1

ADAPTING PORT INFRASTRUCTURE TO SEA LEVEL RISE: A CALL TO ACTION

FOR THE PORT OF NEWCASTLE

Name

Professor

Course

Date
 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This consultancy report examines the risk of sea level rise (SLR) the Port of Newcastle

operations at the Port of Newcastle, NSW with the use of CSIRO's sea level calculator Canute.

With a high-emissions pathway (SSP5-8.5, 50th percentile), forecasts show that the mean sea

level at Virtual Gauge #29 port could experience an increase of 0.80 m by 2100. Therefore,

combining the storm tide and wave setup, the water level of 1.47 m AHD will occur nearly every

year by 2100 for all the emissions scenarios modelled. ALW 0.95 m by 2100, based on SSP5-8.5,

is required for the critical infrastructure to implement current Flood Risk (FR). Material exposure

of the port has been identified which includes low-lying reclaimed land (1.0–3.0 m AHD), a coal

export capacity of 77 million tonnes, the growing importance of container trade and the

surrounding communities in the Hunter region of NSW. It is recommended to do this in the

following ways: Phased adaptation with decision trigger points to observations of SLR, followed

by immediate SLR monitoring and NBd, then wharfe and utility lift by computed ALW in the

medium term, then adaptive relocation of vulnerable wharf functions in the long term.
 3

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 1
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 3
List of Tables.................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Abbreviations...................................................................................................................... 5
1.0 THE BIG PICTURE: SEA LEVEL RISE IN A WARMING WORLD.....................................................7
1.1 Drivers of climate change related to natural and human-made causes...............................7
1.2 The role, effectiveness and limitations of the IPCC..............................................................7
1.3 Sea level rise: global and regional context...........................................................................9
2.0 CASE STUDY: PORT OF NEWCASTLE.........................................................................................9
3.0 STAKEHOLDERS...................................................................................................................... 11
4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS......................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Components of an extreme sea level event.......................................................................14
4.2 Modelling approach and parameters.................................................................................15
4.3 Annual Exceedance Probability and Recurrence Intervals.................................................15
4.4 Projected total water heights to 2100................................................................................21
5.0 IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................................23
5.1 Discussion: data, uncertainty and feedbacks.....................................................................23
5.2 Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 24
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................25
7. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................27
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................30
APPENDIX.....................................................................................................................................32
 4

List of Figures

Figure 1:Canute 3.1 map interface showing Virtual Gauge #29 (red dot, port entrance) and

surrounding Newcastle coastal points.............................................................................................7

Figure 2: Average Recurrence Interval (return level) plot for Virtual Gauge #29, 2025 baseline.13

Figure 3: Return level plot for SSP1-2.6 (low emissions, ~RCP2.6), 2100, 50th percentile........14

Figure 4:Return level plot for SSP2-4.5 (intermediate emissions, ~RCP4.5), 2100, 50th

percentile........................................................................................................................................15

Figure 5: Return level plot for SSP5-8.5 (very high emissions, ~RCP8.5), 2100, 50th percentile.

.......................................................................................................................................................16

Figure 6: Return level plot for SSP5-8.5, 2100, 5th percentile (lower bound)..............................17

Figure 7: Return level plot for SSP5-8.5, 2100, 95th percentile (upper bound)............................18
 5

List of Tables

Table 1: Stakeholders summary.....................................................................................................10

Table 2: Summary of total water height (m AHD) for flooding events at Virtual Gauge #29, Port

of Newcastle..................................................................................................................................20

Table 3: Virtual Gauge #29 Combined Table.................................................................................28

 6

List of Abbreviations

 AEP: Annual Exceedance Probability

 AHD: Australian Height Datum

 AR5: Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC)

 AR6: Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC)

 BoM: Bureau of Meteorology

 CSIRO: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

 DCCEEW: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (NSW)

 EAC: East Australian Current

 ENSO: El Niño–Southern Oscillation

 GMSL: Global Mean Sea Level

 ILO: Intended Learning Outcome

 IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 KLE: Keele Learning Environment

 MICI: Marine Ice Cliff Instability

 MSL: Mean Sea Level

 NSW: New South Wales

 OHS: Occupational Health and Safety

 RCP: Representative Concentration Pathway

 SLR: Sea Level Rise

 SDBS: Surf Dissipative Beach Slope (wave setup method)

