Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard … · 2017-09-21 · Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment 3 Methodology G:\Admin\B22363.g.mpb_Yaroomba_CHA\R.B22363.001.00.docx

$Page 1: Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard … · 2017-09-21 · Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment 3 Methodology G:\Admin\B22363.g.mpb_Yaroomba_CHA\R.B22363.001.00.docx$
Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment

Reference: R.B22363.001.00.docx

Date: March 2017 Confidential

A part of BMT in Energy and Environment

G:\Admin\B22363.g.mpb_Yaroomba_CHA\R.B22363.001.00.docx

Document Control Sheet

BMT WBM Pty Ltd Level 8, 200 Creek Street Brisbane Qld 4000 Australia PO Box 203, Spring Hill 4004 Tel: +61 7 3831 6744 Fax: + 61 7 3832 3627 ABN 54 010 830 421 www.bmtwbm.com.au

Document: R.B22363.001.00.docx

Title: Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment

Project Manager: Matthew Barnes

Author: Matthew Barnes and Dr Philip Haines

Client: SH Coolum Pty Ltd

Client Contact: Aaron Lenden

Client Reference:

Synopsis: Coastal erosion hazard assessment for the Yaroomba Village and International Resort Development, Yaroomba, Queensland

REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY

Revision Number Date Checked by Issued by

0 14th March 2017 PEH MPB

DISTRIBUTION

Destination Revision

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SH Coolum Pty Ltd

BMT WBM File

BMT WBM Library

PDF

PDF

PDF

Copyright and non-disclosure notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by BMT WBM Pty Ltd (BMT WBM) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by BMT WBM under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report.

The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of BMT WBM. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by BMT WBM at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on this Document Control Sheet. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. BMT WBM excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report.

http://www.bmtwbm.com.au/

Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment i

Contents


Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Methodology 3

2.1 Erosion Hazard Area Width Assessment 3

2.1.1 Planning Period (N) 3

2.1.2 Rate of Long Term Erosion (R) 3

2.1.3 Storm Erosion (C) 7

2.1.4 Erosion due to Sea Level Rise (S) 9

2.1.4.1 Equilibrium Profile (Bruun Rule) Concept 10

2.1.5 Factor of Safety (F) 12

2.1.6 Dune Slumping (D) 13

2.2 Erosion Hazard Area Width Result 13

3 References 16

Appendix A Design Storm Profiles A-1

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Study Area – Proposed Development Site 2

Figure 2-1 Offshore Bathymetry and Historical Beach Profile Locations (BMT WBM, 2014) 6

Figure 2-2 ETA558 Beach and Offshore Profiles 7

Figure 2-3 ETA562 Beach and Offshore Profiles 7

Figure 2-4 Predicted storm erosion profile at Yaroomba Beach adjacent to the centre of the proposed the Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site. 8

Figure 2-5 Storm Erosion Assessment Profile Locations 9

Figure 2-6 Projections of Global SLR Relative to 1986-2005 Mean Sea Level (IPCC, 2014) 10

Figure 2-7 Bruun (1962) Concept of Recession due to Sea Level Rise 11

Figure 2-8 Yaroomba Beach Re-Calculated Erosion Prone Area 15

Figure A-1 Predicted storm erosion profile at Yaroomba Beach at the northern end of the proposed the Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site A-1

Figure A-2 Predicted storm erosion profile at Yaroomba Beach at the southern end of the proposed the Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site A-1

Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment 1

Introduction


1 Introduction

This technical memorandum provides details of a coastal erosion hazard assessment for the

Yaroomba Village and International Resort Development, Yaroomba. The development site is

shown in Figure 1-1 together with the state Coastal Management District and the state coastline

definition defined by the mean high water tidal plane. The Queensland Government considers

coastal hazards through the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). The outcomes designed to

mitigate risk to the community associated with coastal hazards are primarily delivered through local

government planning schemes.

Severe weather events that generate storm surge and large waves contribute to the immediate

erosion hazard at the shoreline adjacent to the proposed development. Long term erosion trends

and the potential for shoreline recession in response to sea level rise must also be considered over

an appropriate planning period. The advice provided below follows technical studies previously

completed by BMT WBM for the Sunshine Coast Council in support of a Shoreline Erosion

Management Plan (BMT WBM, 2013) and the Sunshine Coast Airport Expansion Environmental

Impact Statement (BMT WBM, 2014). Where appropriate, the previous assessments have been

updated with new datasets and to reflect current state planning policies.


Introduction


Figure 1-1 Study Area – Proposed Development Site


Methodology


2 Methodology

2.1 Erosion Hazard Area Width Assessment

Erosion hazard area widths are determined to cater for potential erosion of the dune system over a

specified planning period. Both short term (storm related) and longer term (gradual) trends are

included in the assessment together with an allowance for potential sea level rise associated with

climate change. Provision is also included for a factor of safety on the estimates. The following

relationship was originally used by the (then) Beach Protection Authority (BPA) for determining

erosion hazard area widths throughout Queensland. This formula continues to be recognised by

DEHP (2013) as a reasonable method of assessing the erosion hazard on sandy coastlines.

DFSCRNE )1(])[(

Equation 1

Where E = erosion prone area width (metres)

N = planning period (years)

R = rate of long term erosion (metres per year)

C = short term erosion from the design storm event (metres)

S = erosion due to sea level rise (metres)

F = factor of safety

D = dune scarp component (metres)

The values of R, C, S and D have been determined with reference to the proposed development

adjacent to Yaroomba Beach using recently collected data, site specific modelling and sea level

rise projections recommended by DEHP (2015). The coastal hazard area assessments and

assumptions are described further below.

2.1.1 Planning Period (N)

The planning horizon for the erosion hazard assessment is the year 2100 (i.e. 83 years from

present). Based on this metric, the following assumptions are considered appropriate:

Storm erosion (C) based on a design storm event characterised by the 1% Annual Exceedance

Probability (AEP) storm tide level and wave height; and

Erosion due to sea level rise (S) based on 0.8 m by 2100 (DEHP, 2015).

2.1.2 Rate of Long Term Erosion (R)

The long term erosion component is intended to capture historical trends in shoreline position.

DEHP (2013) outline two basic approaches to obtain an estimate of long term erosion:

Extrapolation of past trends deduced from the geological record or evidenced from surveys and

aerial photographs; or


Methodology


Calculation of the present local sediment budget for the beach. Any deficit (or surplus) is

converted into a horizontal movement of the shoreline that can be extrapolated over the

planning period.

Analysis of historical aerial photography between 1940 and 1994 (WBM, 1996) identified a

relatively stable shoreline with a slight trend of shoreline retreat (upper limit estimated at 0.2m per

year). Analysis of more recent aerial photography also suggests a stable shoreline, noting that

Yaroomba Beach has sufficient buffer to respond naturally to episodic storm erosion events.

A detailed analysis of existing Beach Protection Authority (BPA) beach profile data (commonly

referred to as “ETA profiles”) to determine changes in the beach system between the Maroochy

River mouth and Coolum was previously undertaken by WBM (1996). The profiles deemed most

suitable for analysis extended from the dune to deep water (approximately 20 m depth) and

spanned a period close to 20 years (April 1974 to August 1993). The volumetric change was

calculated at each profile location and from the analysis it was concluded there was a net annual

loss of sand from the beach system of about 1.6-3.2 m3/m, corresponding to minor shoreline retreat

of 0.1-0.2 m/year between 1974 and 1993. This finding suggests that the upper limit of shoreline

retreat in the intervening years since completion of the analysis is approximately 4 m.

BMT WBM (2014) used a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) created from a 2011 bathymetric survey of

the study area (Queensland Government, 2012) to assess changes to the shoreline since the WBM

(1996) study. Cross sectional profiles were extracted from the DEM at the same locations originally

established by the BPA (note that the BPA surveys were not continued beyond 1993). The DEM

and profile locations are shown in Figure 2-1. ETA558 and ETA562 are located to the south and

north of the proposed Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site respectively

and the historical profiles at these locations are compared in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3. The 1974

profile shows an offshore sand deposit between depths of 5-15 m below AHD. This sand deposit

can be seen moving onshore in the 1993 and 2011 profiles suggesting a general accretive trend.

The 2011 profiles show a sandbar crest at approximately 2 m below AHD.

BMT WBM (2014) also used standard longshore sediment transport modelling techniques (the so-

called “CERC formula”) to estimate the wave-driven sand transport potential at Yaroomba Beach.

The calculated net sand transport was approximately 17,000 m3/year to the north. The gradient in

the average net annual longshore transport potential suggested that a long term trend of shoreline

recession may be occurring, albeit at a slow rate.

Figure 2-1 also shows two important natural features that influence the long-term average shoreline

alignment within the beach unit:

(1) Mudjimba Island, located approximately 6 km south of the proposed development site,

modifies waves with respect to their height and direction as they approach the shore. This in

turn modifies the littoral coastal processes, causing accretion in the lee of the island where

the wave energy and sediment transport potential is reduced. Over geological timescales a

salient has formed at the shoreline and the Mudjimba township is located on this landform.

(2) Point Arkwright, to the immediate north of the proposed development site, is a large rocky

headland that controls the northern extent of the beach and causes a slight east rotation of

the shoreline alignment. An extensive reef system extends from the headland in the vicinity


Methodology


of ETA562. This reef is likely to play an important role in dissipating wave energy as it

approaches the Yaroomba Beach shoreline, particularly during severe storms from the

northern to easterly sector.


Methodology


Figure 2-1 Offshore Bathymetry and Historical Beach Profile Locations (BMT WBM, 2014)


Methodology


Figure 2-2 ETA558 Beach and Offshore Profiles

Figure 2-3 ETA562 Beach and Offshore Profiles

2.1.3 Storm Erosion (C)

Storm erosion occurs when increased wave heights and water levels result in the erosion of sand

from the upper beach ridge. The eroded sand is taken offshore where it is deposited as a sand bar

located in the vicinity of the wave break area. After the storm event the sediment is slowly

transported onshore, often over many months or several years, rebuilding the beach.

2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Chainage (m)

Level (m

AH

D)

ETA558 July 1974

ETA558 August 1993

ETA558 2011

2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Chainage (m)

Level (m

AH

D)

ETA562 July 1974

ETA562 August 1993

ETA562 2011


Methodology


The potential for short-term storm erosion due to severe wave and elevated sea water levels (storm

tide conditions) has been predicted using the simple cross-shore equilibrium profile model of

Vellinga (1983). The assessment adopted inputs considered appropriate for the study area,

including:

Three initial beach profiles extracted from the DEM created from a 2014 LiDAR survey above 0

mAHD, a 2011 topographic/bathymetric survey below 0 mAHD and sediment characteristics.

These profiles are adjacent to the centre and at the northern and southern extents of the

Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site, as shown in Figure 2-5.

100 year ARI wave height of 6.4 m based on wave transformation modelling (BMT WBM, 2014).

100 year ARI storm tide including wave setup level of 2.86 mAHD (Hardy et al., 2004).

Median sediment grain size of 0.22 mm (typical for south east Queensland beaches).

It is noted that the likelihood of the 100 year ARI storm tide event coinciding with 100 year ARI

wave conditions at Yaroomba Beach remains uncertain however is considered a particularly rare

event. It is assumed that the probability of this event occurring in any given year is less than one

percent.

Figure 2-4 shows the predicted design storm profile at Yaroomba Beach adjacent to the centre of

the proposed development site. The erosion, averaged over the three profiles, corresponds to a 45

m setback of the shoreline. The calculations assume that the upper beach and dune system

consist of sand only and therefore the estimates are likely to be conservative in areas where coffee

rock and/or dense dune vegetation exist.

Design storm profiles for Yaroomba Beach adjacent to the northern and southern extents of the

proposed development site can be found in Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 in Appendix A.

Figure 2-4 Predicted storm erosion profile at Yaroomba Beach adjacent to the centre of the proposed the Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site.


Methodology


Figure 2-5 Storm Erosion Assessment Profile Locations

2.1.4 Erosion due to Sea Level Rise (S)

In 2015 the Queensland Government re-introduced sea level rise (SLR) of 0.8 m by the year 2100

into state planning policies through the state-wide erosion prone area mapping (DEHP, 2015).

The global average rate of sea level rise measured over the last century was 1.7 mm/year (Church

et al., 2010). CSIRO/ARE CRC (2012) analysed tidal gauge data and satellite observations and

concluded that the global rate of SLR over the last few decades has been substantially larger,

estimated to be 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year since 1992. More recently, Wainwright and Lord (2014)

analysed a number tidal gauges along the NSW coastline and found a similar rate of mean sea

level rise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014) provides

SLR projections for a range of global greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Figure 2-6 presents the

global SLR projections for the four principal emission scenarios, or Representative Concentration

Pathways (RCPs), considered in the assessments described in this section. This figure shows that

the SLR policy benchmark adopted by the Queensland Government (0.8 m by the year 2100) is

approximately consistent with the projected global mean SLR by 2100 for scenario RCP 8.5. The


Methodology


IPCC describe this scenario as “gas emissions continue to rise” or “business as usual” which

assumes that there is no global response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the decades

leading up to 2100.

Figure 2-6 Projections of Global SLR Relative to 1986-2005 Mean Sea Level (IPCC, 2014)

2.1.4.1 Equilibrium Profile (Bruun Rule) Concept

The global mean sea level has remained relatively stable since about 5,000 years BP (e.g.

Chappell & Polach, 1991; Sloss et al., 2007). During this period the Yaroomba Beach shoreline has

evolved to a condition of “dynamic equilibrium”, noting the relatively short-term fluctuations in

shoreline position that occur (typically in response to storm events). In theory, the dynamic

equilibrium shape will be maintained as the shoreline moves landward in response to sea level rise

(SLR). This shoreline response assumes that no significant sediment sources or sinks emerge and

that the landward migration of the shoreline is not obstructed by natural or man-made features.

The equilibrium profile concept can be simulated by the Bruun Rule (Bruun, 1962) which is

illustrated in Figure 2-7. As SLR gradually occurs, wave, tide and wind related sand transport

processes influence a higher position on the beach profile, with the shoreline evolving to a more

landward position to return to equilibrium with the new sea level. There is an upward and landward

translation of the profile to maintain equilibrium with the prevailing conditions at the new sea level

position.


Methodology


Bottom After Sea Level Rise

Initial Bottom Limiting Depth Between Predominant Nearshore And Offshore Material

Sea Level After Rise

Initial Sea level

Beach

Initial Bottom Profile

Bottom Profile After Sea Level Rise

r = Ba D

r

B

a

d D

Figure 2-7 Bruun (1962) Concept of Recession due to Sea Level Rise

The ‘Standard’ Bruun Rule Approach

The simplified Bruun Rule as shown in Figure 2-7 for the linear recession distance r (in metres) is:

D

Bar

Equation 2

Where: B = horizontal distance offshore from the top of the dune to the depth of closure (d); a = the

rise in sea level, and D = the vertical distance (height) from the top of the dune to the depth of

closure (d).

Depth of Closure

Hallermeier (1981) divides the nearshore zone into three zones, namely:

The littoral zone, which “extends to the seaward limit of intense bed activity”;

The shoal zone, which “extends from the seaward edge of the littoral zone to a water depth

where expected surface waves are likely to cause little sand transport” and “waves have neither

strong nor negligible effects on the sand bed”; and

The offshore zone, which is seaward of the shoal zone and water depths are relatively deep

with respect to surface wave effects on the sea bed.

Hallermeier (1981) stresses that sediment motion can and does occur seaward of the shoal zone,

however the seaward boundary (di) defined by Hallermeier (1981) aims to provide “a physically

meaningful seaward limit to the usual wave-constructed shoreface”.

Hallermeier (1981) then identifies two depths that define the landward and seaward boundaries of

the shoal zone:

Depth dl which is the “maximum water depth for sand erosion and seaward transport by an

extreme yearly wave condition”; and seaward of this; and


Methodology


Depth di which is the “maximum water depth for sand motion by the median wave condition”,

corresponding to the seaward limit of the usual wave-constructed profile.

Patterson (2012; 2013) identified that the time-scale of profile response, the time required for the

profile to achieve equilibrium, increases with depth and needs to be considered in determining

closure depth. Nicholls et al. (1996, 1998) and Cowell et al. (2001) both refer to the closure depth

in terms of the time scale considered. That is, they note that profile ‘closure’ occurs at greater

depth as the time scale increases. Nicholls et al. (1998) adopt a version of the Hallermeier (1977;

1981) relationship for depth of closure of the form:

)/(5.6828.22

,2

,,, tetetetl gTHHd

Equation 3

Where dl,t = the predicted depth of closure over t years, referenced to Mean Low Water; He,t = non-

breaking significant wave height exceeded 12 hours per t years; and Te,t = associated wave period.

Following Equation 3, the depth of closure to cater for SLR over a planning period of 100 years will

be greater than that adopted for shorter durations. Adopting a representative regional 1% AEP

design wave height of 6.4 m (BMT WBM, 2014) and an associated wave period of 10 seconds in

Equation 3 suggests a 100 year planning period depth of closure around 12 m for Yaroomba

Beach. Based on the 2011 bathymetry shown in Figure 2-1, the horizontal distance offshore to this

depth is estimated to be 600 m. This corresponds to an average Bruun Rule slope factor around

1:26.

Inserting the values for B (600 m), a (0.8 m by year 2100) and D (20 m, assuming a dune height of

11 m averaged across the three profiles adjacent to the proposed development site) to Equation 2,

the estimated shoreline recession due to SLR for the 2100 planning horizon is 21 m.

It is noted that the application of the Bruun Rule has been highly contested within the coastal

science community (e.g. Ranasinghe et al., 2007; Ranasinghe and Stive, 2009). As discussed by

Woodroffe et al. (2012), the wide application of the Bruun Rule probably reflects its simplicity rather

than its proven accuracy and recession rate estimates based on the method should be considered

as only broadly indicative. More robust numerical methods to assess future climate shoreline

recession exist; however, such methods require extensive historical datasets to underpin the

modelling assumptions and, despite significant additional effort, may not always reduce the level of

uncertainty for decision makers over long planning periods. Consequently, for wave dominated

coastlines (such as Yaroomba Beach) the Bruun Rule remains a method accepted by the

Queensland Government (DEHP, 2013) and as such is considered appropriate for this

assessment.

2.1.5 Factor of Safety (F)

A 20% factor of safety has been included in the erosion hazard assessments. This acknowledges

the uncertainties and limitations of the adopted methods and assumptions. In addition to the factor

of safety, a number of additional conservative assumptions underpin the erosion hazard

assessment, including:


Methodology


The design storm erosion event being characterised by coincident 1% AEP storm tide and 1%

AEP wave conditions. It is assumed that the probability of this event occurring in any given year

is less than one percent;

The assumption that the coastal barrier only contains erodible sands;

No recognition of existing (or possible future) shoreline erosion management activities such as

dune revegetation, beach nourishment, revetment seawalls and/or other man-made structures

designed to limit shoreline recession; and

A sea level rise projection of 0.8 m by year 2100 which is toward the upper end of the estimated

range published by IPCC (2014) and approximately equivalent “emissions continue to rise”

scenario.

2.1.6 Dune Slumping (D)

The dune scarp component provides for the horizontal distance between the toe of the dune and

the crest after slumping to a pre-determined stable slope. It is recommended in DEHP (2013) to

account for:

(1) Slumping of the dune beyond the limit of wave runup experienced during storms not

accounted for by the short term erosion calculation; and/or

(2) The possible undermining and collapse of coastal structures founded on the dune.

For this assessment the existing average dune height of 11 m and a stability threshold slope of 1:3

have been assumed leading to an additional setback of 27 m. This approach assumes that the

height of the coastal barrier will be maintained as the shoreline moves landward in response to

SLR.

The dune slumping component is expected to be over predicted in locations with hard man-made

structures and/or materials that may resist erosion.

2.2 Erosion Hazard Area Width Result

Recalling Equation 1 and substituting the erosion hazard assessment results presented above the

2100 planning horizon erosion hazard area width for the shoreline adjacent to the proposed

Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site is 126 m.

DFSCRNE )1(])[(

Where E = erosion prone area width (metres) = 126

N (Section 2.1.1) = planning period (years) = 83

R (Section 2.1.2) = rate of long term erosion (metres per year) = 0.2

C (Section 2.1.3) = short term erosion from the design storm event (metres) = 45

S (Section2.1.4) = erosion due to sea level rise (metres) = 21

F (Section 2.1.5) = factor of safety = 20%

D (Section 2.1.6) = dune scarp component (metres) = 27


Methodology


This result measured landward from the state coastline definition is mapped in Figure 2-8. Also

shown are the state Coastal Management District, the state erosion prone area (DEHP, 2015)1 and

the design storm erosion area calculated in Section 2.1.3.

1 DEHP estimate an erosion prone area width of 140 m at Marcoola Beach: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/coastal/development/assessment/pdf/sunshine-coast-erosion-prone-area-plan.pdf

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/coastal/development/assessment/pdf/sunshine-coast-erosion-prone-area-plan.pdf


Methodology


Figure 2-8 Yaroomba Beach Re-Calculated Erosion Prone Area


References


3 References

BMT WBM (2013). Coastal Processes Study for the Sunshine Coast, report prepared for Sunshine

Coast Regional Council. https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/en/Environment/Rivers-and-

Coast/Coastal-Management/Shoreline-Erosion-Management-Plan.

BMT WBM (2014). Sunshine Coast Airport Expansion Project Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter B4 – Coastal Processes, report prepared for Sunshine Coast Council.

http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Sunshine%20Coast%20Airport%20Expansion/EIS/Volume%20B%2

0chapters/Chapter%20B4%20-%20Coastal%20processes%2018Sep14.pdf.

Bruun P. (1962). Sea level rise as a cause of shoreline erosion. Journal of Waterways and Harbors

Division, American Society Civil Engineering, Vol. 88: pp117-130.

Chappell J.M. and Polach H. (1991). Post-glacial sea level rise from a coral record at Huon

Peninsula, Papua New Guinea. Nature, 349, 147-149.

Church, J. A., Aarup, T., Woodworth, P. L., Wilson, W. S., Nicholls, R. J., Rayner, R., Lambeck, K.,

Mitchum, G. T., Steffan, K., Cazenave, A., Blewitt, G., Mitrovica, J. X. and J. A. Lowe (2010), Sea-

Level Rise and Variability: Synthesis and Outlook for the Future in Understanding Sea-Level Rise

and Variability, 1st Edition, Eds. John A. Church, Philip L. Woodworth, Thorkild Aarup and W.

Stanley Wilson, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010, p 402-419.

Cowell, P.J., Thom, B.G., Jones, R.A., Everts, C.H., and Simanovic, D. (2006). Management of

Uncertainty in Predicting Climate-Change Impacts on Beaches, Journal of Coastal Research, 22,

232-245.

CSIRO/ACE CRC (2012). Sea-Level Rise, Understanding the past – Improving projections for the

future, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and Antarctic Climate &

Ecosystems. Cooperative Research Centre, http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel.

DEHP (2013). Coastal hazard technical guide, Determining coastal hazard areas, prepared by

Environmental Planning, Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, April

2013.

DEHP (2015). Erosion Prone Areas. [ONLINE] Available at:

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/coastal/development/assessment/erosion_prone_areas.html [Accessed

10 March 2016].

Hallermeier, R.J. (1977). Calculating a yearly limit depth to beach erosion. Proc. 16th Coastal

Engineering Conf., Hamburg, Germany, pp 1493-1512.

Hallermeier R.J. (1981). A profile zonation for seasonal sand beaches from wave climate. Coastal

Engineering, 4(3), pp253-277.

Hardy, T., Mason, L., Astorquia, A. and Harper, B. (2004). Ocean Hazard Assessment Stage 2,

Tropical Cyclone Induced Water Levels and Waves: Hervey Bay and Sunshine Coast, Marine

Modelling Unit James Cook University, prepared for Queensland Environmental Protection Agency.

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/en/Environment/Rivers-and-Coast/Coastal-Management/Shoreline-Erosion-Management-Plan

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/en/Environment/Rivers-and-Coast/Coastal-Management/Shoreline-Erosion-Management-Plan

http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Sunshine%20Coast%20Airport%20Expansion/EIS/Volume%20B%20chapters/Chapter%20B4%20-%20Coastal%20processes%2018Sep14.pdf

http://eisdocs.dsdip.qld.gov.au/Sunshine%20Coast%20Airport%20Expansion/EIS/Volume%20B%20chapters/Chapter%20B4%20-%20Coastal%20processes%2018Sep14.pdf

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/coastal/development/assessment/erosion_prone_areas.html


References


IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III

to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing

Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Patterson, D., (2012). Shoreward sand transport outside the surfzone, northern Gold Coast,

Australia, Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Coastal Engineering 2012,

Santander, Spain, July 1-6, 2012.

Nicholls, R.J., Birkemeier, W.A., and Hallermeier, R.J. (1996). Application of the depth of closure

concept. Proc. 25th, Int. Conf. Coastal Eng., Orlando (USA), 1996, pp. 3874-3887.

Nicholls, R.J., Birkemeier, W.A., and Lee, G. (1998). Evaluation of depth of closure using data from

Duck, NC, USA, Marine Geology, 148, pp. 179-201.

Patterson D.C. (2013). Modelling as an aid to understand the evolution of Australia’s central east

coast in response to late Pleistocene-Holocene and future sea level change. PhD Thesis, Civil

Engineering, University of Queensland, Australia.

Ranasinghe, R., Watson, P., Lord, D., Hanslow, D. and P.Cowell, (2007). Sea Level Rise, Coastal

Recession and the Bruun Rule, Proceedings of the Coasts and Ports Conference '07, Engineers

Australia.

Ranasinghe R. and Stive M.J.F. (2009). Rising seas and retreating coastlines. Climate Change

(Editorial Commentary) 97:465–468. Doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9593-3.

Sloss C.R., Murray-Wallace C.V. and Jones B.G. (2007). Holocene sea-level change on the

southeast coast of Australia: a review. The Holocene, 17, pp999-1014.

Vellinga, P. (1983). Predictive computation model for beach and dune erosion during storm surges.

Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Publication No. 294.

WBM (1996). Erosion Prone Area - Mudjimba to Coolum, prepared for Maunsell Pty Ltd.

Woodroffe, C.D., Cowell, P.J., Callaghan, D.P., Ranasinghe, R., Jongejan R., Wainwright, D.J.,

Barry, S.J., Rogers, K and Dougherty, A.J. (2012). Approaches to risk assessment on Australian

coasts: A model framework for assessing risk and adaptation to climate change on Australian

coasts, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, 205 pp.

Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment A-1

Design Storm Profiles


Appendix A Design Storm Profiles

Figure A-1 Predicted storm erosion profile at Yaroomba Beach at the northern end of the proposed the Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site

Figure A-2 Predicted storm erosion profile at Yaroomba Beach at the southern end of the proposed the Yaroomba Village and International Resort development site

BMT WBM Bangalow 6/20 Byron Street, Bangalow 2479

Tel +61 2 6687 0466 Fax +61 2 66870422 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Brisbane Level 8, 200 Creek Street, Brisbane 4000 PO Box 203, Spring Hill QLD 4004 Tel +61 7 3831 6744 Fax +61 7 3832 3627 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Denver 8200 S. Akron Street, #B120 Centennial, Denver Colorado 80112 USA Tel +1 303 792 9814 Fax +1 303 792 9742 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com

BMT WBM London International House, 1st Floor St Katharine’s Way, London E1W 1AY Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com

BMT WBM Mackay PO Box 4447, Mackay QLD 4740 Tel +61 7 4953 5144 Fax +61 7 4953 5132 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Melbourne Level 5, 99 King Street, Melbourne 3000 PO Box 604, Collins Street West VIC 8007 Tel +61 3 8620 6100 Fax +61 3 8620 6105 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Newcastle 126 Belford Street, Broadmeadow 2292 PO Box 266, Broadmeadow NSW 2292 Tel +61 2 4940 8882 Fax +61 2 4940 8887 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Perth Level 3, 20 Parkland Road, Osborne, WA 6017 PO Box 1027, Innaloo WA 6918 Tel +61 8 9328 2029 Fax +61 8 9486 7588 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Sydney Level 1, 256-258 Norton Street, Leichhardt 2040 PO Box 194, Leichhardt NSW 2040 Tel +61 2 8987 2900 Fax +61 2 8987 2999 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Vancouver Suite 401, 611 Alexander Street Vancouver British Columbia V6A 1E1 Canada

Tel +1 604 683 5777 Fax +1 604 608 3232 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com

Documents

Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard … · 2017-09-21 · Yaroomba Village and International Resort Coastal Erosion Hazard Assessment 3 Methodology G:\Admin\B22363.g.mpb_Yaroomba_CHA\R.B22363.001.00.docx