DOCSLIB.ORG

Herbert River Flood Study Main Report Volume 1 of 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Herbert River ImprovementImprovement TrustTrust HerbertHerbert RiverRiver FloodFlood StudyStudy M a i n R e p o r t - V o l u m e 1 o f 2 OCEANICS AUSTRALIA Herbert River Flood Study Main Report Volume 1 of 2 Offices Prepared For: Herbert River Improvement Trust Brisbane Denver Prepared By: WBM Oceanics Australia Karratha Melbourne Morwell Newcastle Sydney Vancouver G:\ADMIN\B13309.G.MAJ\R.B13309.002.01.VOL_1.DOC 13/6/03 09:06 OCEA NICS A USTRALIA DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET WBM Oceanics Australia Document: R.B13309.002.01.Vol_1.doc Brisbane Office: Title: Herbert River Flood Study – Main Report - Volume 1 of 2 WBM Pty Ltd Project Manager: Mark Jempson Level 11, 490 Upper Edward Street SPRING HILL QLD 4004 Author: Mark Jempson and Malcolm Jenkins Australia Client: Herbert River Improvement Trust PO Box 203 Client Contact: Ross Hogan Spring Hill QLD 4004 Client Reference: Telephone (07) 3831 6744 Synopsis: This document details the Herbert River Facsimile (07) 3832 3627 Flood and Floodplain Management Study. www.wbmpl.com.au On the basis of this Study, the Floodplain Management Study Advisory Group ABN 54 010 830 421 002 recommends the inclusion of some of the options presented here for inclusion into the Floodplain Management Plan. The Plan exists as a separate document. REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY REVISION DATE CHECKED BY ISSUED BY NUMBER 0 05/12/02 W. Syme M. Jempson 1 06/06/02 C.Barton M. Jempson DISTRIBUTION DESTINA TION REVISION 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Herbert River Improvement Trust 10 40 BoM 1 0 WBM File 1 1 WBM Library 2 2 G:\ADMIN\B13309.G.MAJ\R.B13309.002.01.VOL_1.DOC 13/6/03 09:06 OCEA NICS A USTRALIA FORWARD I FORWARD The Queensland Department of Emergency Services is administrating the Queensland studies under the Federal Department of Transport and Regional Services’ “Natural Disaster Risk Management Studies Program.” The aim of the program is to identify, analyse and evaluate the risks from natural disasters and to identify risk management measures to reduce the risk to life and property. Flooding was identified as a major risk on the Herbert River floodplain and funding has been obtained through this program to develop a Floodplain Management Plan. The publication “Floodplain Management in Australia – Best Practice Principles and Guidelines” (CSIRO, 2000) provides the framework for the development and implementation of a Floodplain Management Plan. The process outlined in CSIRO (2000) is described below. Floodplain Management Process Stage Description 1. Flood Behaviour Definition The nature and extent of the flood problem are determined. 2. Floodplain Management Management measures for the floodplain are investigated in Measures Investigation respect of both existing and proposed developments. These options are evaluated based on the impact on flood risk, while considering social, ecological and economic factors. 