broome boat harbour site selection report: august 2002

BROOME BOAT HARBOURSITE SELECTION REPORT

August 2002 Rev 1 Report DPI 412

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was undertaken under the direction of the Broome Boat Harbour SteeringCommittee. Community input was received through the Broome Boat HarbourCommunity Reference Group. An ad hoc technical group convened by Transportreviewed the suggested sites and recommended a short list for further consideration.

BROOME BOAT HARBOUR STEERING COMMITTEE

Mike Harris Director General, Department for Planning and Infrastructure (Chairman)Dennis Forte A/Executive Director Service Delivery, DPI (Deputy Chairman)Greg Powell CEO, Shire of BroomeKevin Fong President, Shire of BroomeStefan Frodsham CEO, Broome Port AuthoritySteve Reilly President, Kimberley Charter Boat AssociationChris Cleveland Member, Pearl Producers AssociationKen White Committee Member, West Kimberley Recreational Fishing Advisory CommitteeJeff Gooding * Director, Kimberley Development CommissionSteve Burgess A/Regional Manager, DOLARoss MacCulloch Northern Area Development Manager, WA Tourism CommissionEugene Ferraro Regional Branch Manager, DPIBen Wurm ** Executive Director, Kimberley Land CouncilKim Taylor Director Evaluation Division, DEPKelvin Barr Regional Economist, Kimberley Development Commission

(* replaced Michael Wilde)(** replaced Peter Yu)

BROOME BOAT HARBOUR COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP

Mike Harris Director General, Department for Planning and Infrastructure (Chairman)Dennis Forte A/Executive Director Service Delivery, DPI (Deputy Chairman)Greg Powell CEO, Shire of BroomeKevin Fong President, Shire of BroomeWayne Boys Committee MemberPippa Chrystal Committee MemberRoger Colless Committee MemberAlan Fraser Committee MemberPeter Green Committee MemberSilvia Lerch Committee MemberMaria Mann Committee MemberRobert Masters Committee MemberDavid Power Committee MemberBruce Spencer Committee MemberChris Wright Committee Member

DPI TECHNICAL GROUP

Cleve Flottmann Manager New Development, DPIKim Stone Director, Coastal Assets Management, DPIMartin Baird Senior Maritime Planner, DPIPeter Boreham Senior Coastal Engineer, DPIBill Andrew Maritime ConsultantBill Burrell Town Planning ConsultantBruce Hegge Environmental Consultant

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Ray Patterson Kimberley Regional Coordinator, DPI

PROJECT MANGER

Peter Boreham Senior Coastal Engineer, DPI

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee was established to investigate the feasibilityof constructing a small boat harbour at Broome. The terms of reference of the study are:

(a) to determine possible boat harbour sites at Broome to serve Broome and the Kimberley;

(b) to prepare conceptual plans and costings for each of the possible sites;

(c) to determine commercial opportunities for involvement of the private sector in the boatharbour;

(d) to assess the costs of identified sites and examine financing options;

(e) to provide a report to the Hon Minister for Transport (now Minister for Planning andInfrastructure) on the location, costs, financing options and delivery mechanisms for apossible boat harbour at Broome.

This Committee included representation from both State and Local Government and fromindustry bodies. The Broome Boat Harbour Community Reference Group was established toprovide broad community involvement in the project.

All possible sites in the vicinity of Broome were considered, and four were shortlisted forcloser examination.

Of the four sites shortlisted, Option 1 is in Dampier Creek. However, this is only suitable fora tidally limited harbour basin for small boats only, and does not meet the key siterequirements. In particular, it does not provide safe moorings for the Broome fleet duringcyclones. The estimated cost of a small harbour at this site is $16 million, but it is notcomparable with the proposals at the other sites.

The remaining sites all provided safe moorings for the fleet during cyclones, and met theother key requirements outlined in the terms of reference in varying degrees. Estimated costsare;

Full Cost Stage 1Cost

Option 2 Offshore basin at Roebuck Bay at the Port $117.0 M $105.0 MOption 3 Offshore basin at Entrance Point $124.0 M $113.0 MOption 4 Inland basin at Riddell Point $78.0 M $54.0 M

The Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee endorsed Riddell Point (Option 4) as thepreferred site. The concept for this site includes an inland basin with an access channelthrough the foreshore south of Riddell Point. A lock is used to maintain a steady water levelin the harbour basin. There is land in the vicinity that could be developed for harbourpurposes and possibly for sale, offering the opportunity to generate some income to partiallyoffset capital and operating costs.

It was recognised by both the Committee and the Reference Group that the Riddell Point sitewas likely to give rise to objections, particularly in regard of native title and Aboriginal

2

heritage issues, and some members of the Reference Group objected to this site. However,this was also the site that was technically and financially the most attractive. The full costwas some $40 million less than the next cheapest site, construction could be staged, reducinginitial expenditure to about half of the Stage 1 costs of the other sites, and it has the greatestpotential for cost recovery. All key requirements could be met at this site.

The investigation was curtailed by funding limitations, and only preliminary considerationhas been given to commercial opportunities and financing options. This preliminaryassessment indicates that the Riddell Point option offers the best opportunities for costrecovery in both the short and long terms. If the adjacent land is made available, then some,if not all, of the capital cost could be recovered through land development.

There is a possibility that it will not be feasible to maintain an entrance channel for theRiddell Point harbour, and this requires further investigation.

There are issues of native title and Aboriginal heritage that must be considered, andextensive public consultation is also required.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the following program be implemented with the aim of securing asite in Broome for a small boat harbour:

1) DPI undertake an investigation into the stability of the entrance channels. This willcost in the order of $50,000 and is likely to take about three months;

2) if the investigation confirms that it is feasible to maintain an entrance channel atRiddell Point, commence negotiations in regard of native title and Aboriginal heritage;

3) initiate a public consultation process at the same time to gauge the public’s views onthe preferred harbour site. The Shire of Broome can manage this process, withassistance from DPI;

4) if the investigations or consultations reveal insurmountable obstacles to thedevelopment of an inland harbour at Riddell Point, then reassess Options 2 and 3 usingthe information gleaned from the channel stability investigation and the consultationprocess, and repeat the consultation processes;

5) when an acceptable site is identified, undertake a commercial analysis, take steps toreserve the land for harbour purposed and initiate the required amendments to theTown Planning Scheme to allow the site to be used for a boat harbour.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................11 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................1

1.2 COMMITTEES ..............................................................................................................1

1.3 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...............................................................................................2

1.4 FUNDING......................................................................................................................22 FEASIBILITY STUDIES................................................................................................33 SITE SELECTION PROCESS.......................................................................................4

3.1 STEP 1 - PRELIMINARY SITE SELECTION...................................................................4

3.2 STEP 2 - TECHNICAL EVALUATION AND SHORTLIST ................................................5

3.3 STEP 3 - SHORTLIST REVIEW .....................................................................................5

3.4 STEP 4 - CONCEPT PLANNING ....................................................................................63.4.1 Investigations .......................................................................................................63.4.2 Key Harbour Elements ........................................................................................73.4.3 Concept Preparation ............................................................................................83.4.4 Concept Amendments ..........................................................................................9

3.5 STEP 5 - FATAL FLAWS ANALYSIS .............................................................................9

3.6 STEP 6 - RECOMMENDED SITE .................................................................................104 COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES...........................................................................11

4.1 BOAT PENS AND BOAT STORAGE..............................................................................11

4.2 HARBOUR CHARGES .................................................................................................12

4.3 MARINE INDUSTRIAL ................................................................................................12

4.4 TOURIST RECREATIONAL .........................................................................................12

4.5 RESIDENTIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................13

4.6 RESORT DEVELOPMENT ...........................................................................................13

4.7 INCOME ESTIMATES..................................................................................................13

4.8 FINANCING OPTIONS .................................................................................................155 INVESTIGATION EXPENDITURE...........................................................................176 COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE.........................................187 FURTHER WORKS......................................................................................................19

2

7.1 CHANNEL STABILITY ................................................................................................19

7.2 NATIVE TITLE AND ABORIGINAL HERITAGE...........................................................20

7.3 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION...................................................................................20

7.4 ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND FINANCING OPTIONS .........20

7.5 SUNDRY ITEMS ..........................................................................................................21

7.6 FUNDING....................................................................................................................218 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................22BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................24

Appendix 1 Broome Boat HarbourTechnical Group Report

Appendix 2 Broome Boat HarbourPreliminary Investigation Plan

Appendix 3 Broome Boat HarbourPredesign Cost Estimates for Nominated Sites

Appendix 4 Broome Boat HarbourReview of “Fatal Flaws” Submissions

BROOME BOAT HARBOUR – SITE SELECTION REPORT

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

For some time there has been an interest in providing a safe harbour at Broome. Broome wasdeveloped as a land base for the pearling industry, and today it is home to a varied fleet offishing boats, pearl farming boats, charter boats and other commercial vessels. The existingcommercial fleet is the largest in WA outside of the metropolitan area and Geraldton.

Currently, there are about 128 commercial boats surveyed in Broome, and over 800 privaterecreational boats registered in Broome and the surrounding area. Nearly all of thecommercial boats are of a size that would normally be stored in pens, but not all of themoperate from Broome on a day-to-day basis. A number of them, for example, are engaged inthe cultured pearl industry, and operate along the Kimberley coast, distant from Broome.However, discussion with operators and others in Broome indicate that there are about 20 to30 boats that would operate from a harbour full time and others which would use the harboura part of the time. The demand for commercial pens has been estimated at about eighty nowand is expected to grow to about 180 over the next 30 years.

Of the 800 recreational boats, the great majority are of trailerable size. However, based onthe overall state statistics, about 15% of boats are kept in moorings where safe moorings areavailable. In Broome, using this average, the latent demand for pens is around 120. The totalpen demand is expected to grow to about 300 over the next 30 years.

There have been several investigations into boat harbours in Broome, the most recent werethe MacAlpine proposals of the late 1980’s and the Transport Boating Facilities Study of1997.

In April 2000, Cyclone Rosita sank eight boats in and around Broome (four commercial andfour private). Paspaly Pearls estimated that this one cyclone cost the Broome Pearlingindustry about $6 million in damage to boats and pearl farms and in lost time. CycloneRosita bought into focus the issue of marine safety in the region, and the Minister forTransport directed that a Steering Committee be established, chaired by the Director Generalof Transport, to undertake a feasibility study into establishing a boat harbour at Broome.

1.2 COMMITTEES

The Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee (BBHSC) held its first meeting on 30 June2000 in Broome. This Committee includes representation from a number of StateGovernment organisation, the Shire of Broome and from marine related industry.

It was recognised that a harbour development in Broome would have a significant impact onthe community, and a community reference group was formed to ensure that the communityinterests were considered. Membership of the Broome Boat Harbour Community ReferenceGroup (BBHCRG) was solicited through advertisement in the local media. The response was


2

limited, and every person or group who expressed an interest was appointed to theCommittee.

1.3 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The following Terms of Reference for the Broome Boat Harbour Study were established bythe BBHSC.

1 (a) to determine possible boat harbour sites at Broome to serve Broome and theKimberley;

(a) to prepare conceptual plans and costings for each of the possible sites;(b) to determine commercial opportunities for involvement of the private sector

in the boat harbour;(c) to assess the costs of identified sites and examine financing options;(d) to provide a report to the Hon Minister for Transport (now Minister for

Planning and Infrastructure) on the location, costs, financing options anddelivery mechanisms for a possible boat harbour at Broome.

2 Actions will be taken to ensure that:

• the new boat harbour provides for safe and efficient operation of smallvessels in the region;

• the boat harbour takes into account the needs and aspirations of the localcommunity including integration with the existing urban fabric and theviability of local infrastructure and industry;

• the boat harbour facilitates the growth of industry including tourism andmaritime industries;

• the boat harbour takes into account relevant heritage and environmentalissues and native title concerns.

1.4 FUNDING

The preliminary cost estimate for the harbour investigations was in the order of $45,000.This was to be funded by:

Broome Port Authority $15,000Kimberley Development Commission $10,000DPI (Transport) $15,000


3

2 FEASIBILITY STUDIES

The BBHSC, through DPI, engaged Market Equity to conduct a feasibility study for a boatharbour at Broome. Specifically, Market Equity were required to “…collect detailedinformation from commercial and recreational boat owners to profile their needs for marineservices and to identify attitudes to a proposed marina, including willingness to pay foraccess to such a facility.”

This report was completed in December 2000.

The following were the key findings from the report:

• The desk-top study identified strong future growth in the number of vessels expectedthrough the Port of Broome;

• Based on the existing fleet, commercial vessels are more likely to use a boat harbourthan recreational vessels;

• Some 92% of recreational boats in and around Broome are on trailers. This is more thatthe state average of around 85%;

• If a boat harbour were built in the Broome region, an estimated 70% of recreational andcommercial boat owners would consider upgrading their boat size. The majorityindicated they would upgrade to a boat length of between 10 and 20 metres;

• The majority of respondents are willing to pay a fee for a wet pen. This was particularlystrong amongst the commercial operators;

• The following table gives a breakdown of the likelihood of using different services:

Service Commercialnon- Broome

Recreationalnon- Broome

CommercialBroome

RecreationalBroome

Wet Pen Storage ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦Dry storage ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦Repair facility ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦Refueling ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦Water ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦There phase power ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦Sewerage/ bilgedisposal

♦♦♦♦

Cargo Loading/unloading

♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦


4

Passenger loading ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦

3 SITE SELECTION PROCESS

A multi step site selection process was adopted;

Step 1 the two Committees (BBHSC and BBHCRG) looked at the whole coastline inthe vicinity of Broome and separately listed a number of possible sites;

Step 2 the DPI Technical Group reviewed the Committee recommendations from atechnical viewpoint and recommended a shortlist of preferred sites for furtherexamination;

Step 3 the Committees considered the Technical Group’s recommendations andendorsed a number of sites for further consideration;

Step4 DPI prepared concept plans and predesign cost estimates for each of therecommended sites;

Step 5 the Committees undertook a “fatal flaws” analysis of the concepts;

Step 6 the BBHSC endorsed a preferred site.

