EIS 1204 Vol 2
ABO1 9976
Environmental impact statement: flood plain soil extraction and
river bank stabilisat ion at Elderslie I 9976 NVIIRONMENTAL I 4PACT TATEMENT I I VOLUME 2 I I FLOOD PLAIN SOIL EXTRACTION AND I RWER BANK STABILISATION I AT ELDERSLIIE
I Prepared For: WOODGRAND PTY LTD I I I I : OF I AL RQURCES ir JUN 1S I I
By: I HARVEST SCIENTIFIC SERVICES I
I March 1996 I I
I NVIIRONMENTAL I 1PACT TATEMENT I I VOLUME 2 I
I FLOOD PLAIN SOIL EXTRACTION AND I RWER BANK STABILISATION AT ELDERSLIE I I Prepared For: WOODGRAN!) PTY LTD I I I I I I I By: I HARVEST SCIENTIFIC SERVICES I I March 1996 I I
I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT I I I VOLUME 2 I I I FLOOD PLAIN SOIL EXTRACTION I AND RIVER BANK STABILISATION AT ELDERSLIE WOODGRAND PTY LTD I I I I Prepared by:
Harvest Scientific Services I Geotechnical, Environmental and Resource Consultants P0 Box 204 I CAMD EN NSW 2570 Telephone: 046 558796 I Facsimil... 046 556417 I March 1996 I I VOLUME 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FLOOD PLAIN SOIL EXTRACTION AND RIVER BANK STABILISATION AT ELDERSLIE
APPENDICES
Energy Statement
Conespondence from the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
Technical Reports Prepared for this Proposal
Excerpt from 'Environmental Guidelines for River Management'
Experts Qualifications
PLANS (Located in Jacket)
Plan 1 Project Site - Cunent Configuration showing Proposed Extraction Limits Plan 2 Project Site - Proposed Post-Extraction Landform showing Final Contours and Bank Regrade Plan 3 Project Site - Soil and Water Management Plan Plan 4 Project Site - Revegetation and Rehabilitation Measures I I
I I I I LI Ll APPENDIX 1 I ENERGY STATEMENT I I I I I I LI H F APPENDIX 1- ENERGY STATEMENT I
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Woodgrand Pty Ltd proposes to extend its current an extractive operations on property owned by the Company at Elderslie. The operation will supply a wide range of screened soil products for use in local and regional building and construction projects. Excavation will be principally undertaken by heavy earth moving plant including bulldozers, hydraulic excavators and front- end-lo aders. The soil products will be screened by a mobile power screen. The excavation and processing plant will produce an average of between 60,000 and 100,000 cubic metres of soil each year. The operation is expected to last a minimum of 5 years at the anticipated annual rate of extraction.
OPERATIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS.
2.1 Operational Establishment
During the initial stages of the operation - which would entail the stripping of the initial extractionsite and the commencement of a working face, the following fuel driven vehicles will be used on site:
One D-8 Bulldozer I One Front-end Loader
2.2 Extraction
During extraction, the following fuel driven plant will be used on site:
I One D-8 Bulldozer (intermittently) andlor hydraulic excavator One Front-end Loader
I 2.3 Processing
During the extraction and processing stage, fuel will be consumed by at least one Power Screen.
2.4 Transportation and Soil Haulage
The Company estimates that trucks hauling the soil to various local and regional projects will I travel up to 500,000 kilometres per year. The distance travelled by service and staff vehicles is considered to be a very small percentage of the truck haulage. I 11 2.5 Estimated Fuel Usage
The estimated yearly fuel usage is summarised below:
Plant Fuel Consumption Litres/Year
One Dozer 3000 One Front-end Loader 13000 One Hydraulic Excavator 4000 One Power Screen 960
Pumps 960 Vehicular Movements (11500 trucks movements/year) 144000 Site Vehicles 500
Total (approx.) 166420
3.0 JUSTIFICATION OF FuEL USAGE
3.1 Extraction
The proposed method of extraction is the only feasible, practical method to produce the soil feed for the power screen.
3.2 Transportation
The choice of highway trucks to transport the soil products is the only feasible means to convey the sand products from the extraction area to the anticipated local and regional consumers.
LI 1 I I I I I I I I I
U APPENDIX 2 CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN I AFFAIRS AND PLANNING I I I I I I I I New South Wales Government Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
Mr Mart Rampe Gordon Kirkby Harvest Scientific Services Contact: P0 Box 204 W91/01 150/001 CAMDEN NSW 2570 Our Reference:
Your Reference: b
Dear Mr Rampe,
Proposed Soil Extraction, Lot 2 DP 228039, Springs Farm, Camden LGA.
Thank you for your letter of 24 November 1995 indicating that you are consulting with the Director General with regard to the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the above development.
If development consent is required for the proposal and it is a designated development within the meaning of Schedule 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 1994, an EIS must accompany the development application to Camden Council. The EIS shall be prepared in accordance with clause 51 of the Regulation (see Attachment No. 1) and shall bear a certificate required by clause 50 of the Regulation.
Attachment No.2 is a guide to the type of information most likely to be relevant to the development you propose and should be used as a basis for preparing the EIS. Not all of the matters raised therein may be appropriate for consideration in the EIS for your proposal; equally, the guide is not exhaustive.
In addition, pursuant to clause 52 of the Regulation, the Director General requires that the following key issues be specifically addressed in the EIS:
the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental plan No. 20 - Hawkesbury - Nepean River; the provisions of Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 9 - Extractive Industries; Macarthur Regional Environmental Study; Elderslie Sand and Soil Deposits Land Management Study;
Governor Macquarie Tower 1 Farrer Place, Sydney 2000 Box 3927 GPO, Sydney 2001
Telephone: 1021 391 2000 Facsimile: (02) 391 2111 V.
n Page 2
. the relationship of the existing development and the proposed extension to the operation, I including a review of the environmental performance of the existing extraction operations; . an assessment of the impact of the development on the local flood regime, any proposed I mitigation measures, and their potential impact on floodwater distribution; assessment of thepotential long term geomorphological impacts to the Nepean River and Springs Creek, including channel changes, alteration to flow and flooding; potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality and mitigation measures; an assessment of potential impacts to riparian vegetation and habitat values; results of consultations with: - Department of Land and Water Conservation - Environment Protection Authority - Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust - Mine Subsidence Board - Department of Mineral Resources - National Parks and Wildlife Service
In preparing the EIS you should approach Camden Council and take into account any comments Council considers may apply to its determination of the proposal.
Should you require any further information regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Yours sincerely,
. Stephen Brown i Acting Manager Major Assessments and Hazards Branch As Delegate for the Director General I Department of Urban Affairs and Planning I ATTACHMENT NO 1 I STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Pursuant to clauses 51 and 84 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 1994, I the contents of an EIS must include: SCHEDULE 2
I 1 . A summary of the environmental impact statement. 2. A statement of the objectives of the development or activity. 3. An analysis of any feasible alternatives to the carrying out of the development or activity, having regard to its objectives, including: (a) the consequences of not carrying out the development or activity; and (b) the reasons justifying the carrying out of the development or activity. I 4. An analysis of the development or activity, including: (a) a full description of the development or activity; and a general description of the environment likely to be affected by the development or I activity, together with a detailed description of those aspects of the environment that are likely to be significantly affected; and I the likely impact on the environment of the development or activity, having regard to: (i) the nature and extent of the development or activity; and (ii) the nature and extent of any building or work associated with the development or I activity; and the way in which any such building or work is to be designed, constructed and operated; and I any rehabilitation measures to be undertaken in connection with the development or activity; and (d) a full description of the measures proposed to mitigate any adverse effects of the I development or activity on the environment. 5. The reasons justifying the carrying out of the development or activity in the manner proposed, having regard to biophysical, economic and social considerations and the principles of I ecologically sustainable development or activity in the manner proposed, having regard to biophysical, economic and social considerations and the principles of ecologically sustainable development. I 6. Compilation, (in a single section of the environmental impact statement) of the measures referred to in item 4 (d). 7. A list of any approvals that must be obtained under any other Act or law before the I development or activity may lawfully be carried out. 8. For the purposes of this Schedule, "the principles of ecologically sustainable development" are as follows: I The precautionary principle - namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. I Inter-generational equity - namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the I benefit of future generations. Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity. I (d) Improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources. -2-
I Note: The matters to be included in item (4) (c) might include such of the following as are relevant to the development or activity:
I the likelihood of soil contamination arising from the development or activity; the impact of the development or activity on flora and fauna; the likelihood of air, noise or water pollution arising from the development or activity; I the impact of the development or activity on the health of people in the neighbourhood of the development or activity; I any hazards arising from the development or activity; the impact of the development or activity on traffic in the neighbourhood of the development or activity; I the effect of the development or activity on local climate; the social and economic impact of the development or activity; the visual impact of the development or activity on the scenic quality of land in the I neighbourhood of the development or activity; the effect of the development or activity on soil erosion and the silting up of rivers or lakes; I the effect of the development or activity on the cultural and heritage significance of the land. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 3 I TECHNICAL REPORTS PREPARED FOR THIS PROPOSAL
Li Hranisavljevic D, Nittim, R, and Cox, RJ:( 1996). Proposed Floodplain Soil Extraction - Option 5. Technical Report. February, 1996. Unpublished Report from the University of NSW I Water Research Laboratory for Harvest Scientific Services. Mucci, A (1996). Correspondence from Wirrimbirra Sanctuary
I Rampe, M (1995b): Report on Drilling, Thurn's Weir. Unpublished Report by Harvest Scientific Services for Woodgrand Pty Ltd.
I Thorns, M (1996): Geomorphological Assessment of Nepaen River and Adjacent River Bank - near Thurn's Weir. Unpublished Report for Harvest Scientific Services.
I Evans, N (1996): Elderslie Soil Extraction Project. Unpublished Report from Snowy I Mountains Engineering Corporation. I I I I I I I 1 I THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES WATER RESEARCH LABORATORY I I I I I I I WOODGRAND Pty Ltd PROPOSED FLOOD PLAIN SOIL EXTRACTION - OPTION 5 I I I by I I D Hranisavljevic, R Nittim and R J Cox I I Technical Report No. 96/03 I February 1996 I I I I I PREFACE I The work reported herein was carried out and is published under the direction of the I Director of the Water Research Laboratory, acting on behalf of the client, Harvest Scientific I Services. Information published in technical reports is available for general release only by permission I of the client and the Director. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PREFACE 1 I INTRODUCTION 1 PROPOSED SITE TREATMENT - OPTION 5 1 I NUMERICAL MODELLING 1 3. 1. Presentation of numerical modelling results 2 I 3. 1.1. Vector diagrams 3 3.1.2. Flow Distributions 3 I 3.2. Proposed site treatment - Option 5 3 UPPER NEPEAN FLOOD STUDY (1996) 4 1 BANK PROTECTION 5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF BANK MINING S
I FREQUENCY OF FLOODING 6 I CONCLUSION 6 REFERENCES 8 I
I LIST OF TABLES
I Floods modelled Flow division between river channel and flood plain I Comparison of DLAWC and WRL models I I I I I I I I
I LIST OF FIGURES
1 Finite element model of Site Flood flow distribution in Thums weir reach I Velocity vectors - existing condition, 1 in 2 year flood Velocity vectors - Option 5, 1 in 2 year flood Velocity vectors - existing condition, 1 in 5 year flood I Velocity vectors - Option 5,1 in 5 year flood Velocity vectors - existing condition, 1 in 100 year flood I Velocity vectors - Option 5, 11 in 100 year flood Existing condition - flow distribution, 1 in 2 year flood I Option 5 - flow distribution, 1 in 2 year flood Existing condition - flow distribution, 1 in 5 year flood I Option 5 - flow distribution, 1 in 5 year flood Existing condition - flow distribution, 1 in 100 year flood I Option 5 - flow distribution, 1 in 100 year flood I I I I I I I I I I I I -1- 1 i. INTRODUCTION I This report was commissioned by Harvest Scientific Services on behalf of Woodgrand Pty Ltd as a continuation of the work described in Water Research Laboratory (WRL) Technical I Report No.95/05 "Woodgrand Pty Ltd, Bank Soil Extraction at Elderslie' (Nittim & Hranisavljevic 1995). The present report describes the results of numerical modelling of a I further development option, Option 5, which preserves more of the riparian vegetation.
2. PROPOSED SITE TREATMENT - OPTION 5
The site treatment proposed now (Option 5) preserves more of the riparian vegetation. The I bank between Ch 3,800 and 4,000 is regraded to a flatter 1 in 3 slope and revegetated, the crest being adjusted from the existing level of RL 69.0 to RL67.0 AHD. This regrading was I referred to as a "diversion bank" in Options 3 and 4 in the previous report.
1 3. NUMERICAL MODELLING The RMA-2 numerical model used in this study was described in the previous report (Nittim I & Hranisavljevic 1995). The model parameters were given in Section 3.1 of that report and have not been altered for this report.
The model schematisation is shown in Figure 1 (Figure 4 in Nittim & Hranisavljevic 1995). I As can he seen in the figure, only a small part of the flood plain on the southern bank was included in the model. The reasoning behind excluding most of the southern flood plain is that the area is essentially a backwater area with the flow pattern governed by the 90° bend I about 1 km upstream at Menangle Park. Figure 2 shows the expected flow pattern between the upstream and downstream bends. In the upstream bend the flow follows the high ground I on the outside of the bend (right bank) driving a slow moving circulation cell on the flood plain on the left bank. At the downstream end of the circulation cell the flow spreads out I onto the flood plain.. On the northern flood plain the main flow is at the toe of Springs Dam and on the southern flood plain the flow spreads over part of the flood plain driving another I circulation cell in Navigation Creek valley. The actual southern flood plain flow may extend somewhat further south than modelled but the effect of the reduced flood plain width in the model is expected to he negligible, especially as the evaluation of the modelling is based on I comparing the development option with the existing situation both of which are modelled with the same flood plain width. This analysis of the the flow pattern is based on past I experience with similar major river bends including observations on the Hunter and
I P -2-
Hawkeshury Rivers and on numerical modelling with RMA-2 of the bend at Paradise Point on the Lower Hawkesbury River.