 SSP: Shared Socioeconomic Pathway

 SWH: Significant Wave Height

 7

 SWL: Still Water Level

 TEU: Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (container measure)

 UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change


 8

1.0 THE BIG PICTURE: SEA LEVEL RISE IN A WARMING WORLD

1.1 Drivers of climate change related to natural and human-made causes

Earth's climate has always varied naturally. Glacial–interglacial cycles are associated with

orbital Milankovitch cycles and occur over tens of thousands of years whereas shorter term

modes of variability such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic aerosol

forcing generate inter-annual variability but not long-term forcing, (McInnes et al., 2015). The

warming since the mid-20th century is however different in some respects: in how fast it happens

and in what causes it. The Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) concludes there is high confidence that climate change since 1850–1900

has been caused primarily by human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation and

industrial processes (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021). The combined effect of these thermal expansions

of seawater and a net mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets has given rise to a unidirectional

shift in MSL, superposed on natural variations.

1.2 The role, effectiveness and limitations of the IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has continued to be the leading

organisation to compile peer-reviewed climate science into policy relevant information. Its

assessment reports, especially AR6 (2021), directly underpin the UNFCCC Paris Agreement and,

through tools like the IPCC Sea Level Projection Tool, have made it possible to make region-by-

region projections (Garner et al., 2021). Involving thousands of expert and government reviewers

in the multi-stage review process that the IPCC carries out, creates an evidence base that can't be

replicated by each individual consultant or each individual port authority on their own. Yet,

important aspects of effectiveness are structurally constrained for the IPCC and have a material
 9

impact on infrastructure risk assessment. First, the consensus-based approval process results in

an agreement about each line of text by the delegations of the 195 member states. This leads to

"lowest common denominator" conclusions in which words are watered down to render a

consensus (Houghton et al., 2001; Oppenheimer et al., 2007). For instance, AR6 states a "likely

range" for SLR by 2100 under SSP5-8.5 as 0.63–1.01 m, excluding the marine ice cliff

instability (MICI) due to "low confidence" in the models, which is not the same as "unlikely"

since it has not been ruled out. This means that the central range can systematically

underestimate risk for long-life assets like those for coal terminals, wharves and conveyor

systems with a lifetime of 50-100 years.

Second, the six- to seven-year timeframe for an assessment limits the policy response to

science discoveries made during the assessment process. Since AR5 in 2013, there has been

significant progress in understanding how Antarctic ice-shelf collapse processes work, but

without incorporating these progress, AR5-based port authorities would have continued with

ranges of 0.52–0.98 m, while including low confidence processes would have resulted in ranges

of 0.98–1.88 m (Slangen et al., 2023). This lag is a concrete planning failure for infrastructure

deployed in 2020 and in operation until 2100. Third, IPCC has no mandate to enforce. It

identifies and communicates risk and will not force governments, port operators or investors to

take action on adaptation or mitigation (Oppenheimer et al., 2019). The success of the IPCC

guidance thus hinges directly on the readiness of the various stakeholders to take precautionary

measures exceeding the central “likely range” including the upper-bound allowances suggested

in this report. Implications for this assessment: This report is based on AR6 projections, but

protests the conservatism of AR6 for infrastructure planning. The NSW Government's guidance

to use upper-bound estimates for critical infrastructure (NSW DCCEEW, 2025) is consistent with
 10

this critique. The Canute 3.1 outputs used in section 4 are provided to consider high-end cases as

well as central (50th percentile) cases so that the port can plan adaptively as the observations

move towards or away from the high-end cases.

1.3 Sea level rise: global and regional context

Since 1993 (satellite era), the global mean sea level (GMSL) has increased about 3.4

mm/year. This is slightly lower than the NSW coast at around 3.7 mm/year, which accounts for

regional variations such as strengthening of the East Australian Current (EAC) and the trade-

wind regime during phases of La Niña (McInnes et al., 2015; NSW DCCEEW, 2025). This rate

of SLR is not a uniform increase throughout the region, which along with dynamic

oceanographic effects implies that Newcastle will see an increase in SLR that is slightly higher

than the global average. Ocean heat uptake and ice-sheet response follow centennial timescales

and AR6 projects a continued upward trend through 2100 and beyond under all emissions

scenarios, even those that target net-zero (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021). The issue facing port

stakeholders is thus not whether adaptation will take place, but rather to what extent and how

fast.

