Attachment 6 - Turbidity Modelling

Point Wilson Waterside Infrastructure
Remediation
Defence/Leighton Contractors
18 J anuary 2012
Turbidity Modelling for
PWWIR
AECOM Point Wilson Waterside Infrastructure Remediation
Turbidity Modelling for PWWIR
P:\60154708\4. Tech work area\4.3 Engineering\MIKE21\Reports\60154708 Turbidity Modelling for PWWIR Final 18J an12.docx
Revision - 18 J anuary 2012
2
Prepared for
Defence/Leighton Contractors
Prepared by
AECOM Aust rali a Pty Ltd
Level 9, 8 Exhibition Street, Melbourne VIC 3000, Australia
T +61 3 9653 1234 F +61 3 9654 7117 www.aecom.com
ABN 20 093 846 925
18 J anuary 2012
60154708
AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to the latest version of ISO9001 and ISO14001.
AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM). All rights reserved.
AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other
party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any
third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Clients description of its requirements and
AECOMs experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional
principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which
may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.
3
Quality Information
Document Turbidity Modelling for PWWIR
Ref 60154708
Date 18 J anuary 2012
Prepared by Saima Aijaz/Sam Marginson
Reviewed by Medard Boutry & Defence/Leighton Contractors
Revision History
Revision
Revision
Date
Details
Authorised
Name/Position Signature
1 19-Sep-2011 Draft Medard Boutry
2 18-J an-2012 Final Saima Aijaz
4
Table of Contents
Turbidity Modelling for PWWIR 1
Executive Summary i
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Scope of Work 2
3.0 Hydrodynamic Model Set-up 3
3.1 Model Calibration 3
3.2 Hydrodynamic Model Results 5
4.0 Turbidity Model Set-up 8
4.1 Sediment Settling Velocity 8
4.2 Threshold critical shear stresses 8
4.3 Sediment Release Volume 9
4.4 Turbidity due to Pile Removal 9
4.5 Turbidity Model Results Pile Removal 9
4.6 Vessel-generated Turbidity 12
4.7 Turbidity Model Results Vessel Berthing 15
5.0 Assumptions 19
6.0 Environmental Implications to Seagrass Meadows and Conclusions 20
7.0 References 22
i
Executive Summary
This report describes the results from turbidity modelling that was undertaken to assist in the preparation of an
environmental assessment regarding the likely extent of turbidity plumes generated during the Point Wilson
Waterside Infrastructure Remediation (PWWIR) project. Numerical models are used extensively within the
coastal and estuarine environment to replicate existing processes and then to quantify changes to those
processes based on some modifications to the environment. Turbidity models were set up to assess the impact
of turbid plumes during construction activities and shipping operations. The description of the model set-up,
calibration and predictions have been presented in this report.
Predictions of the extent and duration of turbid plumes generated from two different activities were investigated.
These were: a) pile driving and removal during construction operations; and b) vessel motions during approach,
mooring and berthing.
Since currents are primarily responsible for the advection and dispersion of turbid plumes in Port Phillip Bay, a
hydrodynamic model was set-up and calibrated to provide reliable estimates of currents and water levels. A two-
dimensional model, MIKE 21 hydrodynamic (HD) model developed by DHI was used to determine the
hydrodynamics of Corio Bay and the Point Wilson area. The model input consisted of bed-levels, water levels
and wind forcing. The model was calibrated and verified using measured water level data from the Geelong tide
gauge. The hydrodynamic model predicted velocities between approximately 0.01 and 0.33 m/s, with an average
of 0.08 m/s during the calibration period. Water levels at the wharf varied between -0.48 and 0.5 m AHD.
The hydrodynamic model was then coupled with a fine sediment transport model, MIKE21 MT (Mud Transport) for
the prediction of turbid plumes. The turbidity model uses the currents and water levels from the hydrodynamic
model to predict settling, deposition and erosion of fine sediments. The inputs required for the turbidity model are
sediment settling velocities and fractions; threshold critical shear stresses responsible for deposition and erosion;
and the volume of sediment released into the water column. Three different sediment fractions with settling
velocities varying from 0.02 to 0.5 m/s were selected. These were based on the measurements from the Channel
Deepening study and the Defence ECAC study. The amount of sediment released into the water column due to
the pile removal was based on past experiences of similar activity. For sensitivity analysis, different sediment
mass fluxes of 0.0014 kg/s; 0.08 kg/minute and 5 kg/hour into the water column were tested. The source points
were selected assuming that 100 piles would be removed at a rate of 2 piles per day over a period of 60 days.
The sediment volume due to vessel movements was calculated using the vessel and sediment characteristics
such as vessel dimensions, engine power, sediment density and threshold velocities.
The turbidity modelling results have been presented as time-series of total suspended concentrations (TSS) at
sensitive locations in the vicinity of the jetty and near Ramsar site and in maps as percentage of times that the
TSS exceeds 10 mg/L and 20 mg/L over the entire simulation period.
The model predicts that the TSS resulting from a continuous mass flux of 0.0014 kg/s would be extremely low, i.e
less than 0.0001 Kg/m
3
or less than 0.01 mg/L, indicating that the low mass flux during the pile removal does not
cause any significant turbidity around the Point Wilson area. The TSS from the mass flux of 0.08 kg per/minute
would be below 7 mg/L (0.007 kg/m
3
) at all locations. This value is close to the background levels of up to 5 mg/L
in Corio Bay.