3.1 STEP 1 - PRELIMINARY SITE SELECTION

The Steering Committee summarised its selection into six groups. The Reference Groupnominated eight groups of sites.

Steering Committee Reference Group• Dampier creek • Dampier Creek area• Roebuck Bay • Lookout Hill, Streeters Jetty and

Buccaneer Rock area• Mangrove Point• Midway between Town Beach Caravan

Park and the Port• Port of Broome • Port of Broome slipway area

• Riddell Point area• Gantheaume Point • Gantheaume Point area• Willie Creek • Willie Creek, Barred Creek and Coconut

Wells area• Crab Creek

The sites are shown on Figures 1 and 2.


5

3.2 STEP 2 - TECHNICAL EVALUATION AND SHORTLIST

DPI assembled a technical group to examine the sites suggested from a technical perspectiveand to recommend a short list for detailed investigation. Between them the group membershad considerable expertise in the development of boat harbours in WA, including expertisein boat harbour planning and development, coastal and ocean engineering, harbour designand construction, harbour and marina operation, environmental science and town planning.

A copy of the report prepared by the Technical Group is included in Appendix 1.

This group recommended three sites for further consideration. There were:

• An inland basin at Riddell Point;

• An offshore harbour between the Port and the golf course

• Dampier CreekThe first two sites were for all tide harbours that would provide safe mooring for thecommercial and recreational fleet at Broome. The Riddell Point proposal was for an inland,excavated basin (like Jurien Boat Harbour and Esperance Boat Harbour), and the Port/ golfcourse proposal was for an offshore harbour with extensive breakwaters (like Hillarys BoatHarbour and Exmouth Boat Harbour).

The third site at Dampier Creek was for a small, tidally limited facility that would cater forthe smaller recreational boats. It was recognised that this did not meet the primary aim ofproviding a safe anchorage for the Broome fleet. However, it was included at the request ofsome members of the BBHCRG.

3.3 STEP 3 - SHORTLIST REVIEW

The Technical Group report was considered at the meetings of the BBHCRG and BBHSC inApril 2001.

The BBHCRG eliminated the Riddell Point option on the basis that it would be too costly todevelop and because there were major concerns about an inland basin, especially onenvironmental issues. They wanted further consideration of a site between the Port and thegolf club, but within the Port boundary, and the tidally limited option in Dampier Creek.

The BBHSC concurred with the BBHCRG. However, the Port Authority had been looking atharbour options independently, as a part of a port master plan being developed by WoodheadInternational. They did not favour the proposed site in the Port, but asked that an alternativesite at Entrance Point be considered.

Eventually, the BBHSC review recommended three sites for further investigation. Theywere:

• an offshore harbour within the Port boundary, north of the jetty;


6

• an offshore harbour at Entrance Point;

• a tidally limited harbour at Dampier Creek.

3.4 STEP 4 - CONCEPT PLANNING

The next step was to prepare concept plans and costings for the selected sites. A certainamount of basic information was available, but further work was required to determinepresent and future boating demand, and to establish preliminary design wave heights andwater levels. It was also necessary to collate available information such as survey andgeotechnical data, and to identify at least the major environmental and social constraints,particularly the native title and other ethnographic issues.

3.4.1 Investigations

DPI prepared a preliminary investigation plan (Appendix 2). This plan outlines the basicinformation requirements and budget costs of further investigations. Based on therequirements of this plan, DPI commissioned the following reports:

Market Equity Demand for Wet Pen Storage at Broome MarinaSoil and Rock Engineering Broome Boat Harbour Geotechnical AssessmentM P Rogers Preliminary assessment of extreme water levels and

preliminary design wave heights for locations aroundBroome.

Quatermaine Consultants Report on Preliminary Archaeological Investigation ofAboriginal Sites, Broome Boat Harbours and Adjacent Land

R O’Connor Report on an Ethnographical Study of Proposed BroomeBoat Harbours and Adjacent Land

In addition, the Department of Environmental Protection undertook a preliminaryexamination of the sites, and tentatively identified the major environmental impacts andconstraints of each.

DPI undertook additional work in house, including:

• compilation of land ownership and vesting details• collation and compilation of the latest available survey information, both onshore and

offshore;• hydrographic surveying at Broome to fill in critical areas with no survey data;• a preliminary extreme event analysis for tides and storm surge;• site examination of the proposed sites;• inspection of the known quarry sites, particularly the Nillibubbacca Quarry;


7

• discussions with a number of interested parties, including the Broome Port Authority,Paspaly Pearls, Broome Pearls, Shire of Broome, Kimberley DevelopmentCommission, WA Tourism Commission, Fisheries WA and charter boat operators;

• accompanied a number of Committee members on a fact finding trip to Darwin,where the Committee inspected locked harbours at Port of Darwin, Tipparary Water,Cullen Bay Marina and Bayview. Discussions were held with the harbour operators.

3.4.2 Key Harbour Elements

From the investigations and the stakeholder discussions, it was possible to define the keyelements of a boat harbour at Broome. This is summarised in Table 1 for a thirty yearplanning period.

Facility/ Service

Design boat Length 35 m

Recreational pens 300 Charter boat pens 40 Other commercial pens 140

Total Pens 480

Emergency cyclone mooring capacity essential Service jetty - tide protected 200 m Service jetty – tidal desirable Fuel outlet essential Boat ramps - tide protected 2 Boat ramps – tidal 1 Ramp finger jetty Yes Ramp parking (trailers) 80+ Pen parking 300 Slipway/ boat lifter site essential Provision for charter operators essential Provision for maritime industry essential Provision for tourist/ recreational desirable Public toilet essential

Access at all levels of tide desirable Basin water depth Up to 4.5 m Entrance channel bed level RL –5.0 mCD Lock for harbour basin Very desirable Protected basin area About 10 ha Land for harbour infrastructure and marine industrial About 10 ha Land for other development desirable

Table 1 Key Elements of a Boat Harbour at Broome


8

All normal services (power, water, sewerage, etc) and access are assumed. Opportunities forcommercial return through land sales to offset capital costs are also an advantage.

3.4.3 Concept Preparation

DPI was concerned that the BBHCRG had not fully appreciated the reasons forrecommending the Riddell Point inland harbour for further investigation. Contrary to theview of the BBHCRG members who objected to this site, technically it appeared to be thebest site, and easiest to construct, and was likely to prove the most cost effective. As thebasic information required for the further assessment of the Riddell Point inland site wasavailable, it was included in the study to facilitate further consideration by both Committees.

Concept plans were prepared for each site, primarily as a basis for cost estimation. Thefacilities and services outlined in Table 1 above have been incorporated in each concept tothe extent possible given the individual site limitations. The harbour layouts presented willfunction as harbours, but it should be expected that the normal consultation, design andapproval processes would very likely produce variations in the final concept.

The four sites considered were:

Option 1 Dampier Creek

A tidally limited small boat harbour in Dampier Creek adjacent to the town center. Thefacility will provide moorings for 95 small power boats up to about 10 m and anoperating base with moorings for up to 18 charter vessels up to 10 m. Access for theseboats is limited by the tide, and will be available approximately 50% of the time. Boatlaunching and fuelling facilities are included.

Option 2 Roebuck Bay at the Port

This concept is for an offshore harbour protected by a breakwater and with a steadyinternal water level. Access is via a lock system and hence the harbour is accessible atall tides. The harbour will provide cyclone protection for boats up to 40 m in lengthand moorings for boats to 35 m length. It will accommodate over 300 recreationalboats, 40 charter boats and 130 other commercial boats. It will be fully serviced andinclude provision for boat service operations and an operating base for the charterindustry.

Option 3 Entrance Point

The Entrance Point option is also for an all-tide offshore locked harbour and willprovide the same level of services and facilities as Option 2, but with less availableland.


9

Option 4 Riddell Point

Option 4 is for an inland basin with access via the shore to the south of Entrance Point.This also includes a locked harbour basin which can operate at all tides. It will providethe same services and facilities as Options 2 and 3, but presents more opportunities todevelop adjacent land to offset capital costs and is more amenable to staging.

Predesign cost estimates for the four concepts are:


Option 1 Dampier Creek $16.0 M ------Option 2 Roebuck Bay at the Port $117.0 M $105.0 MOption 3 Entrance Point $124.0 M $113.0 MOption 4 Riddell Point $78.0 M $54.0 M

The details of the concept preparation, design criteria and facilities are given the Transportreport DPI412 (August 2001) “Broome Boat Harbour, Predesign Cost Estimates forNominated Sites” (Appendix 3)

3.4.4 Concept Amendments

The two Committees reviewed the four concepts. There was some discussion in theBBHCRG regarding the inclusion of the Riddell Point concept but the majority agreed that itshould be considered, given the technical and financial advantages it offered. The BBHSCsupported its inclusion.

The Committees sought some changes to the Riddell Point concept. In particular, the PortAuthority asked if the bulk of the development could be located outside the Port area. It wasfelt that the proposal as presented could interfere with the long-term port expansion giventhe amount of port land it would occupy. The concept was relocated, and the layout revisedto allow construction to be easily staged. The final four concepts are shown as Figures 3 to 7.

3.5 STEP 5 - FATAL FLAWS ANALYSIS

Members of the two Committees were asked to undertake a “fatal flaws” analysis on the fourconcepts. DPI reviewed the submissions and prepared a summary report. This wasdistributed to the Committee members, together with the submissions. At the meeting inFebruary 2002, the Committees requested some changes to the summary report.

After this meeting, the Broome Volunteer Sea Rescue Group submitted comments and theKimberley Professional Fisherman’s Association sent a second, more detailed, submission.The summary report was amended to include the changes requested by the Committees andto incorporate the late submissions. The amended report, together with the submissions, isincluded as Appendix 4.


10

The “fatal flaws” analysis identified cost and native title/Aboriginal heritage matters as theissues that are most likely to stop the harbour development from proceeding. There are sometechnical issues that have the potential to eliminate particular options, but it is probable thatthe environmental impacts identified to date can be either avoided or managed.

3.6 STEP 6 - RECOMMENDED SITE

At the meeting on 21 February 2002, the BBHSC voted to endorse Option 4B for an inlandharbour at Riddell Point as the preferred option. In doing this, the Committee recognised thatthere were technical issues that needed to be tested and they were also aware that theAboriginal community may oppose development at this site. If a harbour development at thissite is technically not feasible then the other shortlisted sites may have to be reconsidered.Similarly, if the site is unacceptable to the Aboriginal community or to the wider communitythen again the site selection will have to be reviewed. However, this is true of any site, andthe proper consideration of these issues is the purpose of the consultation and approvalprocess.

Although there was broad support for the Riddell Point option in the BBHCRG, there wasalso strong resistance from some members. However, the BBHCRG was not asked to voteon the proposal. This is not a decision making committee but rather its role is to provide afeedback on public option


11

4 COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES

As discussed in the investigation report, Dampier Creek does not provide all tide access andthe concept presented is for a tidally limited harbour for small boats only. However, this sitemay well be attractive to a private developer who may wish to develop a small boat harbouras an adjunct to development of the surrounding land. Nevertheless, as the Dampier Creeksite does not meet the DPI primary objective of providing a safe haven for the Broome Fleet,it is not considered further in the discussion of commercial opportunities.

It has not been possible within the funding constraints to undertake a detailed analysis of thecommercial opportunities for involvement of the private sector in the boat harbour.However, commercial opportunities associated with boat harbour developments commonlyinclude:

• Boat pens and dry storage;• Harbour charges;• Marine related industry• Tourist/ recreational development;• Residential land development:• Resort development;

Option 2 in Roebuck Bay has some 13 ha of land available for development, and Option 3 atEntrance Point has about 9 ha of land available. For the Riddell Point option, there are some25 to 30 ha of land available between the basin and the port access road that would besuitable for marine industrial purposes. There are another 12 ha west of the basin suitable forcommercial development and a large amount of Unallocated Crown Land north of the basinsuitable for residential development.

Although all three options offer some opportunity for industrial development all of Options 2and 3 and a part of Option 4 are in the Port area. Accordingly, the Port would expect somereturn from leasing of this land and not all the income would necessarily be available tooffset the capital and operating costs of the harbour.

4.1 BOAT PENS AND BOAT STORAGE

Pen lease rates vary throughout the State, and depend upon demand and levels of serviceprovided, but are typically in the range of $250 to $300/m of boat length. Given the cost ofproviding cyclone proof pens in Broome, rates would likely be at the upper end of the range.

Income from pen leases will cover operation and maintenance costs of the pens, and mayrecover capital over the life of the pens, but do not generate large surpluses. The 240 or sopens proposed for Stage 1 would generate up to about $0.75M/yr when they are fullyoccupied, but this could take about ten to fifteen years.


12

Although dry storage is popular elsewhere in Australia and overseas, it has never beenstrongly promoted in WA. The opportunity obviously exists in Broome as elsewhere, butprobably the only likely return to the State from dry boat storage is through land leaseincome.

4.2 HARBOUR CHARGES

Income can be generated from such things as wharfage fees, lock use fees, car and trailerparking, fuel levies and such like. These are valuable sources of income in high use areas,but in low use areas incomes may not cover compliance costs.

4.3 MARINE INDUSTRIAL

A mixed use harbour of the type proposed at Broome requires land for marine industrialuses. Discussions with potential users indicate an interest in establishing a slip yard and boatmaintenance service, processing works and general marine industry.

Ground lease rates for marine industry is typically less than that for other commercial uses,but land area requirements are greater. Rates in the range of $5 to $10/m2/yr are normal, andperhaps a little higher for some lots with direct water access. Because lots are larger, leasableland is around 70% to 90% of available land. At $7.50/m2 and assuming 80% landavailability gives a return of about $60,000/ha/yr.

It can be expected that there will only be a limited market for this type of development in theharbour, and it may take many years before all the available land is taken up.

