murraylands dry dock proposal - rdamr

Murraylands Dry Dock Facility Evaluation

The Murraylands Regional Development Board gratefully acknowledge the support of the funding providers for this report:

the Boating Industry Association of South Australia, Mid Murray Council, the South Australian Tourism Commission, and the Sturt Area Consultative

Committee.

The Murraylands Dry Dock is an initiative of the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party. However, upon receipt of this report, all intellectual property contained within this project reverts to the Murraylands Regional Development Board Inc. Dynamic Project Delivery as author of this work assert their right to be acknowledged as the owner of the copyright and the expression of the concepts contained within the document, while not inhibiting or infringing on the third party copyright that exists on many of the referenced materials. © Dynamic Project Delivery, 2009



1. Executive Summary Introduction Dynamic Project Delivery (DPD) was engaged by the Murraylands Regional Development Board (MRDB) on behalf of the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party to undertake an evaluation to determine the viability of building a dry dock facility in the Mid Murray Council region. DPD were also asked to define the optimum site for construction. The four key stages for the evaluation of the potential to establish a Murraylands Dry Dock facility identified were:

1. To identify an ideal site for the construction of a dry dock 2. To obtain costs, timelines and parameters for the construction of the dry dock 3. To identify potential funding or investors for the construction of the dry dock 4. To recommend the ownership and management structure for the dry dock.

Background At present, there is only one commercial slipway operating below Lock 1. Given the likelihood of water levels continuing to drop, access to this facility will be denied within a few weeks. In the lower River Murray and Lakes, the current water level sits at minus 0.9 metres AHD, and this will, with or without intervention, drop to around minus 1.4 metres AHD by next summer. The lack of a “slipping” facility will, under existing “commercial craft survey” regulations, cause many commercial craft to be declared “unserviceable”. This will lead to a significant impact for the communities of the lower River Murray, particularly those that provide crewing, provisioning and maintenance services. Downstream and connected (indirect) losses will also be very significant.” 1 This report identifies the potential users of a dry dock facility. The potential users include both non-Government and State Government vessels that are likely to utilise the facility, they include: Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure ferries – below Lock 1:

Swan Reach Coot Walker Flat Stilt II Purnong Plover Mannum #1 (upstream) Swan Mannum #2 (downstream) Swallow Tailem Bend Albatross Wellington Quail Narrung Gull

Private and Commercial (non-Government) vessels

Captain Proud River Boat Cruises Houseboat Concepts

1 Source: Glen Jones, BIASA, email 18/03/2009


Murray Expedition Murray Venturer Cruises MV Alexandrina MV Leo Odyssey River Cruises PS Goolwa PS Federal Paddlesteamer PS Kato (Murray Bridge) PS Kingfisher (Purnong) PS Madam Jade (Murray Bridge) PS Marion PS Murray Princess PS Oscar W PS William Randell PV Akuna-Amphibious River Dream Boatel River of Australia Expeditions Unforgettable Houseboats (6) Veenstra Cruises (3)

Economic Impact The current value of the tourism industry sector within the region is estimated to be $122 million (or 6.2% of the total Murraylands gross regional product). Tourism related employment is estimated at 1,117 jobs (or 7% of the regional workforce).2 If the proposed dry dock is not built, many of the identified commercial rivercraft will be decommissioned and this will result in the loss of direct jobs and have both a direct and flow on impact on the regional economy. Data collated by the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party indicates that more than 370 full time, part time and casual jobs will be in jeopardy. The gross annual, economic impact has been identified as:

Direct loss in jobs 370 jobs Direct loss in economic output: $67M Gross loss in employment (direct and flow on impact): 621 jobs Gross loss in economic output (direct and flow on impact): $125M

Source: REMPLAN 3.00 (Regional Economic Modelling software, Latrobe University).

The loss of key rivercraft to the Murraylands economy would, conservatively, halve the total direct value of the tourism industry sector and have a flow on impact, equal to, the total value of the sector. Dry Dock Design It was determined by the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party that a lockable gate dry dock model, that suspends vessels above the ground, is the most suitable for the Murraylands. It was determined that a floating dry dock and larger commercial dry dock designs are unsuitable for this area of the River Murray channel.

2 Source: Murraylands Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Plan, 2009-2013

The Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party determined that firm concept designs must be obtained and endorsed prior to lodging a Pre-Lodgement Agreement / Development Application, and prior to funding being sought. The development of conceptual designs will therefore form an interim stage between this report and the pre-lodgement process. Site Suitability Analysis This report provides indicative costs and a process timeline for the dry dock facility project proposal. Site requirements and site features were determined by the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Group, in order to prioritise potential suitable sites and determine the optimum site for construction of a dry dock. Four potentially suitable sites were short-listed and compared. The Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party determined that the optimum site for the construction of a dry dock is Section 833, Hd Finniss, CR 5277/334, adjacent to Greenings Landing (Crown Land, under lease to Ron Greening). The report recommends that the various site specific issues are considered in a detailed feasibility study, preferably undertaken by qualified and reputable engineers. The report also lists a number of legislative and environmental issues that require consideration. Due to the nature of the proposed dry dock and the environmental and legislative issues that need to be addressed, it is likely that the dry dock proposal could undergo Development Assessment and be considered a “Major Development” and be assessed by the Development Assessment Commission. Ownership or Management Structure The report also recommends potential funding opportunities and investors and options for the proposed dry dock’s ownership, operation and management.