The results from the previous modelling showed some anomalous velocity vectors near the downstream boundary for the 1 in 100 year average recurrence interval (ART) flood, existing condition (Figure 7, Nittim & Hranisavljevic 1995). The flow as it left the high ground at Ch 3,350 accelerated in the deeper water as shown by the vector plot, instead of slowing I down. Similarly there was a decrease in velocity downstream of Thurns Weir in the river channel. These anomalies have been traced to a problem with the computer plotting routine I - once the plotting routine was correctly adjusted these errors were eliminated. Figure 7 in this report showing the 1 in 100 year ART flood flow on existing topography now records a I reduction in velocity as the flow leaves the high ground on the flood plain at Ch 3,350 and also the velocity vectors downstream of Thurns Weir in the river channel stay at the same I magnitude instead of decreasing. This figure (Figure 7 in this report) should replace the incorrectly plotted Figure 7 in Nittim & Hranisavljevic (1995).
The existing topography which was previously modelled only for the 1 in 100 year flood, is now also modelled with the 1 in 2 and 5 year ART floods. The new design topography, I Option 5, is modelled with the 1 in 2, 5 and 100 year ARI floods. The characteristics of the floods modelled are described in Table 1 below.
Table 1 I Floods modelled
Hood Down stream I frequency Peak discharge flood level years m3/s in AHD I 1 in 2 620 66.0 1 in 5 2200 69.2 7200 72.7 I 1 in 100 1 1 3.1. Presentation of numerical modelling results The results of numerical modelling are presented as vector diagrams in Figures 3 to 8 and 1 the flow disinhutions between river channel and flood plain are summarised in Table 2 and plotted in Figures 9 to 14. I I I -3-
1 3.1.1. Vector diagrams The vector diagrams are plotted as pictorial representations of the flow patterns. They are I not an accurate record of point velocities and care is needed when comparing point velocities between different conditions. Because of the fmeness of the model mesh it is not I possible to plot a vector at every mesh node. The plotting program therefore plots the arrows a minimum distance apart and as the meshes for the existing conditions may he I different from the meshes for the Options, the arrows will not necessarily he plotted at the same locations. Groups of several vectors can, however, be safely compared.
3.1.2. Flow Distributions
Flow distributions were derived as before along a cross section line near chainage (Ch) I 3,700E by transferring node velocities from RMA-2 to a Lotus spreadsheet set up to calculate discharges heween nodes along the cross section line. The flow distributions are I summarised in Table 2 below and plotted in Figures 9 to 14.
I Table 2 Flow division between river channel and flood plain LT Flood Flow distribution % frequency River channel Flood Plain I years existing Option 4 Option 5 existing Option 4 Option 5 100 25 24 27 75 76 73 I 5 58 45 47 42 55 53 I 2 89 82 85 11 18 15 3.2. Proposed site treatment - Option 5
I Comparison of vector plots of the existing condition and Option 5 shows that for the 1 in 2 year ARI flood there is very little difference (Figures 3 and 4). Springs Creek is flooded by I backwater from the river and no flood water flows along the base of Springs Dam. More of the flood plain upstream of Ch 4000E is flooded under Option 5 but the flood plain I velocities are quite similar. At the comparison cross section line (Ch 3700E) the flow is mostly confined to the river channel and the area excavated in Option 5 is a backwater with no flow through it. As shown in Table 2 there is a reduction in river channel flow of 4% LI from the existing condition and a corresponding increase in flood plain flow. This increase is I considered to he insignificant. I I -4-
For the 1 in 5 year ART flood there is a concentration of flow at the toe of Springs Dam in the existing condition whereas in Option 5 there is a more even spread of flow over the flood I plain (Figures 5 and 6). This is due to the even cover of vegetation on the flood plain in Option 5 compared with the minimal tree cover in the existing state. Flow distribution at the comparison line shows an increase in flood plain flow from 42% of the total to 53%, an I increase of 11%. This increase in flood plain flow is, however, accompanied by a reduction in flood plain velocity and it is expected that there will be no adverse effects on the flood plain.
For the 1 in 100 ART flood the velocities are significantly reduced at the base of Springs Dam by Option 5 (figures 7 and 8). Elsewhere on the floodplain the velocities are slightly I lower for Option 5. This is because the increased roughness of the fully vegetated flood plain reduces the velocity but the greater depth of flow maintains the total flow on the floodplain. At the comparison cross section line the proportion of flow on the flood plain is I practically the same as for the existing condition (less than 2% change).
Floods higher than 1 in 100 year ART have not been modelled, fistly because no data had been published when the original study was carried out and secondly the impact of the I development decreases as the flood level increases, the excavation depth on the flood plain becoming a smaller proportion of the flood flow depth. Also, it must he remembered that I floods of say 50 years and higher recurrence interval are regarded as natural disasters and some damage of the river banks or flood plain through scour, debris or deposition must he expected. For instance the minor flood of July 1975 (1 in 6.5 year ART, WRC 1986) washed I away the Cowpastures Bridge, showing that damage, especially from debris must he I expected in any flood. 4. UPPER NEPEAN FLOOD STUDY (1996)
The report of this study by the Department of Land & Water Conservation (DLAWC) was released on 12 February 1996. The Executive Summary and results of numerical modelling I near Thurns weir were supplied to WRL by Harvest Scientific Services. The numerical modelling in that study was carried out using the one dimensional MIKE 1 1 model. The I comparison cross section line for RMA-2 modelling (Figure 1) is about 400 metres upstream of cross-section B9 of the MIKE 1 1 model. This is sufficiently close for comparing the two I models. Comparisons are made for the 1 in 100 year flood in Table 3 below. I I -5-
Table 3 Comparison of DLAWC and WRL models
MIKE11 (DLAWC) RMA-2 (WRL) flood level 72.7 in AHD at CS B9 72.6 rn AHD at CS 139 left hand flood plain velocity 1.5 rn/sec no flow assumed river channel velocity 1.9 rn/sec 1.8 rn/sec Fight hand flood plain velocity 1 1.0 rn/sec 2.4 rn/sec
As can he seen the flood levels are practically equal, WRLs flood level being adopted from the Camden Flood Plain Study (WRC 1986). WRL assumed no flow on the left hand flood (L/H) plain as explained in Section 3. The river channel velocities are practically equal for the two models but the right hand flood plain velocity derived by WRL is higher than that obtained by DLAWC. This is the consequence of assuming no flow on the left flood plain as explained in Section 3. As shown in Figure 2 some flow probably does take place on the L/H flood plain and the WRL estimate of RJH flood plain velocity is probably too high while the DLAWC estimate is probably too low. For the purposes of this report, which is to compare Option 5 with the existing condition, this is of no consequence since we are comparing like with like.
BANK PROTECTION
In the previous report WRL argued against using toe protection (Nittirn & Hranisavljevic 1995, Section 3.4.2) on the basis that it may initiate erosion downstream on the opposite hank. This was based on experience with rock bank protection; the softer approach of using "brushing" to protect the toe as suggested by Dr Thorns is less likely to cause downstream erosion. The Water Research Laboratory has no experience with this type of toe protection.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF BANK MINING
As was described in the previous report (Nittim & Hranisavljevic 1995, Section 4.3) about I 7.4 km of river hank mining including some 4 km of river bed mining has taken place or is under way between Cohhity and Menangle under the present mining policy. At the I Woodgrand site 980 metres of hank have been mined under previous permits. The present proposal, Option 5, involves no further hank mining, the mining taking place on the flood I plain away from the river hank. The proposed development thus does not create any sediment sink.s and does not afièct the sediment budget of the river and therefore does not [I I -6-
I contribute to any effects that the past and present bank mining may have had or will have in I the future. FREQUENCY OF FLOODING
I The frequency of flooding on the flood plain is controlled by the level of the river hank while the extent of the flooding is controlled by the level of the flood plain. For a particular point I on the flood plain, if its level is lowered by mining then it may he flooded more frequently if there is a section of river hank low enough to let the flood waters onto the flood plain. The I areas mined under Option 5 drain to Springs Creek, which is open to the river. As can he seen in Figures 9 to 11 some of the land that was just flooded by the 1 in 5 year flood (Figure 11) is now flooded by the 1 in 2 year flood. On the other hand the 1 in 10 year, which reaches a height of 71.6 m AHD will not flood a larger area as no land above RL70.0 m AHD will he excavated. The increase in the extent of flooding will he confined to floods Li in the range of 1 in 2 years to 1 in 10 years.
L CONCLUSION
A new development option for the Woodgrand site, Option 5, is proposed by Harvest Li Scientific Services. This Option, which preserves more of the riparian vegetation has been compared with the existing condition for 1 in 2, 5 and 100 year floods by two dimensional numerical modelling. The numerical modelling indicated that the magnitude of the velocities on the flood plain was significantly reduced by the proposed Option 5 while in the river P channel the velocities remain constant or are slightly reduced.
The modelling showed no change in the distribution of flow between the river channel and I the flood plain for the 1 in 2 and 1 in 100 year floods. Although an increase in flood plain 1 flow was deduced for the 1 in 5 year flood there is a decrease in flood plain velocity due to L.J the higher flood plain roughness. For the 1 in 10 and 20 year floods the increases in flood plain flow will he smaller as the depth of flooding increases and the depth of excavation I becomes a smaller proportion of the flood depth. It is considered that the changes in flow distribution are small enough for successful rehabilitation of the site to he carried out.
An important benefit of the revegetation and reshaping of the ground under Option 5 is that rl the high velocities that at present exist at the toe of Springs Dam will he significantly reduced thus substantially reducing the risk of scour that exists at present. I As no hank mining will he undertaken in Option 5, no new sediment sinks will he created and the sediment budget of the river will not he changed. Consequently there will he no I -7- addition to the effects of present and past bank mining that may have been cumulating over time.
The frequency of over bank flooding will not be increased by Option 5 although hack water flooding up Spring Creek will inundate a larger the area for floods smaller than 1 in 10 years. This is considered not to he detrimental to the successful rehabilitation of the mined area.
9. REFERENCES
Dept of Land and Water Conservation (1996), Upper Nepean flood study'
Nittim R & Hranisavljevic D (1995), 'Woodgrand Pty Ltd, Bank soil extraction at Elderslie", WRL Technical Report 95/05
Water Resources Commission, NSW (1986), "Camden flood study report" ------
1100
1000
900
800
C-,
z0 700z
600
000 273900 274000 274100 Z74ZOO .'4iUU i/44UU e (4CUU C (4DUU 273100 273200 273300 273400 273500 213600 273700 273800 IASflNG 41
Menange Pa
QT
CALM 1975 AIR PHOTO
LEGEND
I 1 I I 1 1 HIGH GROUND
0 500 l000m I - FLOW DIREGTON SCALE I
I FLOOD FLOW DISTRIBUTION IN THURNS WEIR REACH FIGURE 2 I ------
.75o
1100
000 CROSS SECON ONE
Sprin trn 900 70 68 66 --- / - 66
64
CHANNEL '/ lIe; 66 64
600 / .-NEPAN Thurns/ Weir - -
500 274000 274100 2 74200 274300 274400 274500 2746uu 27 1 00 273200 27330C 273400 Z73e0U Z I.SuLlu 4fitm, 273800 273900 0 100 200m -1 EXISTCON 2 AR! N=0 030, 0025, 0090 SCALE
ii
VELOCITY VECTORS - EXISTING CONDITION m 1 IN 2 YEAR FLOOD ------
-3 750 1100
1000 GROSS SECTION LINE
Sp ong S Dam 900
L -64 65 6 - \ 64- -62 800
-6/ 66
64 60
6; 61 700 64 CHANNEL 67 - -
T 600 - .- T hums Woo
500 .------_-- 273101 27320C 277300 273100 273500 273800 273700 273800 273900 274000 274100 274200 274300 274400 274500 274600 FST1NC
0 100 200m NEWDESIGN 2 AR! N=0 030. 0025. 0090
SCALE
-Ti C) C VELOCITY VECTORS - OPTION 5 1 IN 2 YEAR FLOOD ------
4 000
1100 - TPlijIIP iI)IIII T1 11TI )IIIIITIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIII)ITTIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIT
CROSS SECTION LINE 1000 -
800 - - - 111 4-
800
7)0 66
45
Thurns Weir
500 273100 273200 273300 273-400 273500 273800 2(3700 4J 1.1000 Id t.JVUU 2(4U)II) 2)400 074000 274300 274400 274500 274600 E'T0)0 0 100 200m I. EXISTCON 5 ARI N =0.030, 0 025, 0.090 SCALE
11
c VELOCITY VECTORS — EXISTING CONDITION 1 IN 5 YEAR FLOOD a' ------
1100
I 000 GROSS SECTION LINE
Springs . Dam 800
70
64
800 61 464
700 CHAYNEL -67 -
54
600 NEFFAN
Thurns Weir -
500 273103 272200 272300 273400 27300 273630 22702 573800 570800 014000 014100 014504' 274300 274400 274500 274600 NC 0 100 200ii N}:WDE3i 5 API N=0 030. 0 025. 0090 SCALE
m VELOCITY VECTORS - OPTION 5 1 IN 5 YEAR FLOOD ------
4000
100 =
4— 4- CROSS SECTION LINE 4-- 4 HE - HIGH VELOCITIES AT BASE 4- OF SPRINGS DAM 4- 4— -- 8 - Sprin s 00 -66
. 68
800
tiNEL 70'
64 4-
44 601 ( - * Thurns Weir - - -
I -- -- -i-- 300 ,00 273100 277200 073:00 4Ii4U -- _ 0 100 200.