The modelled TSS for the worst-case scenario (mass flux of 5 kg/hour) was generally below 15-20 mg/L except
along the jetty where the TSS increased to 40 mg/L (0.04 kg/m
3
). The highest TSS of 40 mg/L is still below the
TSS levels during storms or heavy rainfall, which can reach up to 100 mg/L or above. Moreover, the high TSS
peaks did not persist and fell rapidly to zero values within 2 hours. The concentrations along the jetty were high
compared to other locations because of the shallow water depth at this location. The Ramsar site is also located
in shallow water depth of approximately 3 m and showed relatively higher turbidity. The TSS from the model
represents the turbidity values which are above the prevailing background turbidity levels of around 2-5 mg/L
during calm (non-storm) conditions.
Maps of percentage exceedance showing the percentage of times specified levels of TSS are exceeded indicate
that the TSS of 10 mg/L would be exceeded about 4-8% of the times near the source points. Away from the
source points, the percentage exceedance would remain below 1%. The plume was predicted to be confined
around the jetty and the wharf area and would not spread widely in the Corio Bay. The model further predicts that
TSS of 20 mg/L would be exceeded less than 5% in the vicinity of the jetty and wharf.
ii
The main assumptions made in the turbidity modelling were the input of the amount of sediment released into the
water column during pile removal and vessel movements. Inputs for model parameters such as setting velocities
and critical shear stresses were based on previous studies while the duration of pile removal and time of
extraction for each pile was adopted using estimates based on past observations. It is recognised that application
of site specific measurements of input parameters will result in variation of model predictions.
A discussion of the turbidity modelling results in view of the environmental implications to seagrass meadows has
been presented. It is expected that short durations (days to weeks) of intermittent shading followed by
adequate light conditions (at least 15% of surface) for a long period following exposure (months), are
likely to have a negligible effect on seagrass.
The relationship between TSS and light attenuation is complex and the biological effect of TSS on seagrass
cannot be accurately predicted without the establishment of the relationship between TSS and light attenuation
(i.e. through a monitoring program). Data on turbidity in the Geelong Arm indicate that background levels are
generally low and likely to be in the range of 1mg/L to 5 mg/L. Turbidity levels are likely to increase to the order of
25 mg/L to 50 mg/L in nearshore areas during moderate to strong winds and may exceed 100 mg/L during storm
winds as a result of re-suspension of sediments from wave action
The modelling indicates that turbidity generated from the proposed activities would be unlikely to result in
detrimental impacts to seagrass meadows proximate to the Ramsar wetland or to the PWEA waterside
infrastructure. The modelling results should, however, be treated as indicative since these are based on assumed
values of sediment release and sediment characteristics. A more accurate prediction from models will require
inputs of measured site specific sediment characteristics and measured volumes of sediment released into the
water column.
1
1.0 Introduction
AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) have been commissioned by the Defence Infrastructure Asset Development
Branch (IAD) to prepare an environmental assessment regarding the likely extent of turbidity plumes generated
during the Point Wilson Waterside Infrastructure Remediation (PWWIR) project. The Point Wilson waterside
infrastructure comprises a jetty that provides access to the wharf approximately 2.5 km from the shore. The
project aims to return the Point Wilson Explosives Area waterside infrastructure to operational status as the Point
Wilson wharf is currently non-operational due to the poor structural condition of the jetty and wharf.
One of the risks of the project is the impact of turbidity on the marine environment. Turbidity is generated when
sediments are brought into suspension by the construction and shipping operations. Turbidity may also result
from natural phenomena such as storms, waves and currents. The sediment particles are moved by the water
movements which include transport by currents (advection) and spreading or dispersal by the natural turbulence
in the water (dispersion). The particles also settle out and get deposited on the sea bed where they may remain
or be re-suspended by currents or waves. The settling process is complex and depends on a number of factors,
primarily the concentration of the material in the water, the settling velocity of particles and the critical shear
stresses. The shear stresses are induced by currents, winds, waves, and sediment-water interactions.
It is understood that the construction activities during the PWWIR would include pile driving and the removal of
piles along the Point Wilson J etty. It is proposed that the steel piles would be cut-off at the sea-bed to minimise
the creation of turbid plumes. However the removal of timber piles along the wharf would result in the disturbance
of mud at the sea bed and through the water column as the piles are extracted from the sea bed by vibration
techniques. The use of a temporary marine loading platform along the extent of the jetty and wharf would also
require the progressive insertion and removal of temporary piles.
Turbidity is also generated as ships approach the wharf and turn and manoeuvre during mooring and berthing.
The amount of turbidity generated varies with the size of the ship, cruise speed, engine power and the under keel
clearance. The shallower the water depths, the greater the turbidity generated.
A turbidity model has been set-up to assess the impact of turbid plumes from the removal of the timber and
temporary piles and during vessel mooring and berthing. Numerical models are used extensively within the
coastal and estuarine environment to replicate existing processes and then to quantify changes to those
processes based on some modifications to the environment. The description of the model set-up, calibration and
predictions are provided in the following sections.