4.4 TOURIST RECREATIONAL

Boat harbours can be very attractive for tourist recreational type developments. Broome hasa large charter fleet, and the harbour will not only offer it a safe anchorage, but can alsoprovide waterside land for associated activities. As well as marine related businesses, cafes,tourist shops, taverns and so forth are also popular attractions in boat harbours.

The State normally derives income from this market by leasing harbour land to developerswho in turn develop and sublease facilities. Land lease rates vary, and can be as high as$70/m2/yr for prime commercial sites, but $10 to $30/ m2/yr would be more typical.Assuming 70% of land is available, (the rest being used for roads, parking etc), gives some$140,000/ha/yr return at $20/m2/yr.

It can be expected that there will only be a limited market for this type of development in theharbour, and perhaps one or two hectares is all that could be developed for this purpose, andagain that would be over a long period.


13

4.5 RESIDENTIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT

With residential development, typically 60% to 70% of the land is available for sale (thebalance being roads, public open space etc), and development cost are typically in the orderof $25,000 per lot, although this will vary considerably. However, assuming this is the case,and assuming 500 m2 lots, gives about 14 blocks per ha at a development cost of$350,000/ha. Recent residential land sales in Broome have varied from about $60,000 to$70,000 per block to up to $250,000 for prime blocks with ocean views.

Options 2 and 3 in Roebuck Bay and at Entrance Point offer limited opportunities forresidential development. The land is too close to the harbour operation to encourageextensive residential development but the main drawback is the lack of available land. Thelimited land available should be kept for the development of marine related industry.

There is a considerable amount of Unallocated Crown Land north of the Riddell Point sitethat could be used for residential development. Some of this land can be elevated using spoilfrom the basin excavation, and this would increase the lot value.

This land is subject to native title claims, and a large part of it is an Environmental CulturalCorridor Reserve under the Shire of Broome Town Planning Scheme No 4.

4.6 RESORT DEVELOPMENT

The Entrance Point site does not give any opportunity for resort development. There may besome possibility at the Roebuck Bay site, but this may well be too close to the port and theport industries to be attractive. The Riddell Point site offers good opportunities for resortdevelopment between the harbour basin and the coast, provided the harbour is designed toaccommodate such development.

Broome is a resort town, and such a site is likely to be attractive to resort developers. Aresort proposal in this vicinity will generate some opposition, and issues of native title andaboriginal heritage would need to be resolved. However, of the options considered, this isthe only realistic resort development opportunity.

Experience in Broome suggests that a resort site should be about two hectares, and wouldfetch about $1.5M.

4.7 INCOME ESTIMATES

As mentioned above, no detailed analysis of possible income has been made. However, it isapparent that the Riddell Point site offers the greatest opportunity for capital recoverythrough land sales for both residential and resort purpose. This site also provides the mostland for generating a lease income from industrial and commercial land.

An optimistic cost recovery scenario assumes the UCL land to the north of the harbour basinis available for residential development. If the land adjacent to the harbour basin is elevated


14

and contoured using the spoil from the harbour so that all lots have views, then land valueswill increase dramatically. Table 2 indicates the type of land sales opportunities that could beavailable.

Area (ha) Average elevation (m above NS)

No of lots /ha Total lots Net price/lot Net return

30 5 14 420 $120,000 $50,400,00025 6 14 350 $150,000 $52,500,00020 8 14 280 $180,000 $50,400,00020 0 14 280 $100,000 $28,000,000

Table 2 Residential Land Returns

The relatively high values placed on the land are primarily because of the elevation andresultant views. Recent land sales in Broome indicate that such blocks are sought after. Theonly economic way to elevate the land is with the spoil from the harbour basin. This alsodeals with the problem of disposing of the spoil.

It should be remembered however, that there is other land available for residentialdevelopment in Broome, and the market is limited. As no detailed market assessment hasbeen made at this stage, there is no certainty that this amount of land can be sold, or that thereturns shown are realistic. However, there are other developments of a similar size sellingin Broome at present.

As a rule of thumb, a harbour requires land area about the same as the water basin area. Tenhectares of land leased for a range of commercial leases such as tourist recreational andmarine industrial could generate in the order of $0.75M/yr.

The total Stage 1 pen costs for commercial, charter and recreation pens are some $6.4M. The240 or so pens in Stage 1 could be expected to generate about $750,000 when fully utilised.Pen construction can be spread over a number of years, but in ideal circumstances capitalcosts can be recovered in about 10 years of pen occupation.

DPI charges fees for a number of sundry services in its boat harbours, such as wharf usagefees and fuel levies. At Broome, a fee for using the harbour lock could also be applied.These sundry charges can generate a reasonable income in a busy harbour, but may notcover the cost of recovery in small facilities. The proposed Broome harbour will be largeenough to require a full time manager, and should recover operating costs.

The capital cost of the first stage of a harbour at Riddell Point is about $54 M. Operatingcosts will be high, particularly given Broome’s isolation, the need for a lock, the risk ofcyclone damage and so forth.

Although the Riddell Point option offers the lowest capital cost and greatest opportunity forcost recovery, it is still unlikely to generate enough income to cover all capital and operating


15

costs. A scenario could be constructed whereby some $50 M is generated from sales ofresidential land, but this would depend on 20 to 30 ha of land being made available at nocost to the development, and this land being sold at premium rates and in a short time. Itwould also require rapid takeup of about 10 ha of commercial and industrial land in theharbour precinct with all income going towards harbour operation.

Capital costsStage 1 Development costs -$54,000,000Residential land sales (say 25 ha) +$52,500,000Resort land sale (say 2 ha) +$1,500,000

Total capital $0

Annual cash flowsLand lease +$750,000/yrPens lease +$750,000/yrSundry incomes (est) +$250,000/yrLess operating cost (est) -$400,000/yr

Net annual income +$1,350,000/yr

Realistically, it would be highly unlikely that these income levels could be achieved. Thereis no guarantee that the land can be made available at no cost, particularly given the situationwith native title claims, and no guarantee that the land can be sold in a reasonable time andat the values quoted, and the time cost of money will be high. However, there is clearly anopportunity for some level of cost recovery, and a detailed market analysis and cash flowanalysis should be undertaken.

4.8 FINANCING OPTIONS

From the foregoing discussion, it is possible that a boat harbour at Broome could generatesome income which could be used to offset capital and operating costs providing land isavailable for development at zero acquisition cost. Realistically however, it is a high riskproposal, and incomes are unlikely to cover the total capital expenditure. This will not attractprivate development as a complete project. Parts of the development, such as associatedresidential subdivisions, may be attractive to private enterprise. However, the profit is in thedetail, and superlot sales to private developers is only likely to return in the order of$500,000 to $750,000/ha, or about $10 m to $15m for 20 ha. This is significantly less returnto Government than could be made by lot development.

The Exmouth Boat Harbour can be considered a realistic comparison. The State was neverable to attract a private developer to develop the harbour with associated land development.Even with the first stage of the harbour completed, the State still intends to expend some$15M on additional infrastructure to attract a developer.


16

Recent private harbour developments in WA at Mindarie and at Busselton have beenunsuccessful for the initial developer. In both cases, the initial developer failed financially.They have generally underestimated the capital expenditure and over estimated the rate ofreturn from lot sales. Subsequently, they have had serious cash flow difficulties.

Realistically, any harbour at Broome will require a significant injection of capital funding bythe State. However, development by the State also provides the best opportunity to maximiseincome.


17

5 INVESTIGATION EXPENDITURE

Expenditure to date (less GST) on the current investigation is as outline in Table 2 below.

Item (Provider) Cost

Proposed Marina Development in Broome: A Feasibility Study(Market Equity)

$19,705.00

Demand for Wet Pen Storage in Broome (Market Equity) $6,190.00

Broome Boat Harbour Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment(Soil and Rock Engineering)

$5,000.00

Report on an Ethnographic Study of Proposed Broome BoatHarbour Sites and Adjacent Land(R O’Connor)

$2,050.00

Report on Preliminary Archaeological Investigation ofAboriginal Sites, Broome Boat Harbours and Adjacent Land(Quatermaine Consultants)

$2,050.00

Preliminary assessment of extreme water levels and preliminarydesign wave heights for locations around Broome.(MP Rogers and Associates)

$2,667.50

Compilations of survey data(Bebbington Cartographics) $1,772.50

Sundry internal expenses (Photography, drafting, etc) $4,073.00

Town planning assistance (Taylor Burrell) $1170.00

TOTAL $44,678.00

Table 3 Broome Boat Harbour Investigations - Expenditure to May 2002

Table 3 includes some direct expenditure by DPI, but does not include internal costs such assalaries etc. Internal costs for other organisations have also been excluded.


18

6 COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

As discussed in Section 1.3 above, the primary terms of reference for this study are:

(a) to determine possible boat harbour sites at Broome to serve Broome and theKimberley;

(b) to prepare conceptual plans and costings for each of the possible sites;

(c) to determine commercial opportunities for involvement of the private sector in theboat harbour;

(d) to assess the costs of identified sites and examine financing options;

(e) to provide a report to the Hon Minister for Transport (now Minister for Planning andInfrastructure) on the location, costs, financing options and delivery mechanisms fora possible boat harbour at Broome.

A number of possible sites have been identified, and concepts and costings have beenprepared for each site.

Commercial opportunities for the involvement of the private sector have been consideredand preliminary cost benefits evaluated. The preliminary net cost of the preferred site hasbeen assessed, and public sector financing appears to be the most realistic option.

Funding limitations prevented a complete assessment of commercial opportunities andfinancing option, and a detailed analysis is required.

The Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee has nominated an inland harbour at RiddellPoint as the preferred site. The concept satisfies the first three requirements outlined in theTerms of Reference in Section 1.3, ie:

• the new boat harbour provides for safe and efficient operation of small vessels in theregion;

• the boat harbour takes into account the needs and aspirations of the local communityincluding integration with the existing urban fabric and the viability of localinfrastructure and industry;

• the boat harbour facilitates the growth of industry including tourism and maritimeindustries;

The public consultation and approval process will determine if the fourth requirement can besatisfied ie:

• the boat harbour takes into account relevant heritage and environmental issues and nativetitle concerns.


19

7 FURTHER WORKS

Although the BBHSC has endorsed Option 4B at Riddell Point as the preferred option, thereis still considerable work to be done to confirm that a harbour at this site is feasible andacceptable to the community.

7.1 CHANNEL STABILITY

The Riddell Point concept includes an access channel through the inshore shallows. It hasbeen assumed that there is very little bed sediment along this shoreline, and that there are nosignificant longshore currents. If this is the case, then with little sediment available and littlecurrent to move it, siltation of the entrance channel will not be a major problem.

For Option 2 in Roebuck Bay, on the other hand, it has been assumed that there is a largeamount of bed sediment in the area, and that significant longshore tidal currents do exist. Inthis case, it is expected that these currents will mobilise the bed sediments, and that anychannel across the shallows will silt rapidly. To overcome this, the design is based onbuilding the harbour basin and protecting breakwaters out to the required water depth, so anentrance channel is not required.

These assumptions are based on observation, discussion with the local community andwithin the coastal engineering community, some limited current measurement, advice on thenature of the bed sediments and some pile driving records.

Before the Riddell Point concept is progressed any further, the channel stability should beconfirmed. At the same time, the assumptions regarding bed stability in Roebuck Bay shouldalso be investigated. This investigation would involve the measurement of the size anddirection of tidal currents over a full tide cycle and extensive sampling and analysis of bedmaterial. It may be possible to install sediment traps to confirm the theoretical results.

If there is sediment moving off of Riddell Point, this could have cost implications in eithermaintenance dredging or construction of sediment barriers.

If there is no sediment movement in Roebuck Bay, this could allow alternative harbourdesigns that rely on long channels. This in turn could reduce the cost of a harbour inRoebuck Bay. If there is no sediment movement in Roebuck Bay but there is significantmovement offshore at Riddell Point, then it is possible that the difference in cost between thetwo options would be greatly reduced, possibly to a level where a Roebuck Bay option couldbe considered.

The cost of this study is expected to be in the order of $40,000 to $50,000.


20

7.2 NATIVE TITLE AND ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

Clearly matters of native title and aboriginal heritage are of major importance, and have thepotential to stop any harbour development in Broome. This is highlighted in the letter fromthe Kimberley Land Council where they state that, in their opinion, “…it is likely that noneof the options will be acceptable to traditional owners or capable of being reconciled withtheir native title and heritage interests.”

Before any harbour can be progressed, then the issues of native title and Aboriginal heritagemust be resolved. To this end, discussions with the relevant parties should be started as soonas possible.

Although the letter from KLC does state that none of the sites are likely to be acceptable,this needs to be tested, and further discussions to permit consideration of details is required.

7.3 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

There has been consultation throughout the site selection process with both potentialstakeholders and with the community through the Shire and the community members on theBBHCRG. However, there has been no presentation to the wider community, and no attemptto gauge their reaction to the preferred site. Furthermore, within the BBHCRG support forthe Riddell Point option is not unanimous, with the Environs Kimberley representativestrongly opposed to this proposal. However, it has always been intended to seek the viewsof the community through a public consultation process when there were some concreteproposals to consider. An understanding of the level of public support, or opposition, isnecessary before a decision can be made as to whether to proceed or not.

It is envisaged that a public consultation process would include a presentation of the workundertaken to date, outlining the sites considered, the shortlisting process, the strengths andweaknesses of the selected sites and the reasons for nominating the preferred site.

Some marine industrial land is necessary for a harbour and, with Options 2, 3 and 4b, thiswill be all or mostly within the port land, in an area already set aside for this use. However,the development of adjacent land for resort or residential use is mostly to reduce and tooffset the cost of the harbour. Although this type of development has not been considered inany detail, some broad concepts should be prepared, indicating the land that could beaffected. These should be used to canvas the public’s view on the development of adjacentland for residential and resort uses.

The Shire of Broome has offered to manage the public consultation process.

7.4 ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND FINANCING OPTIONS

As discussed above, there is the possibility of some recovery of both of operational andcapital costs through development of land for sale and lease. However, there has only been a


21

preliminary assessment of these markets to date, and this has been based on limitedinformation.