EXISTCON 100 AR! N'- O 030, 0025. 0090 *CALE
11 0 C VELOCITY VECTORS - EXISTING CONDITION m 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD ------
4 000
1100
4- 4- 4- 4--
1000 4- 4-- - •-- - CROSS SECTION LINE -
4- 4- 4- 4--- * REDUCED VELOCITIES AT BASE OF SPR GS DAM 4 SprIngs - Dam - Poo 4 4- 4- 4- 68 4- 4,- 4-- 4---4- ---- - 4- 4- - '- - 4-- - 4- 4- -- 4 4- 4- - = 4- - - 4- 4 - • 4- 4- 4- - J-_ - 66, 64 4-. 4- 4__ 4- .- 4- 4- - 4- 4- 4- 4- -4 •_ _- 4- 4-.4-- 4- 4-- i- 4- 4- 4-- •- 44 - 4- - 4- 00 4-61 4- 4- 4-4 700 --- - - - 4- 4- - - -. - 4- 4- 4-4-i - - 4 . • • - 4 4- - - 4- 4- - - - - 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-4- 4- 4- 600 - 4- 4-4-4- - Thursir •-.4- - - - -
jJ______274000 274100 273100 270700 273300 270406 270500 273400 270770 273800 273800 274200 274300 274400 274500 2741500 E*271*G
100 200m NEEsoP 100 APi N-0 030. 0.025, 0,000 SCALE ii C - VELOCITY VECTORS - OPTION 5 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD co I I WOODGRO5.WK4 01/30/96 Nepean River comparison section existing topography I 1:2 year flood flood level 66.1 02 = 620 node velocity average node no. X Y Z delta Y chainage depth area Vx Vy V-node delta 0 adjust 0 %0 vdocity I 505 3696.2 942.3 70.00 34.1 391.9 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1468 3699.1 908.2 69.00 25.0 357.8 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 388 3700.5 883.2 68.00 46.3 332.8 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 389 3686.8 836.9 66.17 42.3 286.6 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 I 391 3679.7 794.6 67.11 23.7 244.2 0.00 60.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 456 3691.3 770.8 61.00 27.0 220.5 5.06 83.1 0.00 0.00 0 0 383 3696.9 743.8 64.97 27.5 193.5 1.09 15.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 381 3704.3 716.3 67.73 15.3 166.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 376 3704.3 701.0 68.99 44.3 150.7 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.09 0 0 I 375 3706.6 656.7 68.25 28.3 106.4 0.00 32.6 0.18 0.01 0.18 0.32 10 12 366 3702.9 628.5 63.75 15.9 78.1 2.31 66.7 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.74 49 57 11 45 3707.2 612.5 60.00 4.4 62.2 6.06 42.0 1.02 0.17 1.03 1.10 46 53 61 3708.3 608.1 53.00 27.2 57.8 13.06 355.5 1.14 0.22 1.16 1.06 377 432 62 3713.7 580.9 53.00 4.8 30.6 13.06 46.1 0.95 0.13 0.96 0.86 40 45 I 0.75 0.54 18 46 3714.0 576.1 60.00 11.1 25.8 6.06 34.1 0.13 0.76 21 155 37169 565.0 66.00 14.6 14.6 0.06 0.4 0.31 0.05 0.31 0.16 0 0 156 3721.7 550.3 70.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 89 I total 0 541 620 100 I I I I I I I I I I I
EXISTING CONDITION - FLOW DISTRIBUTION I 2 year flood FIGURE 9 I I I WOODGRO5.WK4 01/30/96 Nepean River comparison section Option 5 I 1:2 year flood flood level 66.0 05 = 620 node velocity node no. X Y Z delta Y chainage depth area Vx Vy V-node delta 0 adjust 0 %Q velocity 1 505 3696.2 942.3 70.00 34.1 391.9 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1468 3699.1 908.2 69.00 25.0 357.8 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 388 3700.5 883.2 67.50 46.3 332.8 0.00 23.1 0.00 0.00 0 0 389 3686.8 836.9 65.00 42.3 286.6 1.00 21.2 0.00 0.00 0 0 391 3679.7 794.6 67.00 23.7 244.2 0.00 71.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 I 456 3691.3 770.8 60.00 27.0 220.5 6.00 121.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 383 3696.9 743.8 63.00 27.5 193.5 3.00 116.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 381 3704.3 716.3 60.50 15.3 166.0 5.50 87.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 376 3704.3 701.0 60.00 44.3 150.7 6.00 132.9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 30 31 I 375 3706.6 656.7 67.00 28.3 106.4 0.00 28.3 0.44 0.07 0.45 0.47 13 14 366 3702.9 628.5 64.00 15.9 78.1 2.00 63.7 0.50 0.03 0.50 0.76 48 51 15 45 3707.2 612.5 60.00 4.4 62.2 6.00 41.7 1.00 0.14 1.01 1.08 45 47 61 3708.3 608.1 53.00 27.2 57.8 13.00 353.8 1.13 0.18 1.14 1.10 388 409 62 3713.7 580.9 53.00 4.8 30.6 13.00 45.8 1.04 0.14 1.05 0.94 43 46 I 46 3714.0 576.1 60.00 11.1 25.8 6.00 33.4 0.83 0.13 0.84 0.63 21 22 155 3716.9 565.0 66.00 14.6 14.6 0.00 0.0 0.41 0.07 0.42 0.21 0 0 156 3721.7 550.3 70.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 85 1 totalO 588 620 100 I I I I I I I I I I I
OPTION 5 - FLOW DISTRIBUTION I 2 year flood FIGURE 10 I LL 38flOkJ POOU leolc 9 NOi1fl8IU1SG M01J - NOI1INO3 ONI1SIX I I I I j oo.]
w a6euieqO I 000 000 00 0 0
OL I 00 I 0) Oc 000 0) C) I
3 > 09 I
09 0000 I OL
0000 09 I 0O9 leaA IUOII!PUOD bU!SX
001. 0033 901.3 0I1O1 89 0 0 P1.0 /30 00 000 00 000L €099 /1.3/6 951- 171. 81. 890 8/0 993 096 9171. 9171. 0099 0999 691./6 991- 08 Li 901- P81- 93L 056 93 1-1-1. 0009 V9L9 0P1-/C 917 /6 36 8-V1. 1.91. 939 0991- 902 817 0029 6089 [61-/C 39 686 868 003 663 1.6PP 0991. 8/9 ?/3 0068 1.809 680/E 1.9 OP1. P81. PC 633 1./S 096 339 PP 0009 931-9 3/0/8 88 31i 933 91.3 LL1. 931. 51.31. 9/5 1.8/ 691. 9/69 9839 630/8 998 96 1.6 360 690 686 931. t7901. €63 5389 /999 990/C 9/6 PC 3€ 280 901. 062 1-90 /091. 8P-P 6689 01.0/ CP0/6 9/8 91. 91. 880 690 P/1. LL1. 0991. 691. €L/9 691./ €170/C 1.86 €9 1.9 60 6t70 998 69P 9661. 9/3 /6 P9 888/ 69698 888 38 8/ 9t0 00 39/1. 058 9033 0/3 001.9 80/L 81.69€ 988 8/ 0/ P90 890 1.631- 663 3PP3 /23 1-1./9 9176L /6/98 1.66 881. /61. €1.1. 891. 1.1.31. CEC 9983 €317 /1.99 6988 89892 688 3L1. P91. LP1. 981. /1.1.1. 091- 8386 C917 0089 3688 900/C 88€ 1-6 63 81.1. 001. 093 050 8/92 093 0069 3806 1-6692 89171. 8 8 060 080 98 000 61.68 1-17C 00OL €176 39698 509 AlpoiaA 0% 0 Isnfpe 0 cjep epou- eie qdep o6urqo A lOP z A x au epou
0033 = 90 969 OAOI POOl!
pooJaA9:1. Aqdej6odoj 6uisixe uojoes uosuedwoo JeAIH udeN
96/63/1.0 17NMSOH0000M I I WOODGRO5.WK4 01/29/96 Nepean River comparison section Option 5 1 1 :5 year flood flood level 69.5 05= 2200 average I node no. X Y Z delta Y chainage depth area V-node delta 0 adjust 0 %Q velocity 505 3696.2 942.3 70.00 34.1 391.9 0.00 8.5 0.20 0.26 2 2 1468 3699.1 908.2 69.00 25.0 357.8 0.50 31.2 0.31 0.43 13 14 I 388 3700.5 883.2 67.50 46.3 332.8 2.00 150.4 0.55 0.67 101 107 389 3686.8 836.9 65.00 42.3 286.6 4.50 148.2 0.79 0.73 108 115 391 3679.7 794.6 67.00 23.7 244.2 2.50 142.3 0.67 0.72 102 108 456 3691.3 770.8 60.00 27.0 220.5 9.50 216.3 0.76 0.75 161 171 I 383 3696.9 743.8 63.00 27.5 193.5 6.50 213.1 0.73 0.71 150 159 381 3704.3 716.3 60.50 15.3 166.0 9.00 141.3 0.68 0.62 88 93 376 3704.3 701.0 60.00 44.3 150.7 9.50 265.8 0.56 0.51 136 144 375 3706.6 656.7 67.00 28.3 106.4 2.50 113.0 0.46 0.72 81 86 I 366 3702.9 628.5 64.00 15.9 78.1 5.50 119.5 0.97 1.37 164 174 53 45 3707.2 612.5 60.00 4.4 62.2 9.50 57.1 1.77 1.85 105 112 61 3708.3 608.1 53.00 27.2 57.8 16.50 449.1 1.92 1.60 716 760 62 3713.7 580.9 53.00 4.8 30.6 16.50 62.6 1.27 1.18 74 78 I 46 3714.0 576.1 60.00 11.1 25.8 9.50 72.5 1.09 0.87 63 67 155 3716.9 565.0 66.00 14.6 14.6 3.50 25.6 0.65 0.43 11 12 156 3721.7 550.3 70.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.20 0.10 0 0 47 I total 0 2075 2200 100 I Option 5 I 5 year flood 80 2500
6 yr flood level I 70 2000 I 60 _ -
60 1500 I 0 --- -- 40 a 0 0 --- - - 1000 I 30 -
20 - -- 5005 I 0 - U- 10 - -. •_o-_ -- .- I 0 ------0------0 ------o- I -- 0 100 200 300 400 I Chainage m 1mRL *0 1
OPTION 5 - FLOW DISTRIBUTION I 5 year flood FIGURE 12 I I
W000GRO5.WK4 01/29/96
I Nepean River comparison section existing topography 1:100 year flood I flood level 73.0 0100 = 7200 average node no. X Y Z delta Y chainage depth area V-node delta 0 velocity adjust 0 %0 505 3696.2 942.3 70.00 34.1 391.9 3.00 119.4 1.76 1.81 216 232 1468 3699.1 908.2 69.00 25.0 357.8 4.00 112.4 1.86 2.49 279 299 I 388 3700.5 883.2 68.00 46.3 332.8 5.00 273.7 3.11 3.22 880 942 389 3686.8 836.9 66.17 42.3 286.6 6.83 269.3 3.32 2.61 702 752 391 3679.7 794.6 67.11 23.7 244.2 5.89 212.1 1.89 1.93 408 437 456 3691.3 770.8 61.00 27.0 220.5 12.00 270.8 1.96 2.04 552 592 383 3696.9 743.8 64.97 27.5 193.5 8.03 182.9 2.12 2.23 408 437 I 381 3704.3 716.3 67.73 15.3 166.0 5.27 70.9 2.34 2.56 181 194 376 3704.3 701.0 68.99 44.3 150.7 4.01 194.0 2.77 2.17 420 450 375 3706.6 656.7 68.25 28.3 106.4 4.75 197.8 1.56 2.18 431 462 366 3702.9 628.5 63.75 15.9 78.1 9.25 177.3 2.80 3.20 567 608 75 45 3707.2 612.5 60.00 4.4 62.2 13.00 72.5 3.60 3.53 255 274 I 61 3708.3 608.1 53.00 27.2 57.8 20.00 544.3 3.45 2.26 1227 1315 62 3713.7 580.9 53.00 4.8 30.6 20.00 79.5 1.06 0.96 76 81 46 3714.0 576.1 60.00 11.1 25.8 13.00 111.5 0.85 0.72 80 85 155 3716.9 565.0 66.00 14.6 14.6 7.00 73.1 0.58 0.53 38 41 156 3721.7 550.3 70.00 0.0 3.00 0.0 0.47 0.24 0 0 25 I total 0 6722 7200 100
I Existing condition 100 ye4rflood
80 I 100 yr flood level 2500 70
2050 I I 60 a I < 50 5 1500 9 I 40 a C-) 1000 30 - 0 a) I 0 S 20 0) ..... 500 - . '0 5 a - ...... 0 0 I 0 U-
0 0 100 200 300 400 I Chalnago In RL 001 I I I I I I EXISTING CONDITION - FLOW DISTRIBUTION 100 year flood FIGURE 13 I 1 I WOODGRO5.wK4 01/29/96 Nepean River comparison section Option 5 1:100 year flood
I flood level 73.1 0100 = 7200 node velocity average node no. X Y Z delta Y chainage depth area Vx Vy V-node delta 0 adjust 0 %O vdocity 1 505 3696.2 942.3 70.00 34.1 391.9 3.10 122.8 1.19 0.27 1.22 1.32 162 168 1468 3699.1 908.2 69.00 25.0 357.8 4.10 121.2 1.38 0.35 1.42 1.50 181 187 388 3700.5 883.2 67.50 46.3 332.8 5.60 316.9 1.55 0.25 1.57 1.78 563 581 389 3686.8 836.9 65.00 42.3 286.6 8.10 300.7 1.95 0.36 1.98 1.90 570 588 391 3679.7 794.6 67.00 23.7 244.2 610 227.6 1.81 0.02 1.81 1.79 408 421 I 456 3691.3 770.8 60.00 27.0 220.5 13.10 313.6 1.77 0.10 1.77 1.79 560 578 383 3696.9 743.8 63.00 27.5 193.5 10.10 312.1 1.80 0.01 1.80 1.74 543 561 381 3704.3 716.3 60.50 15.3 166.0 12.60 196.3 1.67 0.20 1.68 1.65 323 334 376 3704.3 701.0 60.00 44.3 150.7 13.10 425.3 1.61 0.05 1.61 1.76 747 771 I 375 3706.6 656.7 67.00 28.3 106.4 6.10 214.8 1.90 0.06 1.90 2.27 488 504 366 3702.9 628.5 64.00 15.9 78.1 9.10 176.9 2.62 0.35 2.64 3.20 566 584 73 45 3707.2 612.5 60.00 4.4 62.2 13.10 72.9 3.70 0.63 3.75 3.76 274 283 61 3708.3 608.1 53.00 27.2 57.8 20.10 547.1 3.67 0.83 3.76 2.52 1377 1421 62 3713.7 580.9 53.00 4.8 30.6 20.10 80.0 1.27 0.04 1.27 1.18 94 97 I 46 3714.0 576.1 60.00 11.1 25.8 13.10 112.6 1.04 0.29 1.08 0.84 95 98 155 3716.9 565.0 66.00 14.6 14.6 7.10 74.6 0.60 0.08 0.61 0.34 25 26 156 3721.7 550.3 70.00 0.0 3.10 0.0 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.04 0 0 27 I total 0 6977 7200 100
I Option 5 100 year flood
80 2500 I 100 yr flood level 70
2000 I 60
I 1500
I 1000 I 20 10
I 00, 0 0 100 200 300 400 Chainage m I RL oQ I I I
OPTION 5 - FLOW DISTRIBUTION I 100 year flood FIGURE 14 I V _* rOUNLATIQN David G. Stead Memorial Foundation of Australia
A.C.N. 000 431 363 Bargo (046) 841.112 (Wirrimbirra Sanctuary) P.O. BoN 322, PICTON 2571
27TH FEBRUARY, 1996
Mart Rampe Harvest Scientific Services
RE: WOODGRAND Pty Ltd Thurns Weir
Dear Mart,
As requested we have reviewed the flora and fauna species list for Thurns Weir. Attention was given to the new Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).