2.0 CASE STUDY: PORT OF NEWCASTLE

 11

Figure 1:Canute 3.1 map interface showing Virtual Gauge #29 (red dot, port entrance) and

surrounding Newcastle coastal points

The Port of Newcastle is at the mouth of the Hunter River at its point of entry into the

Tasman Sea. The harbour is a barrier estuary with no sample orientation data covering the south-

west area of the harbour, and the north-eastern location not sampled in the study area, but is

protected from open ocean waves to the west by the Stockton breakwall and Newcastle headland,

and is open to waves from the south-east (Port of Newcastle, 2024). It has a 'Inner Port'

(Kooragang Island, coal terminals, bulk export) and an 'Outer Port' (Carrington and Dyke Point,

general cargo and cruise terminal, coal loading). Much of the estate is located on reclaimed land

between 1.0 m and 3.0 m AHD, once swampy land reclaimed and filled to provide the present

industrial estate (NSW DCCEEW, 2025). Current sea defence works include all vertical sheet-
 12

pile wharf walls, rock-armour revetments and low concrete embankments. In offshore locations,

the significant wave height (SWH) is in the range of about 2 m and the wave periods are 8 – 10 s

(Climate Central, n.d.). The local climate is humid subtropical and the estuary is affected by

astronomical tides of about 1.42 m range. East coast lows cause extreme water levels,

particularly when high still water levels are combined with storm surges that can make water

levels rise 0.4 to 0.6 m, and can cause the additional water-level rise “wave setup” for major

events (McInnes et al., 2015). East coast lows like the one that grounded the Pasha Bulker in

2007 and recent passage through the area by Tropical Cyclone Alfred in 2025 demonstrate the

multiplicative interaction of hazards in this area (Bureau of Meteorology, 2025).

3.0 STAKEHOLDERS

The findings impact a wide network of stakeholders because of the port's integration into

the regional economy of the Hunter and its trade role at the national level. At the heart of the

network is the asset owner and operator, the Port of Newcastle Pty Ltd, which will have an

export capacity of 77-million tonnes of coal each year and a public commitment to achieve Net

Zero by 2040. Its shareholders are global infrastructure investment funds including Australia's

sovereign wealth fund and they are looking for more returns on long-dated leases, with the risk

of stranded assets if climate adaptation is postponed. When the port is closed there is not only an

economic loss to the thousands of people working there indirectly across the Hunter Valley, but

also to the occupational health and safety of the port's direct employees during these events,

thereby making protection of workers a priority concern. Not only the port corporation, but also

government actors have important strategic interests. The NSW Government identifies the port

as part of a 'catalyst precinct' in the Greater Newcastle Metropolitan Plan, where it is aligned

with economic planning and coal export royalties for the State. The Australian Federal
 13

Government has a national interest in the port because it forms part of the network of critical

trade infrastructure, with container ship imports expected to reach nearly 6.7 million TEU by

2056 in NSW, up from 2.7 million TEU in 2021 (Productivity Commission, 2021).

The Commonwealth is worried about resilience of east coast infrastructure in the face of

climate-impacted weather hazards that are moving further south than normal weather systems,

such as Tropical Cyclone Alfred in 2025. These layers of government are matched by

stakeholders in the supply chain including coal producers in the Hunter Valley; wheat exporters;

and renewable energy project cargo operators who have to operate by strict timings, but rely on

the uninterrupted port access. However, the stakeholder space can increase and include culture

and environment resources which are often marginalized in engineering evaluations and

communities (Transport for NSW, 2018). In addition to the port estate, residents in low-lying

areas of Stockton, Hexham, and Newcastle's suburbs face the same hydrological threat as the

port estate and similar knock-on flooding from surges in extreme high tides which are likely to

affect houses and services. Risks to traditional lands, such as erosion and inundation of middens

and sacred coastal localities, are a cultural heritage and socio-economic aspect of climate risk

that is often not considered in infrastructure planning, in the case of the Awabakal-Worimi people

whose traditional lands overlap with the middle and upper Hunter Estuary.