A complete assessment of the commercial opportunities, particularly in regard of landdevelopment, but including the market for the lease of commercial land in and around theharbour is essential before any further consideration can be given to financial options.

Given that any such assessment is site specific, it is preferable that it is deferred until afterthe entrance channel investigation is completed.

7.5 SUNDRY ITEMS

There are gaps in the available design information, and it will be necessary to collectconsiderably more information before the harbour can be designed in detail. Some of this,such as geotechnical investigations and groundwater studies are major, and expensive,efforts, and should not be undertaken until the site is confirmed. However, other informationis more generic, and can be collected at relatively little cost.

Over the next few years, DPI will deploy a waverider buoy to gather the necessary wavedata, and will undertake some surveying when the Department’s surveyors are in Broome.Consideration will be given to sponsoring some minor environmental investigation.

7.6 FUNDING

The following funds are required to progress the harbour investigation to a point where aharbour site can be either confirmed or discounted:

Sediment stability study $50,000Commercial and financial analysis $50,000Native title/ Aboriginal heritage negotiations $30,000Waverider deployment $10,000Sundry $10,000

Total $150,000


22

8 DISCUSSION

There are a number of compelling reasons for building a small boat harbour at Broome,including providing a base for the existing commercial fleet, encouraging the growth of lightmarine industry, encouraging growth in the marine based tourist industry and providingrecreational boat owners with the same opportunities as exist elsewhere. However, fromDPI’s point of view, the primary reason for building a harbour in Broome is to improvemarine safety in Western Australia by providing a safe haven for boats in the region.

The site investigation has progressed to a point where the BBHSC has endorsed Option 4Bfor an inland harbour at Riddell Point as the preferred option. An inland harbour at this siteoffers the most cost effective opportunity for a boat harbour at Broome which will meet theprimary requirement of providing a safe harbour for the Broome fleet.

Even though this is the BBHSC’s preferred site, further investigation into the entrancechannel stability is required to confirm that a harbour at this location is feasible. When thiswork is complete, the next step is to test the community acceptance of the proposal throughextensive consultation with the public and with Aboriginal interests in particular.

The entrance stability investigation should be undertaken before the public consultation orthe negotiations regarding native title and Aboriginal heritage issues begin. If the site provesto be unworkable, then these consultations and negotiations will have to be suspended untilthe alternative sites have been reconsidered. It could be argued that the investigation shouldfollow the consultations, for the same reason. However, the investigation will be a shorterprocess than the consultation, and will also provide valuable information on entrancestability in Roebuck Bay. This will be relevant if it is necessary to reassess the alternativesites.

The commercial analysis should be undertaken after the consultation, when there is someunderstanding of the acceptable level of ancillary development.

If the investigations or the consultative process eliminates the preferred site, then the mattershould be returned to the BBHSC for further consideration of one of the alternative sites.

When a site is agreed, it will be necessary to consolidate the land required for thedevelopment and to amend the Town Planning Scheme before the project can proceed.Although it may well be a number of years before a harbour is built, it would be prudent toreserve the land and amend the scheme as soon as possible.

The land required for the recommended option at Riddell Point is either controlled by theBroome Port Authority or the Shire of Broome, or is Unallocated Crown Land. The othertwo sites within the Port are under the control of the Port of Broome.

The following program is recommended;


23

1) DPI undertake an investigation into the stability of the entrance channels. This willcost in the order of $50,000 and is likely to take about three months;

2) if the investigation confirm that it is feasible to maintain an entrance channel,commence negotiations in regard of native title and Aboriginal heritage;

3) initiate a public consultation process at the same time to gauge the public’s views onthe preferred harbour site. The Shire of Broome should manage this process, withassistance from DPI;

4) if the investigations or consultations present insurmountable obstacles to thedevelopment of an inland harbour at Riddell Point, then reassess Options 2 and 3 usingthe information gleaned from the channel stability investigation and the consultationprocess, and repeat the consultation processes;

5) when an acceptable site is identified, undertake a commercial analysis and, take stepsto reserve the land for harbour purposed and initiate the required amendments to theTown Planning Scheme to allow the site to be used for a boat harbour.

The data collection and the analysis of the entrance stability can be completed in threemonths. If this confirms that a harbour at this location is feasible, then the publicconsultation can be completed in the next three months. Consultation in regard of native titleand Aboriginal heritage can be started at the same time, but is likely to take longer.

If the investigations show that the entrance instability is such that a harbour at Riddell Pointis not feasible, then the public consultation will be delayed by three months while Options 2and 3 are re-assessed and reconsidered by the committees.

If the public consultation or the Native title and Aboriginal heritage consultations revealinsurmountable opposition to the Riddell Point site, then there will be a delay of threemonths while Options 2 and 3 are reconsidered, and then the consultations will have to berepeated.


24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Environmental Protection Authority, 1987, Broome Coastal Management Plan,Environmental Protection Authority, Western Australia, Bulletin No 252.

Department of Land Administration, 2000, Waterbank Structure Plan 2000, Department ofLand Administration, Western Australia

Department of Planning and Urban Development, 1990, Cable Beach/ Riddell Point Broome– Development Concept Plan,

Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 2001, Broome Boat Harbour Predesign CostEstimates for Nominated Sites, Department for Planning and Infrastructure, WesternAustralia, Report No DPI 412.

Department of Transport. 1996, Boating Facilities Study for the Shire of Broome.Department of Transport, Western Australia, Report No 383/96

Department of Transport. 1997, Predictions of Demand for Mooring Pens for RecreationalPurposes in a Proposed Marina at Cape Peron on Mangles Bay, Department of Transport,Western Australia, Report No 388

Gordon Geological Consultants, 1984, A Report on Quarries in the Melligo SandstoneFormation Between Broome and Derby.

Gordon, F.R., 1964, Broome Jetty Foundation Investigation, Geological Survey of WesternAustralia, Report No 1964/26

Market Equity, 2000, Proposed Marina Development in Broome: a Feasibility Study, Reportprepared for the Department of Transport, Western Australia

Market Equity, 2001, Demand for Wet Pen Storage at Broome Marina. Report prepared forthe Department of Transport, Western Australia

O’Connor, R.O. 2001, Report on an Ethnographic Study of Proposed Broome Boat HarbourSites and Adjacent Land, Report prepared for the Department of Transport, WesternAustralia

Quatermain Consultants, 2001, Report on a Preliminary Archaeological Investigation ofAboriginal Sites Broome Boat Harbour Sites and Adjacent Land. Report prepared for theDepartment of Transport, Western Australia

Shire of Broome, Town Planning Scheme No 4, Shire of Broome, Western Australia


25

Standards Australia, 2001, Guidelines for the Design of Marinas AS3962-2001, StandardsAustralia International, New South Wales.

Soil and Rock Engineering, 2001, Broome Boat Harbour Geotechnical Assessment, Broome,Report prepared for the Department of Transport, Western Australia.

1

FIGURES

2

APPENDIX 1

BROOME BOAT HARBOURTECHNICAL GROUP REPORT

3

APPENDIX 2

BROOME BOAT HARBOURPRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION PLAN

4

APPENDIX 3

BROOME BOAT HARBOURPREDESIGN COST ESTIMATES

FOR NOMINATED SITES

5

APPENDIX 4

BROOME BOAT HARBOURREVIEW OF “FATAL FLAWS”

SUBMISSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

Page 1 of 4

BROOME BOAT HARBOUR

Preliminary Investigation Plan May 2001

1 Purpose

The purpose of the preliminary investigation is:

• to collect and collate the information required to make a comparison of the three sitesendorsed by the Steering Committee for further investigation;

• to prepare concept plans for the three sites;

• to prepare preliminary cost estimates for harbour facilities at the three sites based on theconcept plans and investigation results;

• define the further detailed investigations required for the preferred site.

It is anticipated that this preliminary investigation will provide sufficient information to allowthe Steering Committee to nominate a preferred site. This preferred site will be the subject ofdetailed design and investigation

2 Timetable

The preliminary investigation will be undertaken in accordance with the attached timetable.Based on this timetable, the preliminary investigation report will be available by 9 July 2001.

3 Investigations

The following areas will be the subject of the preliminary investigations;

3.1 Geotechnical

There are two major areas of geotechnical interest, the local geology and the sources ofarmour and core material.

a) Local Geology

Any boat harbour development will require an amount of excavation for a harbour basin andan entrance channel. Depending on the harbour location and size, this is likely to be partly onshore and partly offshore. An understanding of the material likely to be encountered isrequired.


Page 2 of 4

b) Armour and Core Sources

Breakwaters, revetment walls, training walls and the like are normally constructed with a coreof well graded material with a covering of armour rock for erosion protection. Thecharacteristics of the armour material, particularly its specific gravity and obtainable armourunit size are required before these structures can be designed and costed. It is also necessaryto know the distance of the material from the works, as cartage is a significant proportion ofoverall costs.

The preliminary investigation will identify sources of potential armour rock.

Soil and Rock Engineering have been engaged to undertake the Preliminary GeotechnicalAssessment. The objectives of this assessment are:

i) Ascertain the soil and rock conditions within the vicinity of the proposed boat harboursites;

ii) Identify sources of potential armour rock;

iii) Identify excavation techniques that could be considered for harbour construction;

iv) Identify the main issues which may have an impact on the suitability of the dredge fillmaterial being subsequently used for construction fill or other uses.

v) Identify pile types that could be considered to support harbour infrastructure;

vi) Provide a scope of work and costing for limited field investigations, laboratory testingand reporting for each of the three harbour sites.

vii) Provide a scope of work and costing for field reconnaissance of the sources ofpotential armour rock.

This preliminary assessment will comprise a desktop study only of the various sourcesincluding Geological Survey of WA libraries, various companies, State Government recordsand Shire records. Results will be presented in an engineering report.

3.2 Wave Climate

Detailed knowledge of the wave climate is required primarily for the design of thebreakwaters, but also for channel design and internal harbour layout. However, a full waveclimate analysis is expensive, and could require the deployment of a wave rider buoy for ayear or more to collect the basic wave information.

For this exercise, a preliminary design wave only will be determined using availableinformation and standard calculation methods. This will be sufficient to establish theapproximate armour size and breakwater levels. From this, approximations can be made ofcore and armour requirements, both in volume and characteristics.


Page 3 of 4

The preliminary wave climate investigation will consist of;

i) Review of available wave information for the area;

ii) The determination of preliminary wave heights based on fetch limited cyclonegenerated waves for a range of tide levels;

iii) Preparation of a detailed scope of works for a full wave climate investigation.

3.3 Tidal Regime and Storm Surge

Tide information for Broome is available for most of the period from 1982 to date. For thisexercise, the available information will be used to prepare extreme event analysis of bothmaximum storm surges and maximum water level. Transport holds this information and willundertake the analysis.

3.4 Land Contours and Bathymetry

Full level information for all sites is required for the estimation of excavation and breakwatervolumes. Transport will compile the available information into a single plan and determineany further survey requirements.

3.5 Boat Yield Study

Market Equity have undertaken a study to collect detailed information from commercial andrecreational boat owners to profile their needs for marine services in Broome.

This study needs to be extended to include a mooring demand study to determine the presentand predicted vessel types and sizes. This information is required to estimate the requiredmooring pen sizes and numbers. This is turn is required to determine the optimal basin sizeand depth. It can also be used to estimate construction staging.

3.6 Ethnographic, Archaeological and Native Title Issues

Suitably qualified and experienced consultants will be engaged to provide preliminaryinformation on these issues. At this preliminary investigation stage, full exploration of theseissues is not envisaged. It is sufficient to identify issues which have the potential to disqualifyany of the proposed site.

3.7 Land ownership

Transport will identify ownership and vestings of all lands that may be affected by the projectfor each of the site.


Page 4 of 4

3.8 Environmental Issues

At this stage it is intended to identify major environmental issues only. A full environmentalimpact assessment is beyond the scope of this preliminary investigation

3.9 Preliminary concepts

One or more preliminary concept plans will be prepared for each of the proposed site. Thesepreliminary concepts will be used primarily as the basin for cost estimates.

3.10 Costings

It is anticipated that the available information supplemented with the further informationcollected through this preliminary investigation will be sufficient to define a range of facilitiesand prepare preliminary cost estimates to within ± 30%.

4 Budget

The following cost summary relates to preliminary investigations required for site selection.

Geotechnical conditions at the proposed sites and locationof suitable armourstone sources; $5,000

Wave Climate $2,000

Tide Regime and Storm Surge (in house) $0

Land Contours and Bathymetry $1,000

Boat Yield Study $2,000

Ethnographic, Archaeological and Native Title Issues $10,000

Land Ownership (in house) $1,000

Environmental Issues (in house with DEP) $0

Preliminary Concepts (in house with contract draftsman) $1,500

Costings (in house) $0

Report {Preparation (in house) $0

Contingency 10% $2,500

Total $25 ,000

Broome Boat HarbourPredesign Cost Estimates

For Nominated Sites

Transport Report DPI 412August 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the recommendations of the Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee, Transportarranged further preliminary investigations of four possible sites for a small boat harbour atBroome and held preliminary discussion with a number of possible stakeholders, includingGovernment, industry and community representatives. Using this information, Transportdeveloped concepts for each site and prepared predesign cost estimates based on these concepts.At this stage, the concepts are for costing purposes only, and do not necessarily represent thefinal proposals for the sites.

Consideration has been given to staging of each of the proposals, and Stage 1 estimates havealso been prepared.

The four sites considered were:

Option 1 Dampier Creek

A tidally limited small boat harbour in Dampier Creek adjacent to the town centre. The facilitywill provide moorings for 95 small boats up to about 10 m and an operating base with mooringsfor up to 18 charter vessels up to 10 m. Access for these boats will be available approximately50% of the time. Boat launching and fuelling facilities are included.