Species that are listed in Schedule 1 & 2 (which previously incorporated schedule 12 & 13 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) & Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act (1991)) of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) were not observed or sampled.
It should be noted that Casuarina cunninghamiana previously listed under schedual 13 of National Parks Wildlife Act (1974), is no longer listed in schedule I or 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995).
------
Al Mucci Manager WIRRIMB[RRA SANCTUARY I I I I GEOMORPHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF NEPEAN RIVER AND I ADJACENT RIVER BANK - NEAR TIIURNS WEIR POOL 1 I 1 I Prepared By: I I I I Dr M Thorns 1 I I For: I I Harvest Scientific Services I I Date: 1/3/96 I Geomorphological Assessment of Nepean River and Adjacent
River Bank - near Thurns Weir Pool.
Dr M.0 Thorns School of Natural and Environmental Sciences University of Canberra P.O Box 1 Belconnen ACT 2616
Preamble.
This section provides the following:
a brief description of the Nepean River system;
discussion of the Nepean River system in more detail within the immediately vicinity of the proposed Woogrand floodplain extraction site, with particular reference to bank stability in this area; and,
outlines a number of possible management options to enhance bank stability within the immediately vicinity of the proposed Woogrand floodplain extraction site.
1). The Nepean River System.
The Nepean River drains a rugged sandstone catchment South-west of the Sydney metropolitan area. Between Douglas Park and the Grose Junction the river alternates between a series of Hawkesbury Sandstone gorges and alluvial-flanked Wianamatta Shale reaches. These two distinct valley - river channel associations have different morphological characteristics and have responded differently to changes in catchment development. The proposed Woodgrand floodplain extraction site is contained within one of the alluvial reaches. Within these alluvial reaches the river is relatively free to meander and adjustments in the width and depth of the river channel have been recorded overtime in response to natural climatic and broader human-based I
activities (cf Warner 1983). Changes in the character of the river channel have however, been I variable overtime in response to catchment activities.
Li Some reaches of the Nepean River have been relatively stable overtime whilst others have been more dynamic with marked changes in the size and planform of the channel. Pickup (1976) and I Riley (1987) have reported that rainfall, runoff and the occurrence of the floods in the Nepean River have all increased in the latter part of this century, ie. there has been a natural change in the I hydrological regime of the river. This has resulted in river channel erosion in many areas of the catchment. Furthermore catchment development, through land clearing and dredging of sediment LI from the river has also contributed to river channel change. Previous research by Warner (1983), Riley (1987) and the former NSW Department of Water I Resources (1988) indicate that overall, the river channel within the immediate vicinity of the proposed Woodgrand floodplain extraction site has been relatively stable overtime. Occurrences I of channel erosion have occurred but these are considered to be localised and relatively minor in comparison to that recorded in other reaches of the Nepean River system. I I 2). The river channel within the vicinity of the Woodgrand site A). Reach instability and realignment I Assessment of the stability of the river channel within the vicinity of the Woodgrand site near I Springs Farm was undertaken and involved the following: an inspection of a series of aerial photographs and channel surveys of the area; LI three field inspections of the river channel and more specifically the nature of the I river channel banks within the area; and, an assessment of a report completed by the Water Research Laboratory on flow I velocities at the Woodgrand site.
I Four aerial photographs, taken at 1947, '69, '78 and 1994, were reduced to a common scale and overlayed to examine river channel changes within the immediate vicinity of the Woodgrand site (cf. Figure 1 - upper). This diagram provides information on the overall stability of river channel I planform and the history of possible channel realignment within the immediate vicinity of the proposed Woodgrand floodplain extraction site. From this diagram a number of points can be I surmised. I The planform or course of the Nepean River within the vicinity of the Woodgrand site has been relatively stable between 1947 and 1994. There has been no major realignment of the river channel. Minor changes have occurred with the river becoming relatively straighter.
There has been no significant widening of the river channel and hence general bank erosion along the Nepean River within the vicinity of the Woodgrand Site. Hence the toe of the bank along this reach has been relatively stable since 1947. River channel widening is a common cause of bank erosion in some areas of the Hawkesbury- Nepean River system (Warner, 1983).
This sequence of photographs does indicate a major reduction in the presence of riparian vegetation on the right bank of the Nepean River between 1978 and 1988 at a number of locations near the Woodgrand Site. The once heavily vegetated riparian corridor is absent at one location.
Localised bank erosion was recorded at one site adjacent to the Woodgrand Site (ie. the right bank of the Nepean River). This occurred between 1978 and 1988. This area of localised bank erosion is devoid of riparian vegetation.
It is apparent that the left bank of the Nepean River within the immediate vicinity of the Woodgrand extraction has been stable.
B). Localised bank erosion A number of aerial photographs were enlarged, to a common scale, to further investigate the localised area of bank erosion fronting the Woodgrand Site. The sequence of photographs from 1978 to 1994 indicates two crescentic bank erosion areas developed on the right bank of the Nepean River between 1978 and 1988, and by 1994 these two areas had joined to produce a vertical face on the apex of a slight bend in the river (Figure 1 - lower). The morphology of the bank erosion area suggests that the primary bank erosion mechanism, at this site, is rotational slip failure. No bank erosion was detect on the adjacent left bank of the river at this site.
The area of bank instability immediately fronting the Woodgrand Site was inspected in order to further determine the primary cause of the failure. At this site there are several vertical profiles of the river bank that allow an assessment of the composition of the bank material.
It is apparent at this site that the upper sections of the banks have oversteepened, presumably through erosion of this area of the bank. However the toe of the bank appeared to be stable, for the following reasons: I I I I
I 1947 1969 Area of Detail
I 1994 I Approximate area to be extracted I -. River /
I 200 I I I Exploded Section I
I 19 19 I 19 I I I Figure 1
I Erosive History of I Nepean River Bank I . the aerial photographic analysis confirms no general widening of the river channel;
the aerial photographs and various site inspections reveal large accumulations of sediment within the channel of the Nepean River, immediately fronting the proposed Woodgrand floodplain extraction site.
The composition of the bank material is not uniform at the Woodgrand Site. This is an important factor that would contribute to or promote bank instability. There is a relatively cohesive layer of sediment that extends from the waters edge to approximately 2-3m up the bank. On top of this material is relatively sandier, less cohesive sediment. The underlying cohesive silt/clay material presents a firm base and would become a plane of weakness when wet. The overlying material I would slip along this plane resulting in bank instability and erosion. Where a cohesive bank layer underliesa relatively non-cohesive one, changes in permeability may produce a plane of strong seepage pressure. This may lead to piping or liquidifaction failure of the non-cohesive material, triggering oversteepening failure higher up the bank. Figure 2 provides an explanation of the processes responsible for bank erosion at the Woodgrand Site.
Rotational slips can occur in many ways but the two most common mechanisms promoting this form of failure are:
erosion of the toe of the bank
increased pressure on the bank top, this can arise from removal of vegetation resulting in increased infiltration into the bank during periods of rain and overbank flows or loading of the bank top.
Assessment of bed level changes in the Nepean River between Menangle and Cobbitty was undertaken in 1988 by the former NSW Department of Water Resources. This study compared two long profiles, undertaken in 1985 and 1988, through the Thurns Weir Pool. Although this study does indicate some bed erosion of the Nepean River along the reach fronting the Woodgrand site these findings must be viewed with some caution. Both surveys, especially the 1988, are crude with a limited number of survey points used to construct the respective long profiles. I I I I I I I I I
I yer I I I I LI
7 7 Figure 2 Rotational Slip Failure of a River Bank I I
I Q. River bank instability - Summary
I 1). River channel and bank instability The river channel within the immediate vicinity of the Woodgrand Site is relatively I stable. There have been no major changes in the alignment of the river channel near the proposed Woodgrand extraction site.. I Bank erosion at the Woodgrand Site is localised and a relatively recent phenomenon and I restricted to the right bank of Nepean River at this site. The primary mechanism initiating bank erosion at this site is considered to be rotational I slip failure. This has probably resulted due to a combination of factors, including:
I - removal of riparian vegetation - the natural composition and strcuture of the bank material I - possible erosion of the bed of the river (however this is inconclusive at present).
This form of erosion would not cause a major realignment of the river channel but does I require some form of management. The toe of the bank at the site has apparently been I stable since 1947 with no major changes in alignment or position. 2). Soil extraction from the Nepean floodplain. I In view of the above geomorphological factors the following considerations about the proposed floodplain extraction are given. I The extraction of material from the floodplain at the Woodgrand site would have relatively little impact on the stability of the river channel (ie. there is a very low I probability of river channel realignment as a result of the proposed floodplain I extraction). .Bank protection, irrespective of whether extraction takes place or not, must be a priority, especially on the left bank of the Nepean River, near the proposed extraction site. It is considered that the proposed management of the river bank (see below) will reduced the probability of future bank instability at the proposed extraction site. I I 3). Management of bank instability, Nepean River, Woodgrand Site.
- The bank instability at Springs Farm requires both stabilisation and protection. Bank protection strategiesare those which aim to physically protect the bank material from the action of the flowing water. Bank stabilisation however, aims to stabilise the bank material by giving it a greater strength to resist failure. Because of the general lack of riparian vegetation it is suggested that the lower 2-3 in of the bank be protected and the upper sections stabilised. The suggested techniques are derived from the Waterway Management Techniques currently used by the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation and the Victorian Standing Committee on Rivers and Catchments.
It is suggested that the lower 2-3 m of the bank be protected by Brushing. This technique uses logs layered on the toe of the bank and anchored to the bank top. See attachment 1. This would I prevent mass failure of the upper bank and any possible future erosion of the toe. This form of bank protection has been successfully trialled in the Ovens River (Victoria).
The upper sections of the bank should be battered to a one in three grade. See attachment 2. The slope of the upper bank would be reduced thereby reducing the threat of mass failure. This I section of bank must be heavily re-vegetated immediately after battering. Re-vegetation of the site is considered a priority. The re-vegetation of this site would aim to provide a continuous I corridor of riparian vegetation within the immediate vicinity of the Woodgrand Site. Overview of river channel stability and proposed management options I The following overview provides an assessment of the condition of the river bank at the Woodgrand Site with various development options.
Do nothing - allow no development of the site. I - very little future river realignment - continued rotational slump failure of the bank - increased bank erosion and future instability of the river bank - increased loss of riparian vegetation and habitat
Development of the site with necessary bank protection and management. - very little future river realignment I - enahnced bank stability with increased protection of the bank toe by brushing - bank stabilisation and management from battering and revegetation of the river bank I - improved flow conveyance further reducing the likelihood of futureriver chaimel realignment - the creation of a continuous riparian vegetation corridor and thus improving site habitat.
I
I I References.
NSW Department of Water Resources (1988): Assessment of recent bedlevel changes in the Nepean River at Menangle and Cobbitty. Catchment Management Unit, NSW I Department of Water Resources, 25pp.
Pickup, G. (1976): Geomorphic effects of changes in river runoff, Cumberland basin, N.S.W. I Australian Geographer, 13, 188-194. Riley, S.J (1987): Report on the hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology and sedimentology of the I Nepean River and floodplain in the vicinity of Menangle, NSW as they relate to proposed sand and soil extraction. Appendix III of EIS Proposed Sand and Soil Extraction Nepean I River and Environs Menangle NSW. Prepared for Menangle Sand and Soil Pit by Planning Workshop.
Warner, RE (1983): Channel change in the sandstone and shale reaches of the Nepean River, NSW. in Young, R.W and Nanson, G.0 (eds), Aspects of Australian Sandstone I Landscapes. Australian and New Zealand Geomorphology Group Special Publication No I 1, 106-118. I I I I I I I I
I --- AENT 1 GUIDELINES & CASE STUDIES I I BRUSHING Strategy loads. Crowding of meanders and development of unstable alignments may occur. I Logs, trees or other brush are anchored against the stream bank. Brushing forms a temporary barrier that Aquatic habitat traps sediment and material falling from the bank Brushing, if it extends well down into the water, until vegetation can establish. I provides shelter for young fish, woody material as a Alternatives substrate for many invertebrate animals, still water to trap sediment and organic matter, spawning sites for Rock beaching or groynes may be considered, fish and resting places for birds and aquatic animals. I particularly if brushing material is unavailable. Rock If the bank is not battered too much before brushing, beaching would generally be more secure than access to the earth bank may still be possible for brushing, but has a greater environmental impact at burrowing species like platypus and crayfish. I the site. Riparian habitat Description If the bank is battered prior to brushing, the existing Brushing can consist of any wood material, ranging vegetation will be destroyed. Even if battering is not from large redgum logs and trees through to tea tree carried Out, the riparian vegetation will probably be brush mattresses. damaged during the construction of the brushing. Bank preparation can range from nil through to The associated soil disturbance will allow the extensive battering. invasion of weeds, which may need to be controlled. Brush is usually anchored by piles or by Considerable damage may be done to the site from 'deadmen' in the bank. Light brushing is held down which the brushing is obtained. Care should be by weights and cables. taken not to deplete remnant stands of floodplain Freshly cut trees are more effective than dry logs trees. Both the works site and the site from which because of weight and abundance of leaves and fine the brushing is cut should be fenced to allow branches. regeneration or replanted. Willows should not be used for planting in brushed sires, as they will prevent the growth of any indigenous species, and Environmental effects will provide a greatly inferior riparian habitat. When eroding banks are stabilised, scouring may Willows and poplars should not be used for brushing occur downstream as aresult of reduced sediment material unless dead prior to use (e.g. by poisoning).