Contents 1. Executive Summary ...........................................................................................5

2. Introduction ......................................................................................................11

3. Background ......................................................................................................13

4. Project Development Process Flow Chart .....................................................17

5. Site Suitability Analysis...................................................................................19

5.1 Identification of a suitable site for the dry dock facility................................19

5.2 Demand analysis to determine potential users of the dry dock facility .......32

5.3 Economic impact of no access to a dry dock facility ..................................35

5.4 Consideration of site issues, legislation and approvals ..............................37

5.5 Estimates of building costs of the dry dock and working plans ................44

6. Potential funding or investors for construction............................................47

6.1 Potential investors ......................................................................................47

6.2 Approach to pursue funding .......................................................................47

7. Ownership or management structure ............................................................49

7.1 Options for ownership and commercial operation of the dry dock facility...49

7.2 Recommendation for future ownership and commercial operation of the

facility .........................................................................................................49

8. Attachments......................................................................................................51

Attachment 1. Engineer’s quote: Magryn and Associates......................................53

Attachment 2. Engineer’s quote: Price Merrett Consulting.....................................55

Attachment 3. Engineer’s quote: W & G Consulting Engineers ............................57

Attachment 4. Letter of Support: Odyssey River Cruises.......................................61

Attachment 5. Letter of Support: Proud Australia...................................................62


2. Introduction Dynamic Project Delivery (DPD) was engaged by the Murraylands Regional Development Board (MRDB) on behalf of the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party to undertake an evaluation to determine the viability of building a dry dock facility in the Mid Murray Council region. DPD were also asked to define the optimum site for construction. The Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party is a consortium lead by the Murraylands Regional Development Board, comprising of State Government agencies (Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure), peak industry bodies (Boating Industry Association of SA), public and private operators, and the Mid Murray Council. The organisations that have provided funding for the Murraylands Dry Dock Facility Evaluation Report were the Murraylands Regional Development Board, the South Australian Tourism Comissision, the Boating Industry Association of South Australia, Sturt Area Consultative Committee, and the Mid Murray Council. Preliminary investigations by the MRDB identified that the Mid Murray Council region has unique advantages for the development of a dry dock. A dry dock is required in the Murraylands region, particularly for large river vessels below Lock 1, because of the low river levels and the difficulty and inability to access the dry dock facilities in Renmark. The proposed dry dock is the only option to service both the large vessels and smaller houseboats below Lock 1 (between Blanchetown and Goolwa), as a slipway is only suitable for part (i.e. smaller vessels) of the boating industry. The proposed dry dock will also service the needs of the eight DTEI ferries located in the Lower Murray below Lock 1, particularly as they cannot currently access the Morgan depot for repairs and maintenance without considerable cost (the approximate cost to transport one ferry to Morgan is $800,000 – Brenton Lewis, pers. comm.). The four key stages for the evaluation of the potential to establish a Murraylands dry dock facility identified were:

1. To identify an ideal site for the construction of a dry dock 2. To obtain costs, timelines and parameters for the construction of the dry dock 3. To identify potential funding or investors for the construction of the dry dock 4. To recommend the ownership and management structure for the dry dock.

3. Background Examples of existing dry docks were investigated and included:

Renmark Dry Dock

Randell Dry Dock , Mannum, was installed in 1873 by William Randell. The dry dock was actually built at Milang, by A.H. Landseer, and towed across Lake Alexandrina by the steamer Nildesperandum. It was during the boom-days that the dock and wharf were used to their capacity due to a huge trading enterprise built by J.G. Arnold. The dry dock now has a heritage listing.

South Brisbane Dry Dock was designed by William D Nesbit, chief engineer

for Harbours & Rivers, in 1875. It was constructed between 1876 and 1881 by J & A Overend. The busy Brisbane port required a substantial facility for the maintenance, repair and refitting of commercial ships and Harbours & Rivers dredges, barges and other vessels. The dock was originally 320 feet (97.54 metres) long, but was extended to 420 feet (12.81 metres). The width at the top is 24.08 metres and 16.15 metres at the bottom. The overall depth is 9.75 metres with 5.79 metres at the entrance sill. The caisson (dock gate) was manufactured by the notable firm of RR Smellie & Co. of Brisbane. It is probably the largest locally made wrought iron composition in Queensland. The dry dock site is incorporated in the Queensland Maritime Museum which includes many moveable heritage items, such as the HMAS Diamantina which resides in the dock.

Sutherland Dry Dock, Sydney, NSW, was constructed as a dry dock

between 1882 and 1890 under the supervision of the engineer Louis Samuel to supplement the capacity of the smaller Fitzroy dock. Its gate or caisson was originally operated by a steam-driven engine, but later changed to an electric motor in 1915. The dock has been modified several times since then – in 1913 to accommodate the battle cruiser HMAS Australia and in 1927 for the docking of the cruisers HMAS Australia and Canberra.

FORGACS Dry Docks

o Newcastle, NSW – floating dry dock - FORGACS Dockyard

Newcastle comprises a comprehensive ship repair centre with a 15,000tlc Floating Dock, 750t Slipway, and lay-up berths serviced by dockyard cranes. FORGACS Dockyard has been the repair yard of choice for Australian and international ship owners for all major grounding repairs, collision repairs, conversions and major mechanical works. Its reputation is built on quality, reliability and performance from its skilled workforce.

1 x 45,000dwt Panamax Floating Dock - 200m long X 29.5m wide 2 x 10t dock cranes 2 x dock arms

1 x 750t Slipway 2 x repair berths Power 50Hz and 60Hz

Project management


Skills & Safety Training Centre Apprentice Training

Quality Management System AS /NZS ISO 9001:2000

Lloyds Register Quality Accreditation Fully equipped engineering workshop

o Brisbane, QLD - FORGACS Cairncross Dockyard is one of the

leading commercial ship repair facilities in the Southern Hemisphere, featuring one of the largest graving docks in Australasia. This, combined with the site’s deep water berths and modern workshops, enable it to offer an efficient round-the-clock dry-docking and ship repair service for almost all vessel sizes. Cairncross has many leading international ship operators as regular clients, who benefit from the efficiencies of scale that our successful group structure provides. Centrally located on the Brisbane River, the Cairncross Dockyard is close to the city of Brisbane, its busy shipping port and the international air terminal at Brisbane airport.

