City of Gold Coast | Home - 636 641 641 · 2019-06-23 · Following resumption into Open Session, item 1 being Committee Recommendation CG12.0613.001 was moved and carried as shown

636th Council Meeting 30 March 2012 1 Economic Development And Tourism Committee Meeting 27 March 2012 Adopted Report

641 641

Adopted Report Adopted Report for the for the

Commonwealth Games and Commonwealth Games and

Major Projects Committee Major Projects Committee Held on Held on

Wednesday, 13 June 2012 Wednesday, 13 June 2012

at at

02:00 pm 02:00 pm

Gold Coast City Council Chambers 135 Bundall Road Surfers Paradise

Gold Coast City Council Chambers 135 Bundall Road Surfers Paradise

Our positioning statement Working for our future - today Our city vision Defined by our spectacular beaches, hinterland ranges, forests and waterways, the Gold Coast is an outstanding city which celebrates nature and connects distinct communities with the common goal of sustainability, choice and wellbeing for all.

Our mission Leading the way towards a bold future that can sustain growth and economic development while retaining a lifestyle that is uniquely ‘Gold Coast’.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 2 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report

Index

Adopted Report

Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee

Wednesday, 13 June 2012

Item Direct. File Page Subject

1 EDMP PD330/214/18(P1) 5 GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1

General Business

KEY: CEO - Chief Executive Officer BI - Business Improvement CG - City Governance CMS - Community Services EDMP - Economic Development & Major Projects ES - Engineering Services OS - Organisational Services PET - Planning Environment & Transport WR - Water Reform

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 3 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ATTENDANCE Cr T Tate (Chairperson – arrived at 2.27pm) Cr M Grummitt Cr D Crichlow (departed at 2.52pm) Cr P Taylor Cr J Grew (Chairperson until 2.27pm) Cr W Owen-Jones Visitor (arrived at 2.18pm) Cr C Caldwell Visitor Cr G Betts Visitor Cr C Robbins Visitor Mr D Scott Director Economic Development and Major Projects Mr D Stewart Manager Major Projects Ms T Jones Executive Coordinator Program & Project Delivery APOLOGIES PROCEDURAL MOTION Moved Cr Taylor Seconded Cr Grummitt That the apology of Cr A Bell be noted. PRESENTATIONS Cultural Precinct Staging Plan and Design Competition presented by Tory Jones, Executive Coordinator Program & Project Delivery ADOPTED AT COUNCIL 22 JUNE 2012 RESOLUTION G12.0622.007 Moved Cr Tate Seconded Cr Grew That the Report of the Commonwealth Games & Major Projects Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 covered by Recommendation numbered CG12.0613.001 be received.

CARRIED RESOLUTION G12.0622.009 Moved Cr Grew Seconded Cr Grew That the Report of the Commonwealth Games & Major Projects Committee’s Recommendation of Thursday 13 June 2012, numbered CG12.0613.001 be adopted.

CARRIED

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 4 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report CLOSED SESSION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2009 AND SUPPORTING REGULATIONS PROCEDURAL MOTION moved Cr Tate seconded Cr Taylor That Council move into Closed Session pursuant to section 72(1) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010, for the consideration of the following items for the reasons shown:-

Item Subject Reason

1 GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1

Budgetary and prejudicial matters

PROCEDURAL MOTION moved Cr Taylor seconded Cr Grew Following resumption into Open Session, item 1 being Committee Recommendation CG12.0613.001 was moved and carried as shown on the following pages. That the Council move into Open Session.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 5 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR PROJECTS GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) Changed recommendation Refer 28 page attachment

This report was made non-confidential at Council 22 June 2012 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY Not Applicable. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Not Applicable. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to advise Council on aspects of a Gold Coast Cruise Ship terminal, provide advice on options and recommend a way forward. 4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Not Applicable. 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Background

Queensland’s natural features and tourist attractions provide a unique opportunity to capitalise on the growing cruise shipping market. Through the development of suitable cruise ship infrastructure Queensland is well positioned to capitalise on the benefits. These benefits were recognised by the Queensland State Government in November 2001 with the release of the Queensland Cruise Shipping Plan. Queensland’s tourism and marine industry sectors are strong contributors to regional and State economies. The continued expected expansion of the cruise shipping market has potential to benefit these sectors. The Queensland Cruise Shipping Plan provides a whole of government framework for developing cruise shipping and sustainably realising the natural, cultural, social and economic potential of Queensland. The plan identified the need for improved infrastructure to support and promote the growth of cruise shipping in Queensland waters and capture the potential benefits. Gold Coast was nominated as one of the key locations for the provision of cruise shipping infrastructure. 5.2 History

The 2001 Queensland Cruise Shipping Plan outlined an expansion of the Queensland Cruise Shipping Market to include the Gold Coast. An options assessment document1 was produced in line with the State Government’s Value for Money Framework. This 2003 document investigated a number of options within the Broadwater. A number of investigations were also undertaken which looked at the benefits associated with a terminal as well as a navigational simulation report.

additional

1 Department of State development Final Options Definition Report Project Princess; Worley/WBM 2003

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 6 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) In 2005, the Notional Seaway project was undertaken leading to the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed terminal at the Seaway. This project was never initiated and did not progress any further. Although there has been continued interest in a cruise ship terminal no further investigations on the Gold Coast have occurred since. 5.3 Cruise Ship Market Reports by AEC Group in 2010-11 titled “Economic Impact of the Cruise Shipping Industry in Australia” and “Queensland Mega and Adventure/Expedition Cruise Ship Market Demand Study 2025 DEEDI” highlights the growth of the industry in Queensland during a tough economic period. These reports highlight: In 2010-11 the cruise shipping industry in Australia contributed $709.2M to the national

economy and $171M to the Queensland economy. With Queensland contributing about 25 per cent of the industry this represented the second largest contribution behind New South Wales. Brisbane accounts for the majority of the State’s economic impact with a contribution of over 90 per cent of the market in the State.

Expenditure figures from Brisbane illustrate that an Australian passenger will spend an

average of $744 at a base port compared to $97.8 at a transit port. International passengers will spend on average $700 at a base port and $296 at a transit port.

Significant growth is forecast in the industry within Queensland. Total cruise passenger

numbers in Queensland are projected to increase by 336.8 per cent from 130,455 in 2009-10 to 569,800 in 2024-25 (or approximately 22.5 per cent annually).

The size of cruise ships is continuing to grow. The most recently ordered international

vessels have capacities of over 6000 passengers. Australia presently only attracts a small portion of the global fleet. Forty-two cruise ships visited Australian ports in 2010-11 making a total of 568 visits. Carnival Cruise Lines have advised that Australia is regularly seeing vessels up to 300m in length with occasional vessels up to 350m.

Gold Coast City provides tourists a point of difference and experiences not provided by

any other Australasian destination. It is Queensland’s and Australia’s holiday playground with world class beaches, theme parks, hinterland and national parks. A Gold Coast cruise ship facility would provide the fastest growing world wide tourism industry (cruise shipping) an enviable destination which will complement the Gold Coast tourism industry.

There are generally two types of ports available on the Queensland Coast – Base ports

and Transit ports. A Base port is one where passengers begin and end an itinerary. They are usually the home port of a cruise ship where they are supplied with fuel, fresh food, water and to offload waste. A Transit port is one in which vessels stop over generally for the daylight hours of a day, allow passengers to disembark for a short period before re-embarking and travelling to the next destination. Transit ports generally offer a range of short itineraries for passengers to enjoy the local facilities.