2
2.0 Scope of Work
The objectives of this study were to:
1) Determine the extent of turbidity generated from removal of piles
2) Determine the extent of turbidity generated from vessel mooring and berthing
The following tasks were undertaken:
1) Develop, set-up and calibrate a hydrodynamic model
2) Develop a coupled hydrodynamic-sediment transport model for turbidity prediction
3) Assessment of turbidity from construction activities
4) Assessment of turbidity from vessel approach, mooring and berthing
5) Environmental implications of turbidity on sea grass meadows
The following sections provide a detailed description of the model set-up, methodology, presentation and
discussion of results.
3
3.0 Hydrodynamic Model Set-up
Currents are primarily responsible for the advection and dispersion of turbid plumes in Port Phillip Bay. It is
essential to have a reliable estimate of currents and water levels for the prediction of turbid plumes. Therefore, a
hydrodynamic model was set-up and calibrated for this purpose.
The hydrodynamics of the Point Wilson area have been determined using the MIKE 21 hydrodynamic (HD) model
developed by DHI (2011). The MIKE21 hydrodynamic module is based on the numerical solution of the two
dimensional shallow water equations and the depth-integrated incompressible Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes
equations. Thus, the model consists of continuity, momentum, temperature, salinity and density equations.
The model input consisted of bed-levels, water levels and wind forcing. Bathymetric data was obtained for the
entire Port Phillip Bay from the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) on a 100 m grid. The data was then
interpolated on a 50 m grid to provide a good representation of turbidity around the wharf and the jetty. The
model extent and bathymetry is shown in Figure 1. The model extends from Geelong in the west to Portarlington
at the eastern boundary. The west, north and south boundaries are closed boundaries, since these are bound by
land. The eastern boundary is an open boundary which is forced by varying sea levels.
Figure 1 Model extent and bathymetry. The source points for sediment release are indicated by x. L1, L2, L3
and L4 are model result extraction points
3.1 Model Calibration
The most important component of the hydrodynamic calibration consisted of adopting an appropriate water level
at the eastern boundary, which would reproduce the measured water levels at Geelong with good accuracy. After
examining the tides at Williamstown and Hovell Pile, it was found that the predicted water levels at Hovell Pile
showed a greater correlation than those at Williamstown with the predicted water levels at Geelong. Tidal
constituents at Geelong and Hovell Pile used for tidal predictions were obtained from PoMC SEES (2007) and are
shown in Table 1.
Tabl e 1 Ti dal Consti tuent s
Tidal Constituent
Geelong Hovell Pile
Amplitude (m) Phase (deg) Amplitude (m) Phase (deg)
M2 0.268 63.0 0.192 59.7
Point Wilson Jet ty
x
x
x
x x x
L3
L1
L2
L4
L5
4
Tidal Constituent
Geelong Hovell Pile
Amplitude (m) Phase (deg) Amplitude (m) Phase (deg)
K1 0.105 132.5 0.098 131.4
O1 0.075 95.1 0.071 94.7
S2 0.062 199.6 0.043 194.4
N2 0.039 19.8 0.028 15.2
Measured water levels at Hovell Pile were not available for this study. Therefore, the sea levels at Hovell Pile
were computed by combining the predicted tide at Hovell Pile with the tidal residuals extracted from the measured
sea levels at Geelong. The tidal residual is the difference between the measured and predicted tide and provides
an estimate of storm surge. It is assumed that the storm surge at Hovell Pile and Geelong will be similar. This is
realistic since the storm surge does not vary significantly at various locations in the Port Phillip Bay.
The tidal residual from the recorded water levels at Geelong was computed by employing a three hour moving
average of the difference between measured and predicted water levels at Geelong. It was then added to the
predicted tide at Hovell Pile. The resulting sea levels were used as input at the eastern boundary of the
hydrodynamic model. The model was run for a period of 15 days. Varying time-series of measured winds at
Point Wilson were applied uniformly across the entire model domain.
The modelled water levels near the Geelong tide gauge were extracted from the model and compared with the
measured data as shown in Figure 2. There is close agreement between the modelled and measured water
levels. The model slightly overestimates the high tide and underestimates the low tides but the overall
comparison is good. Current measurements in Corio Bay were not available to enable comparison with the
modelled currents. The model was considered sufficiently accurate to accurately represent the hydrodynamic
environment for the purpose of this assessment.
Fi gure 2 Sea l evel s cal i brati on at Geel ong
5
3.2 Hydrodynamic Model Results
Figure 4 shows the modelled current velocities and water levels at the wharf during the calibration period in
J anuary 2007. This period was chosen because a complete record of wind parameters and measured water
levels were available during this period. The gaps in the wind and water level dataset during other periods
extended to several days. During summer, the winds in Port Phillip Bay are predominantly from the south.
However, strong northerly winds persisted for more than 15 hours on 6
th
J anuary 2007 before turning west to
south-westerly but remaining strong with speeds exceeding 10-12m/s for about 10 hours on 7
th
J anuary 2007
(Figure 3).
The velocities during the calibration period (summer) vary between approximately 0.01 and 0.33 m/s, with an
average of 0.08 m/s. Water levels at the wharf vary between -0.48 and 0.5 m AHD. The current velocities peak
between the peaks and troughs of water level, indicating that flow in the area is influenced by tides.
Fi gure 3 Measured wind speeds and di recti ons at Poi nt Wi l son.