1 x Panamax 85,000dwt graving dock - 263m x 33.5m 2 x dock arms 1 x 50t dockside travelling crane 4 x 5t dockside travelling cranes

1 x 300m fitting out wharf 1 x 30t wharf travelling crane

Deep water access – 8.5m at LAT Quality Management System

AS /NZS ISO 9001:2000

Entec – Wallsend, Tyneside UK - The proposed dry dock replaces the existing slipways, which are inclined and fall into the River Tyne. These are of reinforced concrete construction, founded over significant areas on bearing piles of steel, concrete and timber. This dry dock provides a good example of the process used for a feasibility study including:

o Project manager and lead consultant o Geotechnical desk study, site investigation and contamination

interpretive report, geotechnical interpretive report o Environmental appraisal of river flow dynamics, water quality,

terrestrial and aquatic ecology, contamination, river sediments dredging, waste management, archaeology, noise and vibration, air quality, traffic, urban design and visual impact

o Topographical survey o Geotechnical design o Engineering feasibility study of main features of the new dock

(dock floor, dock side and head walls, entrance works, drainage and pumping, and dock gate), ‘buildability’, construction (equipment, site organisation and operation), drawings and calculations

o Scheme cost data o Formulation and submission of a planning statement and

application. Other options, other than dry docks, were considered and included straddle lifters, slipways and different types of dry docks (i.e. floating and large commercial dry docks).



It was determined by the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party that a lockable gate dry dock model, that suspends vessels above the ground, is the most suitable for the Murraylands, as a floating dry dock and larger commercial dry dock designs are unsuitable for this area of the River Murray channel. The Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party has determined that a firm project proposal and concept designs need to be obtained and endorsed by the group prior to lodging a Pre-Lodgement Agreement / Development Application, and prior to funding being sought. This report provides indicative costs and a process timeline for the dry dock facility project proposal. This process flow chart is outlined on the following page.


4. Project Development Process Flow Chart

Murraylands Dry Dock Proposal – Project Process Flow Chart Stage 1 (March 09) Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6

DPD Report: * Preferred site * Indicative costs * Timeline due 6 Mar 09

Conceptual Drawings & Site Specific Budget

(from engineers)

Pre-Lodgement Agreement

(EPA / DWLBC)

Major Development

(DAC)

Seek Funding

Pre-Construction Approvals / EIS

Site Assessment

Dry Dock Construction

Dry Dock Operational

5. Site Suitability Analysis 5.1 Identification of a suitable site for the dry dock facility 5.1.1 Site requirement and site features The following site requirements and site features were determined by the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Group, in order to prioritise potential suitable sites and determine the optimum site for construction of a dry dock.

Site requirements o Three-phase power o Road access o Limited Crown Land/Aboriginal Heritage issues o Locked gate arrangement o Site’s ability to support infrastructure (geology/geotechnical)

Site features

o Access to secondary industries o Deep river o Central location o Proximity to Adelaide/Murray Bridge o Workforce availability

Site details and maps for nine potential sites considered by the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party were prepared by Mid Murray Council (refer to Table 1 and maps). Table 1: Potential sites for dry dock location: ownership & land parcel details Site Ownership / Lessee details Land Parcel Site 1A

Mid Murray Council PO Box 28 Mannum SA 5238

Section 949 Hd Younghusband CR 5856/963

Site 1B

PJ Caldecott, JA Shinnick GL Caldecott, GR Caldecott PO Box 204 Mannum SA 5238

Section 678 Hd Younghusband CL 914/43

Site 1C

Minister for Environment & Heritage PO Box 231 Berri SA 5343

Lot 1 of RP1942 Hd Younghusband CR 5539/570

Site 1D Lessee

Minister for Environment & Heritage PO Box 231 Berri SA 5343 G & A Cox & RD Salisbury 6 Hazelwood Court Morphett Vale SA 5162

Part Section 397 Hd Younghusband CR 5750/78


Site 2

Minister for Environment & Heritage PO Box 231 Berri SA 5343

Section 841 Hd Finniss CR 5761/302

Site 3 Lessee

Minister for Lands PO Box 231 Berri SA 5343 RJ & CA Greening PO Box 84 Mannum SA 5238


Site 4A

JM & NW Gowling RSD 4271 Mannum SA 5238

Section 706 Hd Finniss

Site 4B Lessee

Minister for Environment & Heritage PO Box 231 Berri SA 5343 JM & NW Gowling RSD 4271 Mannum SA 5238



Reschke Property

Contact Details Disclaimer 49 Adelaide Road Mannum, SA 5238 Telephone (08) 8569 0100 Facsimile (08) 8569 1931

This map is a representation of the information currently held by Mid Murray Council. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the product, Council accepts no responsibility for any errors or omissions. Any feedback on omissions or errors would be appreciated. Data Acknowledgement: Property, Road & Administrative Boundaries - Supplied by Department Environment & Heritage (DEH)


5.1.2 Site evaluation Four potentially suitable sites were short-listed and compared. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these sites were evaluated and summarised in Table 2. The Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party determined that the optimum site for the construction of a dry dock is Section 833, Hd Finniss, CR 5277/334, adjacent to Greenings Landing (Crown Land, under lease to Ron Greening). The four short-listed sites were ranked as follows:

1. Section 833, Hd. Finniss 2. Cowirra site 3. Pellaring Flat site 4. Barry Reschke site

Table 2: Site evaluation table

Site Advantages Disadvantages Section 833 Hd Finniss CR 5277/334 Land ownership: Crown Lands (DEH) Lessee Ron Greening

Distance from residents. No damage due to vandalism. Has three phase power,

approximately 200 metres from connection.

Has a road to the river front. Has highland to cut into. Close to the river. Has a natural storm water

discharge in the form of extensive reed beds.

Crown land and licence to Ron Greening and approachable in relation to the site.

Favourable mid-point to dig a channel to meet power.

May need upgrade on

power A small creek will need

diversion from the site Native vegetation

issues, i.e. reed beds and two red gums

Cowirra Site

Has three phase power,

approximately 200 metres from connection.

Has road to river frontage. Close to main road. Flat site.

May need upgrade on

power, approximately 200 metres from connection.

Has numerous shacks located near potential site.

Currently has a levy bank that will need to be cut through.

Road access will be difficult to establish.

Is a Broomrape weed site and will need decontamination during the construction phase.

Will have to purchase land.