I 'C - --.------.-.=---- \ I I '. '- I I I I 19 T -:- GUIDELINES & CASE STUDIES
The site should be fenced and planted with A deep scour hole exists adjacent to the river indigenous trees and shrubs, as soon as possible, to bank. Up to 10 m of lateral bank movement during I reduce weed growth. 1986 winter threatened property, established bank-line The brushing will provide useful roosting and downstream, and breakthrough into old river course. resting sites for birds and reptiles, increase habitat diversity along the bank and provide sheltered areas Works summary I for growth of marginal vegetation. Emergency brushing was placed during 1986 winter Landscape and supplemented by additional brushing during 1986-87 summer. I The use of materials indigenous to the area makes Brush is mainly green Redgum trees cut from brushing a more visually appropriate technique than various locations in the vicinity. rock beaching. Some piles were driven to anchor brush and I willow stakes were planted throughout the brush. Recreation Access to the river for recreation may be reduced Effects I but, as in the case of rock beaching, the technique is The brushing extending well below water level not likely to be used at favoured access points. provides a considerable amount of irtstream cover. This is particularly important as the river in this area I Guidelines is likely to contain Blackfish and Murray Cod - species which are known to rely heavily on wood Use a minimum of earthworks and battering in order debris for cover and spawning sites. I to retain as much of the original habitat and The locality is reasonably well timbered so trees vegetation as possible. were available for use as brushing. Nevertheless, Soil disturbance, should be kept to a minimum brushing of this type severely reduces remnant to reduce weed invasion and all disturbed areas floodplain Redgum stands. I should be fenced and replanted if necessary. Some regeneration may occur on bank as seed will Brushing should extend well into the stream at be shed from lopped branches used in brushing. As low water levels to provide habitat and should be left the leaves and smaller branches breakdown, and silt is 1 uneven. trapped in the brushing, vegetation will regenerate Material for brushing should, wherever possible between the logs, increasing the value of the habitat. be obtained At the time of inspection, soon after completion of from floodplain or forest areas specially managed the works, the site had not been fenced. I for the purpose; by thinning areas of dense vegetation; Comments by taking one or two trees from each clump of trees without destroying the whole clump; or The site should be fenced and some planting of by supplementing brushing material with dry indigenous species carried out. Plantings should logs, exotic species, or other locally abundant include ground cover species which will help I material. consolidate the bank and provide habitat diversity. Do not use river bank vegetation for brushing I material. Brushing: Case study Ovens River at Bin's Properr, Wkoroub I Ovens River Basin - Number 403
Site summary I This is a relatively steep and straight section of the Ovens River within a wide floodplain. The channel is 50 m wide, typically 5 m deep and there is a I history of bank erosion in the vicinity. I 20 I I I Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways 1 ATTACH1IIENT 2 4. TECHNIQUES
Bank Protection and Bank 4.8 BATTERING I Stabilisation Strategies I /1 I I f/I I OLD BANK LINE BATTERED BANK I 1
I DESCRIPTION VARIATIONS A river bank is excavated to decrease the steepness Treatment may be applied to the upper bank only, of the face of the bank. with other protection Such as riprap on the lower bank. I The Site would normally then be revegetated
I APPLICATION LIMITATIONS
Improves slope stability thereby preventing mass Generally ineffective below water level. Does not failure of the river bank. provide for effective protection of the toe. Generally unsatisfactory as a widespread erosion control I technique in larger streams. Allows establishment of vegetation and hence reduces attrition and fretting. Requires earthmoving machinery Effective against erosion by overland flow entering I or leaving the channel.
Most applicable where there is not continuous flow I against the bank.
I ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Simple procedure to implement. Limited success if continuous flow against bank. I Vulnerable until vegetation established.
I COMMENTS SUMMARY Continuous flow against toe of battered back can re Good technique for intermittent streams. activate erosion. I I I Harvest Scientific Services P.O. Box 204 A.C.N. 003 069 501 Telephone: (046) 55 3796 Camden N.S.W. 2570 Fax: (046) 55 6417
REPORT ON DRILLING, THURNS WEIR
Prepared for:
Woodgrand Ply Ltd
M.
Mart Rampe Harvest Scientific Services
Geotechn ical, Resource and Environ mental Consultants
1/11/95 I
REPORT ON DRILLiNG, TIJIURNS WEIR I LNTRODTJCTION I Following discussions with the Department of Water and Land Conservation, a programme of drilling was undertaken to establish and monitor the presence of the Water Table at the site of proposed extraction activities near Thurn's Weir.
DRILLThG DETAILS
The drilling was conducted by Herrick & DaT Santo Drilling Pty Ltd on 30 - 31/10/95. A total of 4 holes were completed, viz:
Hole No. Total Depth
I Hole No.1 10.20metres Hole No.2 10.00metres Hole No.3 10.00metres I Hole No. 4 14.00metres
Each hole was cased with 50mm PVC. The bottom half of the casing was slotted and covered with a pervious geotextile cloth. The collar of the hole was concreted with the protruding casing covered by plastic to prevent precipitation from entering the hole. An application for a Water Bore Licence was also lodged with the I Department of Land and Water Conservation. 3. SOIL PROFILES
The soil profile for each hole was logged as the hole was drilled. These observations are recorded in the attached logs. In general terms, the soil profile comprised of lose river derived sand and loam underlain by I dense clays derived from the Wianamatta Group of Shales and Laminates. This basement lithology was intersected in Hole 3. The location of each hole is indicated in Figure 1.
I/4Mart Rampe 1/11/95
[1 LI I ------Legend
Proposed limits of extraction. Water Sample Site
Contours indicating metres (A H. D ) Soil Sample Site above sea level Trench Locations Steep slopes or banks. A Water Table Monitoring Bores Significant trees or stands of trees.
Extensive vegetation LI trees and ground cover
® 1(1992)
Extraction of soil currently being Grasslands - predominantly weed species (undertaken by Woodgrand is subject Springs vrm:r Dam to Development Consent Permit 2790.
'Spliwoy Mature vegetation dominated by large elms and casuarinas y
Eucalypt stands wo
Extraction Face 1994
/ wg ------
\ \ Mix of eucalypts, casuarinas and wattles Dense understorey vegetation ® 1 dominated by weed species
Thurn's Weir Mature vegetation dominated by euclaypts, privet and elms
Figure 1
Location of Water Table Monitoring Bores
0 50 laO 150 200w metres
suvEY DATA 89 LEAN LACKENBY & HAYWOCD I omv / Nowober 1993 1 I
GEOTECHNICAL DRILL LOG HoleNo. 1 Project Woodgrand Pty Ltd Contractor Herrick & b[nto Location Thurns Weir, Elderslie RL Surface Metres Graph] Description N P CDI Comments Topsoil. Dark brown and silty - M iiaugering 1.00 becoming very sandy with depth. 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 . '/andy clay - brown. M 3.50 Sand. Dark brown to orange, minor . •. clay fraction. Relatively consistent 4.50 . down profile. Occassional bands 5.00 with higher clay content throughout. M_W High moisture __ content (WI) 6.00 . Commence water 6.50 . •. circulation for 7.00 . drilling. 7.50:'. 8.00 8.50 . 9.00 9.50 10.00 L 10.50 -lole terminated at 10.2 m in sandy 11.00 Iay. 11.50 12.00 12.50 13.00 13.50 I 14.00 14.50 15.00 15.50 16.00 16.5 17.00 17.50 b18 .00 18.50 19.00 19.50 :o.00 C: Soil classification - Moisture SPT Values (blows per 300mm) CDI = Consistency/Density Index
Pen. = Penetrometer Test Readings
Date logged: 30-31/10/95 Author: Mart Rampe hsslg2.wk3 I
r GEOTECHNICAL DRILL LOG Hole No. roject Woodgrand Pty Ltd Contractor Herrck&DaI Santo Location Thurns Weir, Elderslie RL Surface Metres Graph Description - C M 003Topsoil.Dark brown & silty. M 1.00 V / / CIay. Yellowto fawn. Moderate - 1.50/ / to highly plastic. 2.00 2.50 3.00
4.00 Clay. Red and at times mottled, M Mor seepage - 4.50 moderately to highly plastic possible WT. 5.00 / / becoming very stiff with depth. / ,Becoming greyer with depth. M-D 6.00 / / Relatively consistent throughout 6.50 1' / / profile with respect to texture and 7.00 / moisture. 8.00 8.50
9.50 10.00 10.50 Hole terminated in very stiff 11.00 orange/red clay. 11.50 12.00, 12.50 13.00 -13.50 14.00 14.50 15.00 L 15.50 16.00 16.50 17.00 1 17.50 18.00 18.50 19.00 - 19.50 20.00 C: Soil classification Moisture SPT Values (blows per 300mm) CDI Consistency/Density Index
Pen. = Penetrometer Test Readings
Date logged: 30-31/10/95 Author: mart Rampe ____ hsslg2.wk3 I 3 GEOTECHNICAL_LOG ___ Hole No. Project WoodgrandPty Ltd Contractor Herrick & Dal Santo_ Location Thurns Weir, Elderslie RL Surface Metres7 Graph Description C M N P CDl Comments
- lugeriflg 0.50 Topsoil. Dark brown - sandy. 1.00 tClay. Very sandy. Dark brown with M 1.50 high to moderate silt content. 2.00 Becoming gradually more dense 2.50 with depth.
3.00 3.50 lay. Orange to dark brown. M 4.00/ ~Moderate to highly plastic. Very
1 6.00 Clay.ireeI brown and gre with M 6.50 -7.00/ 7.50 8.00 / 8.50
-- 9.00l
9.50 r Shale. Weathered - grey to brown. 10.00
10.50 Hole terminated in shale at 10.Om - 11.00 11.50 12.00, 12.50 13.00j Lg
- 14.50
5.50 16.00 16.50 17.00 17.50 8.00 18.50 19.00 19.50 20.00 C: Soil classification Moisture SPT Values (blows per 300mm) CDI = Consistency/Density Index
Pen. = Penetrometer Test Readings
Date logged: 30-31/10/95 Author: Mart Rampe hssig2.wk3
U -- GEOTECHNICAL LOG HeNo. 4 Project Woodgrand Pty Ltd Contractor Herrick & Dal Santo Location Thurns Weir, Eldersfle RLSUrfaCe Ms Graph Description C M IIL Topsoil. Very dark brown to black M Augéring IHigh organics 1.00 and silty. 1.50' 2.00 H 2.5O-----
3.50 Soil. Thin very dark (black) band. High organics 4.00 -L- Loam. Dark brown, silty soil 4.50 gradually becoming lighter brown 5.00 with increasing clay content. 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00LEE 7.50 .,,/ Clay. Very sandy - dark brown. Sand M 8X04 / /. nd clay fraction varying. 8.50 9.00 Clay. Sandy-brown & silty. Several W NT @ 9.5m 10.00 sandy layers passed through. Commence water 10.50 :irculation drilling 11.00 11.50
12.50 13.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 i-Iole terminated in sandy brown cla 15.00 15.50 16.00 16.501 17.00 1750 18.00, 18.50 19.00 19.50 20.00 C: Soil classification Moisture SPT Values (blows per 300mm) CDI = Consistency/Density Index
Pen. = Penetrometer Test Readings
Date logged: 30-31/10/95 Author: Mart Rampe hsslg2.wk3 i 'SMEC I
File No: 31600.008 15 March 1996 I
Mr Marte Rampe Harvest Scientific Services 16 Coolalie Street CAMDEN NSW 2570
Dear Marte I RE: ELDERSLIE SOIL EXTRACTION PROJECT I iave now reviewed the two additional reports you gave me on 16 March 1996.
I The first report "Woodgrand Pty Ltd Proposed Flood Plain Soil Extraction - Option 5", University of NSW Water Research Library, confirms that the extractions has no detrimental effects and in some cases improves river conditions.
I The second report "Geomorphological Assessment of Nepean River and Adjacent River Bank - near Thurns Weir Pool", Dr M Thorns explains the mechanism for river bank failure in this area. It notes that the bank failure is unrelated to the extraction process and future extraction works I would only improve the stability of this section river.
I concur with all the findings of both reports.
Consequently, I have no reason to change the comments in my November fax to you (reproduced I in italics below).
I The following is a summary of my findings with regard to the above extraction project proposed by Woodgrand Pty Ltd.
1. Review of documentation
I have reviewed the June '95' soil extraction Drawing No C72451.01D04 and latest soil I extraction plan, plus the Water Research Laboratory Report of July 1995 showing river velocities.
I 2. Site inspections I I have carried out two site visits including inspections of the collapsed bank.
SMEC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD LU 5 77 Piu1k. 1116h\Y1\ 110 Bo\ 102 Nolth Sydney NSW 2060 TkphonL 02 9903 4411 F icsimilc 02 9955 6113
SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD .100 008 654 224 SMEC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 701 065 475 119 SMEC INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD 1(11 065 140 ,19 ;.D,—. on of SMEC OPERATIONS PTY LTD 70 065 ,174 428 SMEC SERVICES PTY LTD 101 066 504 792 SMEC TESTING SERVICES PTY LTD 408 063 746 823 Endorsed SMEC (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD SMEC ASIA LTD SMEC PNG PTY LTD SMEC (INDIA) PIE LTD SMEC (BANGLADESH) LTD Company
It would appear that the existing river system is fairly stable other than a local slump which appears to have been caused by removal of vegetation at the top of the bank.
Latest soil extraction plan (Drawing)
3. The most recent soil extraction plan contains the following elements:
. Bank reconstruction I - reconstruction and revegetation at the collapsed bank; - protection of the bank toe using timber brushing; - rapid growth plantings over remedia ted area; I Extraction geometry
- bank extraction and no river extraction; - provides diversion bank consisting of untouched vegetation along the top of the bank; - uses the existing Spring Creek to drain downstream section; - provides improved drainage away from river bank. I Revegetation
I - revegetation will be by rapid growth plantings; - revegetation will provide a continuous corridor along this section of river.
Construction
- early construction of the bank stabiisation works; - by leaving the diversion bank, pollution of the river is easily controlled by use of sediment traps I and fences; - construction will be from the upstream to downstream so that the extraction site is protected on the downstream face;
I 4. Conclusions
As previously stated, the existing river system appears to be stable with relatively minor movement of the bed I and bank toe. The collapse of the right bank appears to have been caused by removal of vegetation. The proposed bank stabilisation combined with the protection is the most appropriate solution and this will provide a stable bank which will resist slumping and realignment.
The new extraction geometry provides protection for the river banks, maintains flow velocities and directs overland flows into existing drainage paths. As such, it provides an improved bank arrangement.
The finished works will provide a revegetated, stable bank with continuous vegetation along this section of river.
I In conclusion, my review of the latest proposed extraction plan is that it improves this section of river in all essential areas, ie bank stabiisation, drainage, riverfiow patterns and environmental (vegetation corridors).