Option 2 Roebuck Bay at the Port

This concept is for an offshore harbour protected by a breakwater and with a steady internalwater level. Access is via a lock system and can operate at all tides. The harbour will providecyclone protection for boats up to 40 m in length and moorings for boats to 35 m length. It willaccommodate over 300 recreational boats, 40 charter boats and 130 other commercial boats. Itwill be fully serviced and include provision for boat service operations and an operating base forthe charter industry.

Option 3 Entrance Point

The Entrance Point option is also for an all-tide offshore locked harbour and will provide thesame level of services and facilities as Option 2

Option 4 Riddell Point

Option 4 is for an inland basin with access via the shore to the south of Entrance Point. This alsoincludes a locked harbour basin and can operate at all tides. It will provide the same services andfacilities as Options 2 and 3, but presents more opportunities to develop adjacent land to offsetcapital costs.

Predesign cost estimates for the four concepts are:


Option 1 Dampier Creek $16.0 MOption 2 Roebuck Bay at the Port $117.0 M $105.0 MOption 3 Entrance Point $124.0 M $113.0 MOption 4 Riddell Point $78.0 M $54.0 M

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee and the Broome BoatHarbour Community Reference Group consider this report and determine if they wish tocontinue with the development of a small boat harbour for Broome. If so, they should nominatea preferred site for further consideration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................1

2 INVESTIGATION OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................3

2.1 BOATING DEMAND ...................................................................................................................................32.1.1 Recreational boats ...........................................................................................................................32.1.2 Charter Boats and Other Commercial Boats...................................................................................6

2.2 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................72.3 WAVE AND EXTREME EVENT ASSESSMENT..............................................................................................72.4 ETHNOGRAPHIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY......................................................................................72.5 TOPOGRAPHY AND BATHYMETRY ............................................................................................................82.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES .........................................................................................................................8

3 DESIGN CRITERIA AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS..................................................10

3.1 DESIGN BOAT AND DEPTH REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................103.2 FACILITIES AND SERVICES......................................................................................................................113.3 MAJOR CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................................12

4 COST ESTIMATION .................................................................................................................................16

5 STAGING.....................................................................................................................................................17

6 DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS .....................................................................................................................18

6.1 OPTION 1 – DAMPIER CREEK..................................................................................................................186.2 OPTION 2A AND 2B – ROEBUCK BAY SITE..............................................................................................206.3 OPTION 3 – ENTRANCE POINT ................................................................................................................226.4 OPTION 4 – RIDDELL POINT ...................................................................................................................22

7 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY...............................................................................................................24

8 FURTHER INVESTIGATION ..................................................................................................................26

9 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................27

Broome Boat HarbourPredesign Cost Estimates for Nominated Sites

1

1 INTRODUCTION

Following a preliminary site selection process undertaken by the Broome Boat Harbour SteeringCommittee (BBHSC) and the Broome Boat Harbour Community Reference Group (BBHCRG),Transport was asked to undertake a technical evaluation of the selected sites and prepare a shortlist of sites for further review. Transport held a technical workshop to assess the suggested sites.The technical group recommended that two sites for an all tide, commercial and recreationalfacility be considered for further investigation. These were (a) an inland basin at Riddell Pointand (b) an offshore basin in Roebuck Bay between the port and the golf course. The group alsorecommended that a site at Dampier Creek be considered for a tidally limited small craft facilityonly.

The BBHCRG endorsed the recommendation for further investigation of a tidally limited site atDampier creek, but did not accept the two sites recommended for an all tide harbour. Instead,they recommended a single site in Roebuck Bay adjacent to the Port jetty. The BBHSC agreedwith these recommendations, but also discussed the Broome Port Authority proposal for a site atEntrance Point.

The technical group also recommended that further investigations be undertaken to provide thebasic information required to enable proper evaluation of the suggested sites. This was endorsedby the BBHSC.

Transport engaged a number of consultants to undertake further investigations. Theseinvestigations were broad in scope, and the outcomes could be applied to any site in the generalarea of the port and up to Dampier Creek. It was therefore decided to include the Entrance Pointsite in the further investigations, as this site could be assessed with only a small extra effort.

During the week of 29 May 2001, Transport officers visited Broome and Darwin, and heldextensive preliminary discussions with a wide range of interested parties, including members ofthe two committees. It was clear there was some support for the Riddell Point site, and supportfor it being considered further. The Minister for the Kimberley has also queried the matter withthe Broome Shire Council.

According to the minutes of the committee meetings, the BBHCRG rejected the Riddell Pointsite because they considered that it was expensive to develop and because they hadenvironmental concerns about an inland basin. It appears that the BBHCRG did not appreciatethat an inland harbour would be likely to offer considerable cost savings over an offshoreharbour and that this was the reason the Riddell Point site was recommended for furtherinvestigation. Furthermore, an inland basin would have significantly less impact on theforeshore.

As concepts and cost estimates were developed it became apparent that the cost of constructingany offshore breakwater would be high, and that an inland basin could probably be constructedat considerably less cost. As the basic information required for the further assessment of theRiddell Point inland site was available, it was decided that it would be remiss not to include it inthe further assessment.

Preliminary proposals and predesign cost estimates have, therefore, been prepared for fourpossible sites:


2

Site 1 – Dampier Creek – tidally limited facility only

Site 2 – Roebuck Bay adjacent to the Port jetty (two layouts presented)

Site 3 – Entrance Point

Site 4 – Inland at Riddell Point

The concept plans presented are preliminary only, and show the extent of facilities that can beprovided. They have been prepared primarily to provide a basis for the preparation of thepredesign cost estimates, and the committee members should be aware that any final design islikely to vary considerably through the detailed consultation and design process.


3

2 INVESTIGATION OUTCOMES

A certain amount of preliminary information was required for the preparation of concepts andthe development of cost estimates. Some of the information was already available, but furtherworks were required to determine such things as present and future boating demand and designwave and water levels, and to collate available information such as survey and geotechnicaldata.

2.1 Boating DemandThe harbour should cater for the anticipated boating demand for at least the next 30 years.Therefore it is necessary to determine not only the latent demand (ie. the number of vesselswhich would use the harbour now), but also the projected usage in the thirty year planninghorizon. The number and size of vessels using the harbour is critical to the determination of thenecessary basin size and depth as well as the size and number of pens and ancillary facilitiesrequired.

Market Equity had already undertaken a feasibility study to determine the current likely demandamong boat owners. They were engaged to extend this study to encompass the present size andtype of vessels likely to use the harbour (ie charter, recreational or other commercial) and toestimate projected demands over the longer term, up to 30 years.

This information was reviewed by Transport and adjusted where necessary to provide thenecessary planning estimates. The analysis was undertaken on three types of vessels,recreational boats, charter boats and other commercial boats. In Broome, the other commercialboats are predominantly engaged in the pearling industry, but there are also some other fishingboats and work type boats. This type break up was chosen because it represents the three maindifferent types of harbour usage, and in the ideal world they operate best when they areproximate, but separate.

2.1.1 Recreational boats

At June 2001 there were 816 recreational boats registered in Broome and the immediatesurrounding area, 803 (98.4%) of which are under 8 m in length. This represents a boatownership ratio of about 64 boats/1000 people, or about twice the state average of 34 boats per100 people. Market Equity have estimated that for Broome the boat ownership ration willexpand to about 82 boats/ 1000 people, similar to other waterside areas such as Mandurah.

State wide, some 94.6% of boats are under 8 m. It is considered that the primary reason for thehigher percentage of smaller boats in Broome is the lack of safe mooring facilities.

With a few exceptions, all boats over 8 m require moorings. Boats under 8 m can be carried ontrailers, but state wide a certain percentage of these are moored. Overall in WA some 85.2% ofvessels are trailed, and the remaining 14.8% are kept at moorings.

This information has been used to determine the latent demand and future demand forrecreational pen mooring in Broome and the pens size distribution required. The process issummarised in Table 1.

The above estimates have been based on the existing boat ownership ratio of 64 boats/1000.Should this increase over the next 30 years to the 82 boats/1000 predicted by Market Equity, the

Boa

t len

gth

0-8

m8-

10 m

10-1

2 m

12-1

5 m

15-1

8 m

18-2

0 m

20 +

tota

l

1To

tal W

A R

egis

tratio

n62

503

1659

1094

625

112

2724

6604

42

% d

istri

butio

n94

.64%

2.51

%1.

66%

0.95

%0.

17%

0.04

%0.

04%

100%

non-

moo

re3

Tota

l WA

moo

red

5629

962

0416

5910

9462

511

227

2466

044

4%

dis

tribu

tion

85.2

4%9.

39%

2.51

%1.

66%

0.95

%0.

17%

0.04

%0.

04%

100%

9745

5B

room

e ex

istin

g80

39

13

00

081

66

% d

istri

butio

n98

.41%

1.10

%0.

12%

0.37

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

100%

7B

room

e (2

)69

677

2014

81

00

816

8B

room

e bo

ats

2006

829

9124

169

20

097

39

Bro

ome

boat

s 20

1611

3012

533

2213

21

013

2610

Bro

ome

boat

s 20

3117

2919

151

3419

31

120

28

11B

room

e m

oore

d 20

0177

2014

81

00

120

12B

room

e m

oore

d 20

0691

2416

92

00

144

13B

room

e m

oore

d 20

1612

533

2213

21

019

614

Bro

ome

moo

red

2031

191

5134

193

11

299

15%

dis

tribu

tion

63.6

6%17

.02%

11.2

3%6.

41%

1.15

%0.

28%

0.25

%16

Rou

nded

dis

tribu

tion

190

5035

204

42

305

Tabl

e 1

B

room

e - R

ecre

atio

nal B

oat M

oorin

g di

strib

utio

n to

203

1

Line

s 1

&2

show

the

size

dis

tribu

tion

of re

crea

tiona

l boa

ts in

WA

and

the

perc

enta

ge d

istri

butio

n;Li

nes

3 &

4 sh

ow th

e st

orag

e di

strib

utio

n of

boa

ts in

WA

and

the

perc

enta

ge d

istri

butio

n. A

bout

974

5 bo

ats

are

norm

ally

moo

red,

us

ually

in p

ens

or o

n sw

ing

moo

rings

;Li

nes

5 &

6sh

ow th

e si

ze d

istri

butio

n of

boa

ts c

urre

ntly

in B

room

e, w

ith th

e pe

rcen

tage

dis

tribu

tion;

Line

7sh

ows

the

expe

cted

boa

t ow

ners

hip

dist

ribut

ion

in B

room

e ba

sed

on th

e st

ate

aver

age

(line

s 1

& 2)

;Li

nes

8, 9

&1

Sh

ow th

e an

ticip

ated

boa

t ow

ners

hip

dist

ribut

ion

in th

e ye

ars

2006

, 201

6 an

d 20

31 (5

, 15

and

30 y

ears

) res

pect

ivel

y.Li

nes

11 to

1 show

the

dist

ribut

ion

of b

oats

whi

ch a

re e

xpec

ted

to re

quire

pen

s in

Bro

ome

over

the

next

30

year

s.

Line

15

show

s th

e %

dis

tribu

tion

of m

oorin

g de

man

d, a

nd is

the

basi

s fo

r the

pen

siz

e di

strib

utio

n.Li

ne 1

6Sh

ows

roun

ded

dist

ribut

ion

of 2

031

boat

siz

es

moo

red


5


6

total boats in Broome by 2031 will be about 2600, with about 380 requiring pens. However,given the large number of uncertainties in this estimation process, it was decided to base thebasin size on the 64 boats/1000 ratio. Even if the ratio does go to 82 boats/1000, the harbourwill still not reach recreational capacity for about 25 years.

It is recognised that this estimation process cannot be exact, and that in particular it is verydifficult to estimate the number of larger boats expected in the future. For example, while thenumber of boats under 10 m has been growing by about 7% per year in recent years, the numberover 15 m has been growing by about 17%.

For this exercise, the final boat distribution by 2031 has been rounded to the numbers given inLine 16 of Table 1.

2.1.2 Charter Boats and Other Commercial BoatsMarket Equity has estimated that currently 89 commercial boats (including charter boats) wouldrequire pens, and that this would grow by 2.5% per year, giving a total of about 180 by 2031. Itwas noted that not all these pens would be occupied all of the time.

There are currently 29 surveyed passenger vessels (charter boats) surveyed in Broome. Of these,22 are over 7 m. For this exercise, it has been assumed that all the charter boats over 7 m woulduse the harbour. The same growth rate of 2.5%/year has been used to give a total number ofcharter boats of about 40 by 2031.

It is desirable to keep the charter boats separate from the other commercial boats. The charterboats are working in a tourist related industry which benefits from presenting a certain image,whereas most other types of commercial boat mooring areas are more industrial. Simplistically,the charter industry benefits from having the ambience of a working fishing harbour nearby, butnot too close. For this reason, the charter boat moorings have been separated from those of othercommercial boats.

Table 2 shows the boat size distributions for charter and other commercial boats over the 30year planning period.

Boat length 0-8 m 8-10 m 10-12 m 12-15 m 15-18 m 18-20 m 20 + Total

Charter Boats2001 6 7 3 1 2 1 2 222031 10 13 6 2 4 2 3 40

Other Commercial Boats2001 7 30 9 4 3 3 11 672031 17 63 19 8 6 5 23 141

Total Commercial Boats2001 13 37 12 5 5 4 13 892031 27 76 25 10 10 7 26 181

Table 2 Charter and Other Commercial Boats – Predicted Number and Distribution


7

This information is sufficient for preliminary planning purposes, but more detailed discussionswith the various industries and regulation bodies will be required to refine theseestimations before construction.

2.2 Geotechnical AssessmentSoil and Rock Engineering were engaged to undertake a preliminary assessment of soil and rockconditions in the general area of Broome, with particular reference to the selected sites, and toidentify potential armour rock sources. They also identified possible excavation techniques, themain issues which would affect the suitability of dredge material for use as fill, pile types forharbour infrastructure and provided scopes of works for further field investigations andreconnaissance of sources of potential armour rock.

This assessment was a desktop study, intended to provide sufficient information for thispreliminary costing exercise.

2.3 Wave and Extreme Event AssessmentMP Rogers and Associates provided a preliminary assessment of the extreme event water levelsfor Broome, and preliminary design wave heights for several locations around the Broomecoastline. Their brief report is attached as Appendix 1.

2.4 Ethnographic and Archaeological StudyRory O’Connor provided a preliminary ethnographic assessment of the foreshore areas aroundBroome. Quatermaine Consultants undertook a preliminary archaeological investigation ofaboriginal sites in the same area.

The WA Maritime Museum provided verbal advice on offshore sites of interest to them in thevicinity of the proposed harbour sites. The known wrecks that may be affected are offshore fromDampier Creek. These would only be affected if an entrance channel were excavated to the RL–5 mCD contour.

O’Connor notes a number of sites of Aboriginal significance in the vicinity of Broome.However, only a few of these are likely to be affected by any harbour development.Quatermaine identified four archaeological sites in the vicinity of the port, but noted that nonewere known at the Dampier Creek or the Roebuck Bay site adjacent to the port jetty site.

Dampier Creek Site

No known archaeological sites.

Roebuck Bay Site

Neither O’Connor or Quatermaine identify any specific sites of significance at this location.However, O’Connor does note that the walangwalang song cycle extends along the dunes thatflank the shore between the jetty and the meatworks. Presumably, this relates to the dune systemnorth of the proposed harbour site, but this will need to be confirmed.


8

Entrance Point Site

Sites K0662 and K2332 registered on the Aboriginal Site Register are at Entrance Point. K0662is a midden and artefacts site of no known mythological significance. However, there appears tobe some confusion as to exactly why K2332 is significant. In earlier studies it was described asnot having mythological significance, but as being purely of archaeological interest. However, itappears that more recently it has acquired mythological significance, although this could be as aresult of confusion with a site at Gantheaume Point. This matter will need to be clarified.

Although, as mentioned above, the entire foreshore dune system does have significance, it is notclear if this significance extends to Entrance Point, in the absence of a dune in this area.

Riddell Point Site

Two sites, K2330 and K2331 are close to the proposed harbour site. There is some confusion asto the exact location of these sites, but none of the locations given will be affected by theharbour development.

O’Connor notes that the dunal system between Gantheaume Point and Entrance Point is part ofa mythological song cycle. He goes on to state that disturbance of this dune system wouldprobably be met with opposition from the aboriginal community.

2.5 Topography and BathymetryTransport has collated the available topographic and bathymetric information and prepared asingle plan incorporating all available information. Although the land areas are well covered,there are gaps in the bathymetric record, particularly offshore of the beach north of EntrancePoint and upstream in Dampier Creek, particularly past about Streeters Jetty. Seabed contoursfor these areas were estimated from adjacent contours.

2.6 Environmental Issues

The Department of Environmental Protection has undertaken a preliminary investigation intothe four sites. This investigation was carried out without the concept plans, and relates to thegeneral sites. A copy of the DEP comment is attached at Appendix 2.

The DEP considers that the two sites at the Port are likely to have the least environmentalimpact, although they note the possible impacts of the breakwaters on the coastal processes andthe need to consider the environmental consequences of sourcing the rock for the breakwaterconstruction.

The major consideration with the Dampier Creek site is the proximity of the Ramsar wetlands.However, the proposed site is some 1.5 km west of the western most extent of the Ramsarwetlands, and it is likely that any impacts would be minor and could be managed.


9

The Riddell Point site raises the most questions, and would need considerable furtherinvestigations. Particular issues identified by the DEP include Aboriginal cultural issues, impacton the proposed coastal park, impact on local hydrology and basin water quality. As notedabove, however, this investigation was undertaken without the benefit of the concept plans,which show the proposed harbour basin located on Port land behind the coastal dune, andwithout external breakwaters.

The basin water quality would also be an issue with the two Port sites, as these are both lockedharbours.


10

3 DESIGN CRITERIA AND INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

Ideally, the Broome Boat Harbour should be an all tide cyclone haven which will service thecharter, fishing, industrial and recreational fleets in the region and which will have sufficientcapacity to service these fleets in total for at least the next thirty years.

At the request of the BBHCRG, a low key, tidally limited site at Dampier Creek has also beeninvestigated.

3.1 Design Boat and Depth Requirements

The first thing to establish before preparing a harbour layout is the design boat size. Thisinfluences water depth, fairway and channel widths, jetty manoeuvring areas, maximum pensizes etc.

Following discussion with potential users, and after visiting existing facilities in Darwin, amaximum design boat length of 35 m was selected. Although there are few recreational boats ofthis length in WA, there are currently seven commercial vessels between 25 and 35 m in lengthsurveyed in Broome. These are primarily in the pearling and charter industry. There are likely tobe more in this size range in the future.

Assuming all vessels over 25 m will be power boats, the minimum basin depth should be about3.5m to 4.0 m and the minimum access channel depth should be about 4.0 m to 4.5 m,depending on the wave climate and allowance for siltation. This is based on length vs draftstatistics given in AS 3962 – 1991 Guidelines for the Design of Marinas .and includesappropriate allowances for underkeel clearance.

Ideally, access to the harbour should be available for all tide conditions and for all times.Practical constraints, such as the cost of excavating and maintaining entrance channels, maylimit this. For Broome, the Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) is RL –0.86 mCD. For all tideaccess for all boats up to 35 m, and assuming a design wave of 2.0 m and a hard sea bed, thechannel bed should be at RL –5.36 mCD. Given that the tide is below RL 0 mCD less than 1%of the time, and given that a 2 m wave coincident with an extremely low spring tide is very rare,an entrance channel bed level of RL –4.5m CD is considered adequate. It should be recognisedthat, at this depth, the bottom portion of any entrance channel is likely to be in rock, and cost ofexcavation in the order of $80/m3 can be expected.

Moorings must be designed to ensure that vessels are secure in cyclonic conditions in a high tidewith some level of storm surge. The preliminary assessment by Rogers gives a 100 yr RI stillwater level of RL +9.9 mCD. For an all tide basin, this gives a total pile length from bed level tomooring point of about 15 m. This will require pile clusters at least for the larger boats andcould be expected to cost in the order of $150,000 per boat.

In addition to the difficulty of mooring, any full tidal range harbour at Broome will be difficultto operate, and will not be attractive. This will increase operating cost and reduce income.Furthermore, any basin excavation to RL –4.5 mCD would almost certainly be into rock.Whereas this is not a major problem if the basin can be excavated in the dry, it will involve amajor cost penalty if it involves underwater excavation. Assuming a 10 ha basin area, andunderwater excavation costs of $80/ m3, it will cost $8,000,000 for every metre excavated intorock. In the dry, costs of $800,000 per m per 10 ha would be expected.


11

Taking these factors into consideration, and after inspecting the facilities in Darwin, it wasdecided that for this exercise the design should be based on a locked harbour.

It was assumed that the water level in a locked harbour would be kept at RL +7.5 mCD andentry would be through a lock capable of managing up to 40 m boats.

In summary:

• Entrance channel bed level RL -4.5 mCD• Harbour basin water level RL +7.5 mCD• Harbour basin bed level Variable down to RL +3.5 mCD minimum level

3.2 Facilities and Services

A boat harbour can provide a range of services and facilities. Based on discussions withpotential user groups, available information and recent investigations, particularly the mooringdemand analysis, it was considered that a boat harbour at Broome should ideally include thefollowing facilities and services:

• Protected water of sufficient area to cope with the anticipated demand over thirty years(approximately 10 ha);

• Cyclone protection;• 300 recreational boat pens;• 140 commercial boat pens (fishing, pearling etc);• 40 charter boat pens;• Emergency cyclone moorings for additional boats;• Service jetty (between 100 and 200m length);• Fuel jetty and sale point;• Public toilets (including showers);• Multi lane boat launching with finger jetties and parking;• Slipway/ boat lifter (to be built and operated by others);• Car parking (minimum 300 bays for pen service plus commercial demand as required);• Developable land for:

- boat yard;- marine commercial;- charter operation;- boat club;- tourism recreational- sea search and rescue

• Full services including power, water, sewerage, phone, roads, drainage, street lighting.

Private operators can provide and operate some of these facilities, for example slipways andboat service yards, but appropriate land areas and waterfront access should be reserved in theconcept plans. Other facilities, such as pens and service jetties, can be built in stages to meetdeveloping demand.

As a rule of thumb, land area dedicated to harbour use should be about the same as the basinwater area. This rule has been considered in this exercise, although without detailing the


12

particular land uses for all the area. Other uses, such as residential or resort type development,can also work well with harbours. In addition, they are often the only source of additional fundsto offset capital development costs. However, the inclusion of such peripheral developmentrequires a significant level of further analysis and community consultation, and has not beenconsidered at this stage, other than as opportunities.

3.3 Major Constraints

Essentially, Broome is a very difficult area to build a small boat harbour. The major problemsare the large tide range and cyclonic conditions, but other factors such as the rock substrate, thewide tidal shallows, the longshore tidal currents and the limited availability of armourstone alsohave an effect.

a) Large tide range

The 9 m tidal range at Broome affects a number of factors, including harbour operation, vesselmooring, harbour aesthetics, design wave height and breakwater size.

For the pens and jetties to be useable, either

• pens and jetties must operate over a 9 m plus tidal range;• the tide range must be limited by a sill, which in turn limits the time the harbour is

accessible, or• the harbour must be locked.

The shallows offshore from Broome, particularly the Pearl Shoals, limit the design wave heightinshore at low tides. However, they have much less effect at high tides. The eastern shoreline ofthe Broome peninsular is more protected than the south west shoreline down to Entrance Point.Thus, while a significant wave height of some 2.5 m can be expected between the port andDampier Creek, from the jetty south and around Entrance Point, a significant wave height ofaround 4.5 m can be expected. This in turn affects the size of armour required on a breakwater.For example, for the rock from the Nillabubbaca quarry, and using a 1:1.5 breakwater sideslope,a 2.5 m wave would require armourstone of about 4 tonne, and a 4.5 m wave would require a 20tonne armourstone.

This large armour is not available in any quantity and at reasonable cost. One way to deal withthis is to change the slope of the breakwater from the 1:1.5 used in this example to say, 1:3. Thiswill reduce the 20 tonne rocks to about 10 tonne, but increase the volume of core and armourrequired. Other options, such as importing denser rock by barge from Cockatoo or KoolanIslands, could be considered.

For the purpose of this exercise, a flatter breakwater slope has been assumed. Detailedinvestigations would look at the other alternatives.

The high tide range also affects the overall height of the breakwater and hence the volume ofmaterial required for construction. For example, for a standard breakwater with 1:1.5 sideslopesand a 2.4m design wave:


13

Breakwater toe level RL 0.0 mCD RL -5.0 mCD100 yr RI SWL RL +9.9 mCDAllowance for half wave height 1.2 mAllowance for wave runnup 2.0 m=> total breakwater height 13.1 m 18.1 mcore m3/m run 310 m3/m 570 m3/mCore cost @ $62/m3 $19,220/m $35,340/mArmour m3/m run 110 m3/m 150 m3/mArmour cost at $59/m3 $6,490/m $8,850/mBreakwater cost/m $25,710/m $44,190/m

(note ; core cost is higher because the placed density of core is higher than that of armour)

If a tidal harbour is considered, rather than a locked basin, then the bed level of the harbour willneed to be at about RL -3.5 mCD to allow all tide access. This will require excavation of some 7or 8 m of additional material, probably in rock, regardless of the location. For a 10 ha basin(100,000 m2), this will be up to 800,000 m3 of additional excavation. Even if the excavation is inthe dry, costs in the order of up to $6.4 M can be expected. When this is added to the additionalcost of moorings and the difficulty of operating a harbour in this tide range, the capital cost of alock is not unreasonable.

b) Cyclonic conditions

The high wind speeds associated with cyclonic conditions result in a need for substantialmoorings, even in a minimum depth of water. In a full tide range harbour, with a bed at 3.5 mbelow low water, the overall pile length above the bed level would need to be in the order of 15m to moor a vessel at high tide. The loads on a pile in this circumstance would be of the order often times the load on the pile for the same vessel at low tide, or in a harbour with a controlledwater level.

c) Rock substrate

The geology of the Broome Port and Township is characterised by red pindan sands between 2mand 6m thick overlying a 1m layer of laterised cobbles. This in turn overlays the Broomesandstone, which varies in strength up to 27 MPa.

Essentially, this will affect the cost of excavation of any harbour basin or channel. The order ofcosts expected are:

Dry excavation of pindan sand $3 - $4/m3

Dredging of coastal sediments $4/m3

Dry excavation of rock $8 - $10/m3

Underwater excavation of rock $80/m3

These costs assume that the excavated material will be placed adjacent to the excavation.

Of particular concern is the cost of underwater excavation, where costs for drill and blast andexcavation in the order of $80/m3 can be expected.


14

d) Wide, shallow tidal flats

The wide, shallow tidal areas around Broome will require a dredged channel of some type. Thecost is obviously dependent on the length of the channel and the bed level. For example, achannel to RL -4.5 mCD to access the Dampier Creek site would require a channel some 4.5 kmlong. At only 40 m wide, this will require dredging of about 1.5 million cubic metres.

If the material were sand or clay, the cost would be in the order of $6M. This will escalaterapidly if rock is encountered.

e) Longshore currents

Maintenance is expected to be the major problem with channels across the flats anywherebetween the jetty and Dampier Creek. High tidal currents are known to exist and are likely tomobilise bed sediments and cause rapid siltation of any channel. It is unlikely that a navigablechannel could be maintained across these flats without a constant and costly maintenancedredging program.

The alternative is to construct training walls either side of the channel but, as discussedpreviously, the cost will be high. Even if the walls are designed to be overtopped, a certainminimum height is required so they can be constructed. A pair of training walls 3.5 km long andto a maximum level of RL +6 mCD are likely to cost in the order of $14 M. 3.5 km is theapproximate distance from Streeters Jetty to the RL –4.5 mCD contour.