Table 1: Stakeholders summary

Stakeholder Category Risk Key Interest /

Level Vulnerability
 14

Port of Newcastle Pty Strategic, Financial, Very High Asset owner; 77 Mtpa coal

Ltd Operational capacity; Net Zero 2040

target; operational

continuity

Shareholders (global Financial High Return on long-term leases;

infrastructure funds) exposure to stranded asset

risk

Port employees and Economic, Safety Very High Direct/indirect

unions employment; OHS during

flood events

NSW Government Economic, High Catalyst precinct under

Operational, Greater Newcastle

Strategic Metropolitan Plan; royalty

revenue

Australian Federal Political, Strategic, Medium– National freight network;

Government Economic High trade security; disaster

mitigation funding

Hunter Valley Economic High Just-in-time supply chains;

exporters / importers coal, wheat, project cargo

Local community Social, Safety, High Inundation of surrounding

(Stockton, Newcastle, Environmental low-lying suburbs; erosion

Hexham)

Awabakal and Worimi Cultural, Very High Heritage sites, middens and
 15

Traditional Owners Environmental sacred coastal spaces at risk

from erosion and

inundation

Insurers / reinsurance Financial Medium Increasing premiums on

markets coastal critical

infrastructure

Estuarine environment Environmental High Mangroves, wetlands and

fish habitat impacted by

saline intrusion

4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Components of an extreme sea level event

Extreme sea levels at Newcastle are the net effect of a number of components. All of

these are expected to generate ‘actual peak water levels' that are higher than mean sea level

(MSL):

 Mean sea level: This is already 0.09 m above the baseline of 1995-2014 and is changing

at ~3.7 mm/year (NSW DCCEEW, 2025).

 Astronomical tide: There is a local range of ~1.42 m.

 Storm surge: Water levels are expected to rise by 0.4-0.6 m during East coast lows.

 Coastal trapped waves / ENSO: This occurs as a result of coastal trapped waves / ENSO

and can increase the baseline by 0.2-0.3 m during La Niña phases.

 16

These factors combine non-linearly, with water levels being considerably higher when a

“perfect storm” phenomenon, combined with high astronomical tides, storm surge, and wave set

up, occurs (Bureau of Meteorology, 2020). The modelling approach and parameters are the next

sections.

4.2 Modelling approach and parameters

The sea level data for this assessment has been calculated with the CSIRO Canute 3.1 sea

level calculator (CSIRO, 2020). Canute 3.1 now provides IPCC AR6 projections; previously,

Canute was based on the AR5 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs: RCP2.6, RCP4.5,

RCP8.5) but the projections have now been updated to Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs).

All three SSPs are shown in this report to ensure consistency with literature in the AR6 and past

module teaching based on RCPs. The parameters that have been chosen are:

 Location: Virtual Gauge #29, 151.7895°E 32.9031°S (Port of Newcastle entrance)

 Dataset: Coastal Model SWL (storm tide + wave setup via beach slope SDBS, slope =

0.077)

 Baseline: 2005 model storm tide

 Scenarios: SSP1-2.6 (low emissions, ~RCP2.6), SSP2-4.5 (intermediate, ~RCP4.5),

SSP5-8.5 (very high emissions, ~RCP8.5)

 Ensemble percentiles: 5th (lower), 50th (middle), and 95th (upper) where available

 Time slices: 2025, 2100

Since Virtual Gauge #29 is situated at the port entrance and is in a wave exposed location, the

outputs can be most directly applied to the Outer Port (Carrington / Dyke Point). This would be a
 17

slightly lower contribution for the Inner Port (Kooragang Island) where it is more sheltered

within the estuary.

4.3 Annual Exceedance Probability and Recurrence Intervals

Canute 3.1 generates two complementary outputs for interpreting extreme sea level risk:

Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) curves and Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) / return

level plots. Both are presented here.

Figure 2: Average Recurrence Interval (return level) plot for Virtual Gauge #29, 2025 baseline.