6
Fi gure 4 Predi cted veloci ti es and wat er l evel s at the Point Wi l son Wharf
The maximum velocity at the wharf during the simulation occurs at 0100 on 7 J anuary 2007 and at 0500 on 11
J anuary 2007. This is due to high wind speed s of 10-15 m/s that occurred during these times, which resulted in
current speeds of above 0.3 m/s at the wharf. Strong currents are generated by strong winds which in turn have
the potential of spreading the turbid plume to greater distances from its original source.
Current speed contours and vectors in the vicinity of the wharf are shown Figure 5. The velocity vectors 6 hours
after those shown in Figure 5, are presented in Figure 6.
Fi gure 5 Vel oci ti es i n t he Poi nt Wil son area at ti me of peak vel oci t y and hi gh nor therl y wi nds
7
Fi gure 6 Vel oci ti es i n t he Poi nt Wil son area 6 Hours aft er peak vel oci t y
8
4.0 Turbidity Model Set-up
Turbidity is generated by the release of sediment into the water due to construction and dredging operations or
due to storms and heavy rainfall. The fine particles will remain in suspension and are likely to be transported
some distance away from the source. There are significant amounts of fine sediment present in the north of Port
Phillip Bay including Corio Bay and the Point Wilson area. These include silts and clays which have a particle
size smaller than 0.062 mm. The fine sediments have a large surface area, and unlike sand particles, do not
settle under the influence of gravitational forces. Hence, the fine sediment particles tend to stay in suspension for
much longer time periods than the sand particles which settle rapidly near the source. The settling of fine
sediments is a complex process and dependent on currents, sediment characteristics, sediment concentration
and shear stresses. The shear stresses are induced by currents, winds, waves, and sediment-water interactions.
Due to the complexity of fine sediment processes, the formulations derived to compute the transport of fine
sediments are largely semi-empirical in nature.
The turbidity model, MIKE21 MT (Mud Transport) employed for the study uses the widely accepted empirical
formulations of fine sediment transport. MIKE21 MT is a two-dimensional sediment transport model developed by
DHI (2011). It is coupled with the hydrodynamic model and uses the currents and water levels from the
hydrodynamic model to predict settling, deposition and erosion of fine sediments.
Two different models were set-up for the turbidity modelling. These represented the sources and volumes of total
suspended concentrations released by pile removal and vessel mooring and berthing.
The inputs required for the turbidity model are:
Sediment settling velocities and fractions
Threshold critical shear stresses responsible for deposition and erosion
Volume of sediment released into the water column
4.1 Sedi ment Settling Velocity
The settling rates of sediment particles in Port Phillip Bay were measured during the Channel Deepening Project
undertaken by PoMC in 2008 and 2009. A turbidity (dredge plume) model was developed for this project and
extensively calibrated against measured data (SEES, 2007). It is assumed that the sediment characteristics in
Corio Bay are similar to those measured by PoMC. As such, the settling rates from SEES (2007) have been used
for this study and are given in Table 2 below. The settling rates given above are also similar to those provided in
the Defence ECAC study, which vary from 0.00005 to 0.0005 m/s. The percentage occurrences of various sized
sediment fractions have been adopted from the ECAC study.
Tabl e 2 Settl i ng rat es for vari ous fracti ons of sediments i n the north of Port Phi ll ip Bay
Settling velocity
(mm/s)
Sett ling velocit y
(m/s)
Percentage
Occurrence (%)
Fraction 1 0.50 0.00050 10
Fraction 2 0.08 0.00008 55
Fraction 3 0.02 0.00002 35
4.2 Threshold critical shear stresses
Measured data for critical shear-stresses are rarely available. Constant values of 0.1 N/m
2
and 1 N/m
2
were
adopted as the critical shear-stress for sedimentation and erosion respectively for each of the three sediment
fractions. These values were sourced from the turbidity modelling investigation in Port Melbourne Channel (SEES,
2007). The selection was based on literature search and was determined to be within the range of typical values
reported from field observations and laboratory measurements.
9
4.3 Sediment Release Volume
There were no measurements or definite estimates of the volumes of sediment released during the pile removal
process or vessel berthing. Estimates have been made of the sediment volumes based on the physical attributes
such as pile dimensions, vessel and sediment characteristics and other relevant information for each of the two
activities. Details are provided in the following sections.
4.4 Turbidity due to Pile Removal
The amount of sediment released into the water column due to the pile removal was based on past experiences
of similar activity. It was assumed that the piles are covered all around by a 1 cm thick layer of mud. An average
diameter of 0.308 m was adopted for each pile. The piles were assumed to be extracted from 10 m below the sea
bed, as a worst case estimate. Taking into consideration the volume of the pile and the mud around it, it was
estimated that about 30 kg of sediment would be released into the water column every hour by each pile
extraction taking into consideration the mud density, 1 cm of mud attached to each pile and four hours taken for
each pile extraction. Assuming that 15-20% of the mud removed goes into suspension and the remaining falls as
clumps on to the sea bed, a mass flux of 5 kg/hour or 0.0014 kg/s was adopted for modelling.
Various remediation scenarios have been developed which would require removal of varying number of piles at
different locations along the jetty, wharf, link and the dolphin.
The following scenario has been assessed for turbidity modelling:
Removal of 100 piles along the jetty and wharf at the rate of 2 piles removed per day over a period of 60
days
As the computed values of the mass flux of sediment are indicative only, a range of mass flux values for model
input were assessed. The three different scenarios are given below.