Having said this, the actual stability of the bed sediments has not been investigated, and is anarea that should be investigated further if long channels are to be considered.

Channels between Entrance Point and Gantheaume Point are not likely to be as badly affected,as there appears to be little bed sediment in this area. However, this also needs to be confirmedby further investigation.

f) Armour rock sources

The only source of rock for armourstone identified at present is the Nillabubbacca quarry some100 km out of Broome. Although other armour sources may exist, they are likely to be at leastthis distance. The Nillabubbacca quarry can probably only produce limited volumes ofarmourstone over about 5 tonnes. Indicative costs for supply, delivery and placement are $36/tfor core, $41/t for small armour and $56/t for large armour. In placed cubic metres, on which thecost estimations have been based, this equates to $62/m3 for core, $59/m3 for small armour and$81/m3 for large armour. The voids ratio of placed core (0.25) is lower than that of placedarmour (0.37), thus core is more expensive by placed volume than small armour.

The rock from these sources ranges from about 2.1 t/m3 to 2.4 t/m3. For this exercise, an averagematerial density of 2.3 t/m3 has been assumed.

The low density and limited quantity of large armour will limit the design options for anybreakwaters, particularly where they are exposed to large waves, such as in Option 3 at EntrancePoint.


15

As mentioned previously, the cost and feasibility of sourcing armour from the mine sites atCockatoo or Koolan Islands can be investigated. The rock at these sites is a higher density, andmay be more suitable for a breakwater in Broome. Using the example in para 3.3 (a) above, ifarmour of even 2.7 t/m3 can be sourced, this would reduce the requirement for 20 tonne armourstones to about 10 tonne stones.

There is a possibility that some of the smaller armour or core could be sourced from the actualsite excavation, but more geotechnical investigation is required to confirm this.

g) Summary

In summary, to contain the costs of the proposed harbour, it is necessary to minimise:

• Breakwater lengths;• Entrance channel lengths;• Rock excavation, particularly underwater; and• Water depths in the basin.


16

4 COST ESTIMATION

The concepts presented have been prepared primarily as a basis for development of costestimates. The facilities and services outlined in Section 3 above have been incorporated in eachconcept to the extent possible given the individual site limitations. The harbour layoutspresented will function as harbours, but it should be expected that the normal consultation,design and approval processes will very likely produce different final concepts for the selectedsite.

Costings have been based on information from a range or sources, including recent previousworks, quotations from industry sources and standard cost estimation references.

Naturally, a number of assumptions have been made when developing the cost estimates. Forexample, the preliminary geotechnical assessment notes the presence of rock underlying most ofthe sites, but detailed site investigation is required to determine the exact levels, volumes andcharacteristics of the rock. At this stage, rock surface levels have been assumed, based on thelimited information available.

Although locked harbours are common around the world, none have been built in WA, and sono local costing information exists. The locks in Darwin are smaller than the one proposed forBroome, and operate in a lower tidal range, and so can only give a general guide to the lowerend of the construction costs. Verbal advice suggests that the Darwin locks cost in the order of$1.5 M to $4.5 M, depending on size and when they were built. There are also a number ofdifferent lock options available. In the absence of sufficient information for an accurateestimate, total construction cost for a lock of $10 M has been assumed, including investigation,design and documentation. As discussed above, this expenditure is still reasonable comparedwith the additional excavation and mooring costs for a tidal basin.

Cost estimates for the selected sites are given in Appendix 3.


17

5 STAGING

A certain proportion of the works can be built at a later stage. The harbour is required to caterfor some 500 boats in thirty years time, but the current demand is only for some 250 boats by2006. This allows for a significant reduction in pens, service wharf length, parking, services inthe first stage. Unfortunately, most major items such as breakwaters, channel excavation andlocks cannot be effectively staged, although it is feasible to stage the basin excavation for theinland harbour at Riddell Point.

Stage 1 cost estimates are given in Appendix 4.


18

6 DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS6.1 Option 1 – Dampier CreekThe option proposed for Dampier Creek is for a tidally limited basin providing moorings for 95recreational boats to 10 metres and an operating base with moorings for 18 small chartervessels, also to 10 metres. Public boat ramps are included.

Larger boats can be accommodated, but their access window is reduced. For the purpose of thisexercise, it has been assumed that the minimum water level in the basin will be RL 3.1 mCD.This will be maintained by a sill across the entrance. Boat drafts are as per AS 3962 – 1991Guidelines for the Design of Marinas and a total of 0.2 m has been allowed for underkeelclearance. The access times for a range of boats are given in Table 3. These access time arederived from the submergence curve for Broome (Figure 1).

Boat type Sill level(ChartDatum)

Draft Draft +0.2 Access WSL(ChartDatum)

% timeaccess

8m power 3.1 1.2 1.4 4.5 50%8m yacht 3.1 1.8 2.0 5.1 40.%10 m power 3.1 1.3 1.5 4.6 49%10 m yacht 3.1 2.1 2.3 5.4 35%25 m power 3.1 2.5 2.7 5.8 26%25 m yacht 3.1 3.0 3.2 6.3 20%Small trailer 3.1 0.5 0.7 3.7 65%

Table 3 – Dampier Creek Concept – Boat access times

It should be noted that for the deeper draft boats, access is limited to spring tides.

The basin bed level for this option is RL +0.6 mCD. This will cope with yachts up to 10 m.Greater depth is required if larger boats are to be included. Although Table 3 shows access timesfor a 25 m yacht, the basin will not have sufficient water depth at low tide to moor this size boat.

This option requires a channel excavated to RL +1.9 mCD. From the survey information, thischannel will need to extend down Dampier Creek to about opposite Streeters Jetty. Greaterdepths and a longer channel are required if boat sizes are increased.

The harbour as presented does not fulfil the basic requirement of providing save haven for theBroome fleet in the event of a cyclone. It will provide a safe haven for a limited number ofsmall craft.

As discussed in Section 3.3 above, significant additional costs are involved in extending anddeepening the channel, and maintaining the required navigable depth in a longer channel isexpected to be a major ongoing problem.


20

Deepening the basin, reducing the sill level and/or increasing the design boat size will increasethe costs of the moorings, make harbour operation more difficult and make the harbour lessattractive at low tides.

There is little opportunity for staged development of this concept as shown. There does appearto be a latent demand that will take up the full number of pens in this harbour, assuming noother harbour developments take place. However, it would be a simple matter to extend theharbour basin at a later stage if more mooring area is required.

Given its location, a harbour at this site could be easily integrated with the existing commercialand tourist centre of Broome, and could provide a centrepiece for associated land development.However, as it does not provide a safe haven for the entire Broome fleet, it may be a moreattractive proposition for private enterprise rather than Government.

In summary:

Advantages

• Close to the existing town centre;• Ample land may be available for development;• Harbour basin can be easily extended at a later date;• May be an attractive private enterprise development;• May be possible to recover capital costs from associated land development;• Few environmental problems.

Disadvantages

• Limited size of boats;• Tidal limited basin;• High mooring costs due to high tide range;• Proximity to town centre unsuitable for marine industrial development;• Cost of channel maintenance may be prohibitive;• Need to dispose of kaolin clays which are unsuitable for structural fill

6.2 Option 2a and 2b – Roebuck Bay SiteTwo conceptual layouts have been presented for the port jetty site. One is simply a mirror imageof the other. This is purely to demonstrate that a large number of options are possible. Costs forboth are similar, and only Option 2a has been costed in detail. Option 2a gives more directaccess to land which could be developed for industrial uses associated with the harbour, but putsthe tourist/recreational access through the industrial area. Option 2b positions thetourist/recreational areas on the outer edge of the port, and gives views north along theforeshore, but could restrict access to industrial land for industry users.

This site can provide all of the major services and facilities listed in Section 3.2. The majordrawback with this site is the cost of the breakwaters and the cost of underwater rock excavationfor the outer basin/ entrance channel..

The significant wave height on the southern breakwater is about 4.5 m. As discussed in Section3.3 above, it may not be possible to source sufficient armour of the appropriate size and density


21

to protect this part of the breakwater. However, for this exercise, a simplistic design, whichrequires about 12 tonne armour, has been adopted, and it has been assumed that adequatequantities of this will be available.

Normally, rubble mound breakwaters are permeable. Since this is a locked harbour, thebreakwaters must be sealed to maintain a constant water level in the basin. There are severalways in which this could be done, but for this exercise it has been assumed that a one metrewide trench will be excavated along the breakwater and down to bedrock, after the breakwatershave been constructed. This trench will be filled with bentonite to seal the harbour. Since thewater level outside of the basin will be higher than inside on occasion, a seal placed on theinside of the harbour may not be effective.

Further investigation is required to confirm that the harbour bed will be impermeable. If not, itmay be necessary to seal the basin floor.

Pens can be built in stages, as can the service wharf. However, it will be very difficult and costlyto extend the basin at a later stage.

Main features of these concepts are:

• The outer breakwaters extend to the RL -5 mCD contour and enclose an outer basin.This does away with the need for an unprotected entrance channel, which wouldrequire dredging maintenance.

• Breakwater crest level is RL +13 mCD. This provides all weather protection;• Bentonite sealing membrane in the breakwaters;• Land back to the existing port access road cut to about RL +12 mCD. This provides

developable land and some fill material;

Advantages

• Provides all the facilities and services outlined in Section 3.2 above• Provides sufficient land for harbour purposes• Integrates with existing port/ industrial uses;• No requirement to maintain entrance channels

Disadvantages

• High cost of breakwater construction;• Breakwater will require large quantities of large armour, which may not be readily

available;• Breakwaters and armour sources have a potential for adverse environmental impacts• Large amount of fill may need to be imported;• Difficult to guarantee a water tight basin;• Difficult to stage major cost items;• Proximity of the harbour to the port jetty may cause some boating congestion;• Limited opportunity for peripheral development (eg resort, residential)


22

6.3 Option 3 – Entrance Point

The Entrance Point option is based on the Port proposal for a harbour basin set behind abreakwater extended from the head of the existing port jetty. The Port proposes using the outerside of the breakwater for an extended berth.

The outer breakwater is exposed to a 4.5 m significant wave height. The simple 1:3 sideslopebreakwater using 12 tonne armour has also been adopted for this concept.

The proximity to the deep water channel adjacent limits the south east extent of this concept.This in turn limits the available basin area. Extensive earthworks will be required to createsufficient land area for harbour purposes. The existing port structures would have to beconsidered when designing these earthworks.

The concept shows a basin entrance to the south. This will be exposed to wave action, and abetter entrance location would be to the north east. However, this would be in the area where thePort would like to place its future berths.

As with the Roebuck Bay option, pens and the service wharf can be built in stages but it will bevery difficult and costly to extend the basin at a later stage.

Advantages

• Integrates with existing port/ industrial uses;• No requirement to maintain entrance channels;• Provides a basis for future berth extensions for the port

Disadvantages

• High cost of breakwater construction;• Limited land available for harbour purposes;• Limited land available for peripheral development;• Entry open to severe wave climate• Known archaeological sites will be disturbed• Breakwater will require large quantities of large armour, which may not be readily

available• Breakwaters and armour sources have a potential for adverse environmental impacts• Difficult to guarantee a water tight basin;• Difficult to stage major cost items;

6.4 Option 4 – Riddell PointThe concept presented for this site uses the same layout as the port jetty Option 2a. Althoughthis is not necessarily the best layout for this site, this approach has been used to show a clear“oranges with oranges” comparison between the two sites.

This option does not require breakwaters, and therefore does away with the need to sourcesuitable breakwater armour and core. However, it does generate a considerable amount of spoil,which will require disposal. This spoil could be used to elevate adjacent land, which will


23

enhance the value of the land for residential or similar development. The cost estimates assumethat spoil will be placed adjacent to the harbour.

The harbour will be below the surrounding land. The adjacent land elevation is generally aroundRL 15 mCD, and the expected harbour water surface level will be at about RL 7.5 mCD.Elevations of harbourside developments will require consideration.

Again, pens and service jetties can be staged. However, with this option it is also possible tostage the basin excavation. It is envisaged that the basin would be excavated “in the dry”. It ispossible to design a layout where only a part of the basin is excavated in the first instance, butwhere a second stage or even a second basin can be dry excavated at a later stage. This could bedone with the layout presented for Option 4 but, as stated earlier, this layout was used primarilyfor a direct comparison with Option 2.

The main features of this concept are:

• Inland harbour• Entrance channel to the south west• No external breakwaters

Advantages

• Provides all the facilities and services outlined in Section 3.2 above• Basin can be excavated in the dry, and so excavation costs are minimised;• Lock can be constructed in the dry;• Some of the structures, such as revetment walls, wharf, ramps etc, can be constructed in

the dry;• Major cost item of basin excavation can be staged;• Ample land available for harbour purposes;• Most of the development is within existing port land;• Proximate to existing industrial areas and port industry areas;• Land available for peripheral development which could offset capital costs;• Surplus fill available to elevate adjacent developable land.

Disadvantages

• Much of the entrance channel will require underwater excavation, probably in rock;• Approval to cut an entrance channel through the dune may be difficult to obtain;• Relatively low elevation of harbour basin compared with surrounding land;• Large amount of spoil requiring disposal


24

7 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

Cost estimates have been prepared for the four sites discussed. Detailed costings are given inAppendix 3 and Stage 1 costings are given Appendix 4..

Consideration has been given to staging the development. There is little opportunity to reducecosts by staging Option 1 (Dampier Creek) as this is already a minimal proposal that does notfully service even the anticipated market over the next five years.

For the two sites at the Port (Roebuck Bay and Entrance Point) some costs can be deferred bystaging the pen construction and limiting the length of the service jetty. Some 240 pens and 100m of service jetty are proposed for the first stage. Some associated costs, such as parking areasand services, can also be deferred.

The Riddell Point is more amenable to staging, as the basin can be excavated in two stages. Thefirst stage excavation would only need to be large enough for the 240 pens proposed for Stage 1.

A summary the services and facilities and the estimate cost of each of the four concepts,including staging costs, is given in Table 4.