Black line = model storm tide (2005); grey = tide gauge observations; magenta = model storm

tide + SLR (2025); red = model storm tide + ALW (2025). Source: CSIRO Canute 3.1.
 18

Figure 3: Return level plot for SSP1-2.6 (low emissions, ~RCP2.6), 2100, 50th percentile
 19

Figure 4:Return level plot for SSP2-4.5 (intermediate emissions, ~RCP4.5), 2100, 50th

percentile.
 20

Figure 5: Return level plot for SSP5-8.5 (very high emissions, ~RCP8.5), 2100, 50th percentile.
 21

Figure 6: Return level plot for SSP5-8.5, 2100, 5th percentile (lower bound).
 22

Figure 7: Return level plot for SSP5-8.5, 2100, 95th percentile (upper bound)

Figures 2–7 illustrate the progressive upward shift of the return-level curve under

increasing emissions. Under SSP5-8.5 (50th percentile), the 1-in-100-year event reaches 2.27 m

AHD by 2100; an increase of 0.80 m over the baseline. The 95th-percentile upper bound (Figure

7) shows an even steeper curve, emphasising the tail risk that the IPCC central range does not

fully capture.

4.4 Projected total water heights to 2100

 23

Table 2: Summary of total water height (m AHD) for flooding events at Virtual Gauge #29, Port

of Newcastle

Year / Scenario SLR ALW 1 yr 10 20 50 100 200 500

(m) (m) yr yr yr yr yr yr

2025 (SSP2-4.5) 0.08 0.08 1.2 1.39 1.44 1.51 1.55 1.60 1.67

2100 SSP1-2.6 0.56 0.65 1.7 1.87 1.92 1.99 2.03 2.08 2.15

(~RCP2.6) 1

2100 SSP2-4.5 0.70 0.82 1.8 2.01 2.06 2.13 2.17 2.22 2.29

(~RCP4.5) 5

2100 SSP5-8.5 (5th) 0.61 0.95 1.7 1.92 1.97 2.04 2.08 2.13 2.20

(~RCP8.5 lower) 6

2100 SSP5-8.5 (50th) 0.80 0.95 1.9 2.11 2.16 2.23 2.27 2.32 2.39

(~RCP8.5 central) 5

Note: Values are "storm tide + SLR" total water levels in metres AHD, derived from Canute 3.1

Coastal Model SWL with beach slope SDBS wave setup. ALW = allowance required to maintain

current flood risk. Baseline (2005) 100-year level = 1.47 m AHD.

The 100-year occurrence becomes an annual occurrence by 2100. Under SSP5-8.5 (50th),

the 1-year event in 2100 (1.95 m AHD) already exceeds the baseline 100-year level (1.47 m

AHD). The 1-year event (1.71 m AHD) exceeds the old 100-year event, with this now “rare”
 24

event happening in the majority of years by 2100, even under the low-emissions SSP1-2.6

climate scenario.

Allowances are above the raw SLR level. ALW values are greater than for mean SLR

(0.80 m) because, in order to maintain the same probability of flooding, assets need to be raised

above the mean SLR to account for the compression of the probability of return.

5.0 IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Discussion: data, uncertainty and feedbacks

The Canute outputs are a defensible evidentiary basis for the sea level rise (SLR) and
allowance numbers used in this study and there is considerable strength in the location specific
evidence they provide. However, there are several uncertainties associated with the modelling
approach that need to be clearly recognized as not a worstcase or upper-bound modelling
approach and to ensure that the values in Table 2 are not interpreted as such. Canute 3.1 has
been implemented with a spatial resolution of around 2.5 km, suitable for spatial planning tasks
and planning at the regional scale, but course in comparison to the scale of individual port
facilities and berths and the low lying areas in the yard. Virtual gauge #29, where from the site-
specific values in this study are taken is located at the entrance to the port and is considered to
be representative of the open-water conditions. It is not sensitive enough to identify
bathymetric or hydrodynamic effects at the micro-scale within the individual docks, turning
basins or channelised areas of the port estate, where locally heightened water levels by the
effects of wave refraction on the local area, wake set-up in a particular area, or flow constrained
through a channelized area may be greater than that indicated by the gage output.

A second, and potentially more important, restriction is that vertical land movements
are not explicitly considered in the Canute model. This is a significant omission in the context of
this site since much of Kooragang Island and Carrington itself is built on reclaimed and
engineered fill, built on former estuarine and intertidal sediments. Decadal time scale of
consolidation and subsidence is well documented from reclaimed port and industrial land
worldwide for such a fill. The framework for regional and local sea level projections outlined by
Kopp et al. (2019) will apply and the effective relative sea level change structures and
infrastructure will face will be larger than the eustatic or geocentric value of SLR. Therefore,
Figure 2: 0.80 m SLR + 0.95 m ALW (sea level rise) used in this study should be considered as a
potentially conservative underestimate in those areas of the port estate where fill related
 25

subsidence is active and design should be done using site-specific settlement monitoring data, if
available. This equally important treatment of deep uncertainty in the projection information
from the IPCC AR6 applies to the deep uncertainty pertaining the dynamics of the Antarctic ice-
sheet, as well. As discussed in Section 1.2, the processes including Marine Ice Cliff Instability
(MICI) are considered low confidence and high consequence and uncertainties and not included
in the processes used for the 50th percentile central projections used to obtain the report's
headline figures. If these mechanisms are effected, then the more realistic pathway is the upper
95th percentile projection bound shown in Figure 7 and predicted end-of-century SLR at this site
exceeds 1.0 m. Using only the central estimate means that long design-life port infrastructure,
including coal loaders, wharf structures and conveyor systems (which may be expected to last
50 to 100 years) will likely experience systematic under-protection as they are designed for a
point in the range of deep uncertainty and not the median. Lastly, be mindful of the types of
combination hazards which are not covered by Canute.

The Canute analysis considers only the contribution due to still water level (SWL) from
the ocean, but does not simulate both fluvial (Hunter River) and rainfall-driven (pluvial) flooding
at the same time as an extreme coastal storm. The NSW Coastal Hazards Assessment (NSW
DCCEEW, 2025), however, identifies compound rainfall/surge events as the most prevalent
driver of built environment damage in the Hunter Region and this is exemplified by the 2007
Pasha Bulker when higher than average storm tide coincided with high levels of rainfall and
riverine flooding. The overall flood risk to the port estate is hence likely to be greater than the
marine-only return levels, as given in Table 2. A practical combination of a still water event
(SWE) as large as 2.27 m AHD with a high flow on the Hunter River (e.g. 100 year ARi, SSP5-8.5)
could reasonably be expected to cause a water level of 2.5 to 3.0 m AHD in the low-lying areas
of the port estate, significantly higher than the marine derived design.

5.2 Impacts

In order for the export terminal at the Kooragang coal complex to operate its planned

capacity (77 Mtpa), the rail loop and conveyor system must keep running continuously. As can

be seen from Table 2, even the 10-year event (2.11 m AHD) is not far from what low-lying

stockpile areas are (1.0-2.0 m AHD) by the year 2100 under SSP5-8.5. Exports would stop as rail

corridors and electrical substations were flooded, and there would be repercussions for mines in

the Hunter Valley and state royalty revenues. The 20-year storm (2.06m AHD) under SSP2-4.5

also poses a threat to low lying infrastructure. Safety and environmental. The port estate features
 26

ammoniate salt storage and fuel storage on site below 2.0 m AHD. The inundation of these sites

is a leading cause of concern over safety risks and possible contamination of the Hunter estuary.

Without mitigation these installations would be underwater at the Canute SSP5-8.5 50-year level

(2.23 m AHD). Cultural heritage. Awabakal and Worimi people are the traditional owners of the

port and surrounding coastline. Engineering assessments generally fail to consider the dimension

of climate risk of middens and sacred sites for erosion and inundation along the estuary.

There are knock-on effects from this which reach Stockton and Hexham as low-lying

residential neighbourhoods have the same hydrological link to the Hunter River and Tasman Sea.

These communities can simply use the Canute projections for Virtual Gauge #29.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Phase Timefram Recommendation Canute Evidence Target Water

e Level / ALW

Immediate 2025–2030 Integrate real-time tide 2025 baseline: Maintain

gauge forecasting; trigger 1.55 m AHD current risk

operational shutdowns (100-yr)

ahead of extreme events

Commission LiDAR Resolution gap in Sub-grid

survey and site-specific 2.5 km Canute inundation

hydrodynamic model grid maps

Remediate estuarine Wave setup Reduce

mangroves and saltmarsh attenuation (0.2– effective wave

 27

0.4 m reduction setup

potential)

Short- 2030–2040 Elevate electrical 2025 ALW: 0.08 Minimum

term substations and control m standard

rooms at Kooragang Island

Design new hard 2100 SSP2-4.5 Future-

infrastructure to ALW: 0.82 m proofing

accommodate 2100 SSP2- without retrofit

4.5 ALW

Install temporary flood 2025 10-year Operational

barriers at Carrington event: 1.39 m protection

cruise terminal AHD

Medium- 2040–2060 Reconstruct ageing 2100 SSP5-8.5 Critical

term wharves with freeboard for ALW: 0.95 m infrastructure

critical assets standard

Accelerate Mayfield Kooragang 100-yr Reduce single-

container precinct on event: 2.27 m precinct risk

higher ground AHD by 2100

Long-term 2060–2100 Activate relocation SSP5-8.5 5th Decision

planning for hazardous percentile SLR: trigger point

materials if observed SLR 0.61 m

> 0.60 m

Execute staged migration if SSP5-8.5 50th Full relocation

 28

observed SLR tracks 0.80 percentile SLR: trigger

m 0.80 m

Update adaptation plans IPCC assessment Adaptive

every 5 years cycle; NSW governance

Coastal

Management

Program

Canute 3.1 does not output maps of spatial inundation but the total water levels in Table 2

can be layer over LiDAR elevation data to produce maps of inundation extent on the precinct

scale.

Annual event (2100, SSP5-8.5): 1.95 m AHD would inundate all areas below 2.0 m

AHD, including access roads at Carrington and coal stockpiles at Kooragang.

100-year event (2100, SSP5-8.5): 2.27 m AHD would inundate areas below 2.3 m AHD,

including most of the Inner Port rail loops and the precinct of the Outer Port cruise terminal, and

would require verification against the elevation of assets.

500-year event (2100, SSP5-8.5): 2.39 m AHD would approach the elevation at which

some wharf decks would be inundated, and would require verification against the elevation of

assets.
 29

7. CONCLUSION

The imperative for proactive climate adaptation at the Port of Newcastle is no longer a

distant projection; it is an immediate operational reality. Sea level rise is unstoppable and a direct

threat for the structural and economic feasibility of the infrastructure of the port. Today's one in

100-year extreme water level event (AHD 1.47m) will become a regular occurrence by 2100

even if society adopts a climate mitigator policy. For the more realistic global pathways of SSP2-

4.5 (approximately equivalent to RCP 4.5) or high emission pathways of SSP5-8.5

(approximately equivalent to RCP 8.5), exposure of the port's low lying reclaimed estate,

particularly the land mass between the two arms of the harbour across Kooragang Island, will

result in chronic recurrent inundation if no holistic intervention strategies are put in place.

Canute 3.1 offers analytical insights that set an empirical base for immediate policy and

design action, an objective and reproducible base. To maintain the current level of risk in the

port, engineering standards should take into account a minimum design allowance of 0.82 m to

0.95 m of vertical clearance to be reached by 2100. The concept of flood risk based on historical

recurrence intervals is a very antiquated notion because of the emergence of 100-year weather

events as regular, or even yearly, occurrences. Solving those combined risks requires a complex

spatial and engineering solution; there is a need for systematic elevation of critical infrastructure,

critical equipment must be moved out of flood zones and defendable perimeter needs to be

strengthened by taking a holistic approach to marine protection that combines NbC solutions

with hard engineering approaches.

It is necessary to ensure that all pocket areas of future sewer system upgrades have

dynamic, adaptive plans which allow for modification as needed with evolving climate science

and localised hydro-dynamic modelling. The governance frameworks discussed are just the
 30

“how” when it comes to Net Zero 2040, with the Port of Newcastle taking commendable

strategic steps with a plan and involved in international sustainability frameworks. Now,

however, policy pledges need to be followed up with capital investments and on-the-ground

adaptation activities and organisational arrangements. A physical resilient port with carbon

neutrality goals means that the port will not only fulfill its emissions reduction targets, but also

that operations are kept secure against increasingly frequent marine risks. In the end, the success

of the Port of Newcastle in ensuring it remains a steady international trade center depends on

expanding its ability to keep pace with climate adaptational works required by the undeniable

rate of sea level rise.

 31

REFERENCES
Bureau of Meteorology. (2020). State of the Climate 2020. Commonwealth of Australia.

Bureau of Meteorology. (2025). Severe Tropical Cyclone Alfred (22U). Commonwealth of

Australia. Available at: [Link]

Cheng, G., et al. (2026). Subsidence more than doubles sea-level rise today along densely

populated coasts. Nature Communications, 17. Available at:

[Link]

Climate Central. (n.d.). Coastal Risk Screening Tool. Retrieved 2026, from

[Link]

CSIRO. (2020). Canute 3.1 [Online sea level calculator]. Commonwealth Scientific and

Industrial Research Organisation. Available at: [Link]

Fox-Kemper, B., et al. (2021). Ocean, cryosphere and sea level change. In Climate Change 2021:

The Physical Science Basis (AR6 WGI). Cambridge University Press.

Garner, G. G., et al. (2021). IPCC AR6 sea level projection tool. NASA Sea Level Change Team.

Houghton, J. T., et al. (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University

Press.

Kopp, R. E., et al. (2019). Usable science for managing the risks of sea-level rise. Earth's Future,

7(12), 1235–1269.

McInnes, K. L., et al. (2015). Information for Australian impact and adaptation planning in

response to sea-level rise. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal, 65,

130–148.
 32

NSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. (2025). NSW coastal

erosion and inundation exposure assessment: Technical report 2025. AdaptNSW.

NSW Government. (n.d.). Climate change impacts on our cultural values. AdaptNSW. Retrieved

2026, from [Link]

change/cultural-values

Oppenheimer, M., et al. (2007). The limits of consensus. Science, 317(5844), 1505–1506.

Oppenheimer, M., et al. (2019). Sea level rise and implications for low-lying islands, coasts and

communities. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing

Climate.

Port of Newcastle. (2024). Climate change policy and Annual trade report. Port of Newcastle.

Scott, H., McEvoy, D., Chhetri, P., Basic, F., & Mullett, J. (2013). Climate change adaptation

guidelines for ports. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF).

Gold Coast, Australia.

Slangen, A. B. A., et al. (2023). The evolution of 21st century sea-level projections from IPCC

AR5 to AR6 and beyond. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures, 1, e7.

Transport for NSW. (2018). NSW freight commodity demand forecasts, final report. NSW

Government. Available at:

[Link]

%20Commodity%20Demand%20Forecasts%202016-56%5Baccessible%5D_0.pdf
 33

Vovides, A., et al. (2025). Predicting nature-based coastal protection by mangroves under

extreme waves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(13). Available at:

[Link]

World Bank. (2021). Climate risk and ports: A practical guide on strengthening resilience. World

Bank Public-Private Partnership Legal Resource Center. Available at:

[Link]
 34

APPENDIX

Virtual Gauge #29 Combined Table: All Scenarios (Coastal Model SWL + Beach Slope

SDBS Wave Setup)

Table 3: Virtual Gauge #29 Combined Table

Year SSP (~RCP Percentile SLR ALW 1 yr 10 20 50 100 200 500

equivalent) (m) (m) yr yr yr yr yr yr

2025 SSP2-4.5 50th 0.08 0.082 1.23 1.39 1.44 1.51 1.55 1.60 1.67

(~RCP4.5)

2100 SSP1-2.6 50th 0.56 0.65 1.71 1.87 1.92 1.99 2.03 2.08 2.15

(~RCP2.6)

2100 SSP2-4.5 50th 0.70 0.816 1.85 2.01 2.06 2.13 2.17 2.22 2.29

(~RCP4.5)

2100 SSP5-8.5 5th 0.61 0.945 1.76 1.92 1.97 2.04 2.08 2.13 2.20

(~RCP8.5)

2100 SSP5-8.5 50th 0.80 0.945 1.95 2.11 2.16 2.23 2.27 2.32 2.39

(~RCP8.5)

Notes: SLR = Sea Level Rise relative to 1995–2014 baseline (IPCC AR6). ALW = Allowance

(amount infrastructure must be raised to maintain current flood-risk probability). All water

levels in metres AHD. Model: Coastal Model SWL with beach slope SDBS wave setup (slope =
 35

0.077). Location: Virtual Gauge #29, 151.7895°E, 32.9031°S. Baseline (2005) 100-year storm

tide = 1.47 m AHD. Data source: CSIRO Canute 3.1 (CSIRO, 2020).