I I trust the above is satisfactory and should you have any further enquiries, please do no hesitate to contact me.
I Regards,
• Manager Infrastructure I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX 4 I I I I I I I I I I I d
I Conservation Environrrent
ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR RIVER MANAGEMENT WORKS FOR THE OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES I Gu1DEUNES & CE STUDIES I I Strategy loads. Crowding of meanders and development of unstable alignments may occur. Logs, trees or other brush are anchored against the I stream bank. Brushing forms a temporary barrier that Aquatic habitat traps sediment and material falling from the bank Brushing, if it extends well down into the water, until vegetation can establish. provides shelter for young fish, woody material as a I Alternatives substrate for many invertebrate animals, still water to trap sediment and organic matter, spawning sites for Rock beaching or groynes may be considered, fish and resting places for birds and aquatic animals. I particularly if brushing material is unavailable. Rock If the bank is not battered too much before brushing, beaching would generally be more secure than access to the earth bank may still be possible for brushing, but has a greater environmental impact at burrowing species like platypus and crayfish. the site. I Riparian habitat Description lithe bank is battered prior to brushing, the existing Brushing can consist of any wood material, ranging vegetation will be destroyed. Even if battering is not from large redgum logs and trees through to tea tree carried out, the riparian vegetation will probably be brush mattresses. damaged during the construction of the brushing. Bank preparation can range from nil through to The associated soil disturbance will allow the I extensive battering. invasion of weeds, which may need to be controlled. Brush is usually anchored by piles or by Considerable damage may be done to the site from deadmen' in the bank. Light brushing is held down which the brushing is obtained. Care should be by weights and cables. taken not to deplete remnant stands of floodplain Freshly cut trees are more effective than dry logs trees. Both the works site and the site from which because of weight and abundance of leaves and fine the brushing is cut should be fenced to allow branches. regeneration or replanted. Willows should not be I used for planting in brushed sites, as they will prevent the growth of any indigenous species, and Environmental effects will provide a greatly inferior riparian habitat. I When eroding banks are stabilised, scouring may Willows and poplars should not be used for brushing occur downstream as a result of reduced sediment material unless dead prior to use (e.g. by poisonLng). I U I I I I I I
I GUIDELINES & CASE STUDIES I The site should be fenced and planted with A deep scour hole exists adjacent to the river indigenous trees and shrubs, as soon as possible, to bank. Up to 10 m of lateral bank movement during I reduce weed growth. 1986 winter threatened property, established bank-line The brushing will provide useful roosting and downstream, and breakthrough into old river course. resting sites for birds and reptiles, increase habitat diversity along the bank and provide sheltered areas Works summary I for growth of marginal vegetation. Emergency brushing was placed during 1986 winter Landscape and supplemented by additional brushing during 1986-87 summer, I The use of materials indigenous to the area makes Brush is mainly green Redgum trees cut from brushing a more visually appropriate technique than various locations in the vicinity. rock beaching. Some piles were driven to anchor brush and I willow stakes were planted throughout the brush. Recreation Access to the river for recreation may be reduced Effects but, as in the case of rock beaching, the technique is The brushing extending well below water level not likely to be used at favoured access points. provides a considerable amount of instream cover. This is particularly important as the river in this area I Guidelines is likely to contain Blackfish and Murray Cod - species which are known to rely heavily on wood Use a minimum of earthworks and battering in order debris for cover and spawning sites. I to retain as much of the original habitat and The locality is reasonably well timbered so trees vegetation as possible. were available for use as brushing. Nevertheless, Soil disturbance, should be kept to a minimum brushing of this type severely reduces remnant to reduce weed invasion and all disturbed areas floodplain Redgum stands. I should be fenced and replanted if necessary. Some regeneration may occur on bank as seed will Brushing should extend well into the stream at be shed from lopped branches used in brushing. As low water levels to provide habitat and should be left the leaves and smaller branches breakdown, and silt is I uneven. trapped in the brushing, vegetation will regenerate Material for brushing should, wherever possible between the logs, increasing the value of the habitat. be obtained At the time of inspection, soon after completion of from floodplain or forest areas specially managed the works, the site had not been fenced. I for the purpose; by thinning areas of dense vegetation; Comments by taking one or two trees from each clump of H trees without destroying the whole clump; or The site should be fenced and some planting of by supplementing brushing material with dry indigenous species carried out. Plantings should will help logs, exotic species, or other locally abundant include ground cover species which I material. consolidate the bank and provide habitat diversity. Do not use river bank vegetation for brushing I material. Brushing: Case study Ovens River at Bin's Properc), Wkorouly I Ovens River Basin - Number 403
Site summary I This is a relatively steep and straight section of the Ovens River within a wide floodplain. The channel is 50 m wide, typically S m deep and there is a I history of bank erosion in the vicinity. I 20 I I I I I I I I I I EXPERT'S QUALIFICATIONS I I
I I I I H H I I I CURRICULUM VITAE.
I Name: Martin Charles Thorns Date of Birth: 28.02.59 Nationality: Australian I Marital Status: Married Address: 24 Walker St Five Dock Li Sydney NSW 2046 Phone No: (02) 747 6695 (Home) I (02) 351 3355 (Work) (02) 692 3644 (Fax)
I EDUCATION
I 1972 - 1976 Timaru Boy's High School, Timaru, New Zealand 1977 1981 University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. 1980 - Bachelor of Science I 1982 - Master of Science in Physical Geography, Masters Thesis: Sedimentation of the New River Estuaiy, Southland. 180pp. 1985 - 1987 University of Technology, Loughborough, United Kingdom, Ph.D Li awarded in 1988. Thesis: Sedimentation within Urban Gravel-Bed I Rivers. 320pp. UNWERSITY APPOINTMENTS
Li 1983-1985 Research Assistant, with Prof GE Petts, University of Tech.nology, Loughborough, Leicestershire, United Kingdom. I 1988 - 1991 Post Doctoral Research Associate, River Murray Laboratory, University of Adelaide, South Australia. 1991 - 1995 Lecturer, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. I 1996 Lecturer, The University of Canberra, ACT Australia I RESEARCH GRANTS Southland County Council, 1981: Sedimentation in the New River Estuary, $2,000. I Royal Society of Australia, 1988: Channel sedimentation in Mt Lofty Ranges, $5,000 Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, 1988: Sedimentation in the Barmah Forest. $8,000 I Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering, 1988: Environmental Change in the River Murray, South Australia, $1,500 I Ma rk Mitchell Foundation, 1989: Heavy Metals in the River Murray, South Australia, $1,500 I I Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, Turbidity in the River Murray, 1990: $46,000. In I conjunction with AWWQRC. Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, Pesticides in the River Murray, 1990: $46,000. In conjunction with AWWQRC. I University of Sydney Research Grant, 1991: Heavy metals in the Hawkesbury floodplain, $8,000 I Natural Resources Management Strategy, 1992: River channel changes, bank erosion and management in the Bell River NSW, $90,000, (with NSW Dept. of Water Resources) University of Sydney Research Grant, 1992: Transport of heavy metals in the Hawkesbury- I Nepean, $5,000 NSW Environmental Protection Authority 1993: Mercury contamination in the Shoalhaven I River, $70,000 NSW Environmental Protection Authority, 1993: Sediment sources of Pambula Estuary, $25,000. I *National Landcare Grant, 1993: Bank erosion in Brogo Swamp Creek, $12,450. (with the Upper Brogo Landcare Group). *Land and Water Resources Research and Development Coporation, 1995: In-stream ecological processes in a semi and river; The Darling River, $239,000.
I (* currently operative)
PUBLICATIONS I Books and Monographs. Thorns, M.C. (1993). (ed): C'atchments an Coasts in Eastern Australia, Dept. of Geography, I University of Sydney, Monograph Series No 5. Hirsch, P and Thorns, M.C., (1994). (eds): Australasian Geography in the 1990. NSW I Geography Teachers Association, Sydney. 132 pp. Thorns, M.0 and Erskine, W.E. (1995). (eds): Human impact on Australian river systems. I April Issue of Australian Geographical Studies. Refereed journal papers and book chapters: I Petts G.E, Gilvear D.J and Thorns M.0 (1985): Wave movement and water quality variations during a release from Kielder Reservoir, North Tyne, U.K. Journal of Hydrology, 1985, 3(4), 371-389. Petts G.E and Thorns M.0 (1986): Chaimel aggradation below Chew Valley Lake, Somerset, U.K. Catena, 1986, 13(3), 305-320. Thorns M.0 (1987): Chaimel sedimentation within the urbanised River Tame, U.K. Regulated I Rivers Research and Management, 1987, 1(3), 229-248. Petts G.E and Thorns M.0 (1987): Bar development in a regulated gravel bed river: River I North Tyne, U.K. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 1987, 56-64. Thoms M.0 (1988): Sedimentation problems in two U.K rivers. Journal of the Institute of I Water Engineers, 26-42. F~ Petts GE, Thorns M.C, Brittan K and Atkin B (1989): A freeze-coring technique applied to pollution by fine sedirnents in gravel-bed rivers. Science of the Total Environment, 84, 259-272. Thorns M.0 and Walker K.F (1989): Some preliminary observations of the environmental impact of river regulation in the River Murray, South Australia. South Australian Geographical Journal, 89, 1-14. Walker K.F, Thorns M.0 and Sheldon F.J (1989): The conservation and significance of the aquatic river-edge environment of the River Murray, South Australia. In Dendy (ed.), Conservation and Management of the River Murray: Making Conservation Count. Department of Environment and Planning, Adelaide. Thorns M.0 and Walker K.F (1991): The environmental effects of weirs on the lower River Murray. Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. 23pp. Thorns M.0 and Walker K.F (1992): Sediment transport in the River Murray: a large semi and regulated river system. in Robarts, R.D. and Bothwell, M.L. (eds), Aquatic ecosystems in semi-arid regions, N}IRI, 23 9-250. Walker, K.F, Thorns, M.0 and Sheldon, F (1992): Effects of weirs on the littoral environment of the River Murray, South Australia. In Boon, P.J, Calow, P and Petts, G.E (eds) River Conservation and Management, Wiley, Chichester, 27 1-292. Davies, BR, Thorns, M.0 and Meador, M (1992): The ecological impacts of Inter-Basin Water Transfers: A hidden threat to river conservation. Aquatic Conservation.' Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2, 325-349. Thorns M.0 (1992): A comparison of grab- and freeze-sampling techniques in the collection of gravel-bed river sediment. Sedimentaiy Geology, 78, 191-200. Thorns M.0 and Walker K.F (1992): Morphological changes along the River Murray, South Australia. In Carling, P.A. and Petts G.E (eds) Lowland floodplain rivers.' Geomorphological perspectives. Wiley, Chichester, 235-249. Thorns M.0 and Williams W.D (1993): The use of particle size distributions in saline lakes as a palaeolirnnoloigcal indicator. The International Journal of Salt Lake Research, 2(1), 29-40. Thorns, M.0 and Walker, K.F (1993): Channel changes associated with two adjacent weirs on the River Murray, South Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 8, 271-284. Thorns, M.C. 1993. The accumulation of sand in a gravel substratum. in Thorns, M.C. (ed.) Catchments and Coasts in Eastern Australia, Dept. of Geography, University of Sydney, Monograph Series No 5. Thorns, M.0 and Walker, K.F (1993): A case history of the environmental effects of flow I regulation on a semi-arid lowland river: The River Murray, South Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 8, 103-119. Thorns, M.0 and Flett, D.J (1993). Blue green algae and our degraded waterways. Geography I Bulletin, 25(4), 172-176. Thorns, M.0 and Erskine. W.D (1993). Righting of River Wrongs. In Dixon, G and Aitken, D (eds) Institute of Australian Geographers: Conference Proceedings, Monash I Publication in Geography, No 45, 313-3 17. I I
Davies, BR., Thorns, M.C., Walker, K.F., OKeefe, J and Gore, J.A., (1994). Arid and semi- I arid-land river ecosystems: Perspectives on ecological functioning and problems of management and conservation. In Calow, P. and Petts, G.E. (eds) Rivers Handbook, I Volume 2. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, 484-511. Hirsch, P. and Thorns, M. C., (1994): Studying geography from an Australian perspective. In In Hirsch, P and Thorns, M.C., (1994). (eds): Australasian Geography in the 1990's. I NSW Geography Teachers Association, Sydney, 1-3. Flett, D.J and Thorns, M.0 (1994): Blue green algae and rivers. In Hirsch, P and Thorns, M.C., I (1994). (eds): Australasian Geography in the 1990's. NSW Geography Teachers Association, Sydney, 56-61. Thorns, M.C., Wern, P. and Outhet, D.A. (1994): Australian Water Resources. In Hirsch, P I and Thorns, M.C., (1994). (eds): Australasian Geography in the 1990's. NSW Geography Teachers Association, Sydney, 12-20. Thorns M.0 (1994): A freeze-sampling method for the collection of fine grained sediments I intended for geochemical analysis. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 51(2), 13 1- 141. I Walker, K.F., Boulton, A.J., Thorns, M.C. and Sheldon, F., (1995): Distribution of littoral plants betwenn weirs on the River Murray. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, Special Issue on Wetlands, 45(8), 73-89. I Thorns, M.0 and Thiel, P. (1995): The impact of urbanisation on the bed sediments of South Creek. Australian Geographical Studies, 3 3(1), 31-43. Thorns, M.0 (1995): Sedimentation in the Barrnah Forest, IAHS., 230, 121-129. I Thorns, M.C. and Sheldon, F (1996): The importance of Channel Complexity for Ecosystem Processing: An example of the Barwon-Darling River. River Management in I Australia.