Scenario 1 Using a continuous mass flux of 0.0014 kg/s for each pile
Scenario 2 Using instantaneous mass flux of 0.8 kg every 10 minutes
Scenario 3 Using instantaneous mass flux of 5 kg every hour (worst-case scenario)
Figure 1 shows the source points for turbidity utilised for the modelling for pile removal. These source points were
chosen to represent the worst case turbidity generated during the proposed works, when wooden fender piles
would be removed in vicinity of the wharf and temporary piles from the temporary marine loading platform also
removed simultaneously. The receptors from which modelled turbidity results were extracted from are also shown
in the Figure (i.e. L1 L5).
The source points in the model represent the grid cells from where the sediment is released into the model
domain. The sediment is released through each source point starting from the landward end and successively
moving toward the wharf end. It was assumed that the piles would be removed during the business hours
between 0800 and 1700. A down-time of four hours per week due to inclement weather, maintenance and other
operational and constructional constraints was also included.
4.5 Turbidity Model Resul ts Pile Removal
The behaviour of the turbidity plume generated by the pile removal in response to the action of currents and winds
in Corio Bay has been represented in terms of time-series of total suspended concentrations (TSS) at specific
locations and in maps as percentage of times that the TSS exceeds 10 mg/L and 20 mg/L over the entire
simulation period.
Time-history of the total combined sum of the total suspended solids concentrations of all three sediment fractions
were extracted at the following five locations (Figure 1) around the jetty area:
1) At the end of the Point Wilson wharf
2) Halfway along the jetty
3) Bay located to the west of the jetty
4) North of Clifton Springs (end of Beacon Point Road)
5) Ramsar area north of the jetty
10
The impacts of pile removal on total suspended solids concentrations at the five locations for all three scenarios
are shown in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9.
Fi gure 7 Total Suspended Sol ids Concent rati ons i n t he vi ci ni ty of the Poi nt Wil son Jet ty, Scenari o 1
Fi gure 8 Total Suspended Sol ids Concent rati ons i n t he vi ci ni ty of the Poi nt Wil son Jet ty, Scenari o 2
0.000000
0.000001
0.000002
0.000003
0.000004
0.000005
0.000006
0.000007
0.000008
0.000009
0.000010
1-Jan-07 11-Jan-07 21-Jan-07 31-Jan-07 10-Feb-07 20-Feb-07 2-Mar-07
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
m
3
)Wharf
Halfway Jetty
North of Clifton Springs
West of Jetty
Ramsar site
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
m
3
)Wharf
Halfway Jetty
West of Jetty
Ramsar site
11
Fi gure 9 Total Suspended Sol ids Concent rati ons i n t he vi ci ni ty of t he Poi nt Wil son Jet ty, Scenari o 3
The TSS resulting from the first scenario (continuous mass flux of 0.0014 kg/s) is extremely low, i.e less than
0.0001 Kg/m
3
or less than 0.01 mg/L, indicating that a mass flux of 0.0014 kg/s during the pile removal does not
cause any significant turbidity around the Point Wilson area. The TSS for scenario 2 remains below 7 mg/L
(0.007 kg/m
3
) at all locations. This is close to the background levels of up to 5 mg/L in Corio Bay.
The TSS for the worst-case scenario generally remains below 15-20 mg/L except along the jetty where the TSS
increases to 40 mg/L (0.04 kg/m
3
). The highest TSS of 40 mg/L is still below the TSS levels during storms or
heavy rainfall, which can reach up to 100 mg/L or above (ECAC, 1996). Moreover, the high TSS peaks do not
persist and fall rapidly to zero values within 2 hours. The concentrations along the jetty are high compared to
other locations because of the shallow water depth at this location. The Ramsar site is also located in shallow
water depth of approximately 3 m and shows relatively higher turbidity. The TSS from the model represents the
turbidity values which are above the prevailing background turbidity levels of around 2-5 mg/L during calm (non-
storm) conditions.
The percentage of times that the TSS exceeds 10 mg/L and 20 mg/L due to the pile removal over the model
simulation period for the worst-case scenario is shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. The TSS of 10 mg/L is
exceeded about 4-8% of the times near the source points as seen in Figure 10. Away from the source points, the
percentage exceedance is below 1%. Figure 10 indicates that the plume remains confined around the jetty and
the wharf area and does not spread widely in the Corio Bay. Figure 11 shows that 20 mg/L is exceeded less than
5% in the vicinity of the jetty and wharf.
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
m
3
)Wharf
Halfway Jetty
West of Jetty
Ramsar site
12
Fi gure 10 Percent age exceedance of 10 mg/L Suspended Sol i ds Concent ration i n Cori o Bay
Fi gure 11 Percent age exceedance of 20 mg/L Suspended Sol i ds Concent rati on i n Cori o Bay
4.6 Vessel-generated Turbidity
The vessels approaching the Point Wilson wharf will generate significant amounts of turbidity mainly due to the
propeller action which stirs up the sediment from sea bed. The use of extra power from the bow thrusters by the
vessels to manoeuvre into position alongside the berth is largely responsible for generating large turbid plumes.
The Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) is one of the largest ships that would berth at the Point Wilson wharf. Large
turbid plumes caused by the LHD as it berths alongside the pier are shown in the photograph below (Figure 12).
The turbidity modelling was undertaken taking into consideration the LHD characteristics and the associated
parameters listed in Table 3.
