A ten-tile atlas map of Auburn City Council that displays the following legend items:

• Floodway
• Medium flood risk
• Low flood risk
• Overland flow lots

A detailed cadastre is also displayed, as well as neighbouring council boundaries.

this dataset contains a link to the scanned maps that are associated with the Flood in the Hunter report

Under the NSW DPIE-EES Environmental Water Management Program the distribution and extent of inundation is monitored in large inland floodplain wetland assets which are targeted for environmental flow delivery and located in the NSW portion of the Murray-Darling Basin: Gwydir wetlands, Lowbidgee floodplain, Lower Lachlan wetlands, Macquarie Marshes, and Barmah-Millewa Forest. Inundation maps are derived from image observations sourced from the satellite data sources of Landsat (30m pixel) and Sentinel-2 (10m pixel) for the period July 2014-June 2019. Image observations are automatically downloaded by NSW DPIE from the USGS (Unites State Geological Survey’s Earth Explorer website (http://earthexplorer.usgs.gov ) and the Copernicus Sentinel Open Access Hub (https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home ) as orthorectified images. NSW DPIE process these images to standardised surface reflectance (Flood et al. 2013). Image observations with high cloud coverage (>50%) are not considered because they cannot be processed. The inundation mapping procedure is a modified version of Thomas et. al (2015) which is a method to map inundation in vegetated floodplain wetlands using an integrated spectral response to water and vigorous vegetation. From each satellite image observation NSW DPIE-EES automatically generates a water index (Fisher et al. 2016) and the NDVI vegetation index. These indices are used to allocate inundated pixels to classes of open water, mixed water and vegetation, and dense vegetation cover that was inundated (Thomas et al. 2015). A process of pixel recoding is conducted to produce each inundation map. First all inundation classes are merged and allocated a value of one (1) whilst all other pixels are allocated a value of zero (0). Second, ancillary data is then used to identify irrigation infrastructure to do two things: locate inundated pixels within off-river storages (ORS) by recoding to a value of (2) and to remove cropped areas that have similar spectral properties to wetland vegetation by coding the pixels to a value of zero (0). Third, for observation dates affected by cloud shadow, which is often incorrectly detected as water, pixels are manually reclassified as cloud shadow by recoding them to a value of three (3). The final inundation classes are inundated (1), off-river storages with water (ors) (2), cloud shadow (3), and not inundated (0). Final inundation maps are clipped to the inland floodplain wetland boundaries.

The naming format of the files are: Wetland_date _sensor_inundation1_ors2_cloud3.tif or Wetland_path_date _sensor_inundation1_ors2_cloud3.tif

Wetland: bm = Barmah Millewa floodplain gw = Gwydir floodplain lachlan = Lachlan floodplain lo = Lowbidgee floodplain mm = Macquarie Marshes floodplain

Path: Specific to the Lachlan Date: Satellite image date processed Sensor: Sensor type- l7 (Landsat7; l8 (Landsat 8); s2 (Sentinel2) Inundation1: Inundated ors2: Off-River Storage with water cloud3: Cloud shadow (in filename if present)

References: Fisher, A., Flood, N. and Danaher, T. (2016). Comparing Landsat water index methods for automated water classification in eastern Australia. Remote Sensing of Environment, 175, 167-182.

Flood, N., Danaher, T., Gill, T., & Gillingham, S. (2013). An operational scheme for deriving standardised surface reflectance from Landsat TM/ETM+ and SPOT HRG imagery for eastern Australia. Remote Sensing, 5, 83–109.

Thomas, R. F., Kingsford, R. T., Lu, Y., Cox, S. J., Sims, N. C. and Hunter, S. J., (2015). Mapping inundation in the heterogeneous floodplain wetlands of the Macquarie Marshes, using Landsat Thematic Mapper. Journal of Hydrology 524, 194-213.

Under the NSW Government's flood prone land policy the City is required to manage flooding issues and put plans into place to safeguard flood-prone areas. The local area has been divided into 9 catchments covering 2,666ha.More information on floodplain management catchments

The study area for this Revised Oyster Creek Flood Study was taken as the reach of floodplain extending from approximately 170 m upstream of the Box Road footbridge down to Oyster Bay, a distance of …Show full descriptionThe study area for this Revised Oyster Creek Flood Study was taken as the reach of floodplain extending from approximately 170 m upstream of the Box Road footbridge down to Oyster Bay, a distance of some 1900 m. Previously it was found that downstream of Bates Drive there are no buildings inundated in the 1% AEP event and further upstream from Box Road the development is largely outside the floodplain area. The implemented measures, such as creek widening and clearing, will have resulted in a reduction in flood levels within the reach from Box Road to Bates Drive. Hence, the results and findings of the original Oyster Creek Flood Study need to be revised and the flood model updated to determine the revised extents of flooding in Oyster Creek. Among the key elements addressed and outlined in this report are: Revised inundation extents for the 10%, 5%, 2%, 1%, 0.2% AEP events and the PMF; Revised list of flood affected properties for the aforementioned events; Characterisation of High, Medium and Low Flood Risk Zones as per current NSW Flood Prone Land Policy and identification of affected properties; Preparation of Hazard Maps for flood events; and Recommendations for amendments to the Sutherland Shire DCP 2006. Overall the works under as part of the Oyster Creek Floodplain Risk Management Plan of June 2005 have reduced the 1% AEP flood levels by up to 0.5m, resulting in lower Flood Planning Levels in parts and reduced flood damages in the future.

19 components + 1 overview

42 maps + 1 overview

26 maps/figures

The recommended Floodplain Risk Management Plan for the Griffith CBD catchments has been prepared in accordance with the NSW Floodplain Development Manual (Reference 6) and:\r * Is based on a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of all factors that affect and are affected by the use of flood prone land; and\r * Provides a long-term path for the future development of the community.\r \r Griffith is located approximately 450 km north of Melbourne and 560 km west of Sydney in the heart of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area (MIA). The CBD and residential areas of Griffith are located at the base of the McPherson Ranges (see Figure 1). Griffith and its surrounding villages of Yenda, Yoogali, Hanwood, Bilbul and Beelbangera lie within the Main Drain “J” catchment, which together with its network of drainage channels delivers runoff to Mirrool Creek.\r \r The Griffith CBD catchment has an area of approximately 9 km2. The upper part of the catchment is steep and covered in scattered timber and bushland. South of the bushland area the urban area begins and continues south to Wakaden St and the Temora-Roto Railway Line. This area is predominantly low density residential development. Griffith CBD lies to the south of the railway line, and is characterised by commercial and light industrial land uses. At the downstream extents of the CBD is the Main Canal which is raised above normal ground levels and is consequently a substantial obstruction to overland flow.\r \r The City of Griffith is not located on the banks of a major river system and therefore does not experience mainstream flooding as occurs at other centres within the Murrumbidgee River catchment for example Wagga Wagga. However, Griffith and its surrounding areas are affected by high volume rainfall events and also from flooding from the Main Drain J system.\r \r In the past, frequent flooding has occurred throughout the commercial areas of Griffith including Yambil Street, even in small rainfall events less than the 6 month ARI for example. Studies have indicated that this flooding has been due to a combination of catchment runoff, blockage and/or insufficient capacity of the sub-surface drainage systems and the associated siphon drainage systems, as well as the elevated railway and canal embankments that impede downstream overland flow paths. Within the study area flows are predominantly distributed and shallow at the upstream or northern sections of the CBD catchment and runoff generally ponds behind the various embankments that tend to be aligned normal to general flow direction such as the Main Canal and railway line, before being gradually discharged through the siphon outlets located under the Main Canal at the downstream boundary of the study area. The Flood Study (Reference 1) also found that the actual flow at the siphons was largely restricted by the upstream drainage system.\r

The Cut Rock Creek flood plain management study is one of a series being undertaken along the coast of NSW in catchments identified as: having significant existing flooding problems, and/or likely to undergo urbanisation in the foreseeable future that will influence or be influenced by flooding The current state of development in the catchment was established by examination of available maps and photographs and by field investigation. Future development options were then formulated with the …Show full descriptionThe Cut Rock Creek flood plain management study is one of a series being undertaken along the coast of NSW in catchments identified as: having significant existing flooding problems, and/or likely to undergo urbanisation in the foreseeable future that will influence or be influenced by flooding The current state of development in the catchment was established by examination of available maps and photographs and by field investigation. Future development options were then formulated with the assistance of Gosford City and Wyong Shire Councils. The effects of these development options were determined by hydrologic and hydraulic analysis using the numerical models described in Volume.1 and a range of possible strategies was proposed to accommodate both existing and future development. These strategies were then assembled into a complete flood plain management strategy for the valley and suggestions put forward as to the most appropriate authority to implement the works and measures proposed. Recommendations as to staging of the works were also evolved. There are four developed residential areas at risk from flooding: Brand Place Area, Lisarow - 100 year flood depths are up to 0.6 metres and velocities 0.5 metres per second. Existing development is above flood level but the freeboard is as little as 0.3 metres. Sohier Park Area, Lisarow - 100 year flood depths are up to 0.5 metres and velocities around 0.3 metres per second. Approximately eight houses and some light industrial enterprises are located in the flood plain. Chittaway Road Area, Ourimbah - 100 year flood depths are up to one metre and velocities about 0.4 metres per second. Eight residences are in the flood plain but some have raised floor levels. Lower Chittaway Creek Area - the development is principally part of a rural residential subdivision. The more recent residences have floor levels above 100 year flood height estimated by Wyong Council but some dwellings were erected before the adoption of a policy on flood prone lands. 100 year flood depths are around one metre and velocities are approximately 0.4 metres per second. In addition to the above areas there are approximately 15 residences scattered along the Bangalow Creek/Cut Rock Creek flood plain. The floor levels of some of these houses are very close to 100 year flood heights.

Map displaying the extents of flood studies, floodplain risk management studies/plans, and the years of their completion.

Hazard and hydraulic categories; extents and categorisations based on the Flood Planning Level (1% AEP flood + 500mm freeboard).\r

In September 2006, Wingecarribee Shire Council engaged URS Australia Pty Ltd to undertake a Flood\r Study of the Whites Creek catchment within the town of Moss Vale, NSW. The Flood Study is to conform\r to the NSW Flood Prone Lands Policy and the Floodplain Development Manual (2005).\r This report provides the Flood Study component of the floodplain risk management process and details\r the investigation of flood behaviour associated with the Whites Creek Catchment within the town of Moss\r Vale.\r \r The Flood Study involved a community consultation process, the collection of flood related data and the\r manipulation of that data using a hydrologic model to determine design flood flows for a range of floods.\r \r The flood flows were then modelled using the MIKE-11 hydraulic model to determine flood levels and flow\r velocities at selected locations along the creek and its floodplain.\r \r The results of the investigations are presented in relevant sections of the Report and maps are provided\r showing the extent of each flood and the provisional hazard rating for flooded areas for major floods.\r \r The greatest flood impact is experienced in the vicinity of the Argyle Street culvert and where that street\r passes under the Main Southern Railway. Future development within the catchment, either upstream of\r the Golf Course or downstream of the Berrima Road Bridge, must take account of the flood liability of the\r catchment.\r \r The results of this Study indicate six major directions for further investigation in the subsequent\r Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, including:\r \r * Development controls to be applied to new or infill development in the catchment;\r * The potential impact of culvert blockage on flood levels and flood risk;\r * Upgrading the capacity of the Argyle Street culvert, including realignment of the upstream reach,\r reconstruction of the culvert and realignment with the railway culvert;\r * Addressing the drainage system and capacity along Railway Street;\r * Investigating options to manage cross-catchment flows through the Spring Street underpass; and\r * Maintaining the capacity of the creek below Berrima Road through vegetation control and other\r environmental measures.

• Cadastre;
• Catchment;
• Sub-catchment;
• Waterways;
• Wrights Creek.

THE STUDY AREA The Upper Parramatta River catchment covers an area of 110 square kilometres and covers all land that drains to the Parramatta River upstream of its tidal limit at the Charles Street …Show full description#THE STUDY AREA The Upper Parramatta River catchment covers an area of 110 square kilometres and covers all land that drains to the Parramatta River upstream of its tidal limit at the Charles Street Weir, between the Barry Wilde Bridge (Wilde Avenue) and the Gasworks Bridge (Macarthur Street). Most of the catchment is urbanised and has a population of more than 230,000. However, there are significant areas of urban bushland, generally located along the major watercourses. A map of the study area is presented as Figure 1.1. The Upper Parramatta River has a number of tributaries that flow into it within the study area. The two largest tributaries are Toongabbie Creek and Darling Mills Creek. Other tributaries include the following: Brickfield Creek; Domain Creek; Finlaysons Creek; Coopers Creek; Pendle Creek (also known as Pendle Hill Creek); Greystanes Creek (also known as Girraween Creek); Grantham Creek; Blacktown Creek; Lalor Creek; Quarry Creek; The Quarry Branch (also known as Northmead Gully); Excelsior Creek; Blue Gum Creek; Rifle Range Creek; Hunts Creek. The Upper Parramatta River catchment includes parts of the following four local government areas (LGAs): Shire of Baulkham Hills — including the suburbs of Oatlands, Carlingford, North Rocks, Northmead, North Parramatta, West Pennant Hills, Castle Hill and Baulkham Hills; City of Blacktown — including the suburbs of Toongabbie, Seven Hills, Prospect, Blacktown, Lalor Park and Kings Langley; City of Holroyd — including the suburbs of Westmead, Wentworthville, South Wentworthville, Greystanes, Pendle Hill, Girraween, Prospect, Toongabbie and Merrylands West; City of Parramatta — including the suburbs of Parramatta, North Parramatta, Westmead, Northmead, Wentworthville, Toongabbie, Old Toongabbie and Winston Hills. #OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY The primary objective of the current Upper Parramatta River Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan is to bring together, and place in appropriate context, all past, current and proposed future activities related to the reduction of flood risk in the catchment. In broad terms, the current study has investigated what can be done to minimise the effects of flooding in the Upper Parramatta River catchment and recommended a strategy in the form of a Floodplain Risk Management Plan. As mentioned above, despite the expenditure of more than $35 million on flood mitigation works and measures since 1989, none of the four councils within the area of the Trust have adopted a formal Floodplain Risk Management Plan as required by the New South Wales (NSW) Government’s Flood Prone Land Policy. This study and plan constitute key components of the NSW Government’s floodplain risk management process as outlined in the Floodplain Management Manual (NSW Government, 2001) (see Section 1.4). Some of the objectives of the study include: briefly outlining the hydrological and hydraulic modelling activities that have been undertaken for the catchment to date; briefly reviewing the past, current and future flood-related activities of the Trust and the four constituent Councils; reviewing, in detail, issues relating to planning and development controls within the catchment’s floodplains; identifying additional floodplain risk management measures that particularly relate to community awareness about flooding, the release of flood-related information to the community, flood warning and emergency management; developing a mutually agreeable Floodplain Risk Management Plan for the Upper Parramatta River catchment that outlines the best measures to reduce flood damage, based on environmental, social, economic, financial and engineering considerations. #Report The structure of this report is as follows: Chapter 2 summarises the flood problems, together with the behaviour and impacts of flooding in the Upper Parramatta River catchment. Chapter 2 also discusses the modelling of flood flows and flood levels in the catchment; Chapter 3 provides an overview of the previous flood-related studies and investigations that have been undertaken in the catchment, together with an outline of the available mapping and survey that has been carried out; Chapter 4 presents an overview of floodplain risk management measures available for dealing with flood problems generally and the methodology used to assess these management measures in the current study. The large number of floodplain risk management measures that have already examined and implemented in the catchment are also listed in this chapter; Chapter 5 discusses possible future floodplain risk management options for the Upper Parramatta River catchment, particularly flood-related planning and development controls, community awareness about flooding, the release of floodrelated information to the community, flood warning and emergency management; Chapter 6 lists all the documents referenced in this study; Chapter 7 provides a bibliography of all studies and investigations that have been undertaken in the catchment since the early 1970s; Chapter 8 provides a glossary of terms used in this study.

19 components + 1 overview

Atlas map (42 components) showcasing the Hornsby Local Government Area. Details include: Overland flow path Overland parcels Hawkesbury flood extent Hawkesbury parcels Cadastre Atlas map (42 components) showcasing the Hornsby Local Government Area. Details include: Overland flow path Overland parcels Hawkesbury flood extent Hawkesbury parcels Cadastre

The NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2005) states that local overland flow is a significant problem that should be considered alongside mainstream river and creek flooding. Identifying overland …Show full descriptionThe NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2005) states that local overland flow is a significant problem that should be considered alongside mainstream river and creek flooding. Identifying overland flow flooding within an entire Local Government Area (LGA) is a major undertaking, and instead of doing this for the entire LGA in one step, Fairfield City Council (FCC) has decided to undertake a number of separate overland flow studies. The Canley Corridor Overland Flood Study is the first detailed overland flow flood study to be carried out by FCC. The primary objectives of the study are to: test the sensitivity of overland flood modelling to different assumptions about the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system, and use the conclusions to establish a methodology for future overland flood studies identify major overland flow paths within the Canley Corridor catchment study area, and properties at risk from local overland flooding produce flood extent and flood risk precinct maps for the study area Investigations of different stormwater system modelling approaches compared the precision of results and the cost and time required to carry out the work. It was found that the best outcome was achieved by a combined hydrological and stormwater pipe network model that included larger pipes and structures in the stormwater network, and which took into account known historical trouble spots. While detailed modelling of the entire stormwater network yielded more precise results, it did not affect which areas were identified as being at high risk. The additional cost involved in collecting data and constructing a detailed model was not considered worthwhile for the increase in precision this gave. This information will help guide data collection and model development for the remaining local overland flow studies FCC will be carrying out. Flood Risk Precinct Maps have been produced as the key output from the study. These maps are based on modelling of the 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) and Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) events, and use the FCC Development Control Plan flood risk precinct categories. This mapping identified: areas of High Risk Precinct in the middle of the catchment around McBurney Road, along Freeman Avenue adjacent to Orphan School Creek, and along major overland flow paths on Railway Parade and Sackville Street; areas of Medium Risk Precinct running from southwest to northeast from Cabramatta Road, across Cumberland Highway, and covering much of the Canley Vale Road East and Sackville Street area; areas of Low Risk Precinct following the outline of the Medium Risk Precinct closely, although extending significantly beyond the Medium Risk Precinct between Canley Vale Road East, Gladstone Road and Sackville Street, and in localised areas on either side of Railway Parade. Peak flood depths on most properties are less than 0.5 metres, although there are some areas in the upper catchment where depths are between 0.5 and 1.0 metres. Similarly, flow velocities across most properties are generally below 0.5 metres per second, although higher velocities are seen in many streets and across some upper catchment properties. A “Zone of Significant Flow” has also been identified where it is important that overland flowpaths are kept clear. It contains much of the 100 year ARI extent in the upper catchment, where flowpath blockage caused by fences, large buildings and debris can significantly increase water levels and divert water onto nearby properties. These maps only represent flooding due to runoff from within the Canley Corridor catchment. Those parts of the Corridor along the banks of Orphan School Creek may also be at risk from mainstream flooding, generated in the upper Orphan School Creek catchment to the north and west of the Canley Corridor. Mainstream flood extents for Orphan School Creek are reported in the Flood Study for Orphan School Creek, Green Valley Creek and Clear Paddock Creek (Sinclair Knight Merz & Fairfield Consulting Services, 2008).

Report + maps Report + maps

Reasons for the Study and Plan\r

Flooding problems within the Eastwood town centre and other areas within the Terry’s Creek\r catchment are well documented. Significant flooding problems have been experienced in\r 1967, 1984 and 1989. It is estimated that over 70 houses or commercial properties\r experienced above floor flooding in the November 1984 flood.\r \r A range of flood mitigation options were investigated some 17 years ago, in the Terry’s\r Creek Catchment Management Study that was prepared for the Water Board. Since that\r time, there have been a number of other studies with an emphasis largely on structural\r options, including tunnelling, as a means of reducing Eastwood’s flood problem. There have\r also been various planning initiatives undertaken by Council which have imposed restrictions\r on development because of the flood problems.\r \r In May 2006, Bewsher Consulting was commissioned by the City of Ryde to assist its\r Floodplain Management Committee in preparing a Floodplain Management Study and Plan\r for Eastwood and Terry’s Creek.\r

Responsibilities\r

The prime responsibility for planning and management of flood prone lands in NSW rests\r with local government. The NSW Government provides assistance on state-wide policy\r issues and technical support. Financial assistance is also provided to undertake flood and\r floodplain risk management studies and for the implementation of works identified in any\r subsequent floodplain risk management plan.\r \r The Eastwood and Terry’s Creek Floodplain Management Committee oversaw the Study.\r This committee includes Councillors and staff from the City of Ryde, and staff from\r Parramatta City Council, Hornsby Shire Council, Department of Environment, Climate\r Change and Water (DECCW), Sydney Water Corporation and the State Emergency Service\r (SES). A number of community representatives were also represented on the committee.\r

The Study Area\r

The study area, shown on Figure 1, includes that portion of Terry’s Creek within the City of\r Ryde, from Terry Road to the creek’s confluence with the Lane Cove River.\r The Eastwood town centre is located within the study area, and straddles the Main Northern\r Railway Line. In addition to the main creek, the study area includes all significant tributaries\r and many overland flow paths.\r \r Some consideration has also been given to works that have previously been recommended\r within Parramatta City Council, where these works potentially impact on flooding within the\r City of Ryde. The potential for flooding of properties in Parramatta City Council and Hornsby\r Shire Council has also been considered immediately upstream and downstream of the\r railway crossing.\r

Reporting\r

The Study results have been presented in a number of reports as the study has progressed,\r including reports covering:\r \r * the Flood Study (May 2008);\r * Town Planning Considerations (July 2008); and the\r * Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan (this report).\r \r Consultation\r Community consultation has been an important component of the project. Key elements of\r the consultation process have been as follows:\r \r * regular meetings of the Eastwood & Terry’s Creek Floodplain Management\r Committee;\r * public review of the flood study results, including a public display during July and\r August 2007, an information day and feedback process; and\r * public exhibition of the draft floodplain risk management study and plan, prior to formal\r consideration by Council.\r

Modelling of Flood Behaviour\r

Flood behaviour has been assessed using computer models. The catchment area and\r stormwater pipe network within the study area was modelled using the DRAINS hydrologic\r model. Catchment flows from the Parramatta and Hornsby Council portion of the catchment\r were generated using a less detailed RAFTS model. Flows from these models were input to\r a two dimensional TUFLOW hydraulic model to estimate flood depths and the extent of flood\r inundation.\r \r The flood models were calibrated to the November 1984 flood. They were then used to\r simulate flood behaviour for a range of flood events, including a 5 year, 10 year, 20 year, 50\r year, 100 year and Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).\r

Flood Risk Mapping & Development Controls\r

The area subject to flooding (up to the PMF) has been divided into three flood risk precincts\r (high, medium and low). Different development controls are proposed for the catchment,\r depending on the type of development and the flood risk precinct in which the development\r is located. The flood risk precincts comprise:\r \r * The high flood risk area – where high flood damages, potential risk to life, or\r evacuation problems are anticipated. It is recommended that most development is\r restricted within this area.\r * The medium flood risk area – where there is still a significant risk of flood damage, but\r where these damages can be minimised by the application of appropriate\r development controls.\r * The low flood risk area – where the risk of flood damage is low. Most land uses would\r be permitted within this area (subject to other planning considerations).\r In addition to the flood risk precincts, an overland flow precinct has also been defined. This\r comprises shallow areas of inundation distant from major watercourses where less\r restrictive flood level and other controls apply.\r

The Flood Problem\r

A flood damages database has been prepared for the study area to quantify the flood\r problem and to assist in evaluating the economic merit of a range of flood mitigation\r measures.\r \r The database includes details on 1,361 properties throughout the study area that could\r potentially be affected by flooding (up to a PMF flood). The database has further been\r divided into 9 geographical areas (shown on Figure 1) to help identify the spatial distribution\r of the flood problem over the study area.\r \r

Flood Mitigation Options Investigated\r

A total of 12 options were identified by the floodplain management committee for analysis.\r These options were initially assessed using performance in the 100 year flood and\r consideration of environmental and other factors. A short list of 6 options was identified for\r further economic assessment. An additional option for the Eastwood town centre was also\r investigated following the evaluation of these options. The options are shown in Table 3.\r \r The short tunnel option looked at diverting flow from upstream of Terry Road through a 3.8m\r diameter tunnel direct to a small basin in the lower part of Eastwood Park. The main\r objective was to reduce the flow carried by Terry’s Creek through the town centre. This\r option reduces flood levels through the town centre by 0.4 to 0.6m in a 100 year flood, and\r reduces the present value of all flood damage by $3.2M. However, flood levels downstream\r of the railway line increase marginally due to reduced travel times and results in an increase\r in flood damage of $0.4M. The net benefit is $2.8M and the estimated cost is $13M. This\r option is not favoured due to its poor benefit/cost ratio of 0.2 and the increase in\r downstream flood levels.\r \r The basin at Mobbs Lane and the culvert upgrade at Terry Road are two options that have\r been proposed in a report prepared for Parramatta City Council. Both options have been\r reviewed due to their potential impact on flood behaviour through the current study area.\r \r The basin is likely to reduce flood levels whilst the culvert upgrade could potentially increase\r flood levels. Model results indicate a reduction in flood levels of 0.1 to 0.2m through\r Eastwood in a 100 year flood due to the combined measures, but an increase of around\r 0.1m in more frequent floods (5 year and 10 year events). This is due to the basin becoming\r less effective in smaller floods whilst the impact of the culvert upgrade became more\r pronounced. It is recommended that a basin at Mobbs Lane be pursued with Parramatta City\r Council, with possible cost sharing arrangements between both Councils and the DECCW.\r \r Amplification of the Terry Road culvert can not be recommended without further\r consideration of the impacts in smaller floods.\r \r Drainage improvements were investigated along Abuklea Road and in the vicinity of the TG\r Milner Sportsground. The initial scheme included doubling the size of the existing drainage\r pipeline behind properties in Abuklea Road, but provided limited benefits. Further\r stormwater drainage improvements have been proposed for this area (see Table 4 for\r potential drainage improvements in this area and others).\r \r Debris control measures to prevent blockage of the railway culvert and the Progress Avenue\r culverts were investigated. The present value of all flood damage could be reduced by\r approximately $0.5M if the potential for blockage of these structures is eliminated. The\r measures are envisaged to incorporate bollards around the perimeter of the railway culvert, and structural fencing along the boundary of the open channel upstream of the Progress\r Avenue culverts. This measure has an estimated cost of the order of $50,000 and a\r benefit/cost ratio considerably greater than 1.0. These works are recommended.\r The final stage of a drainage augmentation scheme at First Avenue in the eastern town\r centre was included in the flood model. Results indicated that flooding of a number of\r commercial properties along Rowe Street could be alleviated by these works, with the\r present value of all flood damages reduced by approximately $0.6M. The cost of the final\r stage of works has been estimated at $1.3M, which provides a benefit/cost ratio of 0.5. As\r this is the final stage of a major drainage augmentation scheme, completion of this final\r stage is recommended.\r \r The options recommended above only partially reduce flooding through the Eastwood town\r centre. Further evaluation