Conference papers: I Thorns, M.0 (1986): The ingress of fine sediment into a gravel bed river. Proceedings of the BGRG Symposium, 1986, 35-42, Leicester. Thorns, M.0 (1989): Bank erosion in the lower River Murray. Australian Geographical I Conference, Adelaide. Thorns, M.0 (1989): Environmental impact of flow regulation on the River Murray, South I Australia. Australian Society for Limnology, Canberra. Thorns, M.0 (1990): Flow regulation: Physical changes in the River Murray. The conservation and management of rivers, York, United Kingdom. I Davies, B.R and Thorns M.0 (1991): The impacts of inter-basin water transfers in Southern Africa. Water development impacts. Foundation for Research and Development, I Pretoria. Thorns, M.0 (1992): Heavy metals in the sediments of the lower River Murray. 71h ANZGRC, Port Macquarie. I Thorns, M.0 (1992): Water quality sampling: How do we do it and what are the implications. National .ymposium of Water Quality Sampling, Canberra. Thorns, M.0 (1992): The downstream impact of an urban retention basin. 14th International Geographical Congress, Washington D.C. I Thorns, M.0 (1993): The use of 137Cs and 21OPb as chronometers in palaeoliminological studies. International Palaeolimonologicai Conference, Canberra. Thorns, M.0 (1993). Sedirnentation and flow regulation in the Barmah Forest. Institute of Australian Geographers Conference, Monash University. Thorns, M.0 and Flett, D.J (1995). Water quality and hydrogrphers. 91h Australasian Hydrographics Workshop, Sydney. Thorns, M.C, Parker, C and Simons, M (1995). Heavy metals in the Hawkesbury River. International Association of Geomorphologists, Singapore. Thorns, M.0 (1995). Impact of urbanisation on in-channel sedimentation processes. International Association of Geomorphologists, Singapore. Thorns, M.0 (1995). The impact of catchment development on wetland processes. IAHS, Boulder, Colorado. Thorns, M.0 (1995). The geomorphology of the Barwon-Darling river system. Barwon- Darling River conference, Bourke, NSW Dept. of Land and Water Conservation. Sheldon, F. and Thorns, M.C., (1995). Ecosystem processing in the BArwon-Darling River. Barwon-Darling River conference, I3ourke, NSW Dept. of Land and Water Conservation.
Reports Thorns, M.0 (1989): Sedimentological characteristics of a number of sink holes in the southeast of South Australia. South Australian Cave Divers Association, isp. Thorns, M.0 (1990): The bank erosion problem in Lake Alexandria and Lake Albert, South Australia. Strathalbyn and Meningie District Council, 12p. Thorns, M.0 (1990): Sedimentation in the Barmah Forest. Victorian Department of Conservation, Forest and Lands, SOp. Thorns, M.C, James C.J, Moon B.A and Rogers K.L (1990): Environmental problems in South Africa: The need to develop practical expertise in Jiuvial geomorphology. South African Water Research Commission, 30p. Cotsaris, E., Thorns, M.C. and Talbot, A. (1990): Turbidity in the River Murray. Australian Centre for Water Treatment and Water Quality Research, 25p. Thorns, M.0 (1991): The loss of water depth in Buck/and Park Lake, South Australia. iOpp. World Life Fund Project. Nicholson, B and Thorns, M.C. (1991): Pesticides in the River Murray. Australian Centre for Water Treatment and Water Quality Research, 45p. Thorns, M.0 (1992): The potential impact offorestry operations on Georges and Diamond Creeks, Southern NSW. Illawarra Wilderness Society, isp. Thorns, M.0 (1993): The impact offorestiy operations on the water quality of streams in the Mistake State Forest. Nambucca Conservation Group, 34p. Thorns, M.0 and Yeo, S. (1994): Bank erosion on the Bell River near Wellington. Dept. Water Resources, Macquarie Central West Region.250p. Thorns, M.0 (1994): Bank erosion and sand and gravel extraction in the Nambucca River and Missabotti Creek. Report to the NSW Dept. Water Resources, 25p. Thorns, M.C., Bergs, M.A., and Dawson, G., (1995): The character and sources of sediments to Pambula Lake, NSW. Report to the NSW EPA, Wollongong, 125p. I
Thorns, M.C., and Bergs, MA., (1995): Geochemical investigation of sediments in the Shoalhaven River. Report to the NSW EPA, Wollongong, 99p. Sheldon, F and Thorns, M.C., (1995): The significance of flow variability for ecosystem I processes in the Darling River. Report to the NSW Dept. of Land and Water Conservation, Water Resources, 33p. Thorns, M.C., Sheldon, F., Roberts, J., Harris, J., and Hillman, T.J., (1995): Scientific panel I assessment of environmental flows for the Barwon-Darling River. Report to the NSW Dept. of Land and Water Conservation, 123p. Thorns, M.0 (1996). The identification of river chaimels in the Narrambulla Creek catchment. I Report to the Narrambulla Creek Action Group. I I I I I I I I I I I
I I REIN NITTIM
DATE OF BIRTH 17 November 1932 I POSITION Consultant, Water Research Laboratory (WRL), University of New South Wales QUALIFICATIONS Ph.D. (Water Eng) UNSW 1978, 'Overland Flow on Impervious Surfaces Postgrad course: Geomorphology for Hydrologists (UNSW 1968) M.Eng.Sc. (Water Eng) UNSW, 1966 "Flood Studies on the Lower Hunter River, NSW I Dip. T. and C.P., University of Sydney, 1958 B.E. (Civil), UNSW 1956 PROFESSIONAL Member: The Institution of Engineers, Australia I ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL Consultant. Casual Lecturer River Morphology, M.Eng.Sc. Water Eng., UNSW HISTORY Supervising Engineer, WRL UNSW. The work involves specialist engineering investi- I gations in most areas of water and coastal engineering (1973-1995) Lecturer in Hydraulics, UNSW WRL (1972) Project Engineer, UNSW WRL (1971) I Research Fellow, UNSW (1966-1971) Department of Public Works, NSW - Harbours and Rivers Branch. Investigation and design of flood mitigation and river management, training and bank protection works in I the Lower Hunter Valley and harbour investigations on the New South Wales Coast (19 63-1966) Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (Dam Engineering) (1 962) Taylor Woodrow, London / Electricity & Waterways Commission, Norway (1961) I Department of Main Roads, New South Wales (Bridge design and construction. Hydrology and bridge hydraulics) (1956-1960)
I SPECIAL FIELDS Hydrology, Water Resources, River Engineering, River and Coastal Morphology, Flood OF Mitigation, Sediment Transport, Dredging, Coastal Engineering, Hydraulic Structures, I COMPETENCE Environmental Studies. RELEVANT • Coastal and Estuarine Studies: EXPERIENCE Jervis Bay Harbour Dredging and Siltation (NSW) : Coastal Storms Study (NSW) Shoalhaven River Entrance Study (NSW) : Nerang River and Broadwater (Qld) LI Tallebudgera Creek Erosion (Qld) : Currumbin Creek Siltation (Qld) : Chittagong Port Development (Bangladesh) : AIMS Harbour, Townsville (Qld) : Tamar Estuary Siltation Study (Tas) : Pell/Harvey Inlet (WA) I Hydrology, Flood Mitigation, River and Catchment Management: Mooloolah River (Qld) - flood hydrology, river regime, flood mitigation, hydraulic model study : Georges River (NSW) - flood study : South Creek (NSW) - flood study I Wollombi Brook (NSW) - flood study : Penrith Lakes Development, Hawkesbury River (NSW) - river regime, bank erosion, hydraulic model study : Ocean Shores (NSW) - hydrology and coastal engineering : Murrumbidgee River (ACT) - sediment transport Bougainville Copper Ltd, Jaba River (Bougainville) - sediment transport, mine tailings I management and remedial measures : Ok Tedi Mining (PNG) - sediment transport, mine tailings management: Launceston Flood Protection Review (Tas) - flood study South and North Esk Rivers : Tully-Milistream Project Reservoir Siltation : Manning River (NSW) I - review of lower river morphology : Burrill Lake (NSW) - review of entrance siltation. Hydraulic Structures: Power Station Cooling Water Systems, Eraring and Bayswater (NSW) : Lake Macquarie I CW field modelling (NSW) : Spillway Model Investigations - Cressbrook Dam (Qld), Corin Dam (NSW) : Kangaroo Valley Pumping Station (NSW) : Canal Junction Headloss Study (Qld) : Martin Place Fountain Model Study (NSW) : Smeaton Grange Drop Structure (NSW) : Ocean Outfall Model Studies, Water Board (NSW) : Prospect I Water Filtration Plant (NSW) Environ,nental Studies Harbord Lagoon (NSW) : Careel Bay (NSW) : Sydney Harbour Tunnel (NSW) I Meadowbank Ferry Wharf (NSW) : Soil Mining Nepean River (NSW) PUBLICATIONS Numerous technical reports and publications in professional joumals - details can be supplied on request. RONALD JOHN COX
DATE OF BIRTH 16 January 1949 I CURRENT POSITION Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, UNSW Director, Water Research Laboratory UNSW • Director, Australian Water and Coastal Studies Pty Ltd I QUALIFICATIONS B.E. (Civil) Hons 1, 1969 The University of New South Wales • Ph.D. 1976, The University of New South Wales I PROFESSIONAL 1967- 1970 Trainee Engineer, Metropolitan Water Sewerage and HISTORY Drainage Board 1970- 1973 Post Graduate, C.S.I.R.O. I 1973 - 1975 AWRC Research Engineer, The University of New South Wales 1976- 1993 Engineer/Projects Manager, I Water Research Laboratory/Unisearch Ltd 1993 Associate Professor School of Civil Engineering Director, Water Research Laboratory, UNSW I SPECIAL FIELDS Environmental Studies, Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Sediment Transport, OF COMPETENCE Hydrology, River and Estuarine Hydraulics, Flood Mitigation, Groundwater and Geohydrology, Hydraulic Model Studies (physical, mathematical and I numerical), Field Data Collection and Interpretation. RECENT RELEVANT Environmental Studies I EXPERIENCE Homebush Bay Redevelopment (NSW) - 1988-Present Sydney Deepwater Outfalls (NSW) - 1988-Present Hunter and Illawarra Outfalls (NSW) - 1989-Present
I Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay (NSW) - 1988-Present Moreton Bay (Qld) - 1981-Present Olympic Village (Brisbane, Qld) - 1985-1986 Coastal Processes I Gold Coast Beaches and Brisbane Airport (Qld) - 1976-Present Lennox, Byron, Brunswick & Dreamtime Beaches (NSW) - 1980-Present Nelson, Jervis & Batemans Bay (NSW) - 1984-Present I Kuwait Pearls - Planning Competition (Kuwait) - 1989-1990 West Java and Bali (Indonesia) - 1989-Present • Tidal Entrance Stability/Sediment Transport/Dredging I Secret Harbour, Peel & Harvey Inlets (WA) - 1982-Present Nerang River, Tallebudgera and Currumbin Creeks (Qld) - 1980-Present Tweed, Brunswick and Shoalhaven Rivers (NSW) - 1982-Present I Broken Bay and Port Hacking (NSW) - 1986-Present Georges Bay, Triabunna and Bridport (Tas) - 1983-Present Segara Anakan Estuary Sedimentation (Java, Indonesia) - 1990-9 1 I Investigations and Design /Harbours, Reclamations and Breakwaters Jervis Bay, Darling Harbour & Opera House (NSW) - 1986-Present Bulk Liquids and Parallel Runway, Botany Bay (NSW) - 1990-Present
I St Helens and Currie Harbour (Tas) - 1986-Present Hay Point (Qld) - 1983, 1986 Avatiu, Raratonga, (Cook Islands) - 1987-1988 Hydrology, Flooding and River Sediment Transport I Moololah and Barron Rivers (Qld) - 1978-Present Georges and Nepean Rivers (NSW) - 1982-Present South Esk River (Tas) - 1983-Present I Ok Tedi Mining Project (PNG) - 1983-1984 Major data collection in respect to coastal and estuarine processes, tidal currents, sediments and water quality for numerous projects. I PUBLICATIONS Numerous technical reports and publications in professional journals - details can be supplied on request. I DRAGAN HRANISAVLJEVIC
I DATEOFBIRTH liJune 1958 CURRENT POSITION Senior Project Engineer, Water Research Laboratory I The University of New South Wales QUALIFICATIONS Diploma Engineer (Civil), 1983, University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia Master of Engineering Science (Water Engineering), UNSW, 1990
I PROFESSIONAL 1984-1987 Engineer, Hidroprojekat" Belgrade, Yugoslavia HISTORY 1987 to Present Project Engineer, Water Research Laboratory 1994 Part-Time Lecturer, Hydrology for Surveyors I School of Civil Engineering, UNSW
SPECIAL FIELDS OF Open channel and fluvial hydraulics: hydraulic model studies COMPETENCE (physical, mathematical and numerical): geoniorphology: hydro I power plants and mini-hydro systems: hydrology: floodplain management and catchment studies: urban drainage: pipe networks I and internal flow systems: estuarine and coastal processes. RECENT RELEVANT Hydraulic Investigations - Physical Modelling & Field Studies EXPERIENCE Kelair Condensate Loop Pump testing (ASME Type A) I I Darling Mills Creek Dam (NSW); Outlet works Moa Point, Wellington, Sewage Treatment Plant (NZ); Hydraulics of inlet works I Prospect Water Filtration Plant (NSW); Inlet works, clear water tanks Stanwell Power Station (Qid); Cooling tower outlet works I Toongabbie (NSW); Retention basin and outlet works Sydney Deepwater Ocean Outfalls (NSW); Diffuser head hydraulics Warragamba Dani (NSW); Overtopping of radial gates I Russell Vale (NSW); Baffled spiliway and energy dissipator Georges River (NSW); Floodplain modelling, F5 Freeway crossing, FAC development, Milperra levee system. I BHP Port Kembla (NSW), Cooling water system Nepean River (NSW); Penrith Lakes Scheme State Sports Centre, Homebush (NSW); Hockey field drainage I Munmorah Power Station (NSW); Unit 1 by-pass cavitation . Coastal and Estuarine Tweed River Entrance (NSW) : Brisbane Airport Floodway (Qid) I Shoalhaven Heads (NSW); Entrance breakout and closure Lake Illawarra Entrance (NSW) Bali (Indonesia) Benoa Bay Development - RMA2 numerical I modelling Hydrology, Flood and Catciunent Studies I Mooloolah River (Qid) : South Creek (NSW) : Camira Creek (NSW) Haslams Creek/Homebush Bay (NSW) Narrabeen Lagoon (NSW) : Cup and Saucer Creek (NSW) I Launceston Flood Protection Scheme (Tas) - Tamar, South and North Esk Rivers Hawkesbury River at Lower Portland (NSW) I Nepean River at Elderslie (NSW) PUBLICATIONS Numerous publications - details available upon request. I.
I.
I
I I contents...
SMEC CELEBRATES 25 YEARS 3
- -1 ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE AWARDS 3 • PERTH INTERNATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE 4
SMEC ASIA LTD 5 I .: . . . . . . .• . i INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, PNG 6 I GANISATION AND MANPOWER STUDY, LESOTHO 7 VIL WORKS CONSTRUCTION UNITS STUDY, CHINA 8 . TH.WEST SELANGOR INTEGRATED AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT I JECT, MALAYSIA 9 .GN AND SUPERVISION OF MECHANICAL TRAINING PROGRAMS, AL 9
I RAL WEST TRANSPORT STUDY, NSW 10
TNGAHLIN TOWN CENTRE INFRASTRUCTURE, ACT 11
I NYIR POWER STATION UPGRADING, MALAYSIA 11
)D HAZARD ASSESSMENT 12 12 I IIUAN BRIDGE, VIETNAM ASTHAN ROADS PROJECT, INDIA 14
INGTON PARK WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, NSW 15 I VTER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, :•DONESIA 15 I COND ROAD REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCZ PROJECT, '\NGLADESH 16
INICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PERIOD CONTRACT 17
LAND JETTIES FEASIBILITY STUDY, BANGLADESH 18
flST SETI HYDRO, NEPAL 19 I ' .1M NGUM 3 MYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT, LAO POR 19 - 3ILL SEWERAGE PROJECT, WA 20 •. I . . R3AUL VOLCANO DISASTER, PNG 21 LUMUT COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANT, MALAYSIA 22
STAFF PROFILE 23 I IN BRIEF 24
SMEC OFFICES AND KEY PERSONNEL 24
SMEC 0 I El
On 24 June 1995, aflsnction was held SMEC PMS is in Cooma to celebrate the 25th Highly anniversary of the establishment of Commended' I SMEC. It was attended by a large number of current and former SMEC employees. It was particularly pleasing .4 CT Chief 4Ijn liter tic, i,x,ic Ct,rnel/ (H) preseniwg the High/i (]o,ii,,ie,,il,',I Certificate to to see the continued interest in SMEC of S.IIECc .1CT Regiaiia/ Manager, .1/cit Duitnirig Li former employees, both retirees and those who are now employed elsewhere. Until the advent of computerised pavement management systems (PMS), road This issue of SMEC REVIEW almost I maintenance budgets were prepared using a combination of professional judgment coincides with the second anniversary of and political awareness. staff ownership, and it is satisfying to note SMEC's progress over that time. For several years, SMEC has been refining a project-based system specifically I The companys operations have developed for local government. This system is now being successfully marketed by expanded considerably daring this SMEC both nationally and internationally. Eastern Australian clients include some period, and the recently established 40 councils while overseas, pilot projects in Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur are I Environmental and Planning Group is under way, and variants of the system have been developed for Tango and attracting a considerable workload. the Philippines. Another point of note is the expansion of At the recent Engineering Excellence Awards (September 1995), SMEC's PMS was I SMEC's operations in Western Australia: awarded a 'Highly Commended' Certificate by the Canberra Division of the the opening of a regional office in Perth Institute of Engineers. coincides with an agreement with the Western Australian Department of The SMEC PMS utilises the Oracle relational database for storage of information, I Commerce and Trade to promote and and ad hoc queries may be made using SQL macros. The system incorporates the support the Department's export strategy. highly regarded World Bank HDM-lll model (Highway Design and Maintenance Harleigh Luscombe has been appointed Standards Model) which predicts road condition with or without maintenance treatment. I to manage this operation concurrently A linear programming system (Expenditure Budgeting Model) is used to consider with his role as General Manager Plant the economic consequences of up to 6 user defined treatment options for each link and Energy. in a road network, in addition to routine maintenance. An optimal program is H More recently, SMEC purchased a part developed for a specific budget level. The optimisatian routine may select an of the HydroTechnology business unit of asphalt overlay for a link at one budget level, but calculate that a less expensive the Victorian Rural Water Corporation treatment, such as a seat, is appropriate for a lower budget. Different budget and, with Phil Cummins as Manager levels are readily tested, and the overall condition of a road network is predicted I for each budget level. This feature is a valuable tool for establishing budgets. Victoria, has established an office in Melbourne from which all future Optimisation may be undertaken either to minimise agency costs (i.e. minimise activities in the State will be carried out. road maintenance costs), road user costs, or a combination of both. Alternatively, I Internationally, SMEC has opened a optimisation to maximise the value of the asset is also available. Valuation of road representative office in Beijing to support assets is made in accordance with Australian Accounting Standard 27. work in an expanding market in the I People's Republic of China. Engineers are finding that the SMEC PMS is a valuable tool for improving the planning of road maintenance, and in establishing the justifiable level of funding I trust that you find this issue of required to maintain the value of road systems. SMEC REVIEW, which details some of our operations and achievements, to be Version 3 of the software is now being developed and will incorporate Oracle 7 both interesting and informative. and other enhancements. The new version will be available early in 1996, and will be supplied to existing clients as part of SMEC's ongoing customer maintenance and support service.
Additional information can be obtained from SMEC's Pavement Management System Manager, Glen Lacey, who can be contacted in our Canberra office by calling 1 800 673 093 or 61 6 280 7544 for international calls. J A N Boniface (J Chief Executive Officer Mat Dunning I SMEC 0
I -SMEC as land consultant- in the - -Acer's long-span- bridge specialist,- -The proposed- bridge, accommodating- - association provided 9 specialists while RUST PPK provided transport 4 lanes of traffic 2 for motor vehicles including Project Manager Dave Rogers, planning, economic analyses and and 2 for motor cycles -. will be who was renponsible for the aseroll geatechnical services, between 1056 -m and 1843 m in management and co-ordination of the length, depending on the river clearance An essential part of the study included a study team of some 30 specialists. and bridge type finally adopted. The survey of international shipping using SMEC's team included Eric Lesleighter 3 bridge options include cable stayed, both the Tien Giang and Hau Giang (Senior River Morphologist(, Bob Harrison balanced cantilever ban girder, and steel routes. This was necessary to establish (River Studies Engineer(, Silver Yance tied arch structures, with heights of criteria for determining bridge clearance (River Morphologist), Max Chapman between 25 m to 37,5 m. The options and ship impact forces for pier (Geotechnical and Structures Engiueer), estimated cost of the bridge and design The survey was carried out by Harry Paulo:: (Geotechnicol Specialist), approach embankments is in the order consultants Pitt and Sherry of Tasmania Gillian Eckert and Mar)ariu Sullivan of some 375-1 00 million. under a separate contract with AusAID. (Environmentalists) and Cecily Neil AusAID also engaged Professor Ivan The final report is due to be submitted (Sociologist). SMEC's Euecutive Shearer, from the University of Sydney, to to AusAID by the end of October 1995. Director International, Geoff Percival, study the legal issues relating to the was the Pro(nct Director. MBK provided international use of the Mekong River Dave Rogers the bridge d.nsign team assisted by and its tributaries, another essential aspect of the feasibility study.
/'i.i]ji.ijii.ii. i
.'tm'mivi i, mntmn'.mm:mmmi ufnutt' Smn:m-mt tmm'imtgm- ututnn As briefly reported in the previous edition of SMEC REVIEW, SMEC, in association with McMillan, Bntton and Kell (MBK), Acer Wargorr Chapman, and RUST PPK International, was commissioned in mid-i 994 by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) to carry out a feasibility study for a major bridge to span the Mekong River at My Thuon in southern Vietnam. The proposed bridge would replace a ferry crossing on National Highway No. 1, the main highway connecting Ho Chi Minh City to the southern parts of the Mekong Delta.
The Mekong River forms the international shipping route to the Cambodian capitol Phnom Penh. As it flows from Pbnom Penh towards Vietnam, the river divides into 2 streams - the Tien Giang (Mekong) and the Hay Giang (Bossac(, Although the Tien Giang is the recognised international shipping route, the Hay Giong is frequently used as an alternative route.
This interesting and challenging study was basically completed in July 1995 with the submission of the Draft Feasibility Report. The scope of investigations and studies addressed by the multidisciplinary team included:
topographic and hydrogrophic surveys I guotechuical investigations for the bridge and approach rood foundations investigation of construction material sources hydrological and nrorpholagicol studies of the river traffic survey and transport planning studies ecouomic and financial evaluation of the pra(uct environmental and socio-econamic impact assessment preliminary design of several bridge types suitable for this crossing a ncm',igotnon access and dredging study for the Tien Giang and Hau Giung ecoiroinric nvrmlucmtion of the 2 shipping channel options. I I HARRINGTON PARK WATER I QUALITY AL I MM1AGMENT SYSTEM, NSW I Environmental --- ,-
assessment and .\ (,rt'l/,,,l Cr,'u'k rcosP leat Lu!,, / nut/ti I system design
Under a commission from the Camden Studies undertaken as port of this project Dr Gillian Eckert, SMEC's Principal I Municipal Council, SMEC is currently include those for vegetation, water Environment Scientist, is leading the preparing an environmental impact quality, flora and fauna, Aboriginal and SMEC team and co-ordinating the input statement and undertaking the associated European heritage, hydrology, land use of all specialist studies and design I concept design of a water quality planning and visual assessment. The processes. SMEC's team includes management system for the Harrington system has been designed to provide Maureen Wade (land use planning), Park Lakes development in western water quality control and flood detention water resources specialists lan Varley, Sydney. The objective is to produce a as well as to conserve much of the Andy Marr and Angus MacPherson I water quality and flood control system for riparian vegetation and improve local (concept design), and Ying Chew the existing and proposed development amenity through the provision of (graphic design), while Dr John Bavor within the 2400 ha catchment of the recreational facilities. The design from the University of Western Sydney upper Narellan Creek, which flows into incorporates innovative measures, is providing specialist advice on I the environmentally sensitive Nepean— including the combination of constructed wetlands design. Hawkesbury river system. When wetlands with gross pollutant traps, trash It is expected that the final report for the completed, the lakes will provide state-of- racks and facilities for the automatic Environmental Impact Statement/concept the-art treatment for urban stormwater dosing of flocculants. I design will be submitted in November 1995. and be a central landscape feature of the Harrington Park residential estate. I Gillian Eckert I I SMEC has recently undertaken an long-term impacts, the identification of environmental and social assessment as appropriate remedial measures, and the part of a water resources development development of environmental monitoring I and flood control project being carried and management programs. The out on the north coast of Java. The assessment was required to meet both project involves the rehabilitation or the Indonesian Government's I extension of flood control levees, as well environmental regulations and the Asian as river training works, gate structures, Development Bank's environmental bridge improvements, abutment requirements for loan processing. protection and river channel diversion. I SMEC collaborated with the New South The works, which are confined to the Wales Department of Land and Water narrow coastal floodplains, aim to reduce Conservation in conducting the the risk and impact of flooding on local assessment. A close working relationship I rural and urban communities and to with a multi-disciplinary Indonesian team protect the main Jakarta to Semarang rail contributed to the successful completion and road link. of the project. I Environmental The environmental and social assessment studies included an evaluation of immediate and Maureen Wade
I v i e w mz~15~, I
0LAN7A/ O Erfl aI-9F'MaNT &ON,aNT T-Mr1 Z790----- 1
/ -- 1- / ZT (--
LEGEND r-xTCTiOt-4 aXTACT1ON TO 'E r At-2/O 'ANS AN Or NF gKAt2 AaA ;a ViIAJHA6O LINa- -f-' r T1ACTF L-k5 i -Va rTOTacflON ANa AN MONTHS L1i 'OHO aON1 5TEO-aflON MEft€-UlNO TO LINV1 O OAQtiON IMrLar-laNrrV7 UNON 4NT ('N (('NNN-NT WCNN- ANN TO ctNW Of- L-2F-VAT1ON NNON aAy IT v1ar.
juvOo
- 2 EXTRACTION SEQUENCE & TI N1ETABLE
CAMDEN
ELOERSU
U I U 14
Y 0 0
/
{3 wil
(1 NLY N 79
lk
40
- 14
VU(\ V IL
ç UtiU
NIImrrI R N AL-1 A
'\ lk) UU -A - A NA < cNA( TREI
vi vJU1 'N (U I -
PIJkNIPPOJECTS(E HARVEST SCIENT!F!C SERVICES I IlTs P1TD, 1< LEAN & HAPWARtD LOT 61 DP810692 POT A ANT CURRENT VEGETATION U------P PL O'AT CJSUTASTS ILIA p p ELOERSL A AN 0 DEC 95 DAN 7245101 DOl I
ANT FLOODPLAIN S os 6 AL I P OT4LA MONTh UNOFRSTORfl COMMENtS dLP T
CA ON ANL Ct LA M/ T WC F Sp
Ct
Cod
L
M (FO?A6N) AA I )0C*tIAIN) t70Ap AA ZF (0'NAft)
AREOA T( FF OLAN I [
A
- d P C II PP Cf A °LN L PA / s —AEA Rz 01-I A '"' ALVO P - OAMA-P H I C A P A I RA°°H I
-fV f
0
CAMDEN T)UNOL SPRINGS ROAD PLANS PROJECT SITE I HARVEST SCIENTIFIC SERVICES 005EDETATON AND REHABILITATION MEASURES R LEAN 8 HAYWARD. PIYHD LOT 6101 ?2 sUvo,rcF 1001r00 RI - ELDERSLIE A A
OZVO
0 £OIO MO NH
7IMNT 7 7 I AN1c
U'IVIONPY1 r --
- £Kt6HMBN1 I
ON I A A
2
00 (\ /
L
--
LEGEND [ MU / — C — &AICHMBt1T 'duNVAY O'7AcON RPMC -4 PAINA WPThf P X1AUflor1 AtOk, /
fir 111 Mt- ,it tYfltAt-t- ,,rj - - 1. LII LIf'I 'V)Wl LII) i-tIll 7 A' BiAN1< SAS'D 2Jr1Ert1 PNOE
- 5 ALy
-B - N&INUA "( 'AE2 'L1Nr75, CA1A4MEN-f LNU2O 1 1 -~;F-PlMeNT FAIAN WIAH Cu-OL-P1 E MSERNC/ SflL1WAY
'—"— NFkAN $UA4ES WIIH OVfS 013
00000 ATAW R4LT7 2IMEAN-r FIL-TtoFA
I I LARDER rnUNCIL SPRINGS ROAD P UN 3 PROJECIS ITE HARVEST SCIENTIFIC SERVICES 0 A WA ER MANAAUMENT PLAN LLEAN & HAYWARD. )iT QJ51 OAR? I Ilk)) AU)WS)D [COO [A C,poALR)l)rJflr 0000WU€SII CDNAOJlU 1ThI o3r [ I 1 l)W)I "ITIA ) - — - EL?ERSL I - [ JAN76 00 1 3 4 72551 01 003