13
Fi gure 12 Turbi d pl umes gener ated by LHD.
Tabl e 3 LHD Characteri sti cs
Paramet er
Length (m) 202
Width (m) 32
Draft (m) fully loaded 7.2
Two bow thrusters 1500 KW
Under keel Clearance (UKC) (m) 0.6 - 2
Speed range (knots) 1-5
The LHD will approach Point Wilson from Point Richards Channel, and then navigate through the approach
channel to the Point Wilson Wharf. The LHD will decelerate on approach as follows:
1) 5 knots at 5 cables (914m) to the Wharf;
2) 3 knots at 3 cables (549m) to the Wharf;
3) 1 knot at 1 cable (183m) until parallel to the Wharf.
On departure the LHD will pull away from the wharf and go astern towards the turning area before turning under
power and/or with tug assistance within the turning area, before departing through the approach channel. The
range of speeds of LHD during the departure are assumed to be similar to the arrival speeds (up to 5 knots). The
schematics of the arrival and departure of the LHD are shown in Figure 13. The LHD path in the turbidity model is
represented by ten source points (Figure 14). The source points numbered 1 to 10 indicate the approach path of
the LHD while the reverse path on departure will follow points 10 to 1.
14
Fi gure 13 Schemati c of the manoeuvri ng of LHD duri ng approach and berthi ng at t he Poi nt Wil son Whar f.
Fi gure 14 Source poi nts in the model repr esenti ng the manoeuvri ng of LHD duri ng approach and bert hi ng
The bow thrusters could be used for up to 10-15 minutes on arrival (communication with CDR Robinson, RANR).
Once the vessel reaches 4 knots, the thrusters will have minimal effect. Since the bow thrusters are responsible
for creating large amounts of turbidity, the duration of release of sediment into the model domain has been based
on the time that the thrusters would be in use. The volume of sediment released by the bow thrusters was
computed following the methodology provided in PIANC-AIPCN (1978) using the following parameters:
Critical shear stress for erosion = 1 N/m
2
Critical velocity = 0.3 m/s
Propulsion (thrusters) 2x1500 KW
Impact length= 207 m
Impact width= 32 m
1
2
3
7
4
5
6
8
10 9
15
Area of bottom being scoured= 3232 m
2
The mass flux of sediment is presented in Table 4 for the various under keel clearance (UKC) depths. The
Victorian Regional Channels Authority (VRCA) has specified a minimum UKC of 0.6 m for berthing area (wharf)
and 1.5 m in the approach channels (AECOM, 2011). The maintained depth of the approach channel is 9.1 m CD
and a fully loaded LHD has a draft of 7.2 m, therefore UKC of up to 2 m could be available to the LHD. For
modelling purposes, the mass flux for the range of UKC from 0.5 to 2.0 has been averaged and a constant mass
flux of 120 kg/s has been used as the model input. The flux of sediment released into the water column is
assumed to be continuous, starting from point 1 and finishing at point 10 (Figure 14) representing the arrival of the
LHD and starting at point 10 and finishing at point 1 for the departure.
Tabl e 4 Mass fl ux of sedi ment fr om LHD
UKC (m) Flux (kg/s)
0.5
204.3
1.0
124.2
1.5
83.0
2.0
59.1
Average
120.0
The VRCA has stipulated that all shipping operations would be suspended when winds exceed 30 knots (15.4
m/s). Favourable wind speeds for berthing and mooring are considered to be 15 knots (7.7 m/s) (AECOM, 2011).
Based on the threshold and the favourable wind speeds, the following two simulations were undertaken:
1) Simulation period of 6-9 J anuary 2007 representing high (threshold) winds of 10-14 m/s (19-27 knots)
from the north to the west to the south (Figure 3).
2) Simulation period of 14-17 J anuary 2007 representing low to moderate (favourable) winds of 4-8 m/s (8-
15 knots) predominantly from the south (Figure 3).
The simulation consists of a vessel approaching the wharf starting at point 1 in Figure 14, sailing toward the
wharf, turning in the swing basin and berthing at points 9 and 10. This operation takes about 15 minutes. Hence
the duration of the sediment release into the water column in the simulation has been adopted as 15 minutes.
The vessel remains docked for about 15 hours and then departs using the same path in reverse direction.
4.7 Turbidity Model Resul ts Vessel Berthi ng
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the TCC extracted at the five locations listed in Section 4.5 for the two simulations.
The TSS for Simulation 1 increases to about 0.35 kg/m3 or 350 mg/L during the departure and arrival but falls
back to background levels within one hour at the end of the jetty where the vessel is present. There is little or no
impact of turbidity on the remaining sites indicating that the plume does not spread farther away from the vessel.
For Simulation 2, there is a higher rise in turbidity during departure than arrival. The wind conditions were almost
the same during arrival and departure, so the difference in turbidity may be attributed to the timing of the
discharge of sediment into the water column. The main difference between the two simulations is that the peak
TSS falls rapidly during Simulation 1 while it takes 8-12 hours for TSS to fall to background levels during
Simulation 2. This indicates that while the high winds and currents carry the plume further away, the strong
currents also mix and dilute the concentration. The currents in Simulation 2 are much smaller than those in
Simulation 1 due to lower wind speeds and thus the mixing of sediment in the water column is not as rapid as in
Simulation 1.
