Revision Date issued Author(s) Reviewed by Approved by Date approved Revision type A 05/12/12 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Mike Huber Mike Huber 05/12/12 Draft B 06/12/12 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Mike Huber Mike Huber 06/12/12 Draft 0 07/12/12 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Mike Huber Mike Huber 07/12/12 Draft for client comment 1 24/04/13 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Mike Huber Mike Huber 26/04/13 Revised draft for client comment 2 26/06/13 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Mike Huber Miles Yeates 26/06/13 Final 2.1 28/06/13 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Miles Yeates Miles Yeates 28/06/13 Revised final 2.2 04/07/13 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Miles Yeates Miles Yeates 04/07/13 Revised final 2.3 10/07/13 C Bailey D Smith M Yeates L Wells Miles Yeates Miles Yeates 10/07/13 Revised final
Table 6.Volumes and dry mass of dredged material envisioned over 25 years at the six locations. Location Units Total (25 years) Total capital (25 years) Capital - mean per year Indicative Capital campaign Total Maintenance (25 years) Maintenance - mean per year Typical maintenance dredging interval (years) Indicative maintenance campaign Gladstone Volume (m3) 80,000,000 72,500,000 2,900,000 6,000,000 7,500,000 300,000 1 300,000 Dry Mass (kt) n/a 58,000 2320 4800 5250 210 210 Rosslyn Bay Volume (m3) 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 10,000 3 30,000 Dry Mass (kt) n/a 0 0 0 175 7 21 Hay Point Volume (m3) 28,000,000 20,000,000 800,000 8,500,000 8,000,000 320,000 3 960,000 Dry Mass (kt) n/a 16,000 640 6800 5600 224 672 Abbot Point Volume (m3) 8,500,000 3,500,000 140,000 3,500,000 5,000,000 200,000 5 1,000,000 Dry Mass (kt) n/a 2800 112 2800 3500 140 700 Townsville Volume (m3) 24,000,000 6,900,000 276,000 3,500,000 17,100,000 684,000 1 684,000 Dry Mass (kt) n/a 5520 221 2800 11,970 479 479 Cairns Volume (m3) 20,000,000 5,000,000 200,000 5,000,000 15,000,000 600,000 1 600,000 Dry Mass (kt) n/a 4000 160 4000 10,500 420 420 Total for six locations Volume (m3) 165,750,000 107,900,000 4,516,000 26,500,000 52,850,000 2,114,000 n/a 3,574,000 Dry Mass (kt) n/a 86,320 3453 21,200 36,995 1480 2502
Figure 25. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) TSS distribution, current site - 100th percentile. Figure 26. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) sedimentation rate, Model Case 1 - 50th percentile. Figure 27. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) sedimentation rate, Model Case 1 - 95th percentile. Figure 28. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) sedimentation rate, Model Case 2 - 50th percentile. Figure 29. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) sedimentation rate, Model Case 2 - 95th percentile. Figure 30. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) sedimentation rate, current site - 50th percentile. Figure 31. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) sedimentation rate, current site - 95th percentile. Figure 32. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) total sedimentation and bottom thickness, Model Case 1. Figure 33. Rosslyn Bay: dredging period (90 days) total sedimentation and bottom thickness, Model Case 2.
Table 14. Comparative risk assessment for Rosslyn Bay State Boat Harbour based on modelling results (figure 23 to figure 37). Hazard Sensitive Receptor Site Likelihood Consequence Risk Rating An increase in TSS concentration and turbidity in waters surrounding the material placement site. Coral Reefs Current Site Rare Minor Low Model Case 1 Rare Minor Low Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low Seagrass. Current Site Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 1 Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low Fish Habitat Areas Current Site Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 1 Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low Non-general Use Zones Current Site Likely Minor Medium Model Case 1 Likely Minor Medium Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low Commercial fisheries Current Site Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 1 Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low Tourism and recreational values Current Site Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 1 Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low Increase in the rate of sediment deposition on the sea bed in areas surrounding the material placement site. Coral Reefs Current Site Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 1 Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 2 Rare Insignificant Low Seagrass. Current Site Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 1 Rare Insignificant Low Model Case 2 Rare Insignificant Low
Table 26. Comparative risk assessment for the Port of Townsville based on modelling results (Figure 73 to Figure 89). Hazard Sensitive Receptor Site Likelihood Consequence Risk Rating An increase in TSS concentration and turbidity in waters surrounding the material placement site. Coral Reefs Current Site Possible Minor Medium Model Case 1 Rare Minor Low Model Case 2 Rare Minor Low Seagrass. Current Site Likely Minor Medium Model Case 1 Rare Minor Low Model Case 2 Rare Minor Low Fish Habitat Areas Current Site Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 1 Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low Non-general Use Zones Current Site Likely Minor Medium Model Case 1 Rare Minor Low Model Case 2 Possible Minor Medium Commercial fisheries Current Site Rare Minor Low Model Case 1 Rare Minor Low Model Case 2 Rare Minor Low Tourism and recreational values Current Site Unlikely Moderate Medium Model Case 1 Rare Minor Low Model Case 2 Rare Minor Low Increase in the rate of sediment deposition on the sea bed in areas surrounding the material placement site. Coral Reefs Current Site Possible Minor Medium Model Case 1 Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 2 Possible Minor Medium Seagrass. Current Site Possible Minor Medium Model Case 1 Unlikely Minor Low Model Case 2 Unlikely Minor Low