Pellaring Flat Site

Very flat site. Very large site with ample room for

construction of site.

Very low land and road

access will need to be built up.

Will have to construct a road to river, approximately 900 metres in length.

Will need to being channel and power in a substantial distance.

Will have to purchase land

Barry Reshcke Site

Very flat site

Very low land and road

access will need to be built up.

Will have to construct a road to the river, approximately 800 metres in length.

Located close to a caravan park.

Will have to purchase land.

5.2 Demand analysis to determine potential users of the dry dock facility

A demand analysis of the potential users of a dry dock facility in the Murraylands region was conducted by consulting with houseboat operators, Alexandrina Council, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) ferries and other vessel operators and potential dry dock users. Murraylands Tourism Marketing has also been seeking indications of support for the proposed facility. The results of the demand analysis were as follows: Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure Mario Bollella, Manager, Fleet Management & Mechanical Services – provided the following feedback in relation to the use of the dry dock facility:

“As you would appreciate while it would be welcomed for an alternate slip facility capable of handling the River Murray ferries, it should be noted that the Department currently has a facility at Morgan which has traditionally met the Departments ongoing requirements. The use of an alternate facility would become a commercial decision which would be addressed at the time of undertaking ferry works and the location from which the ferry would be required to travel from. Albeit, the current low water river levels does pose us challenges in moving ferries at locations below the Blanchetown lock.”

Table 3: DTEI ferry information Type Length (m)

without flaps Length (m) with std flaps

Length (m) with long flaps

Weight (tonnes)

Standard 18 25 38 65 Mark 11 25.4 31 45 80 Long Ferry 30 37 50 110

There are 13 ferries in total, with eight ferries below the Blanchetown lock. On average one to two ferries per year are refurbished requiring a slipping requirement of up to four to six weeks with a likely average of around two weeks. A further period at a wharf area of up to four to six weeks may be required. The width of the ferries are fairly uniform with the hull at 8m, the deck increasing this to 9.5m and the widest part (sponson deck) giving a maximum with of around 10.5m. Works undertaken would include steel surface preparation and application of protective treatments, minor general steel fabrication, general engineering including electrical, mechanical and hydraulic work. The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure ferries – below Lock 1 are:

Swan Reach Coot Walker Flat Stilt II Purnong Plover Mannum #1 (upstream) Swan Mannum #2 (downstream) Swallow Tailem Bend Albatross Wellington Quail Narrung Gull


Other potential dry dock users Other vessels potentially affected by the low river levels, and potential users of the proposed dry dock include the: Table 4: Private and Commercial (non-Government) vessels below Lock 1 Captain Proud River Boat Cruises Houseboat Concepts (builders) Murray Venturer Cruises MV Expedition MV Alexandrina MV Leo Odyssey River Cruises PS Goolwa PS Federal Paddlesteamer PS Kato (Murray Bridge) PS Kingfisher (Purnong) PS Madam Jade (Murray Bridge) PS Marion PS Murray Princess PS Oscar W PS William Randell PV Akuna-Amphibious River Dream Boatel River of Australia Expeditions Unforgettable Houseboats (6) Veenstra Cruises (3) Indicative of other potential dry dock users, is the MV Exhibition. Their vessel is too large for any facility below Blanchetown and if they do not dock the vessel within the next 12 months, their operating permits will expire. Furthermore, it is estimated that 15 full time jobs and 12 part time jobs will be lost if the MV Exhibition cannot operate; and 75% to 80% of the employees reside in the Murraylands region. It is estimated that approximately $500,000 per annum is spent on supplies in Mannum and a further $300,000 is spent in Murray Bridge. Other businesses have provided employee data (Table 5), indicating the numbers of jobs in the Murraylands region potentially affected if the proposed dry dock is not constructed. Table 5: River Murray commercial operators’ employee data (below Lock 1) Business Full time employees Part time / casual employees Captain Cook Cruises 29 11Captain Proud River Boat Cruises 1 18Odyssey River Cruises 3 4 (casual)MV Expedition 15 12Murray Venturer 2 3PS Marion 1 50 (volunteers)PS Murray Princess 33 117 (casual)River Dream Boatels 1 2River of Australia Expeditions 24 21 (part time)Unforgettable Houseboats 2 22Total 111 260Gross total employees 371



In addition, if the lower than normal water levels in the River Murray below Lock 1, and the Lower Lakes continue, commercial operators will be no longer able to utilise the existing slipways to meet DTEI survey requirements for renewing their commercial operating licences. Existing slipways are used to conduct:

DTEI surveys of commercial craft, Surveys required for insurance purposes, and Ordinary building and maintenance work.

At present, only one commercial slipway is operating below Lock 1, and given the likelihood of water levels continuing to drop, access to this facility will be denied within a few weeks. In the lower River Murray and Lakes, the current water level sits at minus 0.9 metres AHD, and this will eventually, with or without intervention, likely drop to around minus 1.4 metres AHD by next summer. The lack of a “slipping” facility will, under existing “commercial craft survey” regulations, cause many commercial craft to be declared “unserviceable”. This will lead to a significant impact for the communities of the lower River Murray particularly those that provide crewing, provisioning and maintenance services. Downstream and connected (indirect) losses will also be very significant.3 The current low river levels mean that the P.S. Murray Princess can no longer moor against the mooring posts at Mary Ann Reserve, and is now resting on rock. The low river levels have also led to a modified itinerary and operation, and tourism numbers have dropped significantly. The P.S. Murray Princess is not unique, in that larger vessels, houseboat and tourism operators below Lock 1 will also be affected in the near future. Unforgettable Houseboats (11 boats) have only marginal use of the current slipway facilities managed by Houseboats Concepts. Murraylands Tourism Marketing (MTM) is in the process of consulting with, and seeking indications of support from all boat operators in the Murraylands region. (Letters of support are included in this report as attachments). Existing slipway operators The Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party has indicated that no existing slipway operators will be impacted by the establishment of a dry dock in the Mid Murray region. The slipway operators currently located in the region do not have the capability to slip the larger vessels.