16
Fi gure 15 Time-seri es of TSS duri ng vessel approach and bert hi ng for Simul ati on 1.
Fi gure 16 Time-seri es of TSS duri ng vessel approach and bert hi ng for Simul ati on 2.
Figure 17 shows the plume evolution at 4-hour intervals during the vessel approach, turning and berthing. The
TSS is high as the vessel approaches the wharf and the bow thrusters are in use. Once the bow thrusters and
the engines are switched off, the turbid plume disperses. Both the plume extent and TSS are reduced. The
plume nearly disappears after 12 hours. Another plume will be created upon vessel departure.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
6/1/07 0:00 6/1/07 12:00 7/1/07 0:00 7/1/07 12:00 8/1/07 0:00
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
m
3
)
Wharf
Halfway Jetty
West of Jetty
Ramsar site
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
15-Jan-07 16-Jan-07 17-Jan-07 18-Jan-07
T
o
t
a
l

S
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d

S
o
l
i
d
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
k
g
/
m
3
)Wharf
Halfway Jetty
West of Jetty
Ramsar site
17
SSC Total (kg/m^3)
Above 0.100
0.080 - 0.100
0.050 - 0.080
0.020 - 0.050
0.010 - 0.020
0.008 - 0.010
0.005 - 0.008
0.004 - 0.005
0.002 - 0.004
Below 0.002
Fi gure 17 Pl ume evol uti on for Simul ati on 1 (vessel approach).
The plume advection and dispersion for Simulation 2 is presented in Figure 18. The plume excursion following
the vessel arrival as well as departure is shown. As the vessel approaches the wharf, a highly turbid plume is
generated by the vessel which then disperses gradually. The TSS after 12 hours falls below 10 mg/L (0.01
kg/m
3
). Before the arrival plume completely disappears, a second plume is created by the vessel departure. The
two plumes interact with each other. The denser plume from vessel departure lingers on while the plume from
vessel arrival starts diminishing after 24 hours.
1/6/2007 12:00:00 PM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/6/2007 4:00:00 PM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/6/2007 8:00:00 PM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/7/2007 00:00:00
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
18
SSC Total (kg/m^3)
Above 0.100
0.080 - 0.100
0.050 - 0.080
0.020 - 0.050
0.010 - 0.020
0.008 - 0.010
0.005 - 0.008
0.004 - 0.005
0.002 - 0.004
Below 0.002
Fi gure 18 Pl ume evol uti on (vessel arri val and depart ure) for Si mul ation 2.
1/14/2007 2:00:00 PM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/15/2007 2:00:00 AM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/15/2007 8:00:00 AM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/15/2007 2:00:00 PM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/16/2007 10:00:00 AM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
1/14/2007 8:00:00 PM
0 5 10 15 20
(kilometer)
0
5
10
15
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
(
k
i
l
o
m
e
t
e
r
)
19
5.0 Assumptions
The fractions and settling rates of the three sediment fractions have been based on previous studies
(SEES 2007; ECAC 1996)
The critical shear stresses for erosion and deposition have been adopted from previous investigations
(SEES 2007; DHI 2011).
There is a lack of literature that quantifies the amount of turbidity released during pile removal; therefore,
the amount of sediment generated from a 1 cm thick layer of mud around a 0.308 m diameter pile has
been used as model input. This was based on discussions with contractors and other personnel with
relevant pile removal experience.
The time taken for each pile to be removed has been taken as 4 hours.
A continuous operation of 8 hours per day has been adopted for pile removal. A downtime of 4 hours
per week has been allowed.
For vessel generated turbidity, the characteristics of the landing helicopter dock (LHD) have been used
as model input.
Time taken for vessel approach, manoeuvring and berthing has been adopted as 15 minutes.
Sediment flux from the vessel during arrival and departure has been computed following PIANC-AIPCN
guidelines.
20
6.0 Environmental Implications to Seagrass Meadows and
Conclusions
Seagrass meadows are highly productive ecosystems with important ecological and economic functions, such as
their importance to fisheries and for preventing coastal erosion (Duarte, 2002). Seagrass meadows provide
critical habitat for small adult fish as well as playing an important role as nursery areas. Many species of fish
reside in seagrass for particular parts of their life-history as seagrasses often provide habitat for newly settled
larvae or juvenile fish species (Erftemeijer and Robin Lewis III, 2006).
The marine ecological assessment at Point Wilson (AECOM, 2011) found that extensive dense stands of Zostera
nigricaulis occurred in shallow water to 6m with the greatest biomass below 4m depth(on both sides of the jetty).
Density and patch size declined with increasing depth. An additional species, Halophila australis also occurred
extensively at the survey site, covering almost the entire area, although the distributional pattern was patchy.
Increasing depth appeared to be a limiting factor with only very sparse occurrences below the 8 m depth contour,
which includes the wharf area (approximately 10 - 11 m depth), where most of the timber piles are to be removed.
Considerable spatial overlap between Z. nigricaulis and H. australis occurred in shallow waters where the two
species occurred in monospecific as well as mixed seagrass patches.
The seagrass beds and associated sediments at Point Wilson provide potential habitat for an FFG-listed marine
invertebrate (i.e. sea cucumber), an EPBC-listed fish (School Shark), several FFG-listed fish species and a wide
range of crustaceans, polychaetes, bivalves and pulmonate gastropods.