3. Floodplain Management Plan Following acceptance of Stage 2 recommendations, the preferred management options are documented in a plan. 4. Implementation of the Plan Involves formal adoption by Council of the floodplain risk management plan and a process of implementation for the selected flood, response and property modification options. This document comprises Stage 1 and 2 of the process for the Herbert River. It defines the existing flooding problem and assesses a range of measures and their ability to reduce the impact of flooding in the Herbert River area by controlling the flood risk and reducing flood damages. The impact on flooding of a number of past floodplain works are also assessed. Stage 3 is reported in a separate document (WBM, 2003), which summarises the preferred management measures identified in this report. WBM Oceanics Australia was commissioned by the Herbert River Improvement Trust (HRIT) to carry out this study. G:\ADMIN\B13309.G.MAJ\R.B13309.002.01.VOL_1.DOC 13/6/03 09:06 OCEA NICS A USTRALIA CONTENTS II CONTENTS Forward i Contents ii List of Figures viii List of Tables ix Glossary xii List of Abbreviations xv 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Study Area 1-2 1.3 Previous Studies 1-3 1.4 Objectives 1-3 1.5 Study Advisory Group 1-4 1.6 Community Consultation 1-4 2 STUDY APPROACH 2-1 2.1 Data Collection 2-1 2.1.1 Topographic and GIS Data Sets 2-1 2.1.2 Resident Survey 2-1 2.1.3 Site Inspections 2-1 2.1.4 Historical Flood Data 2-1 2.2 Community Consultation 2-2 2.3 Flood Model Development & Calibration 2-2 2.4 Design Floods 2-3 2.5 Assessment of Past Floodplain Developments 2-3 2.6 Sediment Transport Assessment 2-4 2.7 Evaluate Potential Floodplain Management Measures 2-4 2.8 Finalise Management Measures 2-4 2.9 Reporting 2-4 3 DATA COLLECTION 3-1 3.1 Topographic Data 3-1 3.2 Resident Survey and Site Inspection 3-2 3.3 GIS Data Sets 3-2 G:\ADMIN\B13309.G.MAJ\R.B13309.002.01.VOL_1.DOC 13/6/03 09:06 OCEA NICS A USTRALIA CONTENTS III 3.4 Historical Flood Data 3-2 4 FLOOD MODEL DEVELOPMENT & CALIBRATION 4-1 4.1 Background 4-1 4.2 Hydrologic Model 4-1 4.3 Hydraulic Model 4-2 4.4 TUFLOW Hydrodynamic Modelling System 4-3 4.5 Establishing River & Floodplain Topography 4-3 4.6 Selection of Calibration/Verification Events 4-4 4.7 Hydraulic Model Calibration 4-10 4.7.1 Calibration Procedure 4-10 4.7.2 1991 Calibration 4-10 4.7.3 1967 Model Verification 4-14 4.8 Summary 4-16 5 DESIGN FLOODS 5-1 5.1 Background 5-1 5.2 Design Hydrology 5-1 5.2.1 URBS Hydrological Model 5-2 5.2.2 Flood Frequency Analysis 5-3 5.2.3 Probable Maximum Flood 5-4 5.2.4 Summary of Adopted Design Hydrology 5-5 5.3 Design Hydraulic Model 5-5 5.4 Sensitivity Testing of Hydraulic Model 5-7 5.5 Accuracy of Hydraulic Model 5-8 5.6 Summary 5-9 6 EXISTING FLOOD DAMAGES ASSESSMENT 6-1 6.1 Background 6-1 6.2 Previous Investigations 6-2 6.3 Tangible Damages 6-2 6.3.1 Rural Damages 6-3 6.3.1.1 Damages Extent 6-3 6.3.1.2 Rural Landuse 6-3 6.3.1.3 Sugar Cane Growing 6-4 6.3.1.4 Beef Grazing 6-5 6.3.1.5 Summary - Rural Damages 6-5 G:\ADMIN\B13309.G.MAJ\R.B13309.002.01.VOL_1.DOC 13/6/03 09:06 OCEA NICS A USTRALIA CONTENTS IV 6.3.2 Urban Damages 6-7 6.3.2.1 Floor Levels 6-7 6.3.2.2 Stage-Damage Relationship 6-8 6.3.2.3 Damages 6-10 6.3.3 Infrastructure Damages 6-11 6.3.3.1 HSC 6-12 6.3.3.2 HRIT 6-12 6.3.3.3 Telstra 6-13 6.3.3.4 Ergon 6-13 6.3.3.5 DMR 6-13 6.3.3.6 CSR 6-14 6.3.3.7 Summary 6-14 6.4 Intangible Damages 6-15 6.5 Total Damages 6-15 7 ASSESSMENT OF HISTORICAL FLOODPLAIN WORKS 7-1 7.1 Background 7-1 7.2 Tyto Wetlands and Ingham Tip 7-1 7.3 