Assessment

ComponentFail (0-49) Pass (50-64) Credit (65-74) Distinction (75-84) High Distinction (85-100) Mark for Item

Demand estimation in

Adelaide and

development of yield

criteria

Unreasonable demand

estimation

Reasonable demand

estimates and design

criteria, no justification

Some justification of methods,

reasonable estimates of

demand and yield criteria

Good justification of methods,

assumptions fully described,

reasonable estimates of demand

and yield criteria

Excellent justification of

methods, assumptions fully

described, reasonable estimates

of demand and yield criteria

/10

Environmental waterNo consideration of

environmental demands

Basic environmental

demands considered

Environmental water

requirements articulated, and a

set of quantitative

environmental flow rules

provided

Environmental water

requirements articulated and

well justified, a set of

quantitative environmental flow

rules provided

Excellent justification of

environmental water

requirements with references, a

set of quantitative

environmental flow rules

provided

/10

Reservoir inflows under

historical and future

climate scenarios, and

stochastic generation of

data

No consideration of future

climate

Reasonable reservoir inflows

for all scenarios

Reasonable reservoir inflows

for all scenarios, future climate

projections supported by

appropriate references

Reasonable reservoir inflows for

all scenarios, future climate

projections supported by

appropriate references,

stochastic generation tools used

to enhance the amount of data

available

Reasonable reservoir inflows for

all scenarios, future climate

projections supported by

appropriate references,

stochastic generation tools used

to enhance the amount of data

available, budyko analysis of

climate elasticity

/15

Flood storage capacityIncorrect consideration of

flood storage

Reasonable estimates of the

10% AEP flood and flood

storage design

10% AEP flood correctly

calculated, some consideration

of assumptions when sizing the

flood storage

10% AEP flood correctly

calculated, good consideration of

assumptions when sizing the

flood storage

10% AEP flood correctly

calculated, excellent

consideration of assumptions

when sizing the flood storage

/15

Reservoir dimensions and

operation rules

Incomplete calibration, no

validation with no discussion

Sizing of the reservoir

(including specification of

dead storage, active storage

and flood storage levels, the

outlet configuration and the

spillway level) appropriate

with little justification

Sizing of the reservoir

(including specification of dead

storage, active storage and

flood storage levels, the outlet

configuration and the spillway

level) appropriate and

supported by the analysis

Sizing of the reservoir (including

specification of dead storage,

active storage and flood storage

levels, the outlet configuration

and the spillway level)

appropriate and supported by

the analysis, operation rules

summarised

Sizing of the reservoir (including

specification of dead storage,

active storage and flood storage

levels, the outlet configuration

and the spillway level)

appropriate and supported by the

analysis, operation rules clearly

articulated and justified

/15

Summary of final

reservoir design

performance

Incorrect calculation of

reservoir yield

Reasonable yield from

reservoir design

Discussion of reservoir yield

under both current and future

climate conditions

Good discussion of reservoir

yield under both current and

future climate conditions, yield

articulated in terms of a

percentage of adelaide's overall

water demands currently and in

the future, summary of

necessary desalination

production

Excellent discussion of reservoir

yield under both current and

future climate conditions, yield

articulated in terms of a

percentage of adelaide's overall

water demands currently and in

the future, summary of necessary

desalination production

/10

Comparison with natural

catchment flows

No comparison of natural

flowsLimited comparison of flows

Comparison of flows

downstream of Mt Bold

reservoir, including a number of

flow metrics (10,50,95,99%

quantiles of the daily flow

duration curve, seasonal flow

metrics and annual flow

metrics)

Good comparison of flows

downstream of Mt Bold reservoir

at multiple locations, including a

number of flow metrics

(10,50,95,99% quantiles of the

daily flow duration curve,

seasonal flow metrics and annual

flow metrics)

Comprehensive comparison of

flows downstream of Mt Bold

reservoir at multiple locations,

including a number of flow

metrics (10,50,95,99% quantiles

of the daily flow duration curve,

seasonal flow metrics and annual

flow metrics)

/10

Executive Summary

Poor clarity of expression,

no summary of key points

findings

Satisfactory clarity of

expression, some summary

of key points

Good clarity of expression,

relevant and complete

summary of key points

Good clarity of expression,

relevant and complete summary

of key points, contains

conclusions and

recommendations

Excellent clarity of expression,

relevant and complete summary

of key points, concise, contains

conclusions and

recommendations

/5

Report professionalismReport difficult to follow

with significant errors

Report lacks

professionalism, difficult to

identify sections, incorrect

use of figures

Report well structured,

selection of relevent figures

Report well structured and

professionally written, figures

used throughout the report with

purpose to illustrate the main

concepts and findings

Report well structured and

professionally written, figures

used throughout the report to

illustrate the main concepts and

findings, reads like a real

engineering report

/10

Demand Preparation (35%)

Reservoir Design (50%)

Communication (5%)