Light is one of the key environmental resources imperative for the growth and survival of seagrasses (Hemming
and Duarte, 2000). Water transparency (which determines depth-penetration of photosynthetically active radiation
of sunlight) is the primary factor determining the maximum depth at which seagrasses can occur. Reduction in
light due to turbidity has been identified as a major cause of loss of seagrasses worldwide (Green and Short,
2003).
Turbidity plumes may result from the suspension of materials in the water following disturbance (e.g. dredging,
storm activity and flooding). Turbidity plumes can reduce light penetration and effect primary production of marine
organisms such as seagrass and phytoplankton, potentially leading to death during prolonged exposure
(Erftemeijer and Robin Lewis III, 2006). This can have a range of effects on biota including impacts on feeding,
breeding and migration, smothering and clogging (Erftemeijer and Robin Lewis III, 2006).
The conservative minimum average light requirement for seagrass in Port Philip Bay has previously been
determined to be 15% of incidental light (SEES, 2007). It is recognised that at this level there may be some short-
term physiological changes (chlorophyll concentrations, changes in storage products) and possibly morphological
changes (leaf density and length) to seagrasses that are usually living in average conditions higher than 15
percent incident light. It is expected that short durations (days to weeks) of intermittent shading followed by
adequate light conditions (at least 15% of surface) for a long period following exposure (months), are likely to
have a negligible effect on seagrass.
The relationship between Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and light attenuation is complex and the biological effect
of TSS on seagrass cannot be accurately predicted without the establishment of the relationship between TSS
and light attenuation (i.e. through a monitoring program). Data on turbidity in the Geelong Arm indicate that
background levels are generally low and likely to be in the range of 1mg/L to 5 mg/L. Turbidity levels are likely to
increase to the order of 25 mg/L to 50 mg/L in nearshore areas during moderate to strong winds and may exceed
100 mg/L during storm winds as a result of re-suspension of sediments from wave action (ECAC, 1996).
The proposed removal of the timber piles and temporary piles would only occur periodically throughout the
construction period; therefore, long-standing turbidity plumes are not anticipated to be generated. A MIKE21
hydrodynamic model of the Corio Bay in Port Phillip Bay has been developed and calibrated successfully as part
of this study. This model was coupled with the sediment model and used to simulate the movement of sediment
produced by removing piles from the Point Wilson wharf and jetty. .
The TSS resulting from modelled scenario 1 (pile removal) were extremely low (<0.1 mg/L above background
levels) and the worst-case scenario (i.e. an increased mass flux of 4 kg/s) showed the highest TSS of 40 mg/L
alongside the jetty. Results at the modelled receptor point (near the Ramsar wetlands) showed lower TSS levels.
The modelling indicated that these TSS peaks would not persist and would fall rapidly to zero values within 1-2
hours. The model predicts that the impacts of turbidity in the bay would be insignificant, with suspended solids
concentrations in the Point Wilson area exceeding 10 mg/L less than 10% of the times in the vicinity of the jetty
21
during the simulation period. These levels are considered very low considering that background TSS levels can
reach 50 100 mg/L during storm conditions. Natural agitation by waves and tidal currents in these areas are
anticipated to prevent sedimentation that could detrimentally impact seagrass meadows.
The modelling further shows that while the vessels would generate high turbidity plumes upon arrival and
departure, these plumes would rapidly disperse with the concentration falling to 10 mg/L within 12 hours and
achieving back ground levels in about 24 hours.
The modelling indicates that turbidity generated from the proposed activities would be unlikely to result in
detrimental impacts to seagrass meadows proximate to the Ramsar wetland or to the PWEA waterside
infrastructure. The modelling results should, however, be treated as indicative since these are based on assumed
values of sediment release and sediment characteristics. A more accurate prediction from models will require
inputs of measured site specific sediment characteristics and measured volumes of sediment released into the
water column.
22
7.0 References
AECOM (2011). Point Wilson Waterside Infrastructure Remediation LHD Parameters Affecting Berthing, Mooring
and Under-keel Clearance Assessments, prepared for Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd,
J une 2011.
DHI (2011). User guide manual for the hydrodynamic and mud transport models, Danish Hydraulic Institute,
March 2011.
Duarte, C.M. (2002). The future of seagrass meadows. Environmental Conservation 29 (2), 192206.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A., and Robin Lewis III, R.R. (2006). Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses A
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52: 1553-1572. Available online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47891363/Environmental-impacts-of-dredging-on-seagrasses-a-review
Green, E.P., Short, F.T. (2003). World Atlas of Seagrasses. Prepared by theUNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 298 pp.
Hemming, M.A., Duarte, C.M. (2000). Seagrass Ecology. Springer, Cambridge (UK), 298 pp.
PIANC-AIPCN Bulletin 1987 No. 58.
SEES (2007). Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Channel Deepening Project: Technical Appendix
45. Hydrodynamics and Coastal Processes, Head Technical Report prepared by Cardno Lawson Treloar for
Maunsell Australia, J anuary 2007.
SEES. 2007. Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement Channel Deepening Project: Appendix 50,
Overview Impact Assessment on Seagrass. Prepared by CEE for Maunsell Australia, J anuary 2007.

Attachment 6 - Turbidity Modelling

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Attachment 6 - Turbidity Modelling

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Point Wilson Waterside Infrastructure

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi