DOCSLIB.ORG

Bundaberg Flood Protection Study Developing a 10-Year Action Plan for Flood Mitigation in Bundaberg

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bundaberg Flood Protection Study Developing a 10-Year Action Plan for Flood Mitigation in Bundaberg October 2016 – not Government policy Bundaberg flood protection study Developing a 10-year action plan for flood mitigation in Bundaberg. Option G – Elliot River diversion Option G involves construction of a diversion channel from the Burnett River into the Elliot River. Stage 2 of the Bundaberg flood protection study involves Costs and benefits assessing 11 flood mitigation options, including those Initial cost estimates indicate that construction and identified through consultation with the Bundaberg maintenance of Option G would be approximately community in late 2015. $9,000 million. This is mainly due to the volumes of The following provides an overview of the assessment of cut required (about 300,000,000 m3) to construct the Option G. channel. Costs would also include property purchase, bridge construction and ongoing vegetation management Viability and maintenance within the diversion channel. A key step in the options assessment involves identifying The estimated reduction in flood damages (i.e. the issues that may mean construction or implementation of tangible benefits) for this option is around $90 million. the option is not viable. These relate to matters such as: • The likelihood of obtaining environmental approvals, Summary of assessment against key criteria due to unacceptable environmental impacts • This option would reduce flow in the Burnett River and • Significant or unaffordable costs of construction or increase flow in the Elliot River. This would reduce ongoing maintenance flood levels in Bundaberg. • Potential for unacceptable impacts on other areas. • This option would reduce flooding for about 1 An option is considered to be unviable where the 3000 properties in the 1% AEP flood event and assessment identifies one or more of these matters are prevent over-floor flooding in 1450 properties in the ‘unlikely to be achieved’. 1% AEP flood event. The assessment of Option G found that this option is • This option would have significant costs (in the unviable as it would result in significant impacts along order of $9,000 million). These costs would be the route of the diversion and in the Elliot River and approximately 100 times the benefits realised through would cost of the order of $9,000 million, much more reduced damages. than the benefits delivered. • Increased flood flow in the Elliot River would result in increased flood levels (up to 8 m higher) and very high velocities for properties along this river. This would Likelihood of obtaining environmental approval impact about 60 houses along the Elliot River. Affordability • Environmental issues would arise from diverting very large flows into the Elliot River, which has a small Tolerable impacts outside benefited area catchment and small flows compared to the Burnett River (100 times smaller). Likely to achieve May achieve with modification Unlikely to achieve 1 1% AEP flood is the name given to a flood event which has a 1 in 100 or 1% chance of occurring in any year. It would be similar to the January 2013 flood. October 2016 – not Government policy Option overview Option G aims to decrease flow within the Burnett River by Construction of this option would require some property diverting floodwater into the Elliot River. It would involve acquisitions, including farmland. It would also require construction of a 15 km diversion channel about 760 m a number of new bridges to be constructed across the wide and 30 m deep from the Burnett River, just south of diversion channel, including along the Bruce Highway and Branyan, to the Elliot River. The diversion would fall about local roads. 9 m over the length of the channel. Options to divert the Burnett River to other rivers, such The diversion channel between the Burnett River and Elliot as the Gregory and Isis rivers, were considered but were River would need to traverse areas of high ground. The discounted due to these rivers being at higher elevation indicative alignment has been selected as it limits the than the Burnett River. volume of earthworks required as well as provides enough A diversion into the Kolan River was also considered and fall for the efficient flow of floodwater. would result in a similar performance, costs and impacts as the Elliot River diversion. Figure 1 : Option layout DISCLAIMER: Jacobs has implemented reasonable, current commercial and technical measures using the usual care and thoroughness of a professional firm in the creation of these maps from the spatial data, information and products provided to Jacobs by the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP); Bundaberg Regional Council (BRC); GHD and other consultants; and data custodians including Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) and data obtained from the Queensland Spatial Catalogue (QSpatial) under the Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Jacobs has not independently verified the quality, content, accuracy or completeness of the Data. Jacobs is not responsible or liable for any costs, losses and/or damages suffered as a result of reliance on these maps. All information shown on these maps (including the nature, alignment and extent of any works) is preliminary and provided only for discussion purposes. Note: The outcome depicted is a potential only of the implications associated with this option – and this outcome may not occur or eventuate Find out more about this option Community consultation on the flood mitigation options and the findings of the options assessment will take place from 24 October to 20 November 2016. To find out more about the flood mitigation options and to provide your feedback: Visit the website Contact the project team www.qld.gov.au/bundabergfloodstudy Email: [email protected] Interactive mapping is available on the website so that Telephone: 1800 994 015 (during business hours) you can see how the flood mitigation options would change flooding in your area. Next steps The Bundaberg flood protection study is due to be completed later this year. Engagement on the 10-year action plan will occur in 2017. It is important to note that the flood mitigation options have not yet been considered by the State government and are not government policy. No commitment will be made on any of the options until the State government has consulted with the community and stakeholders on the 10-year action plan. The Queensland Government will continue to engage with the Bundaberg community as the action plan develops..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Surface Water Ambient Network (Water Quality) 2020-21
    Surface Water Ambient Network (Water Quality) 2020-21 July 2020 This publication has been compiled by Natural Resources Divisional Support, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. © State of Queensland, 2020 The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated. For more information on this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. Summary This document lists the stream gauging stations which make up the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) surface water quality monitoring network. Data collected under this network are published on DNRME’s Water Monitoring Information Data Portal. The water quality data collected includes both logged time-series and manual water samples taken for later laboratory analysis. Other data types are also collected at stream gauging stations, including rainfall and stream height. Further information is available on the Water Monitoring Information Data Portal under each station listing.
    [Show full text]
  • FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM for the BURNETT RIVER
    Bureau Home > Australia > Queensland > Rainfall & River Conditions > River Brochures > Burnett FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM for the BURNETT RIVER This brochure describes the flood warning system operated by the Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology for the Burnett River. It includes reference information which will be useful for understanding Flood Warnings and River Height Bulletins issued by the Bureau's Flood Warning Centre during periods of high rainfall and flooding. Contained in this document is information about: (Last updated September 2019) Flood Risk Previous Flooding Flood Forecasting Local Information Flood Warnings and Bulletins Interpreting Flood Warnings and River Height Bulletins Flood Classifications Other Links Burnett River at Mundubbera Flood Risk The Burnett River is located on the southern Queensland coast with the mouth of the river sited just north of the City of Bundaberg. The total area of the catchment is about 33,000 square kilometres. The Burnett River rises in the Dawes Range, just north of Monto and flows south through Eidsvold and Mundubbera. Along the way it is joined by the Nogo and Auburn Rivers which drain large areas in the west of the catchment. Just before Mundubbera, the main river is joined by the Boyne River draining areas from the south and then begins its northeasterly journey to the coast. Between Gayndah and Mt Lawless, the Barker-Barambah Creeks system joins the Burnett River. Major flooding in the Burnett River is relatively infrequent. However, under favourable meteorological conditions such as a tropical low pressure system, heavy rainfalls can occur throughout the catchment which can result in significant river level rises and floods.
    [Show full text]
  • AUSTRALIAN BIODIVERSITY RECORD ______2007 (No 2) ISSN 1325-2992 March, 2007 ______
    AUSTRALIAN BIODIVERSITY RECORD ______________________________________________________________ 2007 (No 2) ISSN 1325-2992 March, 2007 ______________________________________________________________ Some Taxonomic and Nomenclatural Considerations on the Class Reptilia in Australia. Some Comments on the Elseya dentata (Gray, 1863) complex with Redescriptions of the Johnstone River Snapping Turtle, Elseya stirlingi Wells and Wellington, 1985 and the Alligator Rivers Snapping Turtle, Elseya jukesi Wells 2002. by Richard W. Wells P.O. Box 826, Lismore, New South Wales Australia, 2480 Introduction As a prelude to further work on the Chelidae of Australia, the following considerations relate to the Elseya dentata species complex. See also Wells and Wellington (1984, 1985) and Wells (2002 a, b; 2007 a, b.). Elseya Gray, 1867 1867 Elseya Gray, Ann. Mag. Natur. Hist., (3) 20: 44. – Subsequently designated type species (Lindholm 1929): Elseya dentata (Gray, 1863). Note: The genus Elseya is herein considered to comprise only those species with a very wide mandibular symphysis and a distinct median alveolar ridge on the upper jaw. All members of the latisternum complex lack a distinct median alveolar ridge on the upper jaw and so are removed from the genus Elseya (see Wells, 2007b). This now restricts the genus to the following Australian species: Elseya albagula Thomson, Georges and Limpus, 2006 2006 Elseya albagula Thomson, Georges and Limpus, Chelon. Conserv. Biol., 5: 75; figs 1-2, 4 (top), 5a,6a, 7. – Type locality: Ned Churchwood Weir (25°03'S 152°05'E), Burnett River, Queensland, Australia. Elseya dentata (Gray, 1863) 1863 Chelymys dentata Gray, Ann. Mag. Natur. Hist., (3) 12: 98. – Type locality: Beagle’s Valley, upper Victoria River, Northern Territory.
    [Show full text]
  • Dam Threat to a Decade of Restoration of the Mary River, Queensland
    Dam threat to a decade of restoration of the Mary River, Queensland Glenda Pickersgill1, Steve Burgess2 and Brad Wedlock3 1 Save the Mary River Coordinating Group. Web: www.savethemaryriver.com 2 Gympie and District Landcare Group. Web: www.gympielandcare.org.au 3 Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee (MRCCC). Web: www.wb2020.qld.gov.au/icm/mrccc/main.htm Abstract The banks of the Mary River and its tributaries were once covered with rainforest species that protected the banks from erosion during floods. However these streams have generally become wider and shallower as a result of clearing, with many banks actively eroding, destroying valuable ecosystems and river flats in the process. The Mary Catchment has been identified in studies as an aquatic biodiversity hotspot and contains a number of endemic endangered species. Over the past decade, millions of dollars in government funding for river restoration has helped landholders and other interested community members to establish programs for restoration of the Mary River catchment. In 2004, the Mary River community was awarded the coveted National Rivercare Award. Now legislative and policy changes empowering the State Government and water corporations to capture, store and transfer large quantities of water out of the catchment into the proposed South East Queensland water grid, place these successful restoration activities and the community that has participated since 1995 at risk. This paper describes restoration works conducted in the Mary Catchment, and outlines the present and future impacts of the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal on the catchment, the restoration projects and communities. Keywords Traveston Crossing, endangered species, Ramsar wetlands Introduction South East Queensland is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Zones of Queensland
    P.R. Wilson and P.M. Taylor§, Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts. © The State of Queensland (Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts) 2012. Copyright inquiries should be addressed to <[email protected]> or the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, 111 George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000. Disclaimer This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy. If you need to access this document in a language other than English, please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on 131 450 and ask them to telephone Library Services on +61 7 3224 8412. This publication can be made available in an alternative format (e.g. large print or audiotape) on request for people with vision impairment; phone +61 7 3224 8412 or email <[email protected]>. ISBN: 978-1-920928-21-6 Citation This work may be cited as: Wilson, P.R. and Taylor, P.M. (2012) Land Zones of Queensland. Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane. 79 pp. Front Cover: Design by Will Smith Images – clockwise from top left: ancient sandstone formation in the Lawn Hill area of the North West Highlands bioregion – land zone 10 (D.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Stronger More Resilient Floodplains
    Queensland Reconstruction Authority Planning for stronger, more resilient floodplains Part 1 – Interim measures to support floodplain management in existing planning schemes The scale and scope of the weather events which affected Queensland in 2010/2011 meant that to plan and build stronger, more resilient communities into the future, Councils need better information to make informed decisions about how and where we build. To assist Queensland’s Councils, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority (the Authority) has undertaken the largest floodplain mapping exercise in the State’s history. The maps contained in the toolkit - Planning for stronger, more resilient floodplains are drawn from evidence of past flooding, including soils, topography and satellite imagery. They are informed by the 2010/2011 summer disasters but do not represent the actual flood line for that period. Why? Because while the whole of Queensland was affected last summer, we know there have been larger floods in some areas in the past. What the maps do show are areas where inundation has previously occurred or may occur. At the conclusion of this mapping exercise, floodplain mapping will be available for the whole of Queensland. The State’s river systems do not stop at local government boundaries and so for the first time, these floodplain maps have been developed on a sub-basin wide basis. And with them, comes the opportunity for Councils to adopt the floodplain maps and supporting development controls into existing planning schemes. This Guideline provides Councils - especially those who lack the resourcing capacity to undertake detailed studies - with a ready- made toolkit to help assess future development applications and the opportunity to better align floodplain management and land use planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Weather and Flood Events
    1.Summary.of.weather. and.flood.events What follows is an overview of the weather events leading up to and during the 2010/2011 floods with a summary of their effects across the state. It is not intended as an exhaustive account. 1.1.Summary.of.weather.leading.to. 1 2010/2011.flood.events The Queensland wet season extends from October to April, with the initial monsoonal onset usually occurring in late December. The 2010/2011 wet season was different. In June 2010 the Australian Bureau of Meteorology warned that a La Niña event was likely to occur before the end of the year.1 The La Niña change has historically brought above average rainfall to most of Australia and an increased risk of tropical cyclone events for northern Australia. Previous La Niña effects had been associated with flooding in eastern Australia, including the large scale and devastating floods which occurred in 1955 and 1973/1974.2 As predicted, a strong La Niña event took place in the Pacific Ocean in late 2010. La Niñas are often described in terms of a positive Southern Oscillation Index, which represents the normalised pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti and gives a positive reading when pressures are high in Tahiti and low in Darwin.3 The index ranges from about -35 to +35.4 During December 2010 the Southern Oscillation Index was +27.1, representing the highest December value on record and the highest monthly value since 1973.5 In turn, Australia experienced an extremely strong La Niña during the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011; the second strongest
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Risk Management in Australia Building Flood Resilience in a Changing Climate
    Flood Risk Management in Australia Building flood resilience in a changing climate December 2020 Flood Risk Management in Australia Building flood resilience in a changing climate Neil Dufty, Molino Stewart Pty Ltd Andrew Dyer, IAG Maryam Golnaraghi (lead investigator of the flood risk management report series and coordinating author), The Geneva Association Flood Risk Management in Australia 1 The Geneva Association The Geneva Association was created in 1973 and is the only global association of insurance companies; our members are insurance and reinsurance Chief Executive Officers (CEOs). Based on rigorous research conducted in collaboration with our members, academic institutions and multilateral organisations, our mission is to identify and investigate key trends that are likely to shape or impact the insurance industry in the future, highlighting what is at stake for the industry; develop recommendations for the industry and for policymakers; provide a platform to our members, policymakers, academics, multilateral and non-governmental organisations to discuss these trends and recommendations; reach out to global opinion leaders and influential organisations to highlight the positive contributions of insurance to better understanding risks and to building resilient and prosperous economies and societies, and thus a more sustainable world. The Geneva Association—International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics Talstrasse 70, CH-8001 Zurich Email: [email protected] | Tel: +41 44 200 49 00 | Fax: +41 44 200 49 99 Photo credits: Cover page—Markus Gebauer / Shutterstock.com December 2020 Flood Risk Management in Australia © The Geneva Association Published by The Geneva Association—International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics, Zurich. 2 www.genevaassociation.org Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Network Review Final Report
    Surface Water Network Review Final Report 16 July 2018 This publication has been compiled by Operations Support - Water, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. © State of Queensland, 2018 The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated. For more information on this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. Interpreter statement: The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders from all culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. If you have difficulty in understanding this document, you can contact us within Australia on 13QGOV (13 74 68) and we will arrange an interpreter to effectively communicate the report to you. Surface
    [Show full text]
  • Background Briefing on Environmental Protection and Development
    Background Briefing on Environmental Protection and Development Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Prepared by the Queensland LNG Industry | May 2013 Contents Purpose 1 Context 2 Key Themes 3 General 3 1. LNG Safety 3 2. Economic Contribution 3 3. Environmental Management 4 4. Environmental Protection and Development 4 5. Gladstone Harbour Historical Context 4 6. Australia’s Exemplary Record on World Heritage 5 7. Fair Treatment of Australia 5 LNG Safety 6 Economic Contribution 8 Environmental Management 9 Environmental Protection and Development 10 Gladstone Harbour Historical Context 11 Australia’s Exemplary Record on World Heritage 12 Fair Treatment of Australia 13 Questions and Answers 15 Contacts BC 142°E 144°E 146°E 148°E 150°E 152°E 154°E S ° 0 1 TORRES STRAIT Ashmore Reef Thursday Island Ja rd in e R iver Jardine River NP River unty lh S u S ° D Cape Grenville ° 2 er 2 1 Riv 1 Olive W enloc k R iv e r Iron Range NP L o ck h a C O R A L S E A r t R i ve r Mungkan Archer Rive Kandju r Great Barrier Reef NP Marine Park KULLA (excludes harbours and islands) (McIlwraith Range) Osprey Reef S er S ° v NPA ° Ri Flinders Group 4 l 4 al 1 Ken d NP 1 r d Rive Holro y Ann r ie R e iver Cape iv R Melville E in dw k ard u r NP R ive r L e iv Cole ma n River R ad he re Lakefield Jack River o Starcke M NP NP NP r Mitchell- e iv COOKTOWN Alice Rivers R a % r C A P E Y O R K u NP a L e Cedar Bay P E N II N S U L A tl it L NP iver r R Palmer Goldfield S me S ° P al RSR ° 6 Daintree 6 1 NP 1 Cape Tribulation Holmes Reef r Mount Windsor ive ll
    [Show full text]
  • Section 5. Distribution and Significance of the Coastal Wetland Communities
    QI99081 ISSN 0727-6273 This report may be cited as: Bruinsma, C and Danaher, K (2000) Queensland Coastal Wetland Resources: Round Hill Head to Tin Can Inlet. Department of Primary Industries Queensland, Brisbane. General disclaimer Information contained in this publication is provided as general advice only. For application to specific circumstances, professional advice should be sought. The Department of Primary Industries, Queensland has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the information contained in this publication is accurate at the time of production. Readers should ensure that they make appropriate inquiries to determine whether new information is available on the particular subject matter. © The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries, 2000 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without prior written permission of the Department of Primary Industries, Queensland. Inquiries should be addressed to: Manager, DPI Publications Department of Primary Industries GPO Box 46 Brisbane Qld 4001 Acknowledgments Funding provided by Environment Australia supported the research and collation of information presented in this report. The project was undertaken for the Marine Protected Areas Program, Coast and Clean Seas, Natural Heritage Trust. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the Commonwealth Government, the Minister for the Environment or the Director of National
    [Show full text]
  • 331 the Discovery, Exploration and Early
    331 THE DISCOVERY, EXPLORATION AND EARLY SETTLEMENT OF THE UPPER BURNETT (A paper prepared by Mr. H. S. Bloxsome, Delubra, Mundubbera, and read at a meeting of the Historical Society of Queensland, Inc., on Tuesday evening, August 25th, 1942.) Henry Stuart Russell, after having accompanied Andrew Petrie on his exploration of the Wide Bay River in May 1842, decided to explore west from Tiaro and to search for some country suitable for a sheep station, as at that time his property Cecil Plains on the Darling Downs was not looked upon as suitable for sheep. This seems strange as now it is first class sheep country; but, being virgin land at that time, it probably was covered with a very heavy body of grass through which the sheep had trouble to travel. On November 24th, 1842, Russell and his party left his station, Cecil Plains, and made his way to Tiaro some twenty-one miles south of where Maryborough stands to-day. He had with him William Orton whom he had met on the Severn River in 1840 and a black boy named Jemmy, who was a New England aboriginal. His object was to follow the track which JoUiffe and Last had left by their drays and sheep on the way to the Wide Bay country where they had formed a station for Eales, of Duckenfield Park, Hunter River, N.S.W. Stuart Russell's party crossed the range near Too­ woomba by what was known as the Springs road. They went past Bigge's camp and then on to Kilcoy.
    [Show full text]