Target requirement

Facility/ Service/ Cost Option 1 Dampier Creek

Stage 1 Total Full Stage 1 Full Stage 1

Design boat 35 m 10m 35m 35m 35m 35m 35m 35m

Recreational pens (Total) 300 95 140 314 140 314 140 314 0 - 10 m 242 10 - 15 m 53 15 - 20 m 7 20 - 25 m 0 25 - 35 m 0 Charter boat pens (total) 40 18 22 40 22 30 22 40 0 - 10 m 23 10 - 15 m 8 15 - 20 m 6 20 - 25 m 3 25 - 35 m 0 Other commercial pens (total) 140 0 30 130 30 126 80 130 0 - 10 m 80 10 - 15 m 27 15 - 20 m 11 20 - 25 m 13 25 - 35 m 10

Emergency cyclone mooring capacity no yes yes yes yes yes yes Service jetty - tide protected 200 m no 100m 200m 100m 200m 100m 200m Service jetty - tidal yes yes no yes no yes no yes Fuel outlet yes yes yes yes yes Boat ramps - tide protected 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 Boat ramps - tidal 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 Ramp finger jetty yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ramp parking (trailers) 80+ 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 Pen parking 300 60 150 300 150 300 150 300 Slipway/ boat lifter site yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes Public toilet yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Protected basin area as required 2.5 ha 10.7 ha 10.7 ha 10.6 ha 10.6 ha 5 ha 10.6 Land available for harbour infrastructure as required 13 ha 13 ha 9 ha 9 ha as required as required Land available for other devlopment extensive limited limited Nil Nil extensive extensive

Preliminary costs $2.0 M $4.1 M $4.2 M $2.9 M Stage 1 cost $105.0 M $113.0 M $54.0 M Total cost $16.5 M $117.0 M $124.0 M $78 M

Table 4 - Broome Boat Harbour - Summary of Facilities and Costs

Proposed facilites

Option 2a Port Jetty Option 3 Entrance Point Option 4 Riddell Point


26

8 FURTHER INVESTIGATION

Investigations to date have been sufficient to compile predesign cost estimates only. The nextstep is to select a preferred site for further detailed study. Further studies will include:

• detailed ground investigation;• wave climate and extreme event analysis;• site surveys, both on shore and offshore;• stability of coastal sediments;• detailed costing of a suitable locking system;• market analysis for harbour usage;• market analysis for land usage;• detailed conceptual planning;• land use planning;• environmental investigations;• community consultation;• resolution of native title and other indigenous issues.

Using this information, it will then be possible to prepare a concept plan for discussion andapproval. Preliminary designs can then be undertaken, and a more precise project budget can beestablished.

The extent and costs of these further studies is dependent on the site selected. Indicative costsare given in Appendix 3.


27

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee and the Broome BoatHarbour Community Reference Group consider the information provided in this report anddetermine if they wish to proceed with the development of a small boat harbour concept forBroome. If so, then it is further recommended that they nominate a preferred site for furtherinvestigation.


28

Appendix 1 MP Rogers and AssociatesBroome Boat Harbour Design Waves


29

Appendix 2 Department of Environmental ProtectionBroome Boat Harbour – Preliminary Investigation


30

Appendix 3 Broome Boat HarbourPredesign Cost Estimates


31

Appendix 4 Broome Boat HarbourPredesign Cost Estimates

Stage 1 Development


32

Broome Boat HarbourConcept Drawings

DEPARTMENT FOR PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Page 1 of 6

BROOME BOAT HARBOUR

Review of Submissions on “Fatal Flaws” of Proposed Sites and Concepts Rev 1 May 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The issues that are most likely to stop the harbour development from proceeding are cost andnative title/Aboriginal heritage matters. There are some technical issues that have the potential toeliminate particular options, but it is probable that the environmental impacts identified to date canbe either avoided or managed.

1 INTRODUCTION

At the Broome Boat Harbour Steering Committee meeting of 22 August 2001 it was agreed thatthe concept plans would be circulated to committee members for a “fatal flaws” commentary. Atthe Broome Boat harbour Community Reference Group meeting on the same day it was agreedthat the group members would seek comment from appropriate groups allowing them to point outfatal flaws from their perspectives.

Ten responses were received from the two committees. They have been attached in full.

The following provided comment;

BBH Steering Committee

! Kimberly Land Council! Department of Environmental Protection/ Environmental Protection Authority:

BBH Community Reference Group

! Pippa Chrystal! Roger Colless! Alan Fraser/ Bob Masters (KPFA)! Sylvia Lerch! Maria Mann – (Environs Kimberley)! Bruce Spencer! Chris Wright (Broome Volunteer Sea Rescue)

The majority of the submissions provided comment on the various proposals, but did not identifymajor issues that would prevent development of any particular option.

2 COMMENT SUMMARY

Department of Environmental Protection /Environmental Protection Authority

In August 2001 the DEP supplied comment on the environmental issues affecting the four sites asa part of the concept preparation and costing process. As the recent advice from the EPA built on


Page 2 of 6

the comment provided in August, the earlier letter has also been included. (Note: Both sets ofadvice are from the same source and the name change is a result of reorganisations ingovernment.)

The EPA has identified a number of significant environmental issues that will need to be satisfiedbefore a proposal could be considered environmentally acceptable. Although they have notidentified any of these issues as being of such significance as to automatically prohibit anyparticular development (ie as “fatal flaws”), they may be of a different view at the end of theenvironmental assessment process.

Kimberly Land Council

The KLC has advised that, in their opinion, “…it is likely that none of the options will beacceptable to traditional owners or capable of being reconciled with their native title and heritageinterests.”

As a part of the scoping process, Quartermaine Consultants were engaged to provide preliminaryadvice in regard of sites of archaeological and ethnographic significance in the region. Theyindicate that the dunes from Gantheaume Point to Entrance Point and from the Port jetty to themeatworks and the land surrounding Dampier Creek are of significance to the Aboriginal people.

The KLC also draws attention to the existence of significant Aboriginal sites in the areas subjectto the four proposals. Quartermaine only identified two registered sites that would be affected bythe proposals. These are two archaeological sites at Entrance Point, one of which is reported tohave ethnographic significance. These would be destroyed in option 3. However, Quartermainedoes make the point that just because no archaeological sites are registered it does not exclude thepossibility that sites may be present.

The KLC raise a number of other relevant points in their letter.

Pippa Chrystal

Ms Chrystal does not identify any “fatal flaws” in the proposals put forward. She does, however,raise the possibility of two marina developments, one near the Port for the commercial fleet andone near the town for the recreational fleet, with the latter possibly financed by the private sector.This option has not been discounted, and the site assessment report suggests that the DampierCreek site may be attractive to the private sector. However, as the main impact of such adevelopment would be to reduce the size of the primary all tide boat harbour rather than do awaywith it completely, there is still a need to agree a site for this main harbour.

Roger Colless

Mr Colless states that he does not see any fatal flaws in the proposals presented, apart from thehigh cost of two of them. He provides comment on the four options presented and notes hispreference.


Page 3 of 6

Alan Fraser/ Bob Masters (KPFA)

The Kimberley Professional Fisherman’s Association does not identify any fatal flaws in any ofthe proposals from its point of view. In its preliminary response, the KPFA fully supported theRiddell Point Option 4B concept. In its expanded submission the KPFA notes that there are anumber of undesirable existing practices which would be eliminated with a boat harbour, supportsa boat harbour in principal and considers that the Riddell Point Option 4B is the best optionpresented so far.

Sylvia Lerch

Ms Lerch states her preference for the Riddell Point option, and is of the view that all other siteshave the fatal flaw of not being safe from cyclonic sea levels. However, this is not entirely correct.Properly designed, the breakwaters would protect the two offshore harbours at the port, but theDampier Creek proposal would certainly be at risk from storm surge inundation. The extent woulddepend on the design, but it is likely to have the same level of risk as the adjacent part of the town.

Ms Lerch also suggests that the use of the name “Riddell Point” is misleading and is likely toinvoke adverse public response. This was considered during the preparation of the site assessmentreport but, at that stage, it was considered that an arbitrary invention of a name by the reportauthor could be seen as a cynical attempt by DPI to disguise the real location of the proposed site.However, Ms Lerch’s comments are valid, and it would be appropriate for the committee todiscuss this matter.

Environs Kimberly

Environs Kimberley is of the view that all four options would have serious negative impacts andthey have verbally advised that, from their perspective, all the options are fatally flawed.

They are particularly opposed to the Riddell Point site and have listed reasons for their opposition.However, at this stage these are only the views of one group, and it would be premature toconsider any of these as significant enough to be considered “fatal flaws” which would eliminatethe site. This will be determined through the environmental assessment process.

Environs Kimberley also believes that any development on Port land is not subject to the EPAsystem of approvals. However, Section 4 of Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986states “This Act binds the Crown.” In other words, the Port of Broome is subject to the sameenvironmental management requirements as the rest of the community. Environs Kimberley hasgone on to state that there does not appear to be any mechanism in place for environmental, socialand cultural assessment and monitoring. In fact, this project will be subject to the same assessmentprocess as any other major development.

Bruce Spencer

Mr Spencer notes three problems with the Riddell Point site, the possible impact on the dunes, thedirection of the prevailing winds and problems with entrance siltation. Mr Spencer goes on tosuggest locating the harbour inland in Roebuck Bay, next to the Port. This is effectively inland ofOption 2.


Page 4 of 6

There are some problems with this suggestion, particularly in regard of channel maintenance andbasin size. However, the point Mr Spencer makes in regard of reducing the channel depth and solimiting access times is valid, and would certainly reduce capital costs. This is relevant to all ofthe proposals presented, and will be considered in the detailed design phase. The decision iswhether the cost savings warrant the inconvenience of limited access times.

While noting his preference for an inland basin at the Port, and identifying some problems withOption 4, Mr Spencer does not identify any fatal flaws in any of the four proposals.

Chris Wright (Broome Volunteer Sea Rescue)

The BVSRG confined their comments to matters pertaining to sea search and rescue. They did notfavour the Dampier Creek option, as it did not provided 24 hour, all year access. They expressedsome concerns with the Entrance Point, Roebuck Bay and Riddell Point options, but did not noteany fatal flaws.

Department for Planning and Infrastructure

The Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) incorporates both the old Department ofTransport, and the Ministry for Planning (MfP). Both are represented on the BBHSC and at thisstage in the amalgamation process comment can be expected from both.

The old MfP did not identify any fatal flaws in the four options presented. As Transport preparedthe initial site assessment reports, and the strengths and weaknesses of each option are outlined inthe reports, it has not provided separate commentary on fatal flaws.

Technically, there are several considerations that have the potential to exclude one or the other ofthe proposed options. These include;

! Unable to source suitable armourstone in sufficient quantities at and acceptable price (Opts2 & 3);

! Unable to dispose of excavated material (Option 4);! Large volumes of sediment moving along Riddell Beach (Opt 4);! Unable to successfully seal the basin (Opt 2, 3, 4);! Cost.

3 COMMENTARY

From the submissions received and the preliminary work already undertaken, there are four mainareas that could present “fatal flaws” for this project.

Native Title and Aboriginal Heritage

It is clear even at this early stage that the major issues affecting any marine development in oraround Broome are those related to native title and Aboriginal heritage impact. These issues arethe ones that are most likely to stop the project.


Page 5 of 6

It would be appropriate to enter into a formal consultation process with the relevant parties with aview to identifying the issues and to see which if any proposal will be acceptable beforecommitting expenditure to any particular option.

Cost

Although a full financial analysis and investigation of funding options is yet to be carried out, it isunlikely that any boat harbour development in Broome will be self funding. It is probable that theharbour operating costs, and the costs of some infrastructure, such as mooring pens, could berecovered over time but it is very unlikely that the full cost of the major infrastructure items suchas breakwaters, basin excavation, entrance channels, locks etc will ever be recovered in full. Giventhis, the probability of attracting significant private sector funding is small, and may well belimited to particular opportunities eg superlot subdivision, boat lifter services, fuel facilities.

Harbour developments can offer some opportunities for partial recovery of capital expenditure,commonly through development, leasing or sale of associated land. The development of a harbourusually increases the usefulness and value of what may otherwise be relatively low value landadjacent to the harbour.

The harbour must have land available for marine related industrial uses but take-up of this landcan be slow, particularly in a place like Broome. A properly located resort site may well attractdevelopment interest, given the tourist orientation of Broome. Residential development could alsobe very attractive. However, Broome is a small town, and has other residential developmentseither in progress or planned, and the residential market is limited.

Of the three main harbour sites, there is little land available with Options 2 and 3, barely enoughfor reasonable marine industrial development and some low key tourist infrastructure. Option 4offers the best opportunities for cost recovery through land development but, as discussed above,this opportunity is limited by the market. Community opinion may also be a factor in governingthe amount of land available.

There may be other sources of funds, perhaps through the Commonwealth, but it is inevitable thatany harbour development in Broome will require a major capital contribution from the StateGovernment.

In summary, it is very unlikely that the harbour development will proceed without a major capitalinvestment from the State Government.

Environmental

While there are a number of possible environmental and social impacts to consider, it is probablethat most, if not all, of the issues can be satisfactorily managed. For example, all development canbe located outside of coastal parks and Ramsar wetlands, impacts on coastal dunes can be limitedto a very small entrance area which can be offset against dune rehabilitation programs elsewhere,if there are any rare species present, it may be possible to avoid or relocate them, and so forth. It isknown, for example, that there are two populations of rare Keraudrenia sp in the vicinity of theproposed Option 4B, but the harbour layout can be modified to protect these areas.


Page 6 of 6

All of these issues will be examined in the assessment phase of the project and, although somemay turn out to be of such impact as to eliminate any particular option, at this stage they cannot beconsidered fatal flaws.

Technical Issues

Although not identified in the submissions, there are a number of technical issues that have thepotential to eliminate any of the options, and are broadly identified in the DPI site assessmentreports. Their actual impact will be evaluated in the detailed investigation and design phase.

broome boat harbour site selection report: august 2002

Documents