Mombelli’s Levee 7-2 7.4 Floodplain Embankments and Levees 7-2 7.5 Summary 7-3 8 CATHERINA AND RIPPLE CREEK FLOODGATES 8-1 8.1 Operational Procedure 8-1 8.2 Hydraulic Efficiency 8-2 8.3 Mechanical Aspects of Floodgate Operations 8-3 8.3.1 Mechanical Considerations 8-4 8.3.1.1 Force Required to Open Existing Gates 8-4 8.3.1.2 Counterbalancing 8-4 8.3.1.3 Reeved Pulley System 8-6 8.3.2 Powered Operating Systems 8-7 8.3.2.1 Power Requirement 8-7 8.3.2.2 Options 8-7 8.3.2.3 Previous Electrically Powered System 8-7 8.3.2.4 Discussion 8-9 8.3.3 Summary of Mechanical Aspects 8-10 8.3.4 Cost Estimates for Remote Control Powered Gate Operation 8-11 8.3.4.1 System Parameters 8-11 G:\ADMIN\B13309.G.MAJ\R.B13309.002.01.VOL_1.DOC 13/6/03 09:06 OCEA NICS A USTRALIA CONTENTS V 8.3.4.2 Equipment Description and Cost Estimates 8-11 8.3.4.3 Further Option for Site Camera 8-12 8.3.4.4 Design and Supervision Costs 8-12 8.4 Flood Mitigation Benefits 8-12 8.5 Conclusion 8-12 9 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT 9-1 9.1 Background 9-1 9.2 General Considerations 9-1 9.3 Review of Historical Trends 9-2 9.3.1 Aerial Photography Assessment 9-2 9.3.2 Survey Cross-Section Assessment 9-2 9.3.3 Historical Reports 9-3 9.4 Assessment of Sediment Transport Regime 9-3 9.4.1 General Processes 9-3 9.4.2 Existing Information 9-4 9.4.3 Preliminary Calculation of Sediment Transport Rates 9-4 9.4.4 Discussion of Findings 9-6 9.5 Considerations for Extracting Options 9-6 9.6 Consideration of Downstream Shoaling Issues 9-7 9.7 Consideration of Management Measures 9-7 9.8 Conclusions 9-8 10 FLOOD MODIFICATION MEASURES 10-1 10.1 Assessment Process 10-1 10.2 Flood Modification Measures Considered 10-1 10.3 Preliminary Analysis 10-3 10.3.1 Methodology 10-3 10.3.1.1 Calculation of Impacts 10-3 10.3.1.2 Determination of Benefits 10-3 10.3.1.3 Determination of Costs 10-3 10.3.1.4 Explanation of Benefit-Cost Analysis and Present Worth of Benefits 10-4 10.3.1.5 Social and Environmental Issues 10-6 10.3.1.6 Unit Rate Costs of Works 10-7 10.3.2 River Dredging 10-9 10.3.2.1 Benefit Cost Analysis 10-9 10.3.2.2 Impacts of Dredging on Estuarine Ecology 10-10 10.3.2.3 Impacts of Material Placement at the Offshore Spoil Ground 10-11 G:\ADMIN\B13309.G.MAJ\R.B13309.002.01.VOL_1.DOC 13/6/03 09:06 OCEA NICS A USTRALIA CONTENTS VI 10.3.2.4 Approval Requirements 10-12 10.3.2.5 Summary 10-12 10.3.3 Washaway Diversion Channel 10-13 10.3.4 Ingham Levee 10-13 10.3.4.1 Option 1 10-13 10.3.4.2 Option 2 10-13 10.3.4.3 Summary 10-14 10.3.5 Small Township Levees 10-15 10.3.6 Levee Rationalisation 10-17 10.3.6.1 Five Year ARI River Levee 10-17 10.3.6.2 Three Year ARI Levee in Lower Reaches 10-17 10.3.6.3 Summary 10-17 10.3.7 Removal of Ripple and Catherina Creek Floodgates 10-17 10.4 Detailed Analysis 10-18 10.4.1 Kingsbury Creek Floodgate and Levee 10-18 10.4.1.1 Impacts on Flood Behaviour 10-18 10.4.1.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis 10-19 10.4.1.3 Environmental Considerations 10-20 10.4.1.4 Intangible Benefits 10-21 10.4.1.5 Summary 10-21 10.4.2 Halifax Levee 10-22 10.4.2.1 Impacts on Flood Behaviour 10-22 10.4.2.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis 10-23 10.4.2.3 Environmental
Recommended publications
  • An Assessment of Agricultural Potential of Soils in the Gulf Region, North Queensland

    An Assessment of Agricultural Potential of Soils in the Gulf Region, North Queensland

    REPORT TO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT (RID), NORTH REGION ON An Assessment of Agricultural Potential of Soils in the Gulf Region, North Queensland Volume 1 February 1999 Peter Wilson (Land Resource Officer, Land Information Management) Seonaid Philip (Senior GIS Technician) Department of Natural Resources Resource Management GIS Unit Centre for Tropical Agriculture 28 Peters Street, Mareeba Queensland 4880 DNRQ990076 Queensland Government Technical Report This report is intended to provide information only on the subject under review. There are limitations inherent in land resource studies, such as accuracy in relation to map scale and assumptions regarding socio-economic factors for land evaluation. Before acting on the information conveyed in this report, readers should ensure that they have received adequate professional information and advice specific to their enquiry. While all care has been taken in the preparation of this report neither the Queensland Government nor its officers or staff accepts any responsibility for any loss or damage that may result from any inaccuracy or omission in the information contained herein. © State of Queensland 1999 For information about this report contact [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors thank the input of staff of the Department of Natural Resources GIS Unit Mareeba. Also that of DNR water resources staff, particularly Mr Jeff Benjamin. Mr Steve Ockerby, Queensland Department of Primary Industries provided invaluable expertise and advice for the development of the agricultural suitability assessment. Mr Phil Bierwirth of the Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO) provided an introduction to and knowledge of Airborne Gamma Spectrometry. Assistance with the interpretation of AGS data was provided through the Department of Natural Resources Enhanced Resource Assessment project.
  • Submission DR130

    Submission DR130

    To: Commissioner Dr Jane Doolan, Associate Commissioner Drew Collins Productivity Commission National Water Reform 2020 Submission by John F Kell BE (SYD), M App Sc (UNSW), MIEAust, MICE Date: 25 March 2021 Revision: 3 Summary of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Current Situation / Problem Solution 3.0 The Solution 4.0 Dam Location 5.0 Water channel design 6.0 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act – Section 100 7.0 Federal and State Responses 8.0 Conclusion 9.0 Acknowledgements Attachments 1 Referenced Data 2A Preliminary Design of Gravity Flow Channel Summary 2B Preliminary Design of Gravity Flow Channel Summary 3 Effectiveness of Dam Size Design Units L litres KL kilolitres ML Megalitres GL Gigalitres (Sydney Harbour ~ 500GL) GL/a Gigalitres / annum RL Relative Level - above sea level (m) m metre TEL Townsville Enterprise Limited SMEC Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation MDBA Murray Darling Basin Authority 1.0 Introduction This submission is to present a practical solution to restore balance in the Murray Daring Basin (MDB) with a significant regular inflow of water from the Burdekin and Herbert Rivers in Queensland. My background is civil/structural engineering (BE Sydney Uni - 1973). As a fresh graduate, I worked in South Africa and UK for ~6 years, including a stint with a water consulting practice in Johannesburg, including relieving Mafeking as a site engineer on a water canal project. Attained the MICE (UK) in Manchester in 1979. In 1980 returning to Sydney, I joined Connell Wagner (now Aurecon), designing large scale industrial projects. Since 1990, I have headed a manufacturing company in the specialised field of investment casting (www.hycast.com.au) at Smithfield, NSW.
  • Review of Productivity Trends in the Herbert Sugarcane Growing Region

    Review of Productivity Trends in the Herbert Sugarcane Growing Region

    Garside AL et al. Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 36 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________________ REVIEW OF PRODUCTIVITY TRENDS IN THE HERBERT SUGARCANE GROWING REGION By AL GARSIDE1, LP DI BELLA2, M SEFTON2, AW WOOD3 1Tropical Crop Science Unit, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville and Agritrop Consulting, 2Herbert Cane Productivity Services Limited, Ingham, 3Tanglewood Agricultural Services, Milla Milla. [email protected] KEYWORDS: Seasonal Conditions, Water Management, Varieties, Rainfall, Harvesting. Abstract CONCERNS ABOUT decreasing productivity in recent years in the Herbert cane growing region prompted the Herbert Cane Productivity Services Limited (HCPSL) to commission a review of the production system in an attempt to identify issues that have likely influenced productivity. The review encompassed the collation and analysis of productivity data held by HCPSL, interpretation of the analyses and interviews with growers. In general the outcomes indicated that water management (seasonal conditions, drainage, waterlogging), various aspects of harvesting (groups too big, harvesting too fast, not enough adjustment for seasonal conditions/geographic harvesting, cane loss and season length (the harvest season being too long) were the main factors influencing productivity in the Herbert. The review showed that productivity was strongly linked to seasonal conditions with high rainfall in November, in particular, having an adverse effect on crop productivity the next year. This is likely due, at least in part, to radiation limitation, waterlogging, and nutrient loss under the wet conditions. However, the combination of high rainfall in November and harvesting with heavy machinery under wet conditions is also likely to be having a significant adverse effect on productivity the next season, through either direct effects on the ratoons and/or limiting the opportunity for field maintenance between cycles.
  • Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Public Environment Report

    Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Public Environment Report

    Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Public Environment Report November 2009 Contents Executive Summary i Abbreviations ix Glossary of Terms x 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives and Scope 1 1.3 Background to the Development of the Action 4 1.4 Relationship of the Action to Other Actions that May be Affected 5 1.5 Current Status of the Action 5 1.6 Consequence of the Action Not Proceeding 5 2. Description of the Action 7 2.1 Location 7 2.2 Detailed Proposal 10 2.3 Additional Licences / Permits and Approval Requirements required by the Project 15 3. Methodologies 23 3.1 Background and Approach 23 3.2 Demarcation of the Aquifer study area 23 3.3 Overview of Ecological Values Descriptions 26 3.4 PER Guidelines 26 3.5 Desktop and Database Assessments 27 3.6 Environmental Flows Assessment 30 3.7 Bore Testing and Modelling Verification 31 3.8 Derivation of Risk Assessment Methodologies 34 3.9 Stakeholder and Community Engagement 37 4. Description of the Environment – Physical Aspects 40 4.1 Information Sources 40 4.2 Climate 40 4.3 Topography 41 4.4 Surface Drainage Features 43 4.5 Soils 43 42/15610/99537 Mulgrave River Aquifer Feasibility Study Public Environment Report 4.6 Geology 48 4.7 Hydrogeology 51 4.8 Groundwater 53 4.9 Social Environment 54 5. Description of the Environment – Ecological 57 5.1 Information Sources 57 5.2 Species of National Environmental Significance 57 5.3 Queensland Species of Conservation Significance 65 5.4 Pest Species 68 5.5 Vegetation Communities 70 5.6 Regional Ecosystem Types and Integrity 73 5.7 Aquatic Values 76 5.8 World Heritage and National Heritage Values 95 6.
  • Section 3 – End of Network Booklet

    Section 3 – End of Network Booklet

    ROAD MANAGEMENT BOOKLET SECTION 3 – END OF NETWORK BOOKLET END OF NETWORK BOOKLET End of Network Mapping in accordance with Council’s Road Management Policy. End of Network Roads - Prioritisation Listing Does the Number road Asset Segment Number of Priority Road No Road Name Start_Ch End_Ch Suburb Current Road Hierarchy AADT of service Proposed Hierarchy Based on Ranking Number Length Landowners Ranking Parcels more than 3 owners? AAA575 4011 HELENS HILL ROAD 2810 4763 1953 HELENS HILL Formed 35.82 8 5 Yes Class 7 - Rural 1 TP01498 3031 MANDAM ROAD 1333 2410 1072 BRAEMEADOWS Class 5 - Rural - Cane 23.70 12 8 Yes Class 7 - Rural 2 TP00946 5033 MESSMATE ROAD 550 1000 452 UPPER STONE Class 5 - Rural - No Cane 24.15 7 6 Yes Class 7 - Rural 3 TP01814 4034 AMOS ROAD 2813 3496 673 COOLBIE Class 5 - Rural - No Cane 21.42 6 5 Yes Class 7 - Rural 4 TP01095 2019 PALMAS ROAD 1004 2005 1019 HAWKINS CREEK Class 5 - Rural - Cane 19.97 8 7 Yes Class 7 - Rural 5 TP00990 5043 GRANTS ROAD 3 628 622 MOUNT FOX Class 5 - Rural - No Cane 20.00 6 6 Yes Class 7 - Rural 6 TP00762 6021 MARSHS ROAD 280 599 322 LANNERCOST Class 5 - Rural - No Cane 20.16 4 4 Yes Class 7 - Rural 7 TP00878 5005 BEEVA ROAD 531 946 371 TREBONNE Class 5 - Rural - No Cane 19.98 4 3 Yes Class 7 - Rural 8 TP05103 4018 CATASTIS ROAD 1488 1665 165 BAMBAROO Class 5 - Rural - Cane 18.40 7 6 Yes Class 7 - Rural 9 TP00754 6005 MANCUSOS ROAD 131 920 772 LANNERCOST Class 5 - Rural - Cane 17.37 8 7 Yes Class 7 - Rural 10 AAA326 4072 RAILWAY ROAD 0 2595 2595 HELENS HILL Formed 17.74 5 4 Yes Class 7
  • ACPNS Current Issues Information Sheet 2008/5

    ACPNS Current Issues Information Sheet 2008/5

    CPNS Mission To bring to the community the benefits of teaching, research, technology and service relevant to the philanthropic and nonprofit communities. http://cpns.bus.qut.edu.au CPNS Current Issues Information Sheet 2008/5 Tax Deductible Giving in 2005 - 2006 Executive Summary Each year The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies (CPNS) at QUT analyses statistics on tax- deductible donations made by Australians in their individual income tax returns to Deductible Gift Recipients (DGRs). The information presented below is based on the amount and type of tax-deductible donations made by Australian taxpayers to DGRs for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 extracted from the Australian Taxation Office's publication Taxation Statistics 2005-2006.1 The figures presented below only represent those amounts donated and claimed as a tax deduction by individual Australian taxpayers in their individual income tax returns. It does not include giving by corporate and trust taxpayers, “non-tax contributions” such as raffles, sponsorships, fundraising purchases (e.g., sweets, tea towels, special events) or volunteering. The Giving Australia Report estimated the 2005 year total giving using a more liberal definition of gift at $11 billion (excluding Tsunami $300m).2 This was comprised of $5.7 billion from adult Australians, $2 billion from charity gambling or special events and $3.3 billion from business sources. The following is a summary of the significant findings of our research. 1. How much was claimed as gift deductions? The total amount donated and claimed as tax-deductible donations in 2005-06 was $1.55 billion (compared to $1.47 billion for the previous income year).
  • Erosion Processes and Sources in the Burdekin Dry Tropics Catchment (RP65G)

    Erosion Processes and Sources in the Burdekin Dry Tropics Catchment (RP65G)

    Erosion processes and sources in the Burdekin Dry Tropics catchment (RP65G) Synthesis Report Chemistry Centre, Landscape Sciences June 2015 Identifying erosion processes and sources in the Burdekin Dry Tropics catchment (RP65G) – Synthesis Report Prepared by Project team members Joanne Burton a (Project Leader) Taka Furuichi a (KG2 Section Leader) Stephen Lewis b (KG3 Section Leader) Jon Olley c Scott Wilkinson d (KG1 Section Leader) Zoe Bainbridge b a: Department of Science, IT, Innovation and Arts, Brisbane, QLD b: Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD c: Australian River Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD d: CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT Landscape Sciences Science Division Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation PO Box 5078 Brisbane QLD 4001 © The State of Queensland (Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation) 2015 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 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence Under this licence you are free, without having to seek permission from DSITI, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation as the source of the publication. For more information on this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en 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.
  • Cyclone Sadie Flood Plumes in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon: Composition and Consequences

    Cyclone Sadie Flood Plumes in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon: Composition and Consequences

    WORKSHOP SERIES No 22 Cyclone Sadie Flood Plumes in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon: Composition and Consequences Proceedings of a workshop held in Townsville Queensland, Australia, 10 November 1994, at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Edited by Andrew Steven GREAT BARRIERREEF MARINEPARKAUTHORMY 0 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1997 ISSN 0156 5842 ISBN 0 642 23014 5 Published February 1997 by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority The opinions expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Cyclone Sadie flood plumes in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon : composition and consequences: proceedings of a workshop held in Townsville, Queensland, Australia, 10 November 1994, at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Bibliography.’ ISBN 0 642 23014 5. 1. Sediment transport - Queensland - Great Barrier Reef - Congresses. 2. Reef ecology - Queensland - Great Barrier Reef - Congresses. 3. Great Barrier Reef (Qld.) - Congresses. I. Steven, A. D. L. (Andrew David Leslie), 1962 - II. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia). (Series : Workshop series (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia)) ; no. 22). 574.52636709943 COVER PHOTOGRAPH Maria Creek, Kurramine in flood, 2 February 1994 Photograph by Andrew Elliott Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority GREATBARRIERREEF MARmEPARKAuTH0RITY PO Box 1379 Townsville Qld 4810 Telephone (077) 500 700 I Table of Contents Preface Workshop Program Contributed Papers Nutrients and suspended sediment discharge from the Johnstone River catchment during cyclone Sadie HM Hunter .. : . ............................................................. 1 Export of nutrients and suspended sediment from the Herbert River catchment during a flood event associated with cyclone Sadie AW Mitchell and RGV Bramley .
  • Structure and Influence of Tropical River Plumes in the Great Barrier Reef: Application and Performance of an Airborne Sea Surface Salinity Mapping System

    Structure and Influence of Tropical River Plumes in the Great Barrier Reef: Application and Performance of an Airborne Sea Surface Salinity Mapping System

    Remote Sensing of Environment 85 (2003) 204–220 www.elsevier.com/locate/rse Structure and influence of tropical river plumes in the Great Barrier Reef: application and performance of an airborne sea surface salinity mapping system D.M. Burragea,*, M.L. Heronb, J.M. Hackerc, J.L. Millerd, T.C. Stieglitza, C.R. Steinberga, A. Prytzb a Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia b School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, James Cook University, Queensland 4811, Australia c Airborne Research Australia, Flinders University, Salisbury South, Adelaide, South Australia 5106, Australia d Ocean Sciences Branch, Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, Hattiesburg, MS 39529, USA Received 29 August 2002; received in revised form 27 November 2002; accepted 2 December 2002 Abstract Input of freshwater from rivers is a critical consideration in the study and management of coral and seagrass ecosystems in tropical regions. Low salinity water can transport natural and manmade river-borne contaminants into the sea, and can directly stress marine ecosystems that are adapted to higher salinity levels. An efficient method of mapping surface salinity distribution over large ocean areas is required to address such environmental issues. We describe here an investigation of the utility of airborne remote sensing of sea surface salinity using an L-band passive microwave radiometer. The study combined aircraft overflights of the scanning low frequency microwave radiometer (SLFMR) with shipboard and in situ instrument deployments to map surface and subsurface salinity distributions, respectively, in the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon. The goals of the investigation were (a) to assess the performance of the airborne salinity mapper; (b) to use the maps and in situ data to develop an integrated description of the structure and zone of influence of a river plume under prevailing monsoon weather conditions; and (c) to determine the extent to which the sea surface salinity distribution expressed the subsurface structure.
  • Freshwater Fish and Aquatic Habitat Survey of Cape York Peninsula

    Freshwater Fish and Aquatic Habitat Survey of Cape York Peninsula

    CAPE YORK PENINSULA NATURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS PROGRAM (NRAP) FRESHWATER FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEY OF CAPE YORK PENINSULA B. W. Herbert, J.A. Peeters, P.A. Graham and A.E. Hogan Freshwater Fisheries and Aquaculture Centre Queensland Department of Primary Industries 1995 CYPLUS is a joint initiative of the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments CAPE YORK PENINSULA LAND USE STRATEGY (CYPLUS) Natural Resources Analysis Program FRESHWATER FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEY OF CAPE YORK PENINSULA B. W. Herbert, J. A. Peeters, P.A. Graham and A.E. Hogan Freshwater Fisheries and Aquaculture Centre Queensland Department of Primary Industries 1995 CYPLUS is a joint initiative of the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments Final report on project: NRlO - FISH FAUNA SURVEY Recommended citation: Herbert, B.W., Peeters, J.A., Graham, P.A. and Hogan, A.E. (1995). 'Freshwater Fish and Aquatic Habitat Survey of Cape York Peninsula'. (Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy, Office of the Co-ordinator General of Queensland, Brisbane, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.) Note: Due to the timing of publication, reports on other CYPLUS projects may not be fully cited in the REFERENCES section. However, they should be able to be located by author, agency or subject. ISBN 0 7242 6204 0 The State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia 1995. Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of the Office of the Co-ordinator General of Queensland and the Australian Government Publishing Service.
  • Surface Water Network Review Final Report

    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
  • Background Briefing on Environmental Protection and Development

    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