Attachment 1 of this report illustrates the details of some of the vessels currently operating in Australian waters.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 7 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) 5.4 Previous Notional Seaway Project 5.4.1 Navigational assessment Studies into the manoeuvring of cruise ships into and out of the Gold Coast Seaway have been undertaken on numerous occasions. Initially the Gold Coast City Council commissioned the Australian Maritime College to undertake a navigational simulation of four options. This study focused on smaller scale “Boutique Vessels”. The State Government commissioned Star Cruises Ship Simulator in 2004 to undertake a navigational assessment of vessels up to 300m. Further investigations were undertaken by Star Cruises Ship Simulator as part of the 2005 Notional Seaway EIS to revise some of the tidal hydrodynamics used in the 2004 study. Based on the findings of the navigational investigations a number of operational limits were identified due to environmental conditions. These are listed in Attachment 2 of this report. The operational limitations related to the environment did not discount the development of a seaway cruise terminal. With regard to vessel limitations it was noted that vessels must have a high degree of manoeuvrability and a highly accurate positioning system, giving an accurate ship’s location and predicted movement via a high quality display on the bridge. Additionally each vessel that would visit the port greater than 268m would need to be evaluated individually, including consideration of manoeuvrability and positioning system. Given the identified operational limits associated with the Notional Seaway option further investigations should be undertaken to confirm the ability of Cruise Ships to navigate the Seaway for other options proposed to be investigated. 5.4.2 Previous Notional Seaway Draft EIS Option The previous Notional Seaway Project (refer Attachment 3) investigated a cruise ship wharf and terminal at the seaway and included a Marina and associated facilities on the Spit. The draft Environment Impact Assessment considered positive and negative impacts to environmental, social and economic issues. As part of this assessment the cruise ship terminal component of the project was estimated at $118m excluding GST (2006 costs) for the following works: wharf facility terminal building (8000sqm) capital dredging (ebb tide delta/outer channel, inner channel seaway and swing basin) upgrading Gold Coast Seaway Sand Bypass System (GCSSBS) deepening of GCSSBS pipeline rock revetment for Wavebreak Island 5.4.3 Previous EIS Economic and Financial Assessment The Notional Seaway Project EIS developed an economic and financial analysis of the project. This analysis has documented the projected cruise ship visits for both a low growth and high growth scenario based on industry feedback and a report by the State Government in 2005. The Notional Seaway Project EIS provided the number of vessel visits projected for high and low growth scenarios until 2029 (Attachment 4). The vessels listed include a range of vessel sizes including Naval vessels, similar to those which currently use the facilities in Brisbane.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 8 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) Likely capital and maintenance costs for the Notional Seaway Project have been documented for the proposed terminal project (excluding Marina Complex). - Capital Cost = $138.89 million (includes traffic / transport costs)

- Annual Maintenance Dredging = $6.1 million/year excluding GST

A financial analysis of the terminal was undertaken using the proposed costs and expected revenues. This analysis utilised berthing dues and passenger head charges as the only revenue for the project. When assessed against the capital and operational/maintenance costs, the benefit costs of the proposed terminal were not favourable due to the low financial return of the actual facility. An economic analysis for the proposed terminal was undertaken which looked at the broader socio economic costs and benefits. When these economic benefits were assessed against the proposed project costs the benefit costs were again not favourable. This project did not proceed and part of the explanatory statement included in the draft EIS is included as follows: “The economic and financial assessment of the project indicates that the likely cost to Government would not be recouped from the revenue from land sales/leases for associated tourism and commercial development which forms part of the wider Gold Coast Marine Development Project. As a result, the Government has decided that the cruise ship terminal component of the Notional Seaway Project, and of the wider Gold Coast Marine Development Project, would not be proceeding….” To enable this project to be economically viable for the Gold Coast the benefit/cost ratio has to increase by reducing the capital and operating costs and/or increasing the benefits. Based on the Notional Seaway EIS outcomes, the re-investigation of a cruise ship facility should reconsider: reduce scale of proposal and capital costs investigate alternative terminal and berth locations review Economics (market, demand and tourism product available, etc) 5.5 Desktop Review of Capital Project Costs As a first step to improve the business case of the project a desktop review of reductions to the capital project cost has been undertaken. Reductions have been suggested through: capital infrastructure costs related to berthing requirements costs related to dredging and Seaway sand bypass associated infrastructure reduction in terminal size based on a small transit based port A summary of capital cost reductions investigated compared to the Notional Seaway Project Economic Assessment are provided in Attachment 5.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 9 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) 5.5.1 Fixed Wharfs versus Floating Docks The concepts and cost estimates of the seaway proposal in the 2006 Notational Seaway Project EIS were for a traditional fixed concrete wharf system to cater for vessels up to 300metres in length. This fixed wharf concept chosen was appropriate for this site however if a different sheltered site was chosen opportunities could have presented themselves for alternative wharf/dock systems. An example of a fixed dock is shown in Attachment 6. An example of an alternative wharf is a floating dock system becoming more prevalent in Canada, Alaska and mainland USA. The system involves the construction of gangways and ramps connected to a piled floating pontoon. Refer to Attachment 7. It is proposed that this floating dock system would also cater for vessels up to 300m. With careful port site selection in conjunction with the wharf/dock system selection significant setup capital cost savings could be achieved. 5.5.2 Terminal Facilities The proposed Gold Coast terminal facilities are based on a transit facility requirement rather than a base/turn-around port. Therefore the minimum proposed requirements of the Cruise ship port generally incorporate the following:

Docking Facilities

Cruise Port (Transit) Terminal building

Taxi / Coach Carpark

Visitors / Customer / Staff Carpark The recommended minimum land area to accommodate the above requirements and a terminal facility building of 2000 sqm is in the order of 2 hectares. Its important that the dock and terminal facility should minimise wait times and maximise/enhance passenger port experience and in this regard careful planning of this facility is imperative. Details of terminal facilities are provided in Attachment 8. The building and port facilities will be designed to DDA requirements and should incorporate and showcase environmental best practice. The building should be unique, functional, cost effective and efficient to operate and maintain.

5.5.3 Prefeasibility Options – Location of Terminal and Berth Previous studies undertaken for a cruise ship terminal have considered various options. Option reports undertaken at the time selected the seaway location on the basis of technical and economic feasibility and a draft notional EIS was prepared. Following the draft EIS the project was stopped as economic and financial assessment indicated that the project costs could not be offset from sufficient revenue from the proposed Gold Coast Marine Development Project. This report is not intended to review the previous options in technical detail but to re-present the previous selected seaway location and include other locations for consideration as follows:

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 10 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) Option 1 – Seaway Option 2 – Wavebreak Island Option 3 – Broadwater Central North Option 4 – Broadwater Central South Option 5 – Offshore Options This desktop review includes capital and ongoing costs, economics, environmental and social impacts. A summary of the option locations is provided as Attachment 9. (The offshore option 5 location is not shown as its location could vary.) As part of this pre-feasibility process the off-shore terminal is not recommended for further investigation. Such a proposal would include the development of an Ocean Terminal on an artificial island/breakwater to be constructed offshore. The breakwater would need to be serviced by a causeway from The Spit. The 2003 options report costed such a proposal at $150 million; it is anticipated that such a proposal today would be in excess of $200 million. Additional resources (i.e. quarried rock, concrete tetrapods, etc) would also need to be sourced, produced and transported to create the causeway and breakwaters. Off-shore tendering could be explored, but it is envisaged this would not provide certainty to the cruise ship or local tourism industry and would still require an on-shore terminal with typical transit port based services (i.e. customs). 5.5.4 Options Assessment Option 1 – Gold Coast Seaway Site This site has minimal mainland infrastructure. A proposal on this site would require modifications to the road system and the extension of essential services. The addition of development will be difficult to provide because of the perceived community and environmental issues. Option 2 – Wavebreak Island Site This site poses infrastructure issues particularly with transport access through the Southport/Labrador area. This proposal would involve the construction of a new road bridge and the installation of services to serve the development. This site also has some environmental issues for any land reclamation needed for development and the terminal. Option 3 – Broadwater Central North The Broadwater Central North Site is on the northern side of Seaworld and is proposed to be partly located in the Muriel Henchman Boating facility. This boating facility would be required to be partly reconstructed possibly to the north of the terminal site in the sheltered area of the Marine Stadium. Road access and services are reasonable as the site is adjacent to Seaworld Nara resort. This site effectively extends development slightly north of Seaworld. Option 4 – Broadwater Central South The Broadwater Central South Site is proposed on part of the vacant land south of Seaworld and north of the trawler fleet. This site is wholly contained within the existing Spit development footprint and would have minimal impact on the recreational values of the Spit. Key advantages and disadvantages of each option are provided in Attachment 10 and further tabulated below.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 11 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) The key technical advantages and disadvantages identified are tabulated below.

Option 1 – Gold

Coast Seaway Option 2 –Wavebreak

Island

Option 3 – Broadwater

Central North

Option 4 - Broadwater

Central SouthKey advantages excluding risks

- least disruption to recreational boaters within Broadwater

- Development on unused, man-made island

- Most sheltered - Option available

for “finger” wharf design allowing two berths

- Most Sheltered - Development

on unused land closest to businesses

Key disadvantages excluding risks

- limited ship stopping distance; difficult navigation

- Access bridge required

- Highest fisheries environmental impact

- removes some of the existing recreational area and anchorage

- Longest disruption to recreational & commercial boating while ship is at berth

The common issues for all Broadwater options include closure of the Seaway during berthing and un-berthing manoeuvres, large volumes of initial dredging and ongoing maintenance dredging. Based on the desktop review of options, Options 3 and 4 are the most advantageous locations for a Cruise Ship Terminal. 5.5.5 Capital and Maintenance Dredging The Seaway system is a complex and dynamic environment for which the siltation processes are not completely quantified. Any proposed modifications through dredging will significantly impact the sedimentation processes and tidal regime of the system. The Seaway is currently experiencing stability issues associated with scour holes. Exasperating existing problems is not acceptable; solutions demonstrating win/wins are desirable. The GHD EIS channel requirements and dredging depths have been used in conjunction with Councils bathymetric data (DTM) of the Broadwater to derive dredging volumes for the 4 options considered. The table below illustrates the channel network and the volumes required to create these channels. Additional details on dredging impacts are provided in Attachment 11.

Option No. Option Description Dredged Volume 1 Seaway 3.22M m3

(as derived by GHD EIS) 2 Wavebreak Island 3.59M m3 3 North Broadwater 3.72M m3 4 South Broadwater 5.09M m3

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 12 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) The following volumes are those derived through the GHD EIS and are those expected to be dredged annually to maintain the notional Seaway project proposal. Outer Entrance Channel = 150,000m3 annually Seaway Channel = 0m3 annually (high bed shear stresses ensure limited sedimentation

within the seaway.) Swing Basin = 200,000m3/year (expected to be dredged biannually)

Total (average) Annual Maintenance Dredging volume = 350,000m3/year Note: the outer channel volume is expected to include 100,000m3 annually from littoral transport from the south and 50,000m3 annually from the ebb tide delta and Broadwater. The tidal regime of the Gold Coast Seaway generally results in two high tides and two low tides each day. All the options derived above will impact the tidal hydrodynamics within the Broadwater with higher high tides and lower low tides. It is to be noted that the GHD EIS have inferred that these tidal range increases are negligible. Further investigation into the tidal range impacts will be required. Gold Coast City Council has undertaken many storm surge investigations within its waterways to derive impacts and levels. Given storm surges are long period waves they behave similarly to tides, and therefore it is expected that the response of the Broadwater system with the proposed dredging associated with a cruise terminal to storm surge waves would be similar to tides, i.e it is expected that there will be an increase in storm surge elevation as a consequence of the proposed works.

(GHD Notional Seaway EIS) 5.6 The Environment A desktop review of the option sites has been undertaken and the primary environmental concerns relate to disturbance/loss of: seagrass meadows areas of bioturbation – potential feeding areas and bait resources (yabby banks) migratory birds – roosting sites and feeding areas Seagrass Meadows and Areas of Bioturbation (‘yabby banks’) All marine plants are protected from clearing, removal or disturbance under the Fisheries Act 1994 and any disturbance of marine vegetation requires a permit under the Act. Previous reports noted a lack of information regarding the importance of the seagrass meadows for fauna in the project area, limited by desktop analysis. However, recent studies of seagrass meadows (Broadwater Parklands, 2007 and Draft Broadwater Master Plan, 2012) highlight their importance for juvenile fish and macro invertebrates and subsequent food web links. Current Fisheries considerations for impacts on seagrass and areas of bioturbation (yabby banks and wader bird feeding sites) are calculated by financial impact and offset amounts relating to Fisheries policy.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 13 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) Wader birds – Migratory Species Migratory birds are found in the site area with the Broadwater location being one of four areas in Queensland where migratory birds roost and feed on flight paths. The recent Broadwater Master Plan study area notes the highest area of significance for shorebirds is the sandy cay, south of Wavebreak Island. 5.6.1 Desktop review of Environmental Issues Option 1: Seaway High conservation significance was noted in recent survey due to abundance and diversity of marine life around seaway wall and sand pumping pipe area. This includes Green Sea turtles listed as vulnerable under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act and Nature Conservation Act. Relatively small seagrass area (2600m2) impacted in this area. Option 2: Wavebreak Island Highest area of biodiversity in consideration. Issues with Wader bird areas and feeding/roosting sites, and adjoining seagrass areas. Seagrass meadows (area approximately 3.3 hectares) most dense and productive in this location. Option 3: Broadwater Central North Potentially lowest area of bioturbation and seagrass meadows area approx. 8000m2. Migratory bird roosting site on south western arm of Marine Stadium. Option 4: Broadwater Central South Moderate level of seagrass cover in patches (approximately 1.69 hectares), areas of bioturbation will be lost (potential wader bird feeding sites). A general summary of key environmental impacts is provided in Attachment 12. Under the summary Option 3 and 4 could have the lesser impact on account of seagrass area and composition, potential for less impact on wader bird roosting sites and marine habitat. State approvals The proposed works will require a number of approvals from State agencies; some of the likely key approvals are identified in Attachment 10.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 14 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) Federal At least one EPBC Act trigger exists through the presence of migratory birds in the project area and Australia’s global obligations under migratory species agreements. Under the referral requirements, development in this area would be referred to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. As part of the project development further environmental considerations will be investigated. All required approvals (at local, State and Federal level) will need to be identified and the appropriate approval process will need to explored and provided to Council for consideration. 5.7 Social Impacts Many stakeholder and community groups have raised concerns about any further development on the Spit. During the previous community engagement exercises undertaken as part of the detailed Social Impact Assessment (SIA), key social impacts were identified, and are summarised as follows. Perception of an imbalance between the economic and social gain offered by the project

versus the loss of public open space and the recreational activities. Potential cost of unemployment and loss of income of existing local businesses versus

the potential economic benefit and employment from the cruise ships and the marina precinct.

Perception of taking away public space which is accessible to all members of the community.

Potential impacts associated with safety for those accessing the Seaway and Broadwater for surfing, diving and recreational boating.

A focus on no loss in current publicly available land should minimise the majority of the previous social impacts.

A key message of the Save our Spit community group was ‘No Development North of Seaworld’. Community groups want to avoid over development or for that matter any development on the spit and protect the pristine environment for families to fish, picnic, dive, surf or moor a boat etc. The Spit is perceived to be open space for the people and it is important with any proposal to get the balance right. With careful option selection and establishment the existing passive uses of the Spit could essentially be untouched if a cruise ship terminal is located within or adjacent to the existing tourism/development area as proposed in options 3 and 4. As with any port/terminal facility impacts are identified and through sensitive management of community and stakeholder engagement significant concerns should be able to be addressed. 5.8 Cost Estimates The capital cost for each option has been reviewed and revised based on previous cost planning listed in the EIS and technical reports.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 15 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) For each option under consideration the following summary of costs has been provided: Capital Costs Maintenance Costs Operational Costs.

Order of Capital Costs Option Dredging Range

(Range $ millions)* Option Fixed Wharf & Facility (min. $ millions)

Option Floating Pontoon & Facility (min. $ millions)

1 – Seaway $24.1m to $37.2m $64.9m NA

2 – Wavebreak Island $26.5m to $41.3m $73.5m $67.5m

3 – Broadwater Central – North

$29.6m to $48.2m $41.4m $34.4m

4 – Broadwater Central – South

$38.6m to $63.3m $38.4m $31.4m

NOTE: The capital cost estimates for each option are summarised below. The estimates exclude

GST and contingency and are within the range 30 per cent. * Range of costs is dependant on dredging method, hopper dredge with offshore

dumping or direct pumping onshore up to 8km. The total capital expenditure costs indicate a completed facility could be delivered within

$64 million to $115 million depending on the adopted option and dredging costs. No wharf side bunkering facilities have been provided as part of any options costed

(similar to Notional Seaway Project). Cost estimates do not include for any environmental financial impact or offset amounts. 5.8.1 Maintenance costs Assumptions were made in the Notional Seaway Project for annual dredging, terminal and dock maintenance. Maintenance of the dock and terminal were calculated as a percentage of capital cost incurred at the end of the assumed maintenance life for the major items for all options. Annual maintenance costs were estimated at $6.1 million for dredging and $0.4 million per annum for terminal maintenance. Further work will need to be undertaken to firm ongoing maintenance costs. Studies such as the hydrodynamic works will inform such things as dredging programs and depending on location of the swing basin it is anticipated a reduction in annual maintenance costs could be achieved. The terminal has also been decreased in size which also corresponds to a decreased cost. The floating pontoon and dolphin mooring system option will also need to be considered for whole of life costs. 5.8.2 Operating Costs Depending on number of ship visits per year (say 15 to 30) annual operating costs could vary from $0.9 million to $1.3 million. This estimate is based on other operating cruise transit terminals and industry standard rates.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 16 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) 5.9 Benefits Investigation When looking at the benefits of the project it seems that review of the published information may be required. This review could investigate the low expenditures generated in the economic analysis and also explore the secondary benefits of the proposal. These secondary benefits could include but are not limited to: benefits associated with the re-use of the dredged sand material to protect our tourism

economy against losses associated with erosion. Additional beneficial re-use opportunities for the dredged material includes habitat creation, destination creation or reclamation

city benefits associated with deep harbour access for the Marine Industry. Potential exists for an offshore racing (sailing boats) week

super yacht mooring benefits increased tourism visitors and development of new tourism product on the back of

increased visitor numbers Further investigations are recommended in relation to the terminal and economic benefits: review economics Public Private Partnership for development of the wharf and terminal beneficial re-use of sand passenger expenditure and secondary benefits associated with a realistic number of

vessel visits expansion and maximisation of tourism capability 5.9.1 Local Business and Content Gold Coast is currently experiencing a serious lack of major development/construction work. Current market conditions present an opportunity for a developer/council to deliver a competitively priced project that is well positioned for long term value appreciation, while also providing much needed employment for local trades and contractors. Direct and indirect jobs would be created during the construction phase delivering a much needed stimulus to the stressed Gold Coast construction market. Throughout the delivery of the Cruise Ship Terminal project Council would encourage local industry participation to maximise local based business involvement from industry professionals and trade contractors. 5.9.2 Gold Coast Tourism Product and Passenger Experience The objective is to take advantage of the current cruise ship market and grow the market over time. A Gold Coast transit terminal will have constraints related to vessel size and capacity, but this is also true for other ports in Australia and globally. Brisbane’s Portside Wharf at Hamilton is limited to a single 270m berth and is restricted by the Gateway Bridge. Overflow from Portside Wharf and larger berth requirements are provided for at the Port of Brisbane grain wharf. Brisbane also is subject to short stays in port due to the time it takes to navigate the Moreton Bay Passage. This limits the time in port and the access to tourism product.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 17 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) In total 117 cruise ship visits were made to Brisbane in 2012 as follows: Brisbane Cruise Ship Schedule 2012 (Source: http://www.portbris.com.au) Cruise Ship Size Portside Terminal Port of Brisbane Total

<270m 97 7 104>270m 0 13 13

TOTAL 117 Approximate average passenger spend in port has been outlined earlier in the report and is documented in several economic reports regarding the value of the cruise ship industry at a global, national and regional level. It is important that the Gold Coast tourism industry maximise the passenger spend in port by providing unique experiences tailored to meet the needs of the cruise passengers. There is an opportunity for several tourism products to offer combined packages showcasing the variety of Gold Coast experiences, within the allocated time that the cruise passenger is available to explore the Gold Coast. For example, combing a Broadwater boating experience with a Hinterland tour will increase the per passenger expenditure on the Gold Coast. The tourism industry will work together to develop these products understanding both the domestic and international cruise passenger expectations and desired experiences. As part of development of the Economic Analysis it is recommended that Gold Coast Tourism, in consultation with Tourism Queensland, be requested to undertake an assessment of the opportunities for the local tourism sector and outline a plan to support a cruise ship terminal. As an initial step Gold Coast Tourism and Tourism Queensland will also need to be involved in the discussions with Australian and International cruise ship operators that currently or propose to visit Queensland and the Gold Coast. 5.10 Way Forward It is recommended that Council continue to investigate options 3 and 4 for a cruise ship terminal. The reduction in options will reduce investigative costs and navigational assessment costs. It is reasonable to discount a seaway option based on the outcomes of the previous EIS process and any Wavebreak option will involve the construction of additional infrastructure and impact on environmentally sensitive areas when compared to other options. Options 3 and 4 would be progressed on minimal facility infrastructure to deliver a cruise ship transit terminal. The proposed actions to progress the project are listed as follows:

Cruise Ship Terminal proposed actions and budget requirements 2012-13 FY

Action Budget

Estimate Details Project Management EDMP Internally resourced

Complete pre-feasibility report EDMP Internally resourced

Complete options definition EDMP Internally resourced

Initial project community communication

EDMP and CG Internally resourced

Land use and tenure advice PET and OS – City Property

Internally resourced

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 18 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1)

Cruise Ship Terminal proposed actions and budget requirements 2012-13 FY

Action Budget

Estimate Details Undertake stakeholder risk workshops

Costs for a fully facilitated stakeholder workshops

Develop concept for recommended option(s)

Engagement of consultants to prepare plans, undertake survey and preliminary geotech for proposed options

Undertake detailed cost estimate review

Engagement of a QS

Complete an Economic Analysis including Tourism Market review

Engagement of external consultant to provide economic advice

Undertake a detailed environmental review

Engagement of external consultant to provide preliminary environmental advice

Undertake a traffic study on the preferred option

Engagement of external consultant to provide preliminary Traffic Study advice

Undertake a navigation simulation report

Engagement of specialist consultant 'Smartship Australia' to undertake simulation modelling. Note this company is the Maritime Safety Queensland Specialist and it is proposed to engage their services under section 184 of the Local Government Act.

Complete Broadwater hydrodynamic model including cruise ship requirements

Engagement of internal/external consultant to provide hydrodynamic advice

Detailed program of works including preliminary approvals

Cost in preparation of initial advice statement (if required)

Produce communications plan All external and internal communication inc. website and flyers/documents

Total funds required 2012/13 $595,000

Commence EIS and approval process

To be costed Final approvals pathway and cost will depend on final option and State and Federal Government involvement.

Commence Tender and Construct To be costed Dependant on final option and funding arrangement

Funding as part of the 2012-13 budget process needs to be secured to ensure the project is positioned to proceed quickly pending in-principle support from the State Government. The success of the project depends on State Government support in allowing development of a cruise ship terminal on State owned land. This issue requires addressing very early in the project development phase and it is recommended that a formal approach to the Premier’s Department (or the soon to be established Waterways Authority) be undertaken as soon as possible following Council’s decision on this report. This formal approach could include a funding proposal where the terminal could be funded though a PPP or development agreement with the private sector on State land south of Seaworld. At a Local and State Government level the following advocacy arrangements for the project are recommended to be progressed.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 19 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) That the Mayor meets with/writes to the Queensland Premier Campbell Newman MP to: investigate arrangements and processes regarding possible land and sea bed lease

areas explore funding arrangements that would support the capital and ongoing maintenance

costs of a cruise ship terminal decide the ongoing role of the proposed Waterways Authority Assign the appropriate State Government resources to provide support to the project

through the inception, design development, approval and delivery phases. Discuss the appropriate process to engage with key stakeholders in the vicinity of the

proposed development. 6 ALIGNMENT TO BOLD FUTURE VISION, CORPORATE PLAN, OPERATIONAL

PLAN Key Focus Area 5: A city with a thriving Economy 5.2 Our Infrastructure supports globally competitive business development and growth 5.2.1 Ensure development of infrastructure that promotes the sustainable economic growth of the city, working with other agencies 5.5 Regional collaboration and pro-active representation enhance the city 5.5.3 Position and maintain the city as a recognised and vibrant destination for business, tourism and residents, highlighting major points of difference from competing cities and regions 7 FUNDING AND RESOURCING REQUIREMENTS Budget/Funding Considerations The initial funding required to undertake the consultancy processes is outlined in Section 5.12. The project budget implications are required to be referred to Corporate Governance Finance Committee for consideration and adoption in the budget process. Human Resources All resources to deliver the project will be identified and resourced accordingly following Council’s decision to proceed with the project 8 RISK MANAGEMENT A project risk register will be established in accordance with the corporate risk processes. 9 STATUTORY MATTERS Work Health and Safety matters will be considered through the delivery of the project and included on the project issues and risk register for action as required. 10 COUNCIL POLICIES No new, or amendments to, Council policies proposed as an outcome of this report.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 20 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) 11 DELEGATIONS No new, or amendments to, Council delegations proposed as an outcome of this report. Utilising existing delegations officers will do all things necessary to enter into relevant consultancy contracts to deliver the Cruise Ship project subject to not exceeding the approved budget. 12 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION Name and/or Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate or Organisation

Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Director Economic Development and Major Projects

EDMP Yes.

Manager City Property Organisational Services Yes Manager Major Projects EDMP Yes 13 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS As the Cruise Ship Terminal project is proposed on State owned land, engagement and agreement for the project by the State Government will be required early in the process. Upon agreement by the State to progress the Cruise Ship Terminal, engagement with the market and careful communication / information management with potential proponents will be required. Various stakeholders including industry and community groups will be communicated to and consulted as the project progresses. It will also be important to communicate/consult effectively with the general community particularly given continuing media interest. 14 TIMING Following Council’s decision on this report all necessary actions will be undertaken to progress the project in a timely manner as itemised in Attachment 13. 15 CONCLUSION This report provides advice to Council on the potential of a Gold Coast Cruise Ship terminal, reviews options and recommends a way forward to proceed.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 21 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) Queensland’s tourism and marine industry sectors are strong contributors to regional and State economies. The continued expected expansion of the cruise shipping market has potential to benefit these sectors. Significant growth is forecast in the cruise shipping industry within Queensland. Gold Coast City provides tourists a point of difference and experiences not provided by any other Australasian destination. It is Queensland’s and Australia’s holiday playground with world class beaches, theme parks, hinterland and national parks. A Gold Coast cruise ship facility would provide the fastest growing tourism industry (cruise shipping) an enviable destination which will complement the Gold Coast tourism industry. Findings from previous technical studies of the engineering, environmental, operational, planning and costing aspects of potential Gold Coast Cruise Ship Terminal options have been reviewed. Findings on the technical aspects have been assessed on four options for a cruise ship terminal location on the Gold Coast. Option 1: Seaway (previous EIS location) Option 2: Wavebreak Island, Option 3: Broadwater Central North and, Option 4: Broadwater Central South. All options are for a single berth dock, terminal facilities and associated dredging of channels and provision of swing basin to accommodate a minimum 300m length over all (LOA) sized vessel. Previous reports conclude that it is technically feasible to locate a cruise ship terminal at any of the four locations under consideration. All options require dredging and this is the most significant issue to be considered in detail should this project proceed further. The previous hydrodynamic studies indicate that as a result of dredging the systems response to tidal fluctuations will increase, although only slightly. The direct and indirect economic benefits of a proposed cruise terminal on the Gold Coast need to be reviewed in line with the latest economic information. Additional benefits such as those listed below are also to be considered: benefit of Broadwater dredging to the overall marine industry secondary regional economic benefits associated with increased tourism numbers the economic value of the beneficial re-use of dredged sand resource to the city and reduced capital costs associated with dock and terminal facilities Strong community opinions surfaced over the previous seaway cruise terminal proposal (option 1) and objections were raised on many issues including technical, environmental and social grounds. At the forefront of the objections was ‘no development north of Seaworld’ and this issue needs consideration in the options selection process. Studies into the manoeuvring of cruise ships into and out of the Gold Coast Seaway have been undertaken on numerous occasions. Based on the findings of the navigational investigations a number of operational limitations were identified due to the environmental conditions. Recently ordered vessels throughout the world are getting bigger given the increasing popularity of the industry. As such a revised navigational simulation report should be commissioned to review the existing and proposed vessels that may use the proposed facility in line with the options selected for further investigation.

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 22 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) A traffic assessment report will be required on the likely impacts or potential upgrades required to provide an acceptable level of service on the road network in the area. A preliminary environmental review of the option sites has been undertaken and the primary environmental concerns relate to disturbance/loss of: Seagrass meadows Areas of bioturbation – potential feeding areas and bait resources (yabby banks) Migratory birds – roosting sites and feeding areas Options 3 and 4 have less environmental impact relating to seagrass, wader bird roosting sites and marine habitat. Options 3 and 4 also have the least construction costs. Based on the draft pre feasibility review options 3 and 4 are the recommended locations for further consideration for a cruise ship terminal with Option 3 preferred due to the lower environmental impacts and capital dredging costs. As the Gold Coast Cruise Ship Terminal is proposed on State land, support from the State Government will be required for this project to proceed. The Waterways Authority will play a pivotal role in any proposals within the Broadwater and as such will be engaged early. In this regard following Council’s decision on this report a formal approach to the Premier’s Department is required. If formal State Government support is provided the next steps for the project will be to proceed as listed in the body of this report. 16 RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CG12.0613.001 moved Cr Taylor seconded Cr Grew 1 That the report/attachment be deemed a confidential document and be treated as

such in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (9) of the Local Government Act 2009 and that the document remain confidential unless Council decides otherwise by resolution.

2 Council note the report details pertaining to the expected growth of the Cruise Shipping Industry and the potential Gold Coast has as a transit port.

3 That Council proceeds as outlined in Sections 5.10 and 7 of this report to progress the project.

4 That Council investigate Options 1 and 3 and the western foreshore of the Broadwater as locations for a cruise ship terminal.

5 That Gold Coast Tourism, in consultation with Tourism Queensland, be requested to undertake an assessment of the opportunities for local tourism sector providers and prepare a plan of action to maximise the Gold Coast cruise ship industry.

CARRIED

641st Council Meeting 22 June 2012 23 Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee 13 June 2012 Adopted Report ITEM 1 (CONTINUED) GOLD COAST CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL REPORT #1 PD330/214/18(P1) CHANGED AT COUNCIL 22 JUNE 2012 RESOLUTION G12.0622.008 Moved Cr Taylor Seconded Cr Tate 1 That the report/attachment be deemed non confidential except for those parts

deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171(3) and 200(9) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That Council note the report details pertaining to the expected growth of the Cruise Shipping Industry and the potential Gold Coast has as a transit port.

3 That Council proceed as outlined in Sections 5.10 and 7 of this report to progress the project, except as modified by 4 below.

4 That Council investigate Option 1 and 3 and the western foreshore (north of Southport) of the Broadwater as locations for a cruise ship terminal.

5 That the Director Economic Development and Major Projects report back to Council prior to any external consultancy reports being required.

6 That the Mayor write to the Queensland Premier Campbell Newman MP requesting that the proposed Gold Coast Waterways Authority, as one of its first activities, consider the location and delivery of a Gold Coast cruise ship terminal.

CARRIED Co-Authors: Authorised by:

Darren Stewart, Mike Parrish, Luke Adair Darren Scott Major Projects Branch Director Economic Development and Major

Projects 3 June 2012

TRACKS REF: ::ODMA\PCDOCS\TRACKS\35906121\1


ATTACHMENT 1 Mega Cruise Ship Vessel Data:

Cruise Ship Operator Length

(m) Tonnage Passenger Crew

Arcadia P&O Cruises 290 86,799 1,952 976

Aurora P&O Cruises 270 76,000 1,870 850

Dawn Princess (a) Princess Cruises 261 77,000 1,950 925

Diamond Princess (a)

Princess Cruises 290 113,000 2,600 1,238

Pacific Dawn (a) P&O Cruises 245 70,000 2,050 696

Pacific Jewel (a) P&O Cruises 245 70,285 2,014 621

Pacific Sun (a) P&O Cruises 223 47,000 1,896 670

Queen Mary 2 Cunard 345 151,400 3,090 1,253

Queen Victoria Cunard 294 90,000 2,014 1,001

Rhapsody of the Seas (a)

Royal Caribbean 279 78,491 2,435 765

Star Princess Princess Cruises 290 109,000 2,600 1,150

Sun Princess (a) Princess Cruises 270 77,000 1,950 850 Note: (a) Based in an Australian port for all or part of the year (Source AEC Group 2010) The above table focuses on the Mega Cruise ship class. This is the class of vessel that is going to experience the most growth. Other vessels which frequent Australian waters include the Boutique Vessels and the Super yachts. Typical details of types of vessels are presented below:

Description Super Yacht Boutique Cruise Ship

(mid – mega)

Length Over All (m) 24 – 130 100 – 200 250 – 360

Beam (m) 8 – 11 15 – 33 30 - 47

Displacement (tons) 100 – 2,000 10,000 – 20,000 70,000 – 225,000

Draft (m) 2 – 6 5 – 11 8 – 9.3

Speed (knots) 10 – 21 16 – 22 20 -24

Passenger Capacity 12 ave. 100 – 300 1000 - 5400

Crew Capacity 6 ave. 60 -250 500 - 2200


ATTACHMENT 2 Navigational Simulation Operational Limits: Based on the findings of the navigational investigations a number of operational limits were identified due to the environmental conditions, these include: Wind: Limiting winds identified during the study: Newer, highly manoeuvrable ships = 20 knots Older type cruise vessel with poor manoeuvrability = 16 knots

Tides: Maximum spring tide velocities are high enough to cause navigational problems.

Therefore avoid the maximum tides.

Vessel Limitations Analysis recommended vessels with a high degrees of manoeuvrability and a highly

accurate positioning system. Vessels without stern thrusters will generally not be able to access the facility All vessels larger than 268m would need to be individually evaluated. Navigation Aids Vessels cannot be berthed on visual navigation alone Pilots vessels may be required if the berthing vessels do not have adequate positioning

systems.

Other Traffic During arrivals and departures, it would be essential all other access to the Seaway be

restricted for at least 30-45 minutes.

Pilotage Navigation into and out of the proposed facility requires specialist pilot with an

understanding of local conditions.


ATTACHMENT 3 PREVIOUS NOTIONAL SEAWAY DRAFT EIS OPTION


ATTACHMENT 4 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT – VESSEL VISITS

Year Projected

Vessel Visits

High Growth

Projected Vessel Visits

Low Growth Year


High Growth


Low Growth

2010 25 6 2020 51 11

2011 27 6 2021 53 11

2012 31 7 2022 55 11

2013 33 8 2023 57 11

2014 35 8 2024 61 12

2015 37 8 2025 63 13

2016 41 9 2026 65 13

2017 43 9 2027 57 13

2018 45 9 2028 71 13

2019 47 10 2029 73 13


ATTACHMENT 5 POTENTIAL COST REDUCTIONS TABLE Item Comment Cost Reduction Impact/Risk Opportunity

Dredging Reduction in cost per m3

Order of rate of $ supplied by dredging Contractors

Cost increase at tender Availability of large dredge boat

Further cost reductions per EOI dredge process $ using international dredge Explore channel depth requirements

Wharf Facility or Floating pontoon and mooring system

Cost wharf facility at $18M and floating pontoon at $15M

Significant reduction of up to $27M on EIS depending on site location

Uncertainty for costs for Seaway option Similar floating system not utilised in Australia

Further cost reductions in sourcing excess infrastructure from mining companies or other port authorities

Transport Infrastructure

Options further South on the Spit avoid major upgrades to road infrastructure

Up to $8M Transport infrastructure is stressed during high tourist season

GCRT and public transport linkages will likely reduce areas vehicular traffic

Terminal Reduction in size from 8000 to 2000 Sq.m

To be confirmed (Up to $15M based on sqm rate)

Could deter cruise ships visits unless sized appropriately

Provide a quality experience at terminal Potential year round community use

Sand Bypass jetty upgrade

Initially don’t proceed with works

Up to $8M Increase in dredge maintenance costs of ebb tide delta bar


ATTACHMENT 6 TRADITIONAL FIXED WHARF

Image sourced from PND Engineers showing a fixed wharf at the City of Ketchikan Alaska


ATTACHMENT 7 FLOATING DOCK SYSTEMS

Image sourced from PND Engineers The above image is of a floating dock system at Nanaimo, Canada. Docked is the Norwegian Pearl which is 294m long, 32.3m wide and accommodates 2394 Passengers.


ATTACHMENT 8.1 PROPOSED TERMINAL FACILITIES Terminal Facilities The proposed Gold Coast terminal facilities are based on a transit facility requirement rather than a destination or turnaround port. Therefore the minimum proposed requirements of the Cruise ship port generally incorporate the following: Docking Facilities Cruise Port Terminal building Taxi / Coach Carpark Visitors / Customer / Staff Carpark Docking/Wharf facilities Generally the dock facilities could include for: be accessible for a single Benchmark Cruise Ship be able to service smaller cruise ships and super yachts Dock width minimum 15m and minimum 300m in length Fully DDA compliant

Bunkering facilities such as power, water, disposal of sewage, grey water, general waste and supply of fuel would not be provided wharf side but could potentially be provided waterside if a need is established. Shoreside power however could be an early design consideration to minimise environmental footprint as shoreside power enables ships auxiliary engines to be shut down for its duration of its stay. The docking facility should consider traditional wharf type construction as well as floating dock options to provide the most cost effective, minimal capital intensive facility. Cruise Port Terminal building The Cruise Port Terminal building would have a footprint of approx. 2000sqm in size and could incorporate: Welcoming Area Tourist Information Security Access Arrival / Departure Customs / Quarantine provision Waiting area Possible Café Viewing area.


ATTACHMENT 8.2

The building and port facilities will be designed to best practice for DDA requirements and incorporate and showcase environmental best practice. The building should be unique, functional, cost effective and efficient to operate and maintain. The previous notational seaway draft EIS proposed a facility footprint of approximately 4000 sqm. As this was for a turnaround port terminal and not a transit port facility the building size can be reduced accordingly and comparisons of other facilities indicate that adoption of 2000 sqm is appropriate. Carparking and Access facilities Access will be required for vehicle, Taxi, Coach and short term parking. The access and carparking layout will have appropriate set down and vehicle turning areas. To reduce the carpark footprint long term carparking could be provided offsite at a council operated carpark facility such as the Bruce Bishop carpark where appropriate transit bus facilities are available to transport passengers/crew to the terminal. The surrounding landscaped open space could provide for marquee space and market stalls on vessel call days providing for opportunities to showcase local produce, art, gifts and crafts.


ATTACHMENT 9.1 PRE-FEASIBILITY OPTIONS

OPTION LOCATION SUMMARY OPTION 1: SEAWAY Location This option locates a cruise terminal on the southern side of the Seaway within Doug Jennings Park. It is the furthest and Northern most location of a terminal proposed on the spit. Dredging to the required depths for the basin and channels will be required and has the least capital requirement in this regard. This options adjacent swing/turning basin is located in a deposition area and maintenance dredging will be required. Additionally to ensure the stability of Wavebreak Island from vessel movements in the swing basin the eastern side of Wavebreak Island will require rock protection which would lead to the modification of the current sandy beach. Access to and from the Seaway terminal would mainly be by vehicle along Seaworld Drive. The terminal is the furthest away from the nearest proposed rapid transport station, being 5.3km to the proposed Main Beach Station.

Existing power, water and telecommunications services are available however upgrades may be required to address increased capacity requirements. There is no Council sewerage system north of Seaworld and for this option new services will be required. As mentioned this option was the subject of the draft notional EIS and did not proceed to delivery.


ATTACHMENT 9.2


ATTACHMENT 9.3 OPTION 2: WAVEBREAK ISLAND Location This option locates a cruise terminal on the southern side of Wavebreak Island. Dredging to the required depths for the basin and channels will be required and this option as with the other options will require an adjacent swing/turning basin of approx. 500metres in diameter. This option has no access to the mainland for construction or operations. Unless a bridge is constructed from Wavebreak Island to the mainland all access would be by boat or barge. A bridge could be constructed and depending on whether the Island was reclaimed further to maximise future development the bridge could be anywhere from 300m metres to 800 metres in length. The terminal is the second furthest away from the nearest proposed rapid transport station being 4.5km by road. There are no existing services on Wavebreak Island and all sewerage, power, water and telecommunications etc.. will have to be provided from the mainland.


ATTACHMENT 9.4


ATTACHMENT 9.5 OPTION 3 : BROADWATER CENTRAL NORTH Location The Broadwater Central North option covers an area in the Muriel Henchmen Park boating facility north of Seaworld. This area is well protected from negative impacts of tidal flows and wave climate and consequently will have low siltation rates due to the lower flow characteristics. This option as with the other options will require an adjacent swing/turning basin of approx. 500metres in diameter. Dredging to the required depths for the basin and channels will be required. Access to and from a Broadwater Central North terminal would mainly be by vehicle along Seaworld Drive. The North terminal option is the second closest to the nearest proposed rapid transport station. Access to the Main Beach GCRT station is 3.6km by road. Generally the Broadwater North Terminal is not within an acceptable walking distance of the local area business and transport will be required. Existing power, water and telecommunications services are available however upgrades may be required to address increased capacity requirements. There is no Council sewerage system north of Seaworld and for this option new services will be required. This option will require the reconfiguration/rebuilding of the Muriel Henchman boating facility further into the sheltered area of the marine stadium and review of existing leases and occupation permits in the area.


ATTACHMENT 9.6


ATTACHMENT 9.7 OPTION 4 : BROADWATER CENTRAL SOUTH Location The Broadwater Central South option covers part of an area of vacant land south of Seaworld adjacent to the existing trawler fleet. This area is well protected from negative impacts of tidal flows and wave climate and consequently will have low siltation rates due to the lower flow characteristics. The proposed dock and terminal is similar to all options and is discussed in further detail in Terminal Description section above. This option as with the other options will require an adjacent swing/turning basin of approx. 500metres in diameter. Dredging to the required depths for the basin and channels will be required. Access to and from a Broadwater Central southern terminal would mainly be by vehicle along Seaworld Drive. The southern terminal is the closest to the nearest proposed rapid transport station being 2.2km from Main Beach Station by road. The Southern Terminal provides the most flexibility for passengers and crew due to the easy access (walking) to the adjacent local business area. It is also within 400metres of the nearest patrolled ocean beach. Existing power, water and telecommunications and sewer services are available however some upgrades may be required to address increased capacity requirements. This option should be appropriately master planned to ensure the site is developed to its fullest potential. In this regard the terminal facility may impact on future development potential of this area, existing leases and occupation permits in the area.


ATTACHMENT 9.8


ATTACHMENT 9.9 OPTION 5: OFFSHORE Location An offshore location for a cruise ship terminal is not defined in this report but could be anywhere with sufficient depth of water to enable vessels to dock. The idea of this option is plausible as it potentially reduces the need for dredging. However testing and modelling would need to be undertaken into the viability of exposure to significant ocean swells. Also any offshore facility would require a ferry system to get passengers and crew to shore. An offshore location has previously being considered as cost significant ($200m+) due to the high capital costs of construction of a breakwater and offshore docking facility. Due to the high capital costs no further consideration in this report is being undertaken.


ATTACHMENT 10.1

OPTIONS ASSESSMENT KEY ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Option 1 – Gold Coast Seaway Site The Seaway location has the key advantages of:

Development at a site with little impact on existing Broadwater infrastructure The least impact on recreational and commercial users of the seaway of all options Low impact on seagrasses, wader birds and bioturbation areas Minimal alteration to sedimentation patterns within the Broadwater Marine habitat creation

The key disadvantages of this option include:

Dredging within the Seaway Entrance channel and in front of Wavebreak Island Closure of the Seaway Channel during ship berthing and un-berthing Difficult navigation conditions on certain tidal flows and winds. Tug assistance may be

necessary Exposure to waves, winds and currents Potential Siltation of the swing basin in an area with existing siltation tendencies Potential impact of moored ships on flood characteristics of the area Potential community opposition

Option 2 – Wavebreak Island Site The Wavebreak Island site has the key advantages of:

Development at a site with little impact on existing Broadwater infrastructure No impact on infrastructure at the Spit Insignificant wave action at the terminal location Potential for integration with a dedicated marine complex

The key disadvantages of this option include:

Dredging within the Broadwater and Seaway Entrance channel Impact on recreational and commercial users of the Broadwater waterways, including

the possibility of closing the channel when cruise ships enter and exit the Broadwater Highest Impact on seagrasses, bird habitats and fisheries of all options Difficult navigation conditions on certain tidal flows and winds. Tug assistance may be

required Potential flood level increases in the Gold Coast estuary systems Potential to alter sedimentation patterns within the Broadwater No bridge access Potential community opposition


ATTACHMENT 10.2 Option 3 – Broadwater Central North The Broadwater Central North site has the key advantages of: Negligible wave and current action Potential for expansion and integration with future development Berthed cruise ships do not impinge on the navigation channel Relatively low to medium environmental impacts The key disadvantages of this option include: Significant dredging within the Broadwater and Seaway Entrance channel Impact on recreational and commercial users of the Broadwater waterways, including the

possibility of closing the channel when cruise ships arrive and depart Potential community opposition Construction impacts on adjacent development Potential impacts on adjacent existing boat ramp operation. Option 4 – Broadwater Central South The Broadwater Central site has the key advantages of: Negligible wave and current action Potential for integration with existing and new development Berthed cruise ships do not impinge on the navigation channel Relatively low to medium environmental impacts Easily connected to Seaworld Drive without major infrastructure costs Good location for adjacent ferry terminal with facility The key disadvantages of this option include: Significant dredging within the Broadwater and Seaway Entrance channel Impact on recreational and commercial users of the Broadwater waterways, including the

possibility of closing the channel when cruise ships arrive and depart Potential community opposition Construction impacts on adjacent development Potential impacts on adjacent existing development operations Substantial savings in transport requirements can be made in selecting an option with already existing transport infrastructure in place. As the four lane road of Seaworld Drive ends at the entrance to Seaworld, locating the terminal to the south of Seaworld will have the least cost implications on the project.


ATTACHMENT 10.3

With the completion of the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project in 2014 opportunities to link a proposed terminal to the rapid transit stations at Main Beach with public transport initiatives with shuttle bus or modified bus links already serving the area will have major benefits to the movement of passengers/crew, tourists and the general public in the area. Opportunities could be explored to collocate a ferry terminal facility with the cruise ship terminal facility to provide improved access to the spit, Southport and other city destinations. Provision could be made for the facility to be provided in a cruise ship terminal Masterplan but is not considered an essential requirement and could be delivered at a future date. Notwithstanding the option chosen an assessment will be required on the likely impacts for the area including all intersections along Seaworld and waterways drives to determine what upgrades would be required to provide an acceptable level of service on the road network in the area. There are concerns with the capacity of the Gold Coast Highway / Waterways Drive intersection but with restricted ability to do much with this due to Highway, GCRT and boat ramp access to the Broadwater it is envisaged that any works will be to upgraded channelised & signalised intersections, additional turn / storage lanes, etc


ATTACHMENT 11.1 Dredging Requirements The Gold Coast Broadwater is a highly dynamic area with velocities in and around the channels leading to the Seaway experiencing high velocities and bed shear stresses significant enough to keep large areas of the Broadwater bed in a constant process of change. The State Government constantly monitor the bathymetry levels within the channel network and target dredging programmes to remove shoals which interfere with the desired requirements of the channel network. Gold Coast City Council undertook a significant data collection process in 2005 as part of the GEMS (Gold Coast Estuarine Modelling Study) project. This data included collection and processing of bed levels within the Broadwater sufficient to develop a calibrated hydrodynamic model to replicate tidal flows within the Broadwater. As a result Council has a data set of bathymetric levels within the Broadwater appropriate for early project investigations where higher accuracy information is not available. The Broadwater has a significant number of sand banks traversed by a complex channel network with a variety of channel depths. The Seaway was originally constructed significantly shallower than it is now. Significant scouring has resulted in depths greater than 10m below the original design levels. Existing portions of the Seaway have bed levels below -16m AHD. The North and South channels leading to the Seaway and the inner Seaway itself exhibit bed shear stresses significant enough to force sand particles into suspension resulting in constant change in bed levels. These high bed shear stresses have resulted in the scouring of the Seaway to form its current depths. Early Seaway design drawings show maps of hard material within the Broadwater. These maps show contours generally increasing away from the Southport Broadwater foreshores. Hard material exists within the Broadwater but generally the closer the channel is to Seaworld Drive the deeper the hard material. Borehole information sourced through the GHD EIS reveal that the proposed swing basin east of Wavebreak Island exhibits harder material with acid sulphate potential. Therefore consideration of the presence of hard material with acid sulphate potential should be given to options with a focus on keeping the dredged channels as far west as possible. The GHD Seaway EIS developed an entrance channel requirement to accommodate cruise ships entering the Seaway. The channel requirements were based on the simulation report with the channel configuration including an allowance for over dredging: a 130m wide entrance channel centred within the existing Seaway, with a nominated

depth of -12.76m AHD (-12m LAT).

The outer channel should be over dredged by 1m to allow for higher infill rates ie -13.76m AHD

The inner Channel should be over dredged by 0.5m related to the slower infill rates ie -13.26m AHD.

The Swing basin has a diameter of 500m and an operational depth of -10.76m AHD (-10m LAT)


ATTACHMENT 11.2 The Seaway system is a complex and dynamic system for which the siltation processes are not completely quantified or uniform. Any proposed modifications through the above dredging will significantly impact the sedimentation processes and tidal regime of the system. The proposed design and siltation rates proposed in the GHD EIS are based on analysis of the historical performance of the system. The design profile adopted in the GHD EIS is designed to provide an annual maintenance dredging profile (1m extra over dredging) and utilises average annual siltation. Impracticalities associated with batter slopes and stability of berthing structures and walls within the Broadwater prevent higher volumes of over dredging. Implementation of a biannual maintenance program is considered necessary to ensure acceptable underkeel channel clearance. The following volumes are those derived through the GHD EIS and are those expected to be dredged annually to maintain the notional Seaway project proposal: Outer Entrance Channel = 150,000m3 annually Seaway Channel = 0m3 annually (high bed shear stresses ensure limited sedimentation

within the seaway.) Swing Basin = 200,000m3/yr (expected to be dredged biannually)

Total (average) Annual Maintenance Dredging volume = 350,000m3/year Note: the outer channel volume is expected to include 100,000m3 annually from littoral transport from the south and 50,000m3 annually from the ebb tide delta and Broadwater. The GHD EIS channel requirements and dredging depths have been used in conjunction with Councils bathymetric data (DTM) of the Broadwater to derive dredging volumes for the 4 options considered. The table below illustrates the channel network and the volumes required to create these channels.

Option No. Option Description Dredged Volume

1 Seaway 3.22M m3 (as derived by GHD EIS)

2 Wavebreak Island 3.59M m3

3 North Broadwater 3.72M m3

4 South Broadwater 5.09M m3 Many historical dredging programs have been undertaken in the Broadwater. Current programs include the dredging of the Seaway Delta, dredging of the north and South channel to meet navigational requirements and dredging for beach replenishment works. It is proposed that beneficial re-use of all sand material is desired. The majority of sand within the Broadwater is of sufficient quality for direct beach placement as occurred in the Northern beaches sand replenishment project. Outside of the Seaway, dredging plant is required to be Ocean going vessels. These vessels (similar to that currently being used by Council and DTMR) are better equipped to dump sand in the near shore area to establish storm bars as opposed to direct beach placement.


ATTACHMENT 11.3 Studies have been undertaken that highlight the costs resulting from tourism losses expected during significant beach erosion events. A study by Raybould and Mules highlights the losses through tourism expected from a variety of return period erosion events. A 2010 Council report annualised these tourism losses to derive that beach erosion on northern Gold Coast beaches costs the Cities tourism industry approx. $28M/yr (2010 figures). This figure illustrates that its worth investing in Gold Coast beaches to maintain a functional and resilient beach profile. The tidal regime of the Gold Coast Seaway generally results in two high tides and two low tides each day. All the options derived above will impact the tidal hydrodynamics within the Broadwater with higher high tides and lower low tides. It is to be noted that GHD EIS have inferred that these tidal range increases are negligible. Further investigation into the tidal range impacts will be required. When the Gold Coast Seaway was originally constructed (during the mid 1980s), a reasonably significant change in tidal regime occurred. This was largely a response to the removal of the existing sandbar, and the subsequent creation of a deeper channel, allowing greater exchange of tidal flows during low tides. Measurements made by the Hydrographic Survey Section of the then Department of Harbours and Marine were made before, during and after construction of the Seaway. These demonstrated a mean tidal range at the Grand Hotel Jetty (which is in close proximity to the Seaway) of between 0.60m (Dec 1967) and 0.77m (Sept 1974). During construction (April 1985) the range fell to 0.49m, stabilising after completion of the project to approximately 0.9m (as compared to the quoted range at Snapper Rocks in the ocean of 1.03m). It is worth noting that the bulk of the change occurred at lower tide, with the height of the Mean Low Water Line (MLWL) reported as having fallen by 0.22m, whilst the height of the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) increased by 0.08m only. The net change in mean tidal range was therefore 0.3m. The GHD EIS investigated the potential for tidal hydrodynamic changes resulting from the Notional project by creating a tidal hydrodynamic model of the Broadwater and testing pre and post project results. The model results showed changes to the tidal range and hydrodynamics within the Broadwater. For areas to the north and south of the seaway, a small increase in tidal range is predicted as a likely consequence of dredging. This increase is observed to be higher south of the seaway, with a change to maximum tidal range of 3.5 cm, and a maximum water elevation increase of approximately 2.5 cm. North of the seaway, the range increase is estimated at 2.8 cm with a maximum increase in water elevation of 1 cm. These changes are significantly smaller than those associated with construction of the seaway 20 years ago, and are therefore very unlikely to lead to the same types of changes that occurred in the mid to late 1980s.

(GHD Notional Seaway EIS)


ATTACHMENT 11.4 Gold Coast City Council has undertaken many storm surge investigations within its waterways to derive impacts and levels. Given storm surges are long period waves they behave similarly to tides, and therefore it is expected that the response of the Broadwater system with the proposed dredging associated with a cruise terminal to storm surge waves would be similar to tides. Ie it is expected that there will be an increase in storm surge elevation as a consequence of the proposed works.

(GHD Notional Seaway EIS)


ATTACHMENT 12.1 ENVIRONMENTAL

Proposed options, Seagrass and Migratory Bird Sites

Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts Terminal Options Option 1:

Seaway Option 2: Wavebreak Island

Option 3: Broadwater Central - North

Option 4: Broadwater Central - South

Environmental Issue Impact

Loss of seagrass Low High Low Low – Med

2575m2 3.3ha (Moderate- Dense coverage 51-75%)

7925m2 Moderate coverage (26-50%)

Loss of 1.69ha; Moderate coverage (26-50%)


ATTACHMENT 12.2 Low High Low - Med Low Impact on wader birds

Marginal roosting or feeding capacity.

Disturbance/fragment habitat

Small banks. However, roosting site present.

Moderate banks present

Low High Low Low -Med Disturbance to High bioturbation areas

Minimal banks present

Habitat biodiversity Includes bird roosting site; vegetated cay, tidal sand flats.

Minimal banks present, shoreline impacts only

Moderate banks present

Med Med Low Low Disturbance to dugongs, turtles, and dolphins Surveys during

Master plan and dive observations

Diverse habitat area, increased impact through disturbance

Not general area for spp

Not general area for spp

Key Government Department and Statutory Considerations Government Department and Legislation

Key Elements Key Issues

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning Sustainable Planning Act 2009

Determination of assessment manager and legislative pathway/s

Fisheries branch of Department of Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry Fisheries Act 1994 Fish Habitat Management Operation Policy 005

Loss of Seagrass and yabby banks Impacts on fisheries resources and marine plants

Loss of Seagrass – Offsets and rehabilitation Loss of bioturbated areas (bait resources)

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 Queensland Coastal Plan 2012

Dredging Construction of;

• Pontoons • Shoreline revetment • Other marine structures

Resource Allocation Dredging, reclamation/ nourishment to foreshore. Determination of impacts on coastal processes

Department of Natural Resources and Mines Land Act 1994 Sustainable Planning Act 2009

Dredging Resource Allocation Land tenure

Administration of resource entitlement, royalties from dredging and land tenure

Department of Transport and Main Roads

Dredging Boating and safety

Dredging requirements and sand resource Marine navigation safety and needs


ATTACHMENT 13 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PROGRAM

Date Milestone

June 2012 ED&T committee agenda report

June 2012 Council agenda report

June 2012 Council 2012/2013 Budget Confirmed

July - August 2012 Options & draft Initial Advice Statement (IAS)

August – December 2012 Waterways Authority Process

September - December 2012 Finalise options, submit IAS

January – February 2013 CT - Project Terms of Reference

March 2013 – March 2014 EIS and Community Consultation process

March – May 2014 CT approval & conditions

May – July 2014 Design Documentation

July 2014 Tender

August – June 2015 Construct

2015 Commissioning

Notes: Does not include time for Council approval process before proceeding with critical

activities (agenda reports still submitted) Assumes alignment with State Government priorities for resources for approvals process Assumes EIS submissions will be quickly addressed through the supplement report

process An agreement with State Government on proponent and/or agreement from land owner

will be critical There being no further business the meeting closed at 3.52pm.


These Pages

Numbered 1 to 52

Constitute The Adopted Report Of The Meeting

Of The Commonwealth Games and Major Projects Committee

Held on 13 June 2012

Documents

City of Gold Coast | Home - 636 641 641 · 2019-06-23 · Following resumption into Open Session, item 1 being Committee Recommendation CG12.0613.001 was moved and carried as shown