3 Source: Glen Jones, BIASA, email 18/03/2009


5.3 Economic impact of no access to a dry dock facility The current value of tourism industry sector within the region is estimated to be $122 million (or 6.2% of the total Murraylands gross regional product). Tourism related employment is estimated at 1,117 jobs (or 7% of the regional workforce).4 If the proposed dry dock is not built, many of the identified commercial rivercraft will be decommissioned and this will result in the loss of direct jobs and have both a direct and flow on impact on the regional economy. Data collated (Table 5) by the Murraylands Dry Dock Working Party indicates that more than 370 full time, part time and casual jobs will be in jeopardy. To understand the likely impact of job losses of this magnitude, the Murraylands Regional Development Board (MRDB) undertook analysis to determine the gross regional impact. The MRDB utilised regional economic modelling software, REMPlanTM supported by Latrobe University. REMPlanTM provided that the gross annual, economic impact has been identified as:

Direct loss in jobs 370 jobs Direct loss in economic output: $67M Gross loss in employment (direct and flow on impact): 621 jobs Gross loss in economic output (direct and flow on impact): $125M

The gross annual, economic impact is further explained by the Impact Summary Report in Table 6. Table 6: Regional Economic Impact Summary Report

Source: REMPLAN 3.00 (Regional Economic Modelling software, Latrobe University). Murraylands Regional Development Board dataset.

More importantly, the loss of key rivercraft to the Murraylands economy would, conservatively, halve the total direct value of the tourism industry sector and have a flow on impact, equal to, the total value of the sector.

4 Source: Murraylands Integrated Regional Strategic Tourism Plan, 2009-2013


This is supported by both the Impact Summary Report (Table 6), and the Impact GRP (Gross Regional Product) Report (Table 7, below) that confirms job losses in the magnitude of 370 positions would result in a 3.54% reduction in total gross Murraylands regional product. Table 7: Impact GRP Report

Source: REMPLAN 3.00 (Regional Economic Modelling software, Latrobe University). Murraylands Regional Development Board dataset.

5.4 Consideration of site issues, legislation and approvals 5.4.1 Site issues to be considered It is recommended that the following site specific issues are considered in a detailed feasibility study, preferably undertaken by qualified and reputable engineers. Consideration of these issues will require a detailed site inspection, soil analysis, survey and additional research.

River flow dynamics Water quality issues Terrestrial and aquatic ecology Potential contamination / pollution

o Waste management o Noise and vibration o Air quality o Aesthetics (visual impact)

Dredging – disturbance of river sediments (e.g. exposure of acid sulphate soils, etc)

Archaeology (Native Title) Traffic Topographical survey Geotechnical design, testing and soil sampling, including preparation of site-

specific engineering drawings, calculations, dry dock design / concept, structural features, drainage, pumping, gates, etc.

It is also recommended that a site-specific design and concept plans be devised prior to progressing the dry dock proposal to the development application stage and seeking funding. Other issues that require further consideration relate to the management and operation of the dry dock, including development of:

An Environmental Management System (EMS). Operations and maintenance plans and procedures. Construction / dredging safety - risk assessment, accident/emergency

response procedures. Economic feasibility – How often will the facility be used? Estimated average

dock time? Management structure / ownership / responsibilities.


5.4.2 Water issues for the dry dock Based on the preliminary information provided, the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC), have advised that a water licence will not be required for the dry dock in relation to the flooding of the facility. If the water is in the dry dock facility for less than a 24 hour period then a water licence is not required. The development will be assessed when plans are passed through to the Mid Murray Council. The plans will be forwarded to the DWLBC and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for comment, or for conditions that will be placed on the issuing of the licence. If a channel is dug to reach the facility, then a dredging and water licence will be required for this channel. A water licence is required if water is used in the facility other than flooding of the site. If water is sourced from SA Water mains under industrial use then a licence is not required. If water cannot be sourced from SA Water and is drawn from the River Murray then a licence will need to be purchased. The cost of purchasing a water licence is $173. Then water will need to be purchased on the open market (cost to be determined) and transferred to the licence. The transfer cost is $560.


5.4.3 EPA Guidelines and Regulations The EPA’s current guidelines for both the construction of the dry dock and usage of the dry dock are the:

Code of Practice for vessel and facility management (marine and inland waters)

Code of Practice for materials handling on wharves EPA Regulations relating to the construction of the dry dock Below are the EPA regulations that must be followed in relation to building a dry dock facility:

Dredging

An EPA licence is required for dredging that removes solid matter from the bed of marine or inland waters using any digging or suction apparatus and operators must ensure that

Appropriate development application process is followed Environmental authorisations (an EPA licence) are obtained for

prescribed activities of environmental significance.

Building of the Dry Dock

A vessel facility developer must consider the following:

“For major activities of major environmental significance or development that is within both the River Murray Water protection Area and a River Murray Protection Area, as far as reasonable and practicable, avoid the release of pollutants to the environment:

by

providing in-built structural pollution controls in areas designated for activities that are proposed through the operation of an use of the facility (this includes refuelling, cleaning, fibreglassing, abrasive blasting and painting)

and

providing waste and wastewater collection facilities and/or waste transfer (reception) stations and/or by facilitating waste transporters commensurate to the type of vessels and activities likely to be performed through the operation of and use of the facility

and

during the course of the development, ensure spill, erosion and sediment control equipment are available for all pollutants likely to be generated through construction.“


Maintenance Operations of the Dry Dock

A dry dock operator must consider the following regarding the maintenance of the proposed dry dock: Operators must obtain environmental authorisations (an EPA licence) for prescribed activities of environmental significance under their control.

“Ensure pollutants, to the maximum extent practicable, generated through maintenance operations are captured, contained, treated and reused or disposed of to a waste transfer transporter or other appropriate waste management facility (e.g. sewer)

or

Treat pollutants generated through maintenance operations to standard suitable for aquatic or land based discharge by ensuring the discharge does not contravene water quality criteria applicable to those waters or cause environmental harm

or/and

Ensure facility users are made aware of the limitations of the facility to manage pollutants and refer to individual responsibility to comply with Environmental Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003.”


5.4.4 Development Approval Major Development Due to the nature of the proposed dry dock and the environmental and legislative issues that need to be addressed, it is likely that the dry dock proposal could undergo Development Assessment and be considered a “Major Development” and be assessed by the Development Assessment Commission. Current members of the DAC can be found at www.dac.sa.gov.au Further information about Major Development Proposals, the assessment process, and the levels of assessment that may be required are available at: www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/development-applications/major-development-proposals Environmental Impact Assessment An assessment that may be required under the Major Development Proposals assessment process is the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA). An EIA would need to address the following:

Summary (Development Act 1993, s. 46B) Need for the proposal including:

o Environmental issues Climate Change and Sustainability River Murray Water Quality Native Vegetation (Terrestrial and Aquatic) Native Fauna (Terrestrial and Aquatic) Groundwater and Land Contamination Management Monitoring General (Environmental Management Plan)

o Risk/Hazard Management o Effects on communities o Economic Issues o Native Title and Aboriginal Heritage o Non-Aboriginal Heritage o Construction and Operation Effects o Effects on Infrastructure Requirements o Planning and Environmental Legislation and Policies

Pre-Lodgement Agreement The State Government has introduced a Pre-Lodgement Agreement application process whereby applicants can enter into formal discussions with one or more referral bodies (e.g. DWLBC and EPA) prior to lodging an application. The formal discussions between the applicant and referral body are likely to relate to:

refinement of the proposal and technical information in light of the policies and standards of the referral body

requests for additional information to move towards reaching an agreement timeframes for the provision of further information by the proponent and

assessment by the prescribed body


http://www.dac.sa.gov.au/

http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/development-applications/major-development-proposals

discussion on conditions and reserved matters to be included in a draft pre-lodgement agreement

identification and registration of any plans and reports that will form part of the draft pre-lodgement agreement

An important part of the formal discussions is for both parties to agree on the next steps and the response period. The degree to which both parties adhere to these response times is likely to influence any decision by either party to withdraw from the discussions and terminate the process. If either party decides to terminate the process this should occur in writing so all parties are fully aware of the situation and can record the outcome. If, as a result of these formal discussions, an agreement is signed by both parties (a Pre-Lodgement Agreement), this obviates the need for a referral to that body or bodies during the assessment process. The agreement must be lodged with the development application, and the application lodged within three months of the agreement being signed. The Pre-Lodgement Agreement application form and guidelines can be accessed at: www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/development-applications/assessment-processes-explained/guides-for-applicants/pre-lodgement-agreements There is a prescribed referral fee involved with the Pre-Lodgement Agreement and formal discussions, however it can be refunded or waived, depending on variations, discontinuance, or with the lodgement of a Development Application. Please refer to the Guidelines for further details.


http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/development-applications/assessment-processes-explained/guides-for-applicants/pre-lodgement-agreements

http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/go/development-applications/assessment-processes-explained/guides-for-applicants/pre-lodgement-agreements


5.4.5 Other relevant legislation to consider

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 AS 3962-1991 Guidelines for Design of Marinas (National) Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 Crown Lands (Dept. Environment and Heritage) Development Act 1993: Development Assessment (Major Development

Assessment) Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003

o water quality - compliance o biological indicators (e.g. algal blooms, etc)

Environment Protection Act 1993 o Pollution: type, amount and destination

Fisheries Management Act 2007 o s. 71 injuring protected aquatic species o s. 77 disturbance of water beds o s. 130 regulations relating to control of exotic organisms and disease

Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 & Regulations 1994 Mid Murray Council Development Plan 2007 River Murray Act 2003 (e.g. River Murray Protection Areas, Objectives for a

Healthy River Murray) State Government Policy

o Houseboat, Mooring and Marina Strategy for the River Murray in South Australia: Scoping and Preparing a Marina or Mooring Site – Technical Guidelines

o Houseboat, Mooring and Marina Strategy for the River Murray in South Australia: River Murray Marina Site Suitability Analysis and Decision-making Framework


5.5 Estimates of building costs of the dry dock and working plans Engineering Quotes have been requested for engineering and concept designs for the Murraylands Dry Dock. Three engineering consultancies, Magryn and Associates, Price Merrett Consulting, and W & G Consulting Engineers, were approached to provide quotes which are included in this report as attachments. ETSA Utilities ETSA5 will provide indicative costing for the preferred site. Critical to the quote is the power requirement needed for the operation of the dry dock. ETSA will then analyse the current power supply to the site and quote on the cost to upgrade power to the site. It is imperative to get an accurate power usage as this will impact the quote. The more power required then the potential for higher upgrade costs. ETSA have advised that Ron Greening completes Form B and log a request for an indicative quote for the extension/augmentation of the electricity service from Greenings Landing to the preferred dry dock site. Dredging The four sites have been investigated by an excavation contractor6. The feedback is included within the site table. This contractor has considerable experience working on the river and in similar projects such as extensions on slipways. An early indicative estimate of the cost of excavation is $250,000. An accurate quote will be supplied once the engineering drawings are completed. A second contractor7 was approached to provide an estimate for excavation and recommended that concept plans and designs are obtained prior to seeking quotes for dredging works.

5 Source: Geoff Wegener, ETSA 6 Source: Frank Henderson, Henderson Excavations, who will work with Dynamic Dredging to provide a detailed quote when required 7 Source: Eichler Earthmovers


Indicative budget Concept plan & design $ 10,000 Engineering drawings $ 50,000 Geotechnical field & lab investigations $ 50,000 EIA / EIS $ 100,000 Dredging $ 250,000 Development Application fees $ 500 Construction Management Plan Risk Management Plan Occupational Health & Safety Plan/Procedures Management Plans * erosion & sediment control * construction noise $ 10,000 Materials – concrete footings, tar base, lock gates, etc $ 700,000 Construction costs * wages: labour, works supervisor $ 250,000 Transport & Fuel $ 50,000 Roadworks & Earthworks $ 29,500 Upgrade to utilities (e.g. energy, water supply, etc) $ 50,000 Contingency (25% of total estimated costs) $ 500,000 Grand Total estimated cost $2,000,000 (approx.)

6. Potential funding or investors for construction 6.1 Potential investors At the time of preparing this report, funding opportunities include:

Australian Government Community Infrastructure Grants Program (replacing the Regional Partnerships Program)

Boating Industry Association of South Australia networks Boating Facilities Fund (SABFAC) via Local Council Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure SA Tourism Commission Tourism Development Fund Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program via Local Council

Other potential investors could include local business owners, especially tourism operators who will utilise the facilities. 6.2 Approach to pursue funding A firm conceptual design must be developed, obtained and endorsed prior to lodging any Development Applications or Pre-Lodgement Agreements, and prior to funding being sought. Further research about potential funding sources and the process of developing applications, associated risks, possible matching funds, and information required for grant applications and timelines for completion, will be undertaken as part of Stage 3 of the Project.


7. Ownership or management structure 7.1 Options for ownership and commercial operation of the dry dock

facility Different options for the ownership and commercial operation of the dry dock facility have been considered. At this stage it is preferred that the Mid Murray Council is the lead agency for progressing the project. This includes being the entity to request funding support. The Mid Murray Council has also expressed an interest in the development and ownership of the facility. Other options investigated include:

Management of the facility by an independent operator. Operator contracted by Council / owner. Based on management structure and operation used at Renmark dry dock.

7.2 Recommendation for future ownership and commercial operation

of the facility It is recommended that the dry dock be owned and managed by Mid Murray Council, with the possible option of contracting out management of the facilities by an independent operator.



8. Attachments

Attachment 1. Engineer’s quote: Magryn and Associates

28th January, 2009

FEE OFFER: MURRAYLANDS DRY DOCK FINNIS FOR: DYNAMIC PROJECT DELIVERY ATT: KARINA ROSE For Civil Engineering Design Services being:

• Site inspection

• Client liaison and briefing meetings

• Earth works and hard stand design

• Soil sampling in area

• Design of concrete support beams

• Pump intake and discharge locations design

• Vehicle access design

• Documentation For the Fee of: $ 5,500.00

Terry Magryn Acceptance of fee offer This fee offer is accepted and authorisation is given to proceed with the work. ……………………………… (please sign and date) Client: Contact person: Telephone: Fax: Postal Address:



Notes:

Survey has not been included, but can be arranged at an additional fee. The above fees do not include for GST. The above do not include for additional external consultants, including survey or service location, except as noted above. The above offer remains valid for a period of 30 days from the date shown. The client is required to sign and return a copy of the fee offer to our office as authorisation to proceed prior our commencing work. Our standard terms and conditions for engagement and payment of fees apply. Invoices are to issued monthly and are payable in 14 days. The above service is for the design phase only. Additional work will be charged at the rate of: Principal or Senior Engineer $150/hr Engineer $120/hr

Attachment 2. Engineer’s quote: Price Merrett Consulting

Proposal for Work Associated with the Feasibility Study

for a Dry Dock at Mannum Our Understanding of the Assignment: We understand the proposed development to be a Dry Dock facility close to Mannum capable of taking river boats up to and including the size of the Murray Princess. The project is at the early feasibility stage and the requirement is for engineering and design input to assist with:

• site selection • securing development permissions • accessing project funding

This proposal outlines 2 professional areas where Price Merrett Consulting can input to the feasibility study:

• Engineering Design • Regulatory landscape affecting the development specifically focussing

on water and the environment. Engineering Design

Project establishment

1. Meeting to discuss requirements Investigations

1. Background studies, existing dry docks, gate systems. 2. Interview stakeholders, boat maintenance companies, boat owners,

existing dry dock manager 3. Review operational procedures

Cont.


Concept Design

1. Develop rough concept 2. Review concept with steering committee 3. Work up design including input from

a. Structural Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Soil Scientists (Geotechnical engineers/foundation strength/ and sulphate soils)

4. Finalise concept design

Site Selection

1. Develop scope of works (particularly Geotechnical Investigation) 2. Geotechnical Investigation, Surveys and bathymetric surveys. 3. Combine with input from Environmental, Planning and Heritage

studies as well as input from other Statutory Authorities. 4. Review sites against selection criteria 5. Recommend site for development

Site Specific Design (Assume one preferred site)

1. Adapt Design to site as required 2. Environmental Design Review 3. OH & S Design Review 4. Cost Estimate

Costs for engineering input

$50,000 plus GST

Additional costs for Geotechnical Field and Laboratory Investigations

Estimated Cost: $30,000- $50,000 Regulatory Landscape Affecting this Development

1. Review of Local, State and Federal water and environmental regulations, legislation and requirements affecting the development.

2. Report to steering committee setting out: a. The critical path and decision points for water and environmental

issues. b. Projected time scale and likely costs of any Environmental Impacts

Studies that may be required to comply with legislation.

Costs for Legislative Review

$7680 plus GST


Attachment 3. Engineer’s quote: W & G Consulting Engineers 30th March 2009 Job No: Q090143 The Murraylands Regional Development Board c/- Dynamic Project Delivery Willow Street Precinct PO Box 264 TAILEM BEND SA 5260 Attention: Ms Karina Rose Dear Karina MURRAYLANDS DRY DOCK Further to your emails and my site visit last week I am pleased to submit our proposal to provide engineering support to your project. Aztec Analysis Aztec Analysis is a specialist firm of consulting engineers concentrating on industrial and marine projects. We are part of Wallbridge & Gilbert one of Adelaide’s leading local engineering consultants with over 100 staff. We are well known for our work in regional South Australia, and have a strong office in Whyalla. Experience We have over 20 years’ experience in coffer dams, barge work, water quality, marine structures, civil engineering, slipways, shiplifts, straddle lifts and so on. A comprehensive experience list is attached. Scope of Work We understand our involvement would be civil and structural engineering design and documentation. In addition, we can assist in the following areas through companies with whom we have good working arrangements;

- Survey - Geotechnical Investigation - Ground Permeability - Planning Applications

We understand any environmental issues, particularly if an EIS is required, will be handled by others.


Approach to the Task 1. At present, we feel there is insufficient detail to fully appreciate the complete scope of

the project. The next step would be to develop the project concept into a set of preliminary engineering drawings.

To determine the engineering feasibility of the project, some geotechnical information will be required. By the same token, a full level survey will be required, however, we would be happy to take a few key levels while on site and that would be sufficient for Stage 1.

[A title, boundary and land ownership survey will also be required at some point in time.]

2. Once the concept has been agreed, the project would proceed to the Detailed Design and Documentation phase, when construction drawings would be produced.

3. After selecting a Contractor, further engineering involvement is required to ensure that the work complies with the design.

Fees Stage 1 - Concept Fixed $7,500.00 Stage 2 - Detailed Design (Depends on complexity of project) Estimate $40,000.00 Stage 3 – Construction (Depends on level of involvement) Estimate $10,000.00 - $20,000.00 Surveys - Initial spot levels Included Full Engineering Survey Estimate $5,000.00 Geotechnical – soil drilling, borelogs, permeability tests Estimate $5,000.00 Notes: 1. GST is not included in these fees. 2. We have allowed for 3 two hour meetings in the Murraylands during Stage 1 to agree on the details of the Concept. Program We expect the concept work would take four weeks from acceptance. We trust this is acceptable. If you require any further information or clarification, please call me and I will be pleased to assist. Yours faithfully

S M Gilbert for AZTEC ANALYSIS Attach: Project Experience List SMG:tlh


RELEVANT EXPERIENCE MARINE FACILITIES: WHARVES, JETTIES & BOATRAMPS

Mobil Wharf Upgrade, Port Stanvac, SA $20m Design of 100 metres of new jetty, refurbishment of 320 metres of existing jetty, including reconstruction at higher elevation, and new manifold and control platforms at a new wharf structure. Changes to the fendering at the berth to accommodate a broader fleet of ships. New Rapid Bay Jetty, SA $3.9m Design and construction supervision of new 240 metre recreational jetty

New Diesel Supply Pipeline, Port Bonython Fuels, SA Design of the pipe support structure and construction methodology for the new 600mm diameter diesel pipeline along the existing Santos jetty at Port Bonython in Spencer Gulf, South Australia.

New Berthing Caisson, Klein Point, SA Replacement/strengthening of existing gravity-mass berthing dolphin. Mobil SBM Project $15m Installation of Submarine pipeline (800m long), hauled from land to site 2500 metres offshore. Installation of SBM, hoses, catenary chain anchors (piled) and PLEM. Analysis of all environmental and functional data. Carried out all construction engineering, including design for piling, PLEM, pipeline weight coating, pipeline launch and tow, wave/current loads, breakwater, beach skids, barge selection, barge fit-out, mooring, towing etc. Sheet-piled Coffer Dams, Port River Design and optimisation of 12m high coffer dams for construction of pile caps for the new Port River bridges. Berthing Facilities for Workboats, Mobil Port Stanvac, SA Design of floating pontoons and mooring facilities for workboats. Graving Dock Concept design for Graving Dock on Port River for construction of concrete oil platforms (ESSO). Trestle Jetty, Ardrossan, SA Investigation and modifications to Dolomite Ship-loading facility. Trestle Jetty & Ship Loader, Proper Bay, SA Feasibility study for flour loading. Trestle Jetty & Ship Loader, Sceale Bay, SA Feasibility and preliminary design for Gypsum loading facility. Conversion of Skidway to Shipyard Slipway, Eglo, Port Adelaide, SA Feasibility study to handle 3000 tonne vessels. Sheet-Piled Wharf, Bell Bay, Tasmania $2.5m Design of new sheet-piled wharf (offshore structures fabrication site) for ANI. Sheet-Piled Wharf, Osborne, SA Analysis and modifications for Esso, Eglo.



MARINE FACILITIES: WHARVES, JETTIES & BOATRAMPS (cont) Modifications to Wharf and Seawall, Newcastle Feasibility study for Esso. Sheet-Piled Wharf, Newcastle, NSW Analysis and modifications for Esso, Eglo. Construction of Hopper Dredge Feasibility study for Graving Dock for Eglo. Extensions to Causeway Breakwater, Granite Island, SA Preliminary Design. Overwater Housing, Gulf Point Marina, SA Design of overwater housing and mooring facilities. BHP, Blast Furnace Wharf, Whyalla Full investigation and analysis of 50 year old deteriorated timber wharf. BHP, Whyalla Investigation, analysis and remediation of failed sheet-piled wharf. Boat Ramp & Safe Haven, Fitzgerald Bay Preliminary design of new breakwater, safe mooring and boat ramp. Upgrade of Submarine Corporation Shiplift, Osborne, SA Construction systems to install stronger cross beams. Piled Mooring Dolphin, Port Giles Mooring Dolphin for 100,000 plus tonne bulk carriers for South Australian Ports Corporation.

Royal South Australian Yacht Squadron Project Management of Stage III Yacht Marina – 52 vessels Kingston Marina, SA Breakwater and commercial fishing fleet marina

Glenelg Foreshore Development $80m Seawalls, sheetpiling, reclamation, sand management, lock, piling, jetty structure. Preliminary design only. Navigation Aids for BHP, Whyalla, SA Analysis and report for navigation aids for vessels approaching the Blast Furnace wharf. Review of piling, beacons and recommendations for maintenance and replacement. Pellet Plant Jetty, BHP, Whyalla, SA. Proposal to design dredging machine and mount on jetty structure to combat silting problem. Structural Survey Tug Berth, BHP, Whyalla Sheetpiled Wharf Analysis of Williamstown Dockyard wharf for offloading 800 tonne unit

Attachment 4. Letter of Support: Odyssey River Cruises



Attachment 5. Letter of Support: Proud Australia Attachment 5. Letter of Support: Proud Australia

Murraylands Dry Dock Facility Evaluation Page 62

murraylands dry dock proposal - rdamr

Documents