BMT WBM Pty Ltd Level 8, 200 Creek Street Brisbane 4000 Queensland Australia PO Box 203 Spring

Hill 4004 Tel: +61 7 3831 6744 Fax: + 61 7 3832 3627 ABN 54 010 830 421

Our Ref: L.B18221.005.docx

www.bmtwbm.com.au

4 March 2013

Thynne and Macartney GPO Box 245 BRISBANE QLD 4001

Attention: Peter Archos

Dear Peter RE: ESTHER & DONNA ALLAN V LENTHALLS DAM

A review of the GHDs hydraulic model (received 9 January 2013) was undertaken having regard to the E & D Allan property (the Site). As advised by Allens (i.e. solicitors for Council) letter dated 11 February 2013 (refer to Attachment 1), this review has focussed upon the gates at Lenthalls Dam considered to fail to open and to be assumed to be permanently closed during a flood event. The following key aspects have been considered in this review: 1. Results of GHDs hydraulic model as modified by. Ricky Kwan, if assumed to be correct, in light of the gate failure to open in its present form; 2. Sensitivity of the hydraulic model to inflows; and 3. The recent January 2013 (Australia Day) flood. 1.0 Effect of Dam raising to RL 24m AHD with all gates closed based on Ricky Kwan results

If the GHD model (as modified by Ricky Kwan) is considered acceptable in its present form (which is not our position), then from the JER (30 August 2012), an increase in peak flood level for the medium-high and high roughness scenarios of +2.2m to +1.2m at the Subject Site (including at the farm house) (refer to Attachment 2) is anticipated respectively due to the dam. The resulting increase in peak flood level at the house will cause inundation of areas surrounding the Site and at minimum cause inundation beneath the house. Whilst several hydraulic scenarios are presented in the JER (30 August 2012) the scenarios named Draft Report (2009) is predicted to inundate the farm-house (i.e. above floor level), whilst the other scenarios are anticipated to isolate the dwelling. Furthermore, with reference to Attachment 2, the following observations are also evident from the gates failing to open relying solely on Ricky Kwans results: 1. In the medium-high roughness scenario; a. Flood immunity at the farm house is reduce to a 30 year ARI flood immunity, whilst an operational gate would not inundate the property in the 100 year ARI event, b. Access to the farm-house has reduce from a 70 year ARI flood immunity to less than 20yr ARI flood immunity without operation of the gates; 2. In the high roughness scenario: a. Flood immunity at the Site is reduce to a 12 year ARI flood immunity, whilst an operational gate would not inundate the property in the 35 year ARI event,

L.B18221.005.docx

A part of BMT in Energy and Environment

b. Access to the farm-house has reduce from approximately a 32 year ARI flood immunity to less than a 15yr ARI flood immunity without the operation of the gates. 3. For the high roughness case, results in an ARI 100 year flood level at the farmhouse of RL 31.4m AHD and for the medium roughness case with gates closed, RL 30.75m. Hence, even under the medium case, there would still be 0.6m flood depth under the house and 1.7m depth at the low point of the farm access track. We do not accept Ricky Kwans revised modelling work, as it ignores actual historic flood data. However; the adopted position with all gates assumed to have failed to open means that even if we were to accept Ricky Kwans medium roughness case analysis, people could be trapped in the house with no means of escape, and if the event proves to be greater than a 100 year event, there would be a real risk of loss of life. There is no doubt that with the failure of the gates to open, the dam raising has had a major adverse impact on flooding at the farmhouse and on the immunity of the farm access track. 2.0 Sensitivity testing on the GHD model within reasonable bounds

Sensitivity testing of the hydraulic model including sensitivity to changes in flow and roughness was undertaken by BMT WBM with respect to the inflows. The results of the sensitivity analysis are as follows: 1. An increase of 30% inflow from the Dam, results in a +0.84m increase at the dam and an anticipated peak flood level increase of +0.63m at the Site (i.e. 32.09m AHD). Such an increase in flow is considered within reasonable bounds, based on our independent hydrologic assessments, and also on an analysis of the Australia Day floods this year which are described below. 2. An overall (i.e. total) flow increase of 30% into the dam including tributaries would result in an anticipated increase in peak flood level at the Site of +0.89m (32.35m AHD). The sensitivity results provided above indicate that dam level alone without operation of the gates contributes significantly (i.e. approximately 2/3) to the resulting anticipated peak flood level at the subject Site. They also show that the raising of Lenthalls Dam to RL 24m, and the construction of the spillway gates can lead to flood level increases at the Subject Site and farmhouse of over 2m over the pre-dam raising situation. 3.0 Consideration of Australia Day 2013 long weekend flooding

Whilst there is uncertainty regarding both the hydrological and hydraulic model, the recent January 2013 (Australia Day) flood event provides a storm event with a high degree of certainty with respect to both peak flood levels at the dam and at the Subject Site. Based upon a review of this event, the following observations can be made: 1. Lenthalls Dam flood level peaked at 30.44m AHD and that the gates did not operate correctly; 2. An observed peak flood level of 31.25m AHD resulted at the Site. 3. Based on daily rainfall in the area (in the order of 300mm in 24 hours) it is likely that a flood event in the order of 100 year ARI may have occurred at the house site, though analysis e.g. the Howard gauge suggests it may have been less than an ARI 100 year event. From the observation of the Australia day flood provided above, inundation occurred beneath the house, cut access to and from the Site, isolated the farm-house and the emergency flood management plan did not prevent isolation of the residents. The observations of the Australia day flood with respect to peak flood levels are consistent with GHDs high roughness scenario predicted for a 100yr ARI event with the gate being operational. 4.0 Conclusions

The evidence from GHDs hydraulic model (as modified by Ricky Kwan) (i.e. if accepted in its present form), sensitivity testing of flows and roughness in the GHD model and on observations from the most recent Australia Day flood that caused significant flooding along the east coast of Queensland and at the subject site, demonstrates that the raising of the dam to RL 24m AHD, coupled with the failure of the flood gates, results in:

L.B18221.005.docx

1. Inundation of the Site surrounds and under the farm house in only moderate (30 years ARI or more frequent) flood events, with the ground level adjacent to the house being well below current standards for residential property, whereas before the dam raising the house was safe in an ARI 100 year event.; 2. Access to and from the site is prevented in minor flood events; 3. Flooding at the subject site and farm house was significantly worsened during the Australia Day 2013 flood event due to the dam raising and gate failure over what would have occurred for such an event prior to the dam raising. 4. Evacuation from the site in the Australia Day flood could not occur and the emergency flood management plan was ineffective to prevent isolation with no suitable refuge, and people could have been trapped in the farm house with rising flood waters with no means of escape. Had a more severe flood had eventuated, lives would have been at risk. An effective evacuation plan is essential for the current situation given the frequency with which the access to the farm and the farm access track are now cut, and given the low immunity of the house in the post dam raising environment. Before the dam raising, the farm house was a safe refuge for all but extreme floods, and egress via the farm access track was possible even during severe flood events.

Yours faithfully BMT WBM Pty Ltd

Neil Collins Principal Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineer Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Letter from Allens dated 11.2.13 GHD - Flood Levels vs ARI at Allans Property

L.B18221.005.docx

Aliens
Riverside Centre 123 Eagle Street Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia T+6173334 3000 F +617 3334 3444 www.a I lens.com .a u CPO Box 7082 Brisbane QLD 4001 Australia DX 210 Brisbane

A B N 4 7 7 0 2 595 758

Aliens > < Linklaters

11 February 2013 Peter Archos Partner Thynne & Macartney GPO Box 245 Brisbane QLD 4001 By Email Strictly Confidential

Dear Mr Archos

Fraser Coast Regional Council ats Allan Land Court Proceedings AQL 627-11
We refer to your letter dated 6 February 2013, in which you requested provision of any material relevant to the operation of the dam gates at Lenthalls Dam between 26 and 30 January 2013 as well as any material relating to your clients' property during that period. We have treated your letter as a request for further disclosure. Your request is far broader than the issues in dispute in the proceeding. Your request seeks disclosure of "any material" and refers simply to the operation of the dam gates and to your clients' property. Whilst you have referenced paragraph 13(b) of the Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC) as being the issue to which the requested documents relate, it is insufficient to support the request. The issues raised in this case do not warrant the disclosure of "any material" relating to the operation of the gates. As we have noted in previous correspondence on the issue of disclosure, in particular our letter dated 15 November 2012, your clients' case appears to be reliant upon and confined to an allegation that the issue of the failure of the dam gates is confined to the risk present at the time of acquisition of the crest gates not operating as intended. You have not said anything contrary to that proposition and your clients' SFiC, as particularised, takes the issue no further. Upon that basis, documents relevant to the actual operation of the crest gates following acquisition are not subject to disclosure. A similar remark could be made about the obligation to disclose any material that came into existence following acquisition. Notwithstanding the above, our client has been prepared to assist your clients by making disclosure of all documents which are not subject to legal professional privilege and which are relevant to upstream impacts, including impacts on the flood immunity of your clients'
OurRef QNMS: EVLB:120210924 fyab A0124238650vl 120210924 11.2.2013

Bni.bciiiu

Thynne & Macartney

Aliens > < Linklaters

house and access routes. We will take our client's instructions about documents which may have come into existence in relation to the recent flood event. Further, in an effort to limit the issues in dispute, and for the purpose of this litigation only, our client instructs us that it does not contend other than that your clients' injurious affection claim (if it is to be allowed) should be assessed on the basis that the crest gates remain fully closed during flood events. On that basis any issue of the gates' inoperability is not relevant.

Youis-siocerely

/I
Bill McCredie Partner Aliens Bill.McCredie@allens.com.au T+61 7 3334 3049
/Cve^LyhCB---

Senior Assobh Aliens Eve.Lynch@allens.com.au T +61 7 3334 3274 Faheem Anwar Lawyer Aliens Faheem.Anwar@allens.com.au T +61 7 3334 3223

fyab A0124238650v1 120210924

11.2.2013

Page 2