not based on the lossesadopted in the calibration events. Lossesapplied for the March 2010,September 2010 and February 2011 events are highly dependent on antecedent catchment conditions and are not suitable for design flood estimation. Design losses for the March 2010 event in particular were quite large in an attempt to reduce the modelled stream flow hydrographs to match the observed gauges, but regardless ofthe losses applied the modelled hydrographswere still too high, this could haveto do with the fraction imperviousness applied to the various model subareas. (Page 32) Due to the poor qualityof data availablefor verificationand the uncertaintyabout the magnitudeofpeakflows, the achieved fit of calculated flood peaks from RORB to observed flood frequency analysis was also poor. Therefore regional methods were used to estimatepeak flows for comparison. (Page 41) Modelled peak water levels and flows were extracted at the Bendigo Creek at Bendigo Gauge and compared against recorded gauge levels and Document Set ID: 3400168 Version: 1, Version Date: 30/06/2016 flows as well as flows from the RORB model. The comparison between the hydraulic model and observed peak flood levels showed an excellent correlation for the March 2010 event and a poor correlation for the February 2011 and September 2010 events, however as previously discussed the recorded data during these events is of poor quality. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this comparison. A comparison at the Huntly gauge was not possible as an accurate gauge elevation was not available. The gauge elevation recorded on the Victorian Data Warehouse indicates an elevation which is lower than the topography in the area. Further investigation of this data would need to occur for this comparison to be made. (Page 43] These are just a selection of the many statements within the Final Report that highlights the lack of data available to the Consultants. The Floodstudy further details the many and varied methodologies that the consultants employed to find a best fit.The real question is, did the best fit result in the right outcome and what degree of accuracy was achieved. Climate Change The modelling does not consider the possibility that climate change may make extreme events more intense (i.e. higher rainfall intensities/totals for given return periods, or reduced return periods for given rainfall intensities/totals). There are multiple lines of evidence that indicate that such a change is likely, including the IPCC's "SREX Report" (2012) which shows that for Sth Australia and New Zealand (see figure and description below], by 2046-65 (-2055] the 20 year return period could reduce to about 14-18 yrs (depending on the emission scenario that plays out] and by 2081-2100 (—2090] to about 8-15 years (depending on the emission scenario]. S ZeiiiFKj • W • •0 20.15-8S 2C«1-a> Document Set ID: 3400168 Version: 1, Version Date: 30/06/2016 50 1C ^ Hi r vcdift- 3 I 3 1 Kiei-DO kmirtsi II All A2 Dktmm *1 fftim in:(w rro'i fitp.rr: tftrfrrw ;f»c»MifW (Mt CH^iorO FigureSPM.4B | Projected return periods for a daily precipitation event that was exceeded in the late 20th century on average once during a 20-year period (1981-2000). Adecrease in return period implies more frequent extreme precipitationevents (i.e., less time between events on average). The box plots show results for regionally averaged projections for two time horizons, 2046 to 2065 and 2081 to 2100, as compared to the late 20th century, and for three different SRES emissions scenarios (Bl, AlB, A2) (see legend). Results are based on 14 GCMs contributing to the CMIP3. The level of agreement among the models is indicated by the size ofthe coloredboxes (in which 50% ofthe model projections are contained), and the length ofthe whiskers (indicating the maximum and minimum projections from all models). The EHDC would like to know what impact climate changewill have and should it be part of the current Flood Study? Attachment 1. Please find attached a copyofthe EHDC letter to Council dated 30^ july 2015. This letter clearly states our reasons for not fully endorsing the Flood Study and our belief that the Flood Mapping should be continually upgraded when better information becomes available and/or when major developments take place. Conclusion. We look forward to having input into any future developments with the Flood Study. Ouraim is onlyto achievethe best possible outcomes for the community that we represent. Yours faithfully Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee Chairman Secretary Ron Bergmeier Bill Knight Document Set ID: 3400168 Version: 1, Version Date: 30/06/2016 Epsom-Huntly Drainage Committee 244Midland Hwy, w Epsom Vic 3551 Mr. Darren Fuzzard Director, Presentation & Assets City ofGreater Bendigo PC Box 733, Bendigo, VIC 3552 30^ July 2015 Dear Sir RE: Adoption ofBendigo Urban Flood study As per our previous discussions, the Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee (EHDC) is mindful of the need to move forward with the adoption of the new Planning Amendment scheme incorporating the Bendigo Urban Flood Study. The EHDC is a community elected representative group. We were invited to provide comment on the accuracy ofvarious components of the flood study. We fully understand that there has been a huge amount of investigation, data collection and computer modelling undertaken to generate the most current flood mapping plans. This information will allow Council to better manage their waterways and Infrastructure. Our consultations with long-term residents ofthe community still confirm that there are inaccuracies with the final mapping in relation to overland flows. There have been many issues raised by local residents during the flood study consultative process that remain outstanding and have not been adequately resolved by the C.MA. The EHDChave produced video evidence ofoverland flows during flood events that were not consistent with the flood mapping for that area. The EHDCwould also encourage council to consider that the flood study should be a living document that is to be reviewed as required when further reliable data becomes available. As a minimum, the flood study mapping should be rigorously evaluated against any future flood event similar in magnitude to the January 2011 flood. We understand that Council is using already using the flood study data for planning purposes and supporting evidence at VCAT hearings. The insurance industry has certainly adopted aspects of it as displayed by the increases in insurance premiums. The EHDC cannot fully endorse the accuracy ofthe flood study and resultant mapping for all the reasons provided above but we are cognisant of the fact that Council should use the best tools available when planning for future developments. The flood study is the best available tool at this stage and should be adopted on that basis only. Yours Faithfull}^' Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee Chairman Secretary Ron Bergmeier Bill Knight Document Set ID: 3400168 Version: 1, Version Date: 30/06/2016 From: Cornish Family Sent: 28 Jun 2016 22:59:03 +1000 To: Flood Study Subject: Submission re Planning Scheme Amendment C221 Importance: Normal Dear Sir/Madam I am the joint owner of 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom which is proposed to be subject to the LSIO1 and SBO2 overlays as proposed by Planning Scheme Amendment C221 and I make the following submission concerning this proposed planning scheme amendment. Special Building Overlay – SBO2 With regard to the proposed SBO2 we accept that a breach of the Bendigo Creek Levee will cause stormwater to move in a north-easterly direction, however we are also concerned that there was no mention in the report Bendigo Urban Flood Study (November 2013) of the role of the Ascot Channel which is owned and operated by Coliban Water. This open gravity irrigation channel runs in a south to north direction and is located between our property and the Bendigo Creek, this channel is shown on Fig 6-3 (page 81) of the report as a River/Creek. We would have expected that this channel which conveys irrigation water to the north via gravity would have provided some mitigation and are concerned that the report does not even recognise its existence. Please confirm if the modelling considered the function and operation of this channel? Land Subject to Inundation Overlay LSIO1 We recognise that the theoretical flood modelling which has been undertaken nominates approximately 10% of our land to be impacted by a flood level of 178.1m AHD, with the lowest point on our block being 177.96m AHD, resulting in the proposed LSIO1 overlay. Flood Model – Peer Review We do not have the resources to undertake or commission a review of the flood model or the modelling assumptions, we are however concerned that our family has owned this property for in excess of 50 years and never had flood waters enter the property during this time, particularly from the storms (from 1973 onwards) used to calibrate the model. As this proposed planning scheme amendment impacts a significant number of properties, particularly from a value perspective, we would have expected that an independent peer review of the study and the model would have been undertaken and published to give some confidence to landowners that this work and its implications were independently and vigorously reviewed, something which only is brought about by a truly independent peer review. The evidence base for this proposed amendment is the Bendigo Urban Flood Study (November 2013), which at page 54, section 4.5, details ‘Finally these flows were reviewed by an independent technical review panel not Document Set ID: 3398353 Version: 1, Version Date: 29/06/2016 associated with the project and approved for use’. This report does not detail who comprised the ‘independent technical review panel’ or what their qualifications were or the scope of work they performed. It is requested that the report produced by this ‘independent technical review panel’ reviewing and approving the stormwater flows, be released for consideration and transparency, and to also demonstrate that a truly independent review was conducted by independent experts in the flood modelling field and not merely other employees of the consultant you engaged to undertake this study. Furthermore, the published flood water maps do not appear to include the impact of the open agricultural irrigation channel on the north west side of Sergeants Road which enters an open pit near the Midland Highway and is then gravity piped under the Midland Highway to another open pit on the north east corner of the Midland Highway and Sergeants Road – historically this was used to move irrigation water from the Ascot Channel on the west side of the Midland Highway to farming properties on the east side of the Midland Highway. In a flood situation, this is likely to move a significant amount of water. Historically, there was also a similar pipe under the Highway to the south of our property which supplied water to the property on the south east corner of Sergeants Road and the Midland Highway which is believed to be still in place. Both these pipes provide mechanisms for water to move from the west to the east sides of the Highway – and thus produce patterns of water movement which are not considered in the published flood water maps. We consider that the Bendigo City Council should review the Sargeants Road drainage patterns in view of the existence of these pipe connections between the west and east sides of the Midland Highway and their likely role in moving water and mitigating flood situations. LSIO1 is the Wrong Overlay Based on the flood water maps published we consider that the prediction of stormwater entering our property is resulting from the inadequate urban drainage system and not creek flooding. The stormwater which is predicted to enter our property is coming from the open stormwater drain along the west side of the Midland Highway and it would appear that an inadequately sized culvert along this open drain at Sargeants Road and the constructed level of Sargeants Road are impacting the 1 in 100 year flow path, resulting in the theoretical model predicting that stormwater will enter our property. The Sargeants Road culvert has been in place for many decades and would never have been designed for the development which has occurred upstream from this location today, including the construction of the Epsom/Huntly Regional Sports facility by the Bendigo City Council. It is our opinion that should this culvert be increased to an appropriate size for this location (ie, 2 by 600mm diameter culverts) to cater for the 1 in 100 year flow path, then the modelling would not show any of the 1 in 100 year flood water entering our property. We consider that the LSIO1 overlay should not be applied to our property, as the theoretical flood modelling is predicting minimal stormwater entering our property (largely confined to building set-back areas at the north-east corner of our property), which is as a result of an inadequately sized culvert at Sargeants Road. We also consider Document Set ID: 3398353 Version: 1, Version Date: 29/06/2016 that the Bendigo City Council should review the Sargeants Road culvert and include the upgrade of this culvert within the Council Capital Works Program. If an overlay is to be applied to our property we consider that it would be more appropriate for this overlay to be SBO1, as opposed to LSIO1, as the stormwater predicted to enter our property is as a result of the in adequacies of the existing urban drainage system. Conclusion 1. We request that the LSIO1 overlay not be applied to 89 Sargeants Road, as the theoretical flood modelling is predicting minimal stormwater entering our property (largely confined to building set-back areas at the north-east corner of our property), which is as a result of an inadequately sized culvert at Sargeants Road. If an overlay is to be applied to our property we consider that it would be more appropriate for this overlay to be SBO1, as opposed to LSIO1, as the stormwater predicted to enter our property is as a result of the in adequacies of the existing urban drainage system. 2. We are concerned that real property values are being negatively impacted by a theoretical flood modelling exercise, which appears not to have been independently peer reviewed. We call on the Bendigo City Council to release the report produced by the ‘independent technical review panel’ reviewing and approving the stormwater flows, for consideration and transparency, and to also demonstrate that a truly independent review was conducted by independent experts in the flood modelling field; 3. We request that the Bendigo City Council review the Sargeants Road culvert and include the upgrade of this culvert within the Capital Works Program; 4. We request confirmation as to whether the Ascot Channel was considered in the modelling to determine the SBO2 overlay area; and 5. We request that that the Bendigo City Council review Sargeants Road drainage patterns in view of the existence of pipe connections between the west and east sides of the Midland Highway and their likely role in moving water and mitigating flood situations. Yours sincerely Charles Cornish 37 Goode Street, Gisborne Mob 0417 018 730 Ph 54 282 453 Document Set ID: 3398353 Version: 1, Version Date: 29/06/2016 Thank you for the opportunity to put in a submission regarding the Bendigo Urban Flood Study Planning Scheme Amendment. My name is Andrea Metcalf and I live at 45 Strickland St Ascot. I am opposing the amendment on the grounds that the NCCMA, in its’ community consultation phase, have chosen to ignore information that was provided to them by residents that were living in the Ascot area during 1973 during a 1 in 100 year rain fall event, and in January 2011 in a 1 in 50 year rainfall event. Rain fall analyses using the Bureau of Meteorology’s IFD curves for Raywood (which has a record from 1898 onwards) indicate that the 1973 Feb 19th event (1 day total) has an ARI of around 1 in 100 year, while the 2011 Jan 14 event (5day total) has an ARI of around 1 in 50 years. From the email trail below, it is evident that I have been trying to follow up with NCCMA whether information about the flood effects on property in 1973 and 2011 has been incorporated into the flood study. This information has been provided to them at two VCAT hearings and a property inspection which NCCMA attended. My reasons for opposing the amendment include Community feedback provided to NCCMA has not been considered and has not been incorporated into the NCCMA Flood Eye Mapping tool. Information provided about 73 Howard St regarding historic levels was stated as being comprehensively checked by NCCMA, yet we were able to show that there were clear discrepancies with the depths of water through the site and the BUFS modelled information. The NCCMA has not acknowledged the detailed comparison residents made as part of the VCAT submission. From VCAT ruling Ethan Property Group Vs Greater Bendigo CC (2014) VCAT 824 (10 JULY 2014) . The models cannot be readily or simply reconciled. We have not recited all of the assessments and conclusions but they demonstrate the fact that different outcomes can occur because of the many variables such as blockages, ground conditions and roughness values. None of the assessments have modelled climate change, which, as we have recited above, is a relevant matter under Clause 11. While the CMA’s 200 year ARI estimate may have relevance to this point, we have no information about changed velocities and flows in such circumstances. . There is no indication that flooding over the site will decrease into the future mindful of further development in the catchment with more runoff and more obstructions such as fencing, as well as the potential increased rainfall intensity if climate change is considered. . Flooding could begin within 6 hours of rainfall commencement . Bendigo has no flood warning scheme, and none is planned. Document Set ID: 3400776 Version: 1, Version Date: 01/07/2016 Given the absence of gauged flows for Back Creek, further effort must be made to ensure that modelled flood depths for that catchment match historical levels and comparisons must be made with results of earlier studies. Additionally, justification should be provided for the differences found. The complete lack of reference to the January 2011 floods in the BUFS is also particularly remarkable, given the impacts in the Back Creek Catchment for this event. Further, it was acknowledged by the NCCMA at a VCAT hearing that despite earlier advice, the Taylor St culverts were not modelled as being there at all. One would have to question, therefore, what terrain (elevations) the model actually ‘sees’ for that vicinity and whether it actually backs flows up against the elevated road - which surely would affect peak flows. The BUFS calibrated their modelling against flows at two key locations in Bendigo Creek, but there are many parameters in the model that can be adjusted to achieve this “fit”. It should also be noted that difficulties with the gauged data for Bendigo Creek were significant, and that even the BUFS calibrated model could not reproduce flows for one of their chosen events. It could be argued that the Back Creek catchment component of the model was really no more “calibrated” for the BUFS than it was for the earlier studies. As noted above, in the absence of gauged streamflow data you would have thought more effort should have been put into comparing observed and historic modelled depths. I also have a letter signed by Camille White from NCCMA that she did not know what the flow levels are at Back Creek. This is dated the day after Camille had spent three days at VCAT arguing about the flows from Back Creek. This gives me no confidence in the information that is in the BUFS. I have another property at Butts Road Eaglehawk, which is also subject to this Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment. I lived in Eaglehawk in 1973 and can remember the volume of water at the time of the 1 in 100 rainfall. At the consultation meeting at Epsom Huntly Recreation Reserve on the 31/5/2016, I discussed this property with Shaun Morgan from the NCCMA. He said there is already an LSIO1 on the property, which I already knew. Additionally, he advised the property could flood if the water backed up from Lake Tom Thumb. When I stated that Lake Tom Thumb has a spillway, Shaun said the BUFS shows the bank at the Averys Road end giving way. I then asked how the water would back up and he stated it wouldn’t. I am confident that my property in Butts Road won’t flood as I saw with my own eyes what happened in the 1 in 100 year flood event. Since that time drainage has improved and Lake Tom Thumb developed. I believe historical information cannot just be ignored. Document Set ID: 3400776 Version: 1, Version Date: 01/07/2016 I request that this matter be referred to an independent panel. I will be providing a more detailed submission, together with photographic evidence and statements from residents to support my reasons for opposing the amendment at that time. Yours Sincerely Andrea Metcalf Document Set ID: 3400776 Version: 1, Version Date: 01/07/2016 From: Andrea Metcalf [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 18 July 2014 8:18 AM To: Shaun Morgan Subject: FW: BUFS - Community Consultation Good morning Shaun, Not sure whether this has been forwarded onto you as have had no response so am sending directly to your email for a response. Thanks Andrea Metcalf ______From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: BUFS - Community Consultation Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 12:53:20 +1030 Hi I am writing regarding the public consultation process being undertaken by NCCMA for the Bendigo Urban Flood Study (BUFS). I was away on holidays when the consultation sessions were held for Epsom residents and I have recently read that residents still have the opportunity for input. At two VCAT hearings (March 2013 & June 2014) Camille White was provided with historical information from residents about their experience around the Taylor St/Howard St area during the flood event of February 1973. Additionally, she also attended a meeting in September 2013 with residents, an engineer and Council staff. Can you please advise How this information will be used with regards to the BUFS, as the information provided exceeds the flood depths that are showing in the Flood Study? Whether calibrations have been completed specifically for Back Creek, and if they haven’t been, how will the flows for Back Creek be ascertained? Why Chris Beardshaw, one of the authors and Project Managers of the BUFS was not aware of the previous study of Back Creek completed in 2007 and whether it would have been appropriate for him to be made aware of this report? Why Camille White has signed a letter saying that the peakflows for the Creeks are not known at this time and why NCCMA are providing advice about peakflows for proposed developments without this information? Regards Andrea Metcalf Document Set ID: 3400776 Version: 1, Version Date: 01/07/2016 From: Shaun Morgan Hi Andrea I refer to your email of 4 July 2014 seeking further clarification regarding the Bendigo Urban Flood Study. Camille has assisted to provide the following responses to your questions. She is currently on leave but if you do have any follow up questions I’m happy to discuss it further with you where I can. Shaun. How this information will be used with regards to the BUFS, as the information provided exceeds the flood depths that are showing in the Flood Study? North Central CMA through its consultation process received anecdotal information from a number of community members. All feedback from the community will be considered prior to finalising the results for adoption into the Greater Bendigo planning scheme. Whether calibrations have been completed specifically for Back Creek, and if they haven’t been, how will the flows for Back Creek be ascertained? The Back Creek itself is an ungauged catchment so is unable to be calibrated in its own right. However, the Bendigo Creek downstream of its confluence with Back Creek is gauged, therefore a hydrologic model was developed for Bendigo Creek (Including Back Creek) and calibrated to past flood events. This calibrated hydrologic model was used to determine peak flow rates for Back Creek from Taylor Street. In addition, a separate direct rainfall on grid two-dimensional hydraulic model was developed for Back Creek. The methodology from both of these techniques was reviewed and accepted by an independent technical review panel appointed by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, therefore we have a high level of confidence in the results of the hydrologic modelling. Why Chris Beardshaw, one of the authors and Project Managers of the BUFS was not aware of the previous study of Back Creek completed in 2007 and whether it would have been appropriate for him to be made aware of this report? Water Technology was made aware of the presence of the previous Back Creek report, and it was identified as one of the available documents in the specification that went out for tender. In relation to the previous Back Creek study by EarthTech and the previous Bendigo Flood Study by State Rivers and Water Supply Commission, the hydrologic modelling undertaken as part of these studies was not calibrated, therefore both the North Central CMA and DEPI had a low degree of confidence in the modelling, hence the reason for applying and successfully obtaining funding to undertake a new flood study. Why Camille White has signed a letter saying that the peak flows for the Creeks are not known at this time and why NCCMA are providing advice about peak flows for proposed developments without this information? North Central CMA does not know which letter that you are specifically referring to, North Central CMA would be happy to provide advice if reference to the actual letter was provided. Document Set ID: 3400776 Version: 1, Version Date: 01/07/2016 From: [email protected] Sent: 30 Jun 2016 17:05:54 +1000 To: Flood Study Subject: Submission - UDIA Northen Chapter - Andrea Tomkinson, C/- Tomkinson - C221 Attachments: Submission_to_the_Bendigo_Urban_Flood_Study_Amendment_C221.pdf Name andrea tomkinson, UDIA Northern Chapter Postal C/- Tomkinson Group, PO Box 421, Bendigo VIC 3552 address Contact phone 5445 8700 number Email [email protected] Do you own or occupy land affected by the No Bendigo Urban Flood Study amendment? If Yes, please provide address Maximum 5000 See attached document characters Submission_to_the_Bendigo_Urban_Flood_Study_Amendment_C221.pdf Attachment 1 (Attached) Attachment 2 No file attached Attachment 3 No file attached Document Set ID: 3400878 Version: 1, Version Date: 01/07/2016 Submission to the Bendigo Urban Flood Study Amendment C221 UDIA, Northern Chapter Members: Andrea Tomkinson (Chair), Tomkinson Group Damien Tangey, Birchgrove Brett Bahen, Spiire Paul Bowe, Terraco Fi Cotter, Provincial Matters Damien Cranage, Total Property Development Julian Perez, Villawood Gary Pendlebury, CurrieBrown Darren Pitson, KPD Group The Northern Chapter of the UDIA welcomes the opportunity to provide comment on proposed Amendment 221, implementing the recommendations of the Bendigo urban Flood Study. Applying up to date mapping in relation to Land Subject to Inundation Overlay is to be commended, and in this regard we support Council’s good intentions to provide greater certainty to landowners. However, we would like to raise some concerns in relation to the mapping, which we believe could be addressed through adjustment to the proposed Schedules to the LSIO. Mapping accuracy It would appear the mapping does not consistently take account of existing structures including fences, dwellings, sheds etc. The modelling appears to assume no structures are present and mapping is predicated on consistent overland flows – that is not the reality. In many cases the deepest flooding shown is where there are existing dwellings, which seems at odds with the intent of the proposed overlay. If it is established that mapping is not 100% accurate, then it stands to reason that the policy should recognise that there may be situations where more detailed or up to date information should be taken into consideration. Proposed LSIO1 and LSIO2 The proposed Schedules do not include clear capacity to consider ground proofing as and if more detailed or up to date modelling is made available. Impact on existing infrastructure/dwellings No doubt the flood data has been produced to guide development in the future (and is likely on the conservative side with that view in mind) but a major concern is what impact it will have on existing infrastructure. When on-selling a dwelling this information will form part of the section 32 o many of the affected properties have not been subject to an LSIO previously – they now will and it will include the flood mapping o in many cases it is likely to lead to a significant reduction in property value – even when the modelling is incorrect. Then there is the issue with insurance o the insurance companies collate as much information as they possibly can to determine the risk profile of a property – they probably have this mapping information already. o It may be that some properties cannot obtain insurance, or will be subject to a massive increase in premium There have been over 5,000 notices sent out to affected property owners, but we suspect many have not fully considered the insurance ramifications this mapping may have on their properties. It certainly hasn’t been brought to their attention as part of the information provided. If it is up to the property owner to prove their property is not subject to flooding, it will be a costly and unfair exercise in many cases. We recommend Insurance agencies be consulted on the likely impacts of Amendment C221, and that affected landowners be more directly targeted to ensure awareness. We would be happy to elaborate on the above points, if required, and welcome the opportunity to participate in Panel Hearing. Regards, Andrea Tomkinson Chair, UDIA Northern Chapter APPENDIX B WARWICK BISHOP - CV 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Curriculum Vitae Warwick Bishop Key skills areas Professional History Summary Affiliations Qualifications floods and and models hydraulic 2D of application the on focus particular with Runoff, the for investigations hydraulic Program. environmental Murray Living on principally Basin, Darling Murray the spill oil and current wave, including modelling sediment quality, water flooding, to transport and environmental values. Healso has application their and models and hydrodynamic rural urban of calibration and development the in specialising investigations, hydraulic and has and Technology Water of Director a is Warwick Contact: 1993 1997 2001 2003 2009 · · · · · Engineers Australia Member, RiverBasin ManagementSociety Member, Masters Engineeringof Science, Monash University, 1999 Bachelor of Engineering with Honours (Civil),University of Melbourne, 1992 Offices inOffices Melbourne, Brisbane,Wangaratta and Bairnsdale ra aes Wrik okd n h Fod nelgne nt f E drn the during SES of Unit Intelligence Flood the in worked Warwick areas. urban - - - - - 1997 2001 2003 2009 Present Expert witness reports Investigations Urban flood mapping, flood mitigation and stormwatertreatment Modelling Surface water Wetland, WSUD and water quality investigations has Institution Engineers,of Australia provi Engineer, Lawson and Treloar Pty Ltd Senior Engineer,Lawson and Treloar Pty Ltd Victorian WaterReso Senior Engineer,Water Technology Pty Ltd Director, 15 Busine15 Phone 03 8 Director [email protected] of flooding,of environmental flows, water quality and sediment transport ded valuable insightinto strategic the review of flood riskfor Victoria. - www.wat Victorian Water Engineering Branch Committee of of estuary and coastal hydraulics investigations urban of and rura Senior Principal Engineer, ss Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC Warwick 526 0 ert 800 ech.com.au was or 0403 055 338 urces Manager, Lawson and Treloar Pty Ltd novd n h rvso o Asrla Rifl and Rainfall Australian of revision the in involved investigations extensive experiencein coastal and estuary Water Technology PtyLtd over 3168 l floodplains, rivers and wetlands 20 years’ experience in hydrologic in experience years’ . He has worked extensively in extensively worked has He to flooding in rural in flooding to 2011 Warwick Bishop Key Projects Stormwater Projects (Flooding, Drainage and WSUD) Water Technology Glen Eira WSUD Opportunities – Project director for an options study looking at the potential effectiveness of WSUD measures for flood mitigation. A local case study was undertaken with preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic modelling. PNG LNG Condensate Fate Modelling – Project Director for hydrologic and hydraulic assessment of potential condensate spill scenarios for Gas Pipeline Development. One and two-dimensional models as well as mixing zone calculations were performed. Buckland Park Development, Lower Gawler River – Detailed hydraulic investigation of a large new residential area in a floodplain environment. Development of flood mitigation measures including levees and channels. Inverloch, Broadbeach Resort – Management of flooding issues related to a coastal development on the South Gippsland Coast. Hydrodynamics of the ocean, estuary, creek and township drainage systems have been taken into account to develop an overall flood risk assessment and appropriate land development level. Also included full drainage and WSUD design for the development. Hoppers Lane (Werribee) – Development of a surface water management strategy for a mixed-use development including full WSUD treatment. Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Keysborough South – Development of surface water management strategy for a large residential rezoning. This strategy has been adopted by Melbourne Water as input to their drainage scheme. Stamford Park – Floodplain and wetland design for an industrial development adjoining a community park area for Knox Council. The Strand Traralgon – Development of surface water models and WSUD design (wetlands) to provide treatment for a challenging site, constrained by existing drainage infrastructure and major easements. Ocean View Lakes Entrance Storm water Management Plan - Project director for development plan for a residential subdivision. Included design of wetland systems and retarding basin controls. Cowes WEMP – Project Director in the development of a Water Efficiency Management plan for development in Cowes, use of probabilistic rainfall model PURRS. Darebin Creek –1d Model (HEC-RAS) construction of waterway and analysis of bridge level assessment for Darebin Creek. Project Director. Azola Waters, Pakenham – Functional design of Wetlands system for retirement village. Ongoing water quality assessment using various monitoring equipment. Project Manager/Director. Cuttriss Street Flood investigation, Inverloch – Use of Mike Storm Pipe (Mouse) and two-dimensional (Mike21) linked model for urban storm water flooding. Project Director. Offices in Brookfield Lakes, Bairnsdale, Stormwater Management Plan - Development plan for residential subdivision. Included design of wetland systems and retarding basin Melbourne controls. Project Director. Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop Donga Road main drain catchments drainage study (City of Greater Geelong) - GIS analysis and hydraulic modelling of urban floodplain. Use of TUFLOW as predominate 2d/1d modelling package. Project Director. Stormwater Projects (Flooding, Drainage and WSUD) Lawson and Treloar Sanctuary Lakes Water Quality – Management of a detailed water quality investigation including complex eutrophication modelling of the large lake system and analysis of the upstream wetlands Sandhurst Estate – Management of hydrologic, hydraulic and water quality investigations for a large residential and golf course development in Melbourne’s SE. This investigation included two-dimensional hydraulic analysis, a dynamic-pump system for lake top-up and eutrophication modelling in order to predict future water quality impacts. Knox Golf Course – Development, calibration and application of a detailed MIKE 21 model of Monbulk Creek/Ferny Creek floodplain to assess flood impacts of a proposed golf course. Oyster Cove Development, Coomera River QLD – Development of detailed MIKE 21 sub-models to calibrate roughness over residential developments. Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Nerang River Floodplain – Major involvement in the development and application of a large, detailed 2-dimensional model of the Nerang River Floodplain. Analysis of impact of developments on flooding and investigation of mitigation options. Heritage Golf and Country Club – Development of a MIKE 11 model to assess flood conditions in the Yarra River floodplain for design input. Graceburn Creek, Healesville – development and application of a two-dimensional numerical model of a floodplain for risk assessment, regarding a proposed development. Believed to be the first application of two-dimensional hydraulic modelling on a floodplain in Victoria (1994). Floodplain Investigations Water Technology Project Director for a hydraulic modelling study of the Pike River floodplain (SA MDB NRM Board). Development and calibration of a MIKE FLOOD model of the floodplain and use to inform the concept design of environmental regulators. Project Director for a hydraulic modelling study of the South Australian Katfish Demonstration Reach (DEH). Development and calibration of a MIKE FLOOD model of the floodplain. This model was used to test a number of management scenarios. Lyndhurst Drainage Strategy - Project Director of modelling waterway works for design of Retarding basins and wetlands for the Lyndhurst drainage scheme. Innovative use of linear waterways/wetlands for storage using two-dimensional hydraulic modelling. Chowilla Floodplain Hydrodynamic Model – Supervision of the provision of detailed Offices in modelling services for this important floodplain system on the Murray River in South Australia, near the Victorian/NSW Border. Melbourne Port Fairy Flood Regional Study – A comprehensive review of flood risk to the Brisbane township of Port Fairy and surrounding areas was undertaken. This included detailed Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop hydrologic and hydraulic modelling, mapping and flood damages analysis. In addition, an extensive investigation of the potential impacts of climate change was undertaken. Boggy Creek Wetland Review – Hydrologic and hydraulic review of translocated high- value wetland plots in Seaford adjacent to major road development. Working with ecologists to determine appropriate hydrologic regime. Swan Hill Levee Audit – Investigation of the status of the existing town levee around Swan Hill through the use of a detailed two-dimensional hydraulic model. Assessment of levee system performance and recommendations for future flood mitigation works. Beaufort Flood Study – Management of a comprehensive hydrologic and hydraulic study of the Beaufort township including investigation of 4 creeks that flow through the town. Resolution of complex design hydrology inputs to the township. Dennington Flood Study – Detailed two-dimensional hydraulic model developed to describe inundation of the Merri River floodplain and provide planning information for future growth area near Warrnambool in south-west Victoria. Applying Modelling Tools to Investigate Water Management in the Gunbower Forest – Project manager for the development of a detailed hydraulic model of Gunbower Forest. The model has been calibrated against a number of historic flood events and will be used to assess the effectiveness of a number of potential water management options. These options seek to improve the flooding regime of the forest through the use of environmental flow allocations. The required flooding is determined through a Curriculum Vitae Curriculum set of ecological objectives. Working closely with ecologists to determine hydrologic regime. Hydraulic Modelling for Lindsay, Mulcra and Wallpolla Islands – This project involves the development of a linked one and two-dimensional model of these important floodplain and wetland environments that are included as one of the significant environmental assets or “icon sites” along the Murray River. This area has significant environmental values that suffer from reduced flooding due to river regulation. The hydraulic model will be used to test different management scenarios for floodplain improvement. Murray River Regional Flood Study – Cobram to Tocumwal – Specialist modelling input is being provided for this project with an extensive one and two-dimensional model being developed including the Murray River channel and floodplain. The study area features many man-made controls such as levee banks and irrigation supply channels that dominate the topography. Once established the modelling will be used to develop flood management scenarios on a regional scale. Investigations into Preferred Water Management Options in Gunbower Forest, 2D Modelling - Project management of the hydraulic modelling of the impact and effectiveness of proposed management options to improve watering of the wetlands and floodplain within Gunbower Forest. Glenelg Hopkins CMA Rural Drainage Areas, Water Quality Impact Studies – Hydrologic and water quality analysis of four rural drainage areas specifically to examine the impacts of rural drainage on stream health of the main receiving waters. Living Murray Hydraulic Investigation, Environmental flow for Barmah Millewa Offices in Wetland System – Project and technical management of this significant study within the Murray River system. The project involves the development and calibration of a Melbourne detailed one and two-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the Barmah Millewa Forest Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop for the purposes of determining the impact and effectiveness of various environmental flow management scenarios. Lower Gawler Flood Mitigation Study – Detailed hydraulic modelling of the Lower Gawler River floodplain to investigate the effectiveness of various flood mitigation measures. A combined one and two-dimensional hydraulic model was employed. Scoping Study for Best Management Options for Rural Drainage, Eumeralla and Nullawarre Drainage Areas – Major rural drainage study covering some 18,000 Hectares in south-west Victoria. Processing of ALS/Lidar survey data to assist in detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modelling. Investigation of water quality and environmental impacts of drainage practices and options for implementation of best management practices. South Warrnambool Flood Study – Management of an urban hydraulic and flood mapping study of a major coastal township. Integration of a variety of survey data sources and a development of a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model. Geelong Bypass Hydrology and Hydraulics – Management of the investigations of waterway requirements for this major freeway planning study. Numerous crossings analysed with a variety of techniques ranging from simple one-dimensional to fully two-dimensional models. Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Floodplain Investigations Lawson and Treloar Point Roadknight Drainage Investigation – Development of a detailed pipe and overland flow model for the assessment of flood extents and investigation of potential mitigation options. Lake Burrumbeet and Burrumbeet Creek Floodplain Management Plan – Project and technical management of a comprehensive hydrologic and hydraulic modelling study. Assessment of economic, social and environmental impacts also determined. Morambro Creek Surface Water Allocation – A rigorous hydrological approach was applied to a large catchment in south-east SA utilising a spatially distributed, GIS based hydrologic Model (SWAT). The results will be used in determining future allocation of water rights in the catchment. Glass’s Creek and Bell Street Flood Mitigation Studies – Detailed hydrology and hydraulic modelling has been undertaken in order to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for two densely developed urban areas in Melbourne. The two-dimensional overland flood models are coupled with detailed pipe network modelling to provide a robust and accurate analysis tool. Princes Freeway (Pakenham Bypass), Cardinia Creek Crossing – Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic investigation of a proposed crossing of a particularly sensitive creek environment was undertaken. This involved fine-grid two-dimensional modelling. Little Lang Lang River Waterway Mapping – A combined one and two-dimensional hydrodynamic model of this rural catchment was developed and results integrated into Melbourne Water’s GIS system. Offices in Albury-Wodonga Bypass Hydrology and Hydraulics – Development of a detailed two- dimensional hydraulic model for the assessment of alignment options. The Melbourne development of detailed hydraulic performance criteria for alignment assessment was Brisbane also undertaken. Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop City of Kingston, Flood Mitigation Assessment – Detailed flood modelling of various mitigation options. Utilising local catchment hydrologic and hydraulic models requiring detailed assessment at the block level combined with complex pump systems. Breakwater Road Hydrology and Hydraulics – Review of hydrology and detailed hydraulic modelling of a proposed crossing of the Barwon River floodplain. An innovative hydraulic design was necessary in order to provide zero afflux within this sensitive floodplain area. Shepparton Floodplain Management Investigation for Shepparton City Council – Project management of the hydraulic modelling aspects of the largest rural township flood study undertaken in Victoria. Princes West Project - Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic assessment of the existing status of the Princes West freeway between Melbourne and Geelong fro VicRoads. Crossing upgrades were designed for varying levels of immunity and various configurations. Data Consistency Project Stages 7-10 – These projects involved detailed one and two- dimensional urban flood modelling of stormwater surcharges from the various main drain systems. City of Kingston – Flood Mapping of various locations to supplement Melbourne Water Mapping. Development of local catchment hydrologic and hydraulic models requiring Curriculum Vitae Curriculum detailed assessment at the block level. Data Consistency Project Stage 6 – This project involved detailed two-dimensional urban flood modelling of stormwater surcharges from the main drain system. This work formed a pilot study in which Melbourne Water were able to evaluate the benefits of applying two-dimensional modelling to urban areas. Tambo River Geomorphic Investigation – The 1998 Tambo River event caused significant damage in the floodplain. Specialist two dimensional hydraulic modelling was undertaken as part of an integrated study approach considering flooding, longer term geomorphological processes and potential waterway management options. Tuppal and Bullatale Creek Flood Study – Development and calibration of an extensive model of the Tuppal/Bullatale Creek system as well as the Murray and Edward Rivers between Tocumwal and Deniliquin. This model was set-up for the subsequent analysis of floodplain management options through DLWC (NSW). Strathmerton Route Investigation – Development and calibration of hydraulic models (ranging from steady state backwater to full two dimensional unsteady models) for subsequent hydraulic design. Both Murray River and floodplain areas have been investigated. Swan Hill Regional Flood Strategy – Extensive MIKE 11 modelling of Murray/Loddon River system upstream of Swan Hill to assess effects of proposed regional flood strategies. Traralgon Floodplain Management Study for Shire of Traralgon – As for the Euroa Study, a comprehensive understanding of the flooding mechanisms is being gained through this state of the art fully two dimensional, dynamic flooding investigation. Offices in Euroa Floodplain Management Study for Shire of Strathbogie – This Floodplain Management Study aimed initially at providing a comprehensive understanding of the Melbourne damaging and complex flooding regime at Euroa, and subsequently at assessing Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop potential flood protection measures (mitigation schemes, both structural and non- structural and flood warning systems). Full two dimensional hydraulic modelling was undertaken. Wangaratta Flood Study, Stage 2 – Application of MIKE 11 model to assess various flood mitigation measures. Cairns Airport Drainage Study – Development and application of a detailed 2- dimensional model of the Cairns Airport and Lower Barron Delta in order to assess flood/cyclone hydrodynamic conditions at the Airport. Analysis of mitigation options. Wangaratta Flood Study, Stage 1 – Development and calibration of a MIKE 11 model covering the extensive Ovens/King Rivers floodplain. Yarra River, Melbourne – Development of a detailed MIKE 21 (two-dimensional) model of the Yarra River to investigate the hydraulic features of a small turning basin/wharf. Gippsland Lakes System – One-dimensional model developed to analyse the potential impact of sea-level rise on lake levels. Yarra River, Yarra Glen (VicRoads) – Set up and calibration of both one and two- dimensional models to investigate the impact of a proposed bridge replacement on flood levels. Lower Loddon River Flood Study – development and calibration of MIKE 11 model covering an extensive floodplain network. Vitae Curriculum Coastal/Estuarine Investigations Water Technology Gippsland Lakes Coastal Hazard Assessment – Project manager for a major hazard assessment project looking at impacts of sea level rise on coastal vulnerability throughout the Gippsland Lakes and Ninety Mile Beach. Environmental Water Requirements of the Gippsland Lakes – Managed the input of scientific knowledge around hydrodynamics of the lakes and the freshwater/saltwater interface as well as the impacts of reduced freshwater inputs on these flow mechanisms. Ecological Characterisation of the Gippsland Lakes – Provided hydrodynamic input to a broader characterisation project looking at the various habitats and bio-dependencies in the Gippsland Lakes. Numerous Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Risk Assessments – assessing the change in risk to coastal inundation and stability due to sea level rise and the resulting change in coastal processes. Coastal/Estuarine Investigations Lawson and Treloar Bass Strait – Three-dimensional model (Delft3D) development and calibration for pipeline design currents prediction. Tropical Cyclone Thelma, Three-dimensional Current Model – This project involved the Offices in set-up and calibration of a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model of the Timor Sea and extraction of currents data. Melbourne Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop Mooney Ponds Creek three-dimensional Water Quality Modelling – This project involved modelling of the detailed hydrodynamics of the fresh/salt-water interface in the Yarra River and how this effected the movement of pollutants from storm-water inflows. Port Catherine Development, W.A. – Detailed three-dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality modelling of a proposed harbour development south of Perth. Palm Springs Marina, Malaysia – Development of a two-dimensional model to assess effects of marina on local hydraulics. Corio Bay Sediment Model Verification – Comparison of model predicted and recorded sediment plumes in Corio Bay during channel dredging. Lake Illawarra/Botany Bay – Application of a two-dimensional water quality model to two large waterways. Long term water quality simulations performed and analysed for risk assessment. South China Sea – Two and three-dimensional modelling to determine design currents for oil/gas pipelines. Manila Bay – Analysis of flood behaviour, dredged sediment impacts and flushing characteristics of a proposed area of reclamation in Manila Bay, using one and two- dimensional models. West Point Wilson hazardous chemicals storage facility – Environmental Effects Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Statement. Investigation of proposed facilities effect on nearby coastal processes. East Coast Armaments Complex – Set up of two-dimensional current and wave models to investigate the impacts of proposed port facility. Port Hedland – Set up and operation of numerical model to investigate Cyclone driven winds and wave set up. Western Port – Two-dimensional model investigations of the dispersion of pollutants and the flushing characteristics of Western Port under tidal and wind driven currents. Oil Spill Modelling/Response – Development of oil spill response procedures to perform real-time modelling of oil slick movements in Bass Strait and Western Port. Western Port – Set up and calibration of a numerical model for the development of tidal and wind driven current fields as input to oil spill modelling. Port of Geelong – Application of a two-dimensional numerical model to assess impact of a proposed dredging program on suspended sediment loads in Corio Bay. Bass Strait – Numerical modelling of the flushing characteristics of Bass Strait over a typical year. Expert Witness Reports Adams Creek, Lang Lang – Expert evidence related to rural flooding and drainage issues Donald, NW Victoria – Expert evidence and analysis of flooding issues related to channel networks on farmland in the Wimmera area St Georges Road Northcote - Expert advice and modelling of an apartment Offices in development within SBO Duncans Road South Werribee – Review of hydraulic conditions, flooding and drainage Melbourne for a horticulture area. Provision of expert evidence report. Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop Nunawading – Expert evidence on flooding issues including modelling, for a multi- storey apartment building in a floodway zone Hagen Park Bangholme – Expert advice and modelling of drainage issues in SE Melbourne Noonan Grove Woodend - Expert advice and report on surface water management for a residential subdivision Industrial Subdivision Shepparton/Mooroopna – Expert advice on drainage and flooding issues for land valuation purposes Dandenong Valley, Scoresby – Expert modelling and report on flooding issues and development capability for land valuation Coastal Development Paynesville – Expert report and evidence at VCAT on coastal hazard vulnerability for a residential subdivision School Site Monbulk – Expert report on drainage issues in the Dandenong Ranges Broken River, Stewarton – Expert modelling/report and evident at VCAT for a rural flooding issue Toorak Road South Yarra – VCAT report and evidence in relation to redevelopment of a site within an urban area subject to flooding Hopkins River Warrnambool – Flooding and coastal hazard vulnerability export report Curriculum Vitae Curriculum and VCAT evidence Apartment Development Port Fairy – Expert report on flooding issues associated with a proposed apartment complex Port Fairy (2014) – Expert evidence to VCAT on coastal hazard and flooding for a proposed sub-division in Port Fairy. Kerang East (2014) – Expert evidence to VCAT on flooding issues along Pyramid Creek arising from 2011 floods. Woodend (2014) – Expert evidence to VCAT regarding flooding from Five Mile Creek and local stormwater impacts at a development site within Woodend. Port Fairy Planning Scheme Amendment (2014) – Provided Expert Evidence on flooding to Planning Panels Victoria for Moyne Shire. Victoria Street Richmond (2016) – Expert Evidence to VCAT on flooding issues related to a multi-storey apartment development next to the Yarra River. Donnybrook/Woodstock PSP (2016) – Expert evidence to panel hearing in relation to drainage issues for a large greenfield development area. Manningham (2016) – Provision of peer review of modelling and expert advice to City of Manningham regarding a planning scheme amendment to implement SBO layers into their planning scheme. Relevant Publications / Presentations BISHOP, W.A., McCOWAN, A. D., SUTHERLAND, R. J., WATKINSON, R. J. - “Application of Two-Dimensional Numerical Models to Urban Flood Studies”, 2nd International Offices in Symposium on Urban Stormwater Management, Melbourne 1995. Melbourne Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop SOMES, N.L.G., BISHOP, W.A., WONG, T.H.F. - “Numerical Simulation of Wetland Hydrodynamics”, MODSIM 97 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Hobart. BISHOP, W.A., COLLINS, N. I., CALLAGHAN, D. P., and CLARK, S. Q. - “Detailed Two- Dimensional Flood Modelling of Urban Developments”, 8th International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage, Sydney 1999. SOMES, N.L.G., BISHOP, W.A., WONG, T.H.F. - “Numerical Simulation of Wetland Hydrodynamics”, Environment International, Vol. 25, No. 6/7 pp. 773-779, 1999. BISHOP, W.A. – “Two-dimensional Modelling for Urban Flood Mapping and Drainage Analysis”, Proceedings, Victorian Flood Management Conference, 2001. BISHOP, W.A. and CATALANO, C.L., “Benefits of Two-dimensional Modelling for Urban Flood Projects”, 6th Conference on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Hobart 2001. McCOWAN, A.D., BERTON, F.M. and BISHOP, W.A. – “The Application of a Three- dimensional Variable Density Model to Assess Water Quality in an Urban Waterway”, 6th Conference on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering, Hobart 2001. REHMAN, H.U., ZHANG, S.Y., BISHOP, W.A., BERKFELD, J., “Water Resources Assessment using Soil Water Assessment Tool - A Case Study”, in Proceedings of ICam Catchment Management Conference, University of Western Sydney, Australian Water ssociation, Sydney, 26-28 November 2003. Curriculum Vitae Curriculum McMASTER, M.J., PROVIS, D.G., GRAYSON, R.B. & BISHOP, W.A., “Calibration and testing of a hydrodynamic model of the Gippsland Lakes” in Proceedings of MODSIM 2003, Townsville, Australia 14-17 July 2003. BISHOP, W.A., WOMERSLEY, T.J. & TIERNEY, G, “Flooding Forests - the Hydraulics of Environmental Flows”, Proceedings, 4th Victorian Flood Management Conference, Shepparton 2005. MUNCASTER, S.H., BISHOP, W.A. and MCCOWAN, A.D., “Design flood estimation in small catchments using two-dimensional hydraulic modelling –A case study”, 30th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium, Launceston, TAS, December 2006. BISHOP, W.A. and WOMERSLEY, T.J., “The use of hydraulic models to inform the management of flood dependent ecosystems on the River Murray, South-Eastern Australia”, 6th International Symposium on Ecohydraulics, Christchurch, February 2007. MUNCASTER, S. H., BISHOP, W. A. and DUGGAN, S.J., “Making the best with what you have - Design flood estimation with and without observed data”, 5th Victorian Flood Management Conference, Warrnambool, October 2007 BISHOP, W.A., CHARTERIS, A.B., MUNCASTER, S.H., WOMERSLEY, T.J., “Impacts of Climate Change on Floodplain Management in Coastal Communities”, 5th Victorian Flood Management Conference, Warrnambool, October 2007. BISHOP, W.A. and TATE, B. “The Use of Eco-Hydraulics in Managing the River Murray”, 17th QLD Water Symposium, Griffith University, November 2008. BISHOP, W.A. and WOMERSLEY, T.J., “Port Fairy Regional Flood Study - Dealing with Risk in a Coastal Floodplain”, Jo int 49th Annual Floodplain Management Authorities Offices in Conference (NSW) & 6th Biennial Victorian Flood Conference, Albury, February 2009. Melbourne Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au Warwick Bishop BISHOP, W.A., RUSSELL, K.L. and LITTLE, M.J., “Impacts of Sea Level Rise on Flooding in an Estuarine Environment”, Climate Change 2010: Practical Responses to Climate Change Conference, Melbourne, 2010. BISHOP, W.A., LAW, S.E., NEWTON, J.L., GODFREY, M., “Integrated Water Management Opportunities for Inner Suburban Areas”, WSUD 2013, 8th International Water Senitive Urban Design Conference, Gold Coast, November 2013. WOMERSLEY, T.J., LEAHY, C., HUDSON, K., ANDERSON, B., KAZAZIC, E., BISHOP, W.A., & MAWER, J., “Proof of concept hydrodynamic model and marine and atmospheric forecast data integration for flood forecasting in the Gippsland Lakes”, 54th Floodplain Management Association Conference, 20-23 May 2014, Deniliquin RSL Club, Deniliquin, NSW McCOWAN, A.D., LAUCHLAN-ARROWSMITH, C., BISHOP, W.A., “Estimating Future Coastal Inundation and Erosion Hazards”, Australian Coastal Councils Conference, March 2015 COUSLAND, T.J., and BISHOP, W.A., “Transport modelling to verify constructed wetland residence times”, Stormwater 16 – National Stormwater Association Conference, Gold Coast, QLD, September 2016. Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Offices in Melbourne Brisbane Wangaratta Contact [email protected] Bairnsdale Director Phone 03 8526 0800 or 0403 055 338 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168 www.watertech.com.au 01R01v01.docx - 1957 City of Greater Bendigo | October 2016 Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme