Download pdf - Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report · Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report . iii . Executive Summary . K:\N1911_BellingenCoastalHazardsStudy\Docs\R.N1911.002.05_CZMS_Final.docx

$Page 1: Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report · Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report . iii . Executive Summary . K:\N1911_BellingenCoastalHazardsStudy\Docs\R.N1911.002.05_CZMS_Final.docx$
Bellingen Coastal Zone Management StudyFinal ReportSeptember, 2014

WBM

www.bmtwbm.com.au

K:\N1911_BellingenCoastalHazardsStudy\Docs\R.N1911.002.05_CZMS_Final.docx

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Plan Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Plan

Prepared for: Bellingen Shire Council

Prepared by: BMT WBM Pty Ltd (Member of the BMT group of companies)

Offices Brisbane Denver London Mackay Melbourne Newcastle Perth Sydney Vancouver


Document Control Sheet

BMT WBM Pty Ltd 126 Belford Street Broadmeadow NSW 2292 Australia PO Box 266 Broadmeadow NSW 2292 Tel: +61 2 4940 8882 Fax: +61 2 4940 8887 ABN 54 010 830 421 www.bmtwbm.com.au

Document: R.N1911.002.05_CZMS_Final.docx

Title: Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report

Project Managers: Philip Haines

Authors: Paul Donaldson, Verity Rollason

Client: Bellingen Shire Council

Client Contact: Sandy Eager

Client Reference:

Synopsis: This Coastal Zone Management Study details a suite of recommended management options for managing the coastal risks at present and in the future timeframes of 2050 and 2100. It also details the risk-based assessment undertaken of coastal hazards and their consequence, with outputs of risk maps and a register of the level of risks to various land and assets contained within Bellingen’s Coastal Zone.

REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY

Revision Number Date Checked by Issued by

0 (Internal version) N/A

1 (Preliminary Draft) May 2014 LJK

PMD

2 (Final Draft) June 2014 LJK

PMD

3 (Final Study) August 2014 LJK

PMD

4 (Final Study) September 2014 LJK

PMD

5 (Final Study) September 2014 PMD

PMD

DISTRIBUTION

Destination Revision

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bellingen Shire Council BMT WBM File BMT WBM Library

1(e)

1(e) 1(e)

1(e) 1(e)

1(e) 1(e)

1(e) 1(e)

1(e) 1(e)

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

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report i Executive Summary


Executive Summary The Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study (CZMS) describes, evaluates and recommends a suite of management options for addressing present day and future (2050 and 2100) risks from coastal hazards along Bellingen Shire Council’s (BSC) coastline. To guide the development of recommended management options detailed by this study, a risk based assessment was undertaken of coastal hazards and their consequences.

The Bellingen CZMS has been undertaken in accordance with the NSW Coastal Protection Act, 1979 and associated Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013). This study follows on from the Bellingen Coastal Zone Hazard Study (BMT WBM, 2012), which defined the present and future coastal hazards for the Bellingen study area. This study also forms a key accompanying document to the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP).

Study Area

The coastline of Bellingen’s Local Government Area (LGA) extends from the Oyster Creek entrance in the south to the Tucker Rock in the north. Coastal sites assessed in the study area include the northern end of North Valla Beach, Schnapper Beach, Hungry Head Beach, Hungry Head Beach North, the length of North Beach contained within the BSC LGA and the two small coastal catchments drained by Oyster Creek and Dalhousie Creek. Consideration of coastal management options for the lower Bellinger Kalang River Estuary is addressed by a separate estuary-specific study (BMT WBM, in prep.).

The study site forms a predominately undeveloped and natural landscape that is largely retained within the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve. Built assets located within the study area include three low key recreational precincts, along with a number of beach access points and associated facilities. A small number of private land holdings are also located within the study area, which includes rural and primary production lots within Bellingen’s smaller creek catchments, and the fringes of a few residential parcels at Mylestom.

Study Objectives

The purpose of this CZMS was to develop a suite of recommended management strategies to reduce, eliminate or mitigate the likelihood and/or consequence of the major coastal hazards that threaten BSC’s coastal land and assets. In addition, this study aims to give due consideration to environmental, social and economic impacts of all the management options assessed herein, and furthermore recommends a suite of management options that are specific and appropriate for the Bellingen Coastal Zone.

Considering that much of Bellingen’s coastline is contained within the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve, BSC needs to work in close partnership with Crown Lands to best achieve the management objectives and strategies proposed.

Coastal Processes and Hazards

Coastal processes are the principle source of risk in the coastal zone, which may generate significant hazards to the land and assets near to the shoreline. Coastal processes and hazards affecting the Bellingen coastal zone were assessed by BMT WBM (2012) and are summarised in the following report. In the context of this CZMS, the key coastal hazards requiring management at Bellingen’s beaches and creeks are:

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report ii Executive Summary


Short-term beach erosion, driven by storms; and long-term shoreline recession, driven by sea level rise; and

Coastal Inundation, driven by periodic elevated ocean levels, noting that coastal flood extents will become enhanced in the future with sea level rise.

BMT WBM (2012) mapped various scenarios for each hazard, for three key timeframes (immediate, 2050 and 2100). These scenarios were tailored to incorporate the inherent uncertainty surrounding dynamic coastal processes and future climate change projections.

Risk Assessment Methods

A risk based approach was applied to this study, to guide the development of coastal management options. Risk is defined as the combination of ‘likelihood’ and ‘consequence’ for an event. The previous hazard assessment study by BMT WBM (2012) determined the various ‘likelihood’ scenarios for each coastal hazard, for present day and future (2050 and 2100) timeframes. Thus a key component of this study was to determine ‘consequence’ of coastal hazard on the affected land and assets.

Coastal hazard consequence was determined from the outcomes of a formal Risk Assessment Workshop conducted with key stakeholders and government representatives. Consequences were assessed in terms of:

the type of impact (e.g. short term or permanent);

the type of assets and land affected; and

the social, economic and/or environmental values associated with the affected land and assets.

With regard to assigning coastal hazard consequences, consideration was also given to the coastal values and issues identified by the community surveys undertaken during the study.

The level of risk to specific land and assets was derived from the combination of the ‘consequence’ assigned to land / assets and the ‘likelihood’ of the hazards (as per BMT WBM, 2012). The level of risk was mapped and tabulated for important assets. ‘High’ and ‘extreme’ risk levels are considered to be intolerable, whereas ‘medium’ and ’low’ levels of risk are defined as tolerable and acceptable.

Risk Assessment Outcomes

From the risk mapping process, the assets and land found to have intolerable levels of risk under the present and future (2050 and 2100) timeframes were identified and subsequently prioritised for management.

The assets and land at greatest risk from coastal erosion and shoreline recession are summarised below:

Coastal beach and dune systems are at risk under the present and future scenarios. Undeveloped vegetated backbeach areas, which include Endangered Ecological Community’s (EEC’s) and coastal creeks in some locations become increasingly at risk from recession under future timeframes. Much of this land is included within the Bellingen Coastal Regional Reserve;

Built assets at risk from erosion at present include sections of the Wenonah Head and Hungry Head beach access roads, the Surf Life Saving Club (SLSC) watch tower at Hungry Head and a number of pedestrian and vehicular beach access points located across the Shire.

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report iii Executive Summary


In addition to the above, built assets at risk under future scenarios include the recreational and SLSC facilities located across Wenonah Head, Hungry Head and North Beach.

By 2100, sections of the North Coast Railway line will be at risk; also the Mylestom Spit is at risk of becoming breached by this future timeframe.

Intolerable risks for both present and future timeframes arising from the inundation hazard to BSC beaches and small coastal creeks are relatively minor in comparison to the above. These include:

The creek fringing areas located within a small number of Rural Landscape and Primary Production lots, across the Oyster Creek and Dalhousie Creek catchments, respectively; and

Small sections of the North Coast Railway line, (note: detailed topographic surveys of this infrastructure may show otherwise as this information was not available to this assessment).

Coastal Risk Management Approach Defining risk levels at various timeframes has been used to appropriately develop and prioritise risk management treatment options.

Extreme and high risks that occur in the present day require management immediately as a priority.

For future extreme and high risks, it is more important to determine a reliable ‘trigger’ for action. The trigger must be set to enable enough time to gain approvals, raise funds and implement the action, prior to the hazard impact occurring. For erosion, the trigger could be a distance between the shoreline (i.e. dune scarp) and an asset, with the trigger distance allowing enough buffer for storms and long-term recession processes.

However, until impacts become imminent, management actions should be pursued which present minimal adverse impact and/or improve the ability to treat other risks in the future. Such actions are termed “no regrets” actions as they are relatively low cost options that do not directly affect built assets, but rather help assist the implementation of future management decisions. “No regrets” actions are also targeted at improved resilience and preparedness for coastal risks.

Risk Management Options A review of 22 risk management options was undertaken, with a range of criteria considered for each, namely capital costs, recurrent costs, environmental/ or social impact, community acceptability, reversible / adaptable future, effectiveness over time, legal / approval risk, and technical viability. The review shows that many are feasible, but not all require implementation at present.

Table 1 lists the recommended “no regrets” actions that should be undertaken over the next 5 to 10 years to treat present day risks, improve the data / knowledge about risk or improve preparedness for future risks.

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report iv Executive Summary


Table 1 “No Regrets” Actions, for Immediate Implementation

“No Regrets” Action Manages Erosion and Recession Risks?

Manages Coastal Inundation Risks?

Monitoring

Beach Access Management

Dune Management

Geotechnical Investigation of Depth of Bedrock

Habitat Management

Heritage Management

Community Education

Integration of CZM Planning within Council

Audit of Existing Council Assets

Asset Management Planning

Use of Existing Flood Policy

LEP Review and Rezoning

The future risks to land and assets from coastal inundation will be suitably managed through the appropriate “no regrets” actions listed above in Table 1.

For those undeveloped lengths of shoreline across the Bellingen Shire LGA, it is generally recommended that long-term management of these areas allow the shoreline to recede naturally, thus ensuring that the amenity of the affected beaches is retained into the future.

The key future recession risks identified for built assets and land within the BSC coastal zone occur at the community based recreational precincts, including Wenonah Head, Hungry Head and North Beach SLSC at Mylestom. Consideration of the medium to long-term management of those locations is summarised below.

The “no regrets” geotechnical study recommended for Wenonah Head and Hungry Head will provide the information required to refine the erosion and recession risk at these locations.

The present hazard information shows that recession will slowly encroach into the Wenonah Head Fishing Club precinct. There is limited opportunity to relocate the precinct, and protection is likely to be prohibitively expensive. Thus the low key community facilities will likely become lost over the medium to long-term timeframe. The community facilities here can be prolonged by relocating the existing low key structures to the base of the rocky bluff, when the erosion hazard becomes imminent. It is recommended that a Precinct Plan be developed for this location in consultation with key stakeholders and the community.

With regard to Hungry Head, if the SLSC and access road is indeed at risk from erosion and recession (as is currently identified), it is recommended that a Precinct Plan be developed for this location, in consultation with key stakeholders and the community, to determine the best future strategy for this location. This plan should assess in detail the potential options to relocate, redesign or protect the existing facilities. Abandonment of the surf lifesaving services at this location is not recommended.

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report v Executive Summary


With regard to the North Beach SLSC precinct at Mylestom, it is recommended the future redevelopment of this building/site be undertaken with consideration to the future coastal recession hazards. To ensure that the recession risks to a future facility does not become unacceptable over its lifespan, it is recommended that redevelopment of those facilities does not occur seaward of their existing location. Development of a precinct plan for this location with consideration to coastal hazards is also warranted. This should occur in consultation with the key stakeholders and local community.

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report vi Contents


Contents

Executive Summary i 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of a Coastal Zone Management Plan for Bellingen 1 1.1.1 Scope and Context for the Bellingen CZMP 1

1.2 Study Area 3

1.3 Coastal Management Process in NSW 4 1.3.1 Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans 6 1.3.2 A Note on Sea Level Rise 6 1.3.3 Community Consultation 7

2 Coastal Risk Assessment 9

2.1 Application of the Risk Framework to Coastal Management 9

2.2 Likelihood of Coastal Hazards 11 2.2.1 Likelihood Scale 11 2.2.2 Beach Erosion and Shoreline Recession 13 2.2.3 Likelihood of Coastal Inundation 15 2.2.3.1 A note on the limitations of the Coastal Inundation Hazards Mapping 17 2.2.4 Likelihood of Other Coastal Risks 17 2.2.4.1 Coastal Entrances during Closed Conditions 17 2.2.4.2 Sand Drift 17

2.3 Consequence of Coastal Hazards 18 2.3.1 Consequence Scale 18 2.3.2 Register of Public and Private Assets Potentially Affected by Hazards 18 2.3.3 Assigning Consequences from Coastal Hazards 20 2.3.4 Coastal Vegetation Values 22

2.4 Analysis of the Level of Risk 23

2.5 Risk Evaluation 24 2.5.1 Existing Controls that Mitigate Risk 24 2.5.1.1 Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve Plan of Management 24 2.5.1.2 Bellingen Shire Development Control Plan (2010) 24 2.5.1.3 North Coast Regional Environmental Plan 24 2.5.1.4 Four Wheel Drive Beach Access Plan 24 2.5.1.5 Bellingen Shire Growth Management Strategy 25 2.5.1.6 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey 25 2.5.1.7 Bellingen 2030 Community Strategic Plan 25

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report vii Contents


3 Risk Management 26

3.1 Overarching Approach 26

3.2 Risk Tolerance and Priority for Treatment 28

3.3 Options Assessment: Coarse Filtering Options 29 3.3.1 Multi-Criteria Analysis 29

4 Risk Register and Recommended Treatment Options 34

4.1 No Regrets Actions 34

4.2 Erosion and Recession Risks and Treatment Options 34 4.2.1 North Valla Beach 34 4.2.2 Schnapper Beach 35 4.2.3 Hungry Head Beach and Hungry Head 38 4.2.3.1 Hungry Head Beach 38 4.2.3.2 Hungry Head (Proper) Precinct 39 4.2.4 North Hungry Head Beach 42 4.2.5 North Beach 43 4.2.5.1 Mylestom Spit 45

4.3 Erosion and Recession Risk Register for Bellingen Shires Open Coastline 47

4.4 Coastal Inundation Risks and Treatment Options 59

4.5 Coastal Inundation Risk Register for Bellingen Shires Open Coast and Coastal Creek Catchments 59

4.6 Triggers for Implementation 67

5 References 69

Appendix A Legislation Governing the Coastal Zone A-1

Appendix B Summary of Coastal Processes and Hazard at Bellingen B-21

Appendix C Summary of Community Survey Results C-32

Appendix D Risk Workshop Completed Activity Sheets D-35

Appendix E Coastal Management Options E-44

Monitoring E-45

Integration of CZM Planning within Council E-47

Asset Management Planning E-49

Audit of Existing Council Built Assets E-51

Geotechnical Assessment of Depth to Bedrock E-53

Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation E-55

Heritage Management (Aboriginal and Non-Indigenous) E-56

Community Education E-57

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report viii Contents


Coastal Hazards Development Controls E-58

LEP Review and Rezoning E-64

Land Acquisition E-65

Buy Back / Lease Back E-67

Sacrifice / Abandon Land or Assets E-69

Relocate Assets E-71

Redesign or Retrofit E-73

Dune Management E-75

Habitat Management E-77

Beach Access Management E-78

Beach Scraping E-80

Beach Nourishment E-81

Seawalls E-83

Artificial Breakwaters E-85

Groynes E-87

Appendix F Risk Mapping F-88

List of Figures Figure 1-1 Study Area – Bellingen Coastal Zone 5

Figure 2-1 Risk Management Framework (ISO 31000:2009) adapted to Coastal Zone Management 10

Figure 3-1 Conceptual Framework for Application of Coastal Management Options 26

Figure 4-1 Wenonah Head Precinct Management Strategy: Immediate Actions and Future Options 36

Figure 4-2 Hungry Head Precinct Management Strategy: Immediate Actions and Future Options 40

Figure 4-3 North Beach – MylestomSpit Management Strategy: Immediate Actions 44

Figure 4-4 Bellinger River Estuary Foreshore Recession at Mylestom Spit 46

Figure 4-5 Continuum Model for Climate Change Adaption Action 68

Figure C-1 Community Values regarding the Bellingen Coastal Zone C-32

Figure C-2 Community vision regarding what they want retained on the coast C-33

Figure C-3 Community vision regarding changes they want made to the coast C-34

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report ix Contents


List of Tables Table 1 “No Regrets” Actions, for Immediate Implementation iv

Table 1-1 Coastal Management Principles addressed by the Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Plan 6

Table 2-1 Risk Likelihood / Probability for Coastal Hazards (from BMT WBM, 2012) 12

Table 2-2 Timeframes for Coastal Planning 12

Table 2-3 Beach Erosion and Shoreline Recession Hazard Probability Zones 14

Table 2-4 Beach Erosion Extents (measured from 4 m AHD contour in 2010) 14

Table 2-5 Coastal Inundation Likelihood Summary 16

Table 2-6 Adopted Inundation Levels 16

Table 2-7 Consequence Scale for Coastal Hazards 19

Table 2-8 Risk Workshop Attendees 20

Table 2-9 Consequences Ascribed to Assets in the Bellingen Coastal Zone 21

Table 2-10 Risk Matrix for Coastal Hazards 23

Table 3-1 Risk Tolerance Scale 29

Table 3-2 Prioritisation for Risk Treatment Based upon Expected Timeframe 29

Table 3-3 Multi-Criteria Assessment Details 31

Table 3-4 Rapid Cost Benefit (Traffic Light) Assessment Criteria 32

Table 4-1 Council Asset Replacement Value 47

Table 4-2 Erosion and Recession Risk Register 48

Table 4-3 Coastal Inundation Risk Register 60

Table A-1 Land Zones in the Bellingen LEP 2010 A-12

Table A-2 Actions in the POM that will Support Initiative of the CZMS A-15

Table A-3 CZMP Management Options that Address Climate Change Adaptation Actions A-19

Table D-1 Risk Assessment Workshop Results: Coastal Erosion and Recession D-36

Table A-2 Risk Assessment Workshop Results: Coastal Inundation D-40

Table E-1 Coastal Management Options Considered for the Bellingen Shire Coastal Zone E-44

Table E-1 Suggested Timeframe and Hazard Likelihood for Development Types E-60

Table E-2 Example Prescriptive Controls Matrix for Development Types in Difference Hazard Areas E-61

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report 1 Introduction


1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of a Coastal Zone Management Plan for Bellingen Bellingen Shire is nestled between Coffs Harbour City and Nambucca Shire Local Government Areas which are located approximately 400 km north of Sydney, and 360 km south of Brisbane. The Bellingen Local Government Area (LGA) coastline extends from Oyster Creek in the south to Tuckers Rocks in the north, and includes the northern end of North Valla Beach, Hungry Head Beach, North Hungry Head Beach and North Beach.

The Bellingen coastline is subject to a variety of coastal processes that generate hazards on the shoreline, including periodic erosion during storms and inundation during high ocean water levels which may inundate back beach areas via the Bellinger / Kalang River and other smaller creeks. With the realisation of sea level rise projections, the shoreline is expected to recede landward, and coastal inundation will be enhanced relative to current conditions. In contrast to much of the NSW coastline, the majority of Bellingen’s shores are undeveloped, with the exception of low key recreational facilities such as those at Hungry Head. Much of the coastal zone is retained in public ownership within the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve. This affords the coastline unique natural values that may also provide greater resilience to existing coastal processes and the impacts of future sea level rise.

Bellingen Shire Council (herein referred to as Council) has resolved to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP, or the “Plan”) to formally manage the risks from coastal hazards to valuable land and assets at present and in the future, and to preserve the unique natural values of the Bellingen coastline.

This study (i.e. the Coastal Zone Management Study or CZMS) has been conducted as a technical foundation to the development of the CZMP. Once the CZMP has been completed and certified by the NSW Government, Council will be eligible for state funding support to implement coastal management actions detailed in the Plan.

1.1.1 Scope and Context for the Bellingen CZMP Strategic planning in the coastal zone is influenced by many social, economic and environmental factors. The Coastal Protection Act 1979, along with Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013) stipulate the minimum requirements for Coastal Zone Management Plans in NSW (refer also Section 1.3.1). In accordance with NSW legislation, Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMPs) aim to specifically address the impacts of coastal hazards upon assets and land, which may include social, physical, ecological or economic assets. The actions within the CZMP then specifically target reducing, eliminating or mitigating the likelihood and / or consequence of the major hazards that may threaten those assets.

The Bellingen CZMP has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and thus may be formally approved by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), adopted by Council and if required, certified by the Minister of the Environment.

To this end, the Bellingen CZMP includes the following elements:



Identification and mapping of the extent of coastal hazards, at present and at 2050 and 2100 with sea level rise. This provides the technical basis for the CZMP and is the focus of this document. The major coastal hazards are beach erosion, shoreline recession and coastal inundation, and their identification and mapping is documented in the Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study (BMT WBM, 2012) and summarised in Appendix B of this document. The Bellingen CZMP will only consider the coastal inundation hazard to the open coast shoreline (i.e. the beaches) and the small coastal creek catchments of Oyster and Dalhousie Creeks, noting that risk management of the inundation hazard for the Bellinger and Kalang Rivers Estuary is being assessed in a separate study;

A Risk Assessment to determine the level of risk to land, assets and values from coastal hazards. The Risk Assessment Process has been conducted for this study to determine the priority aspects of Bellingen’s coastal zone at risk from coastal hazards (land, values, assets) that require management through the CZMP process. The legislative and planning context of coastal zone planning and therefore the Risk Assessment is documented in Appendix A of this document. Details of the Risk Assessment, which was conducted in accordance with the ISO 31000:2009 Australian Standard, are given in Section 2.

Analysis and selection of feasible and practical management options to manage the coastal risks, from the present to 2100. Management options were assessed in terms of their ability to address risks at Bellingen, and associated costs and benefits, (see Sections 3 and 4). Subsequent to this study, the supporting CZMP document provides an Implementation Schedule that outlines how to implement the preferred management actions (i.e. specific actions, responsibilities, costs, timeframes etc.).

At Bellingen, the majority of coastal land is undeveloped and in public ownership. This significantly changes the focus of the Coastal Zone Management Planning process, because undeveloped lands are far more resilient to the impacts of coastal hazards, particularly relating to sea level rise, as nature can be left to run its course. This is unlike those coastal areas that are developed, and for which local communities must determine whether to relocate, protect, abandon or otherwise manage a range of existing public and private assets.

Therefore, a key focus of the Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Planning Process is to preserve the undeveloped, natural and publicly owned nature of coastal land in the Bellingen LGA, as this is the basis for effective adaptation to coastal hazards in the future.

Community use aspects are also an important component of CZMPs under NSW legislation, where these aspects are not already managed through other processes. At Bellingen, beach access and amenity and recreational requirements of the coastal zone are already managed through the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve, administered by the NSW Trade & Investment (Crown Lands Division). The management options put forward in this study therefore target coastal risks, however some consideration to beach access and amenity which are related to coastal risk is provided.

Furthermore, while management actions may relate to the impact of coastal hazards on environment/ecology, economics and other related aspects, the CZMP does not specifically address all ecological, recreational or other economic matters in the study region. That is, the



recommended actions may not directly relate to local considerations such as improving ecological habitats or expanding recreational facilities, unless the actions are incidentally associated with reducing coastal risk.

The CZMS (presented here) and the complementary CZMP are both focussed on the land potentially affected by coastal hazards and the land that may be influenced by Council and other stakeholders through potential management actions. Strategies implemented through the CZMP will be considerate of any impacts upon the submarine coastal zone (i.e. below sea level) as well.

1.2 Study Area The Bellingen Shire coastline comprises three long beach compartments, namely the northern end of North Valla Beach (north from Oyster Creek to Wenonah Head); Schnapper Beach and Hungry Head Beach (extending from Wenonah Head to Hungry Head); and North Beach extending north to Tuckers Rocks, including the Bellinger / Kalang river mouth and training wall. Smaller coastal creek entrances are also located along the Bellingen coastline, including Oyster Creek (on North Valla Beach) and Dalhousie Creek (on Hungry Head Beach), which are both intermittently open and closed to the ocean. The study area is illustrated in Figure 1-1.

The Bellinger and Kalang Rivers Estuary is a significant feature within the study area, covering a combined total catchment area of 1110 km2 and with a waterway area of 6.8 km2 (BMT WBM, 2007). The confluence of the Bellinger and Kalang Rivers occurs at Urunga Island, adjacent to Urunga, a short distance from the entrance training walls at Mylestom Spit, North Beach. A detailed coastal inundation hazard assessment of the Bellinger and Kalang Rivers Estuary was not completed prior to the development of the present study, and thus the estuary environment is not included within the following risk management study.

The majority of Bellingen Shire’s coastline is undeveloped and natural, forming a unique asset to the region. Much of the coastline is part of the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve, which also encompasses the Bellinger Head State Park. The nearest urban centre to the coast is Urunga, with a population of almost 2,700 (ABS, 2010). Mylestom, located on the northern arm of the Bellinger River, is the closest development to the ocean shoreline. Mylestom is a small coastal village with a population of 338 (ABS, 2010).

Being a largely undeveloped coastline, facilities at Bellingen’ beaches are low key, such as minor car parks, picnic areas and barbeques. The Urunga-Hungry Head Surf Life Saving Club (SLSC) is located at Hungry Head Beach, and the Bellinger Valley-North Beach SLSC is located at the Mylestom access to North Beach, both offering volunteer lifesaving patrol services.

Regionally, the Bellingen Shire has a population of 12,416 (ABS, 2010). Communities in the Bellingen Shire use the open coast beaches and the Bellinger / Kalang Estuary for a range of recreation pursuits including walking, surfing, sightseeing, swimming and fishing, amongst others. The natural undeveloped coastline attracts tourism, which is a key part of the region’s economy. The local population may double during busy holiday periods (particularly during summer months).

The Mid North Coast Regional Strategy 2006 – 2031 (DP, 2009) predicts the majority of the region’s growth will be directed towards the major regional centres (e.g. Coffs Harbour), with a lesser part of the increase to be supported by major towns including Bellingen. Smaller towns and



villages, such as Urunga and Mylestom, were recognised as having a limited capacity for growth (DP, 2009). Urban release areas in the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy were incorporated as appropriate in the Bellingen Local Environment Plan 2010. South Urunga is the closest area to the coast that may provide for additional urban housing. Mylestom was recognised as unsuitable for further urban growth due for environmental reasons.

Future growth of the region will place most pressure on the coastline in terms of recreational facilities and public access. Future management of the coastline will need to balance these demands with the potential for coastal hazards at present and future timeframes.

1.3 Coastal Management Process in NSW The CZMP has been prepared in accordance with the Coastal Protection Act 1979 (i.e. the CPA Act 1979), the NSW Coastal Policy 1997, and the Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013; herein referred to as the ‘CZMP Guidelines’), as well as other legislation and guidelines applicable to managing the coastal zone of NSW.

The legislation relevant to managing the coastal zone in NSW have been summarised for Bellingen in Appendix A. The process followed to prepare the CZMP (as per the CPA Act 1979 and CZMP Guidelines), is as follows:

(1) Establish a Committee or Working Party to oversee the preparation of the study;

(2) Identify coastal processes and quantify coastal hazards affecting the coastal zone through a Coastal Hazards Definition Study;

(3) Adopt a Risk Management Approach to assess the level of risk from coastal hazards (now and at 2050 and 2100);

(4) Identify and evaluate management options to treat the priority coastal risks, considering the technical and financial viability and the social, economic, aesthetic, recreational and ecological costs and benefits of the options, and prepare a Coastal Risk Management Study documenting the recommended management options;

(5) Prepare a draft Coastal Zone Management Plan consisting of the best combination of options for reducing the risks from coastal hazards and achieving the plan objectives, including an implementation schedule for the preferred actions;

(6) Review the draft Plan through public exhibition and consultation;

(7) Council to formally adopt the Plan and commence implementation of the plan (noting that certification of CZMPs by the State Government is currently on hold, awaiting reforms to the coastal management process); and

(8) Review the Coastal Zone Management Plan on a regular basis (5-10 years), to enable continued update and review of coastal risks and management measures.

Step 1 of the process was completed by Council. Step 2 was completed in 2012 with the preparation of the Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazard Study (BMT WBM, 2012). This report comprises Steps 3 to 6 of the Coastal Management process.



Figure 1-1 Study Area – Bellingen Coastal Zone



1.3.1 Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans The CZMP Guidelines specify the requirements for preparing a CZMP in accordance with the Coastal Protection Act 1979, including requirements additional to those specified in the Act.

Under Section 733 of the Local Government Act 1993, Councils are taken to have acted in ‘good faith’ and thus receive an exemption from liability for land affected by coastal hazards where their actions substantially accord with the principles contained in the specified manual, in this case being the CZMP Guidelines. The Principles for Coastal Management outlined in the CZMP Guidelines are listed in Table 1-1. The Bellingen CZMP partly or wholly addresses all of the following Principles (1 to 10).

The CZMP Guidelines specify the use of a risk based approach for preparing a CZMP and actions for managing coastal hazards. A risk based approach has therefore been applied to the preparation of this study.

Table 1-1 Coastal Management Principles addressed by the Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Plan

Coastal Management Principles (OEH, 2013)

Principle 1 Consider the objects of the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and the goals, objectives and principles of the NSW Coastal Policy 1997.

Principle 2 Optimise links between plans relating to the management of the coastal zone.

Principle 3 Involve the community in decision-making and make coastal information publicly available.

Principle 4 Base decisions on the best available information and reasonable practise; acknowledge the interrelationship between catchment, estuarine and coastal processes; adopt a continuous improvement management approach.

Principle 5 The priority for public expenditure is public benefit; public expenditure should cost-effectively achieve the best practical long-term outcomes.

Principle 6 Adopt a risk management approach to managing risks to public safety and assets; adopt a risk management hierarchy involving avoiding risk where feasible and mitigation where risks cannot be reasonably avoided; adopt interim actions to manage high risks while long-term options are implemented.

Principle 7 Adopt an adaptive risk management approach if risks are expected to increase over time, or to accommodate uncertainty in risk predictions.

Principle 8 Maintain the condition of high value coastal ecosystems; rehabilitate priority degraded coastal ecosystems.

Principle 9 Maintain and improve safe public access to beaches and headlands consistent with the goals of the NSW Coastal Policy.

Principle 10 Support recreational activities consistent with the goals of the NSW Coastal Policy.

1.3.2 A Note on Sea Level Rise Previously, the NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement (DECCW, 2009) (the Policy Statement) set benchmarks of a 0.4 metre rise in sea level by 2050 and 0.9 metre rise by 2100 above 1990 mean sea level as the standard to be used in all forms of coastal assessment, including coastal hazards



definition studies. These values provide the best national and international projections for the NSW Coast at the present time, as they are based upon reports by the IPCC (2007) and CSIRO (2007).

The NSW Government repealed the NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement 2009 in September 2012, meaning that the state-wide sea level rise benchmarks no longer apply to coastal assessments (such as the Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study, BMT WBM 2012). The NSW Government indicated that local councils “have the flexibility to determine their own sea level rise projections to suit their local conditions” (NSW Environment and Heritage, 2012), although it is unclear if or how local councils may be equipped to do this.

In lieu of sea level rise benchmarks, the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has suggested that Councils should adopt sea level rise values that are widely accepted by scientific opinion, or investigate a range of sea level rises (pers. comm., Mike Sharpin, OEH, 25th October, 2012).

Under Section 733(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council has a duty of care to inform its local constituents of known risks in order to receive an exemption from liability for acting in good faith with respect to coastal hazards. Under Section 733(4) of that Act, Council is considered to have acted in good faith where decisions are based substantially in accordance with the relevant manual, in this case, the Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013).

Thus, Council has a legal imperative to consider sea level rise, as it is a known and measured coastal process that will affect the likelihood of land being affected by coastal hazards. The assessment of sea level rise is a requirement of the Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013), upon which the Local Government Act 1993 exemption from liability is based.

The former NSW Policy Statement benchmarks were used to prepare the Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study (BMT WBM, 2012) and associated hazard lines that have been used in the risk assessment for this study. While the benchmarks have been repealed, these values still utilise the most up-to-date projections for sea level rise in NSW and remain the most relevant planning levels for use in preparing a CZMP’s for Bellingen. As such, Council resolved to retain the previous state government sea level rise benchmarks for the development of the CZMP.

1.3.3 Community Consultation A range of activities were conducted during this CZMS to involve the general community, Council, State Government agencies and other stakeholders in the development of the CZMP. The following activities were conducted chronologically:

Information was posted on Council’s website about the CZMP, including contact details and a link to an online survey regarding community values and issues in the coastal zone;

A community survey was prepared and distributed to a wide range of identified stakeholders, via email and mail-out. There were 31 responses to the community survey (five in hard copy and 26 online/via email), and the results were used in understanding the issues and deriving options to manage coastal hazards in the CZMP. A summary of the findings of the community survey is provided in Appendix C;



A Risk Assessment and Management Options Workshop, held internally at Council offices involving key representatives from the various internal departments of Council, as well as relevant NSW Government agencies and other key stakeholders. This technical workshop involved an assessment of the risk from coastal hazards, collation of details relating to existing management actions currently being undertaken or deemed successful in the past, and a discussion of new management options and the practicality for Council and others to implement such options. The workshop provided guidance on the type(s) of management options that were considered to be effective and practical for Council and others to implement; and

Meeting with the Council and Committee overseeing preparation of the CZMP, and additional State agencies to determine the preferred recommended option for implementation.

The Draft CZMS was placed on public exhibition for a period of 3 week for community feedback and comments. Comments were considered and incorporated into the final CZMS and CZMP as appropriate.

The same public exhibition process will occur for the CZMP, prior to it being submitted to the NSW Government for adoption.

Furthermore, key management actions resulting from this coastal zone management planning process will be to undertake site specific precinct planning over short term to further investigate the suite of potential management options proposed by this CZMS. Close consultation will be required with the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve Trust; the Bellinger Heads State Park Trust; the NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust; the North Beach Community Alliance; the Urunga Amateur Fishing Club; and community members as part of the ongoing process of plan implementation.

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report 9 Coastal Risk Assessment


2 Coastal Risk Assessment

2.1 Application of the Risk Framework to Coastal Management A risk-based framework is a robust methodology for dealing with consequences that are uncertain or have limited data, or for impacts with uncertain timeframes. This approach is therefore particularly applicable to coastal hazards impacts and the impacts of predicted sea level rise, where there is considerable uncertainty regarding when and if impacts will manifest. Uncertainties associated with future climate change present huge challenges to local government and the wider community, who need to consider and manage future risks. Decisions made today are likely to have ramifications for up to 100 years or more (depending on the type and scale of development), and so consideration of an extended timeframe is essential, even though risks may not manifest for several decades.

The Risk Assessment process utilised for the Bellingen CZMP is adapted from the Australian Standard Risk Management Principles and Guidelines (AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009), as described below and presented schematically in Figure 2-1. The use of a risk-based approach for managing coastal hazards is a requirement of the latest CZMP guidelines, and accords with current international best practice for natural resource management as follows:

Establish the Context – the requirements of a CZMP set by NSW Legislation and Guideline documents provides the context for the risk assessment and intended outcomes. The NSW Coastal Policy provides guidance on management objectives. The context, purpose and scope of the Bellingen CZMP were outlined in Section 1.1;

Identify the Risks – the risks arise from the coastal hazards, as defined in the Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans (OEH, 2013) and the former Coastline Management Manual (1990). Coastal hazards were defined by BMT WBM (2012) for Bellingen’s coastal zone (see Appendix B). The key hazards of interest for the current risk assessment include:

○ Beach erosion;

○ Long-term shoreline recession, due to future sea level rise; and

○ Coastal inundation, during high tides combined with storms and sea level rise.

Analyse the Risks – coastal hazards are considered to be the event that is analysed through risk management. In this case, both likelihood and consequence of the hazards needs to be analysed. The combination of likelihood and consequence defines the overall level of risk which are categorised as extreme, high, medium or low.

The likelihood of risks is related to the extent of coastal hazards, now and in the future. The likelihood of erosion/recession and coastal inundation at the immediate, 2050, 2100 timeframes is defined in Section 2.2.

The consequence of the risks relates to the impact of the hazards upon the land and existing and future assets, including the aesthetic, recreational, ecological and economic values associated with the coastal zone. The values of the community associated with beaches in the



Figure 2-1 Risk Management Framework (ISO 31000:2009) adapted to Coastal Zone Management

Establishing the context What are our objectives for Coastal Zone Management?

Com

mun

icat

ion

and

Con

sulta

tion

Stak

ehol

der a

nd C

omm

unity

Lia

ison

Mon

itorin

g an

d R

evie

w

Are

we

mee

ting

our P

erfo

rman

ce In

dica

tors

?

Risk Assessment

Risk Identification What are the built, natural and community assets at risk from coastal hazards?

Risk Analysis What are the likelihood and the consequence of each coastal risk? What is the level of risk (high, medium low)?

Risk Evaluation What is a tolerable level of risk? Are there controls / mitigating actions already in place?

Risk Treatment Options What management strategies can we use to reduce the level of risk to a tolerable level? What are the costs and benefits of the strategies? At what trigger level do we implement the strategies?

Implement Management Strategies



study area were assessed through a community survey (summarised in Appendix C). In addition to the above, a formal Risk Assessment Workshop with key stakeholders to assess the consequence of coastal hazards was conducted. The consequence assessment is detailed in Section 2.3.

The consequence and likelihood were combined (using Geographical Information System (GIS) processing) to determine and map the level of risk for assets and land in the coastal zone. The level of risk was revised to include existing controls that may reduce the level of risk, for example existing Council policies, structural works and other strategic planning initiatives. The outcomes of the risk assessment and a register of coastal assets and their level of risk for planning timeframes are detailed in Section 4. Coastal risk mapping in shown in Appendix F. Management actions have been derived from the asset risk register and risk mapping.

Evaluate the Risks – in consultation with Council and other stakeholders, the level of risk that is deemed acceptable, tolerable and intolerable was discussed. The evaluation criteria define the intolerable risks that must be treated as a priority and to which management effort shall be directed, which is discussed further in Section 4.

Treat the Risks – the process of developing coastal management options is directly related to reducing or eliminating intolerable risks where possible. Tolerable (low) risks can be flagged for monitoring, with no further resources necessary. Management options can be designed to reduce the likelihood of the risks (e.g. planning setbacks to reduce the likelihood of shoreline recession impacts), or reduce the consequence of the risk (e.g. emergency management to reduce the consequence of shoreline recession) or both. Management options first need to be technically viable for the study area. A triple bottom line (social, economic and environmental) cost benefit analysis is then used to determine which of the risk treatments will provide the greatest benefit (relative to cost) in treating the highest priority risks. Management options are outlined and analysed in Section 4.

For existing development, the timeframes over which hazards may manifest is uncertain and so a trigger for implementing the options has been flagged. Setting triggers ensures the management option and associated resources are not utilised until it is absolutely necessary to do so, which is particularly important for difficult and costly, but necessary, options. This is described further in Section 4.6.

Implement Management Strategies (Risk Treatments) – The CZMP provides the forum detailing how the recommended management options (risk treatments) shall be implemented (costs, timeframes, resources) and funded. Ongoing monitoring and review of both the risks and management options is also detailed. Subsequent to the finalisation of the Coastal Zone Management Study, the Coastal Zone Management Plan outlining the preferred actions for implementation will be compiled.

2.2 Likelihood of Coastal Hazards

2.2.1 Likelihood Scale The hazards definition phase of the NSW coastal management process is suited to defining the ‘likelihood’ or probability of occurrence of coastal hazards, through the analysis of coastal



processes and historical beach responses, and to account for uncertainty in both the occurrence of hazards and shoreline response to sea level rise.

As part of the Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study (BMT WBM, 2012), a scale of ‘likelihood’ or probability of occurrence for a hazard impact based upon the Australian Standard for Risk Management (AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009) and its companion document (HB 436:2004) was derived, as given in Table 2-1. The timeframes over which coastal hazards probability were assessed is defined in Table 2-2, namely the immediate, 2050 and 2100 planning horizons, as consistent with the CZMP Guidelines for coastal planning.

BMT WBM (2012) identified that the historical data for Bellingen was not sufficiently detailed to differentiate between the five likelihood categories in Table 2-1. The categories were rationalised and focus was given to ‘Almost Certain’, ‘Unlikely’ and ‘Rare’ probabilities (referred to herein as ‘Almost Certain, ‘Best Estimate’ and ‘Worst Case’; see Table 2-1) for the immediate, 2050 and 2100 planning horizons. These categories are presumed to provide a sufficient level of detail for coastal planning purposes. As coastal processes data and assessment of the probability of hazard impacts improves into the future, it is expected that the approach to the definition of hazard will be incorporated into future revisions of the Bellingen CZMP.

Table 2-1 Risk Likelihood / Probability for Coastal Hazards (from BMT WBM, 2012)

Probability Description Hazard Descriptor

Almost Certain There is a high possibility the event will occur as there is a history of frequent occurrence. Almost Certain

Likely It is likely the event will occur as there is a history of casual occurrence. Insufficient data to

define Possible There is an approximate 50/50 chance that the

event will occur.

Unlikely There is a low possibility that the event will

occur, however, there is a history of infrequent or isolated occurrence.

Best Estimate

Rare It is highly unlikely that the event will occur,

except in extreme / exceptional circumstances, which have not been recorded historically.

Worst Case

Table 2-2 Timeframes for Coastal Planning

Timeframe Coastal Hazard

Immediate Present day conditions (e.g. 2014)

2050 Expected conditions by 2050

2100 Expected conditions by 2100



2.2.2 Beach Erosion and Shoreline Recession The method for assigning likelihood to the erosion and recession hazards was detailed in BMT WBM (2012) and is summarised below. Table 2-3 provides an outline of the approach at all time periods. Should more detailed information be required as to the derivation of likelihood zones, the reader is referred to BMT WBM (2012).

For the immediate timeframe, the ‘likelihood’ of erosion relates only to the existing coastal processes particularly storms in Bellingen, and not sea level rise.

The beach erosion ‘likelihoods’ were defined based upon the most eroded profiles recorded in the photogrammetric data. Using the most eroded conditions of the past encompasses the existing wave climate variability, which may manifest over monthly, seasonal, annual and decadal timescales. Given that the erosion extents are derived from historical data, it is highly likely that the conditions which produced such extents in the past will occur again in the future (and can be determined independently of the wave, water level, beach geomorphology, sediment store conditions that resulted in the measured erosion).

Estimating a range of ‘probable’ beach erosion extents considers the uncertainty involved in estimating beach erosion. It also enables consideration of conditions for which there is no recorded data. The likelihoods are defined as follows:

the ‘Almost Certain’ probability of occurrence of beach erosion was taken as the average erosion value in the recorded data (based on movement of the 4 m AHD contour);

the ‘Best Estimate’(unlikely) probability of occurrence of beach erosion was taken to be the maximum erosion value at any point along the beach, adopted for the whole beach; and

the ‘Worst Case’ (rare) probability beach erosion extent was derived to account for extreme conditions that have not been measured previously, but that may occur in the future and therefore need to be considered for future planning. The simplest approach (in lieu of measured data that would enable a more refined approach) was to calculate the difference between the average and maximum beach erosion extent, and then add this to the maximum beach erosion extent. The ‘Almost Certain’, ‘Best Estimate’ and ‘Worst Case’ values adopted at Bellingen’s Beaches are provided in Table 2-3. Each of the beach erosion probabilities were adopted across the length of the beach embayment. All locations along a beach have the potential to be affected, depending upon the wave height, direction and water level of storms. This approach also accounts for the ‘beach rotation’ phenomenon, which is a longshore response to average wave climate; headland bypassing, which is the episodic movement of ‘slugs’ of sand around headlands; and rip currents, which may potentially form at any location along the beach.

For future periods (2050, 2100), the determination of ‘likelihood’ combined the analysis of beach erosion (using historical data, described above) and shoreline recession (which was determined using advanced Shoreline Evolution modelling, accounting for both historical changes such as the training wall construction and future response to sea level rise).



Table 2-3 Beach Erosion and Shoreline Recession Hazard Probability Zones

Probability Immediate 2050 2100 Almost Certain ‘average’ beach

erosion 1 Immediate ‘average’

beach erosion Immediate ‘average’

beach erosion Likely NM 2 NM 2 NM 2

Possible NM 2 NM 2 NM 2 Best Estimate

(Unlikely) ‘maximum’ beach

erosion at any position along the

beach 1

Immediate ‘maximum’ beach erosion + 0.4 m SLR

Immediate ‘maximum’ beach erosion + 0.9 m SLR

Worst Case (Rare)

‘extreme’ beach erosion 3

Worst Case of either: Immediate ‘maximum’ beach erosion + 0.7 m

SLR OR

Immediate ‘extreme’ beach erosion + 0.4 m

SLR

Worst Case of either: Immediate ‘maximum’ beach erosion + 1.4 m

SLR OR

Immediate ‘extreme’ beach erosion + 0.9 m

SLR 1 as measured over the past 4 decades. 2 NM = Not mapped due to inadequate data to differentiate likelihoods between ‘Almost Certain’ and ‘Best Estimate’. 3 Assumed to be ‘maximum’ erosion plus the difference between ‘maximum’ and ‘average’ beach erosion.

Table 2-4 Beach Erosion Extents (measured from 4 m AHD contour in 2010)

Immediate Beach Erosion Hazard

Almost Certain (m)

Best Estimate (Unlikely) (m)

Worst Case (Rare) (m)

Hungry Head & North Hungry Head Beaches

15.0 30.0 45.0

North Beach 10.0 25.0 45.0

North Valla Beach No photogrammetry, Hungry Head Beach values adopted

Schnapper Beach No photogrammetry, Hungry Head Beach values adopted

The ‘immediate’ beach erosion hazard is carried forward to 2050 and 2100 as there is currently no reliable or reasonable data that would justify assuming a different extent of erosion in the future. Likewise, the historical data indicates that the beaches are currently stable, so future shoreline recession is expected to occur due to sea level rise only. The likelihoods are defined as follows, and summarised in Table 2-3.

The ‘Almost Certain’ line at 2050 and 2100 includes ‘Almost Certain’ beach erosion (i.e. calculated at the immediate timeframe), but no sea level rise impacts. This accounts for beach erosion in the future, irrespective of the rate of sea level rise. While many would argue that sea level rise is highly likely to occur, the ‘Almost Certain’ zone becomes a planning benchmark



irrespective of uncertainty associated with climate change. This is consistent with planning advice given in the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and related documents for coastal risk areas;

The ‘Best Estimate’(unlikely) hazard likelihood zone is the addition of future long term recession due to predicted sea level rise of 0.4 metres and 0.9 metres by 2050 and 2100, plus ‘Best Estimate’ beach erosion (i.e. calculated at the immediate timeframe). That this, the extent of recession occurring due to sea level rise is taken to be certain, and then our ‘Best Estimate’ extent of beach erosion is added to this. This zone provides for both the uncertainty in beach erosion that is also a buffer for the shoreline response to sea level rise and the rate and timeframe for that rise.

The ‘Worst Case’ (rare) likelihood beach erosion and recession once again accounted for the worst case scenario of beach erosion due to unrecorded events or greater than predicted climate change impacts. The ‘worst case’ hazard probability zone was derived as the maximum extent of recession due to either:

○ Future long term recession due to a higher than predicted sea level rise of 1.4 metres by 2100 plus immediate ‘Best Estimate’ beach erosion; or

○ Future long term recession due to projected sea rise of 0.9 metres by 2100 plus the ‘worst case’ (rare, or extreme) beach erosion extent.

At the majority of reporting localities, the higher than predicted sea level rise caused the greatest potential for recession, and thus was mostly adopted as defining the ‘Worst Case’ hazard.

2.2.3 Likelihood of Coastal Inundation The coastal inundation hazard refers to inundation due to elevated ocean water levels during a storm that either propagate into creek or lagoon entrances or act as a tailwater level impeding outflow from coastal waterbodies, thereby elevating their upstream water level. A summary of the rationale behind the design coastal inundation levels and their probability for all planning periods is explained below and in Table 2-5.

In defining the likelihood of coastal inundation within the immediate timeframe, it was considered:

‘Almost Certain’ would be equivalent to a 1 in 20 return interval event;

‘Best Estimate’(unlikely) would be equivalent to a 1 in 100 year event; and

‘Worst Case’ (rare) would be equivalent to a 1 in 100 year event with the addition of an extreme climatic condition, resulting in still water levels (excluding wave set-up) roughly equivalent to a 1 in 1000 year average recurrence. Such an event was estimated to add 0.2 metres to the 1 in 100 year water level. Given the potential for tropical cyclones to track further southwards due to climate change or more extreme storms due to climate change or natural variability over the immediate to 2100 period, it is reasonable to plan for greater than expected ocean water levels in the future.

For future planning periods (2050, 2100), extreme ocean water levels will additionally include sea level rise, as well as minor projected changes to storm surge and wave height. The design inundation levels are thus:



an ‘Almost Certain’ probability for a 20 year ARI event, without sea level rise, and this approach provides a hazard level irrespective of the rate of sea level rise. This is consistent with planning advice given in the Coastal Protection Act 1979 and related documents for defining coastal risk areas;

a ‘Best Estimate’(unlikely) probability of a 1 in 100 year event plus predicted sea level rise, plus increased wave set-up and storm surge due to climate change; and

a ‘Worst Case’ (rare) probability of a 1 in 100 yr. event plus greater than predicted sea level rise (1.4 metres by 2100), or an extreme climatic condition (e.g. a 1 in 1000 year still water level event, excluding wave set-up) plus predicted sea level rise, whichever is greatest.

Table 2-5 Coastal Inundation Likelihood Summary

Probability Immediate 2050 2100

Almost Certain 1 in 20 yr. storm surge and wave set

up

As per immediate As per immediate

Likely NM 1 NM 1 NM 1

Possible NM 1 NM 1 NM 1

Best Estimate (Unlikely)

1 in 100 yr. storm surge and wave set

up

1 in 100 yr. storm surge and wave set up + 0.4

m SLR and climate change impacts

1 in 100 yr. storm surge and wave set up + 0.9 m SLR and climate change

impacts

Worst Case (Rare)

1 in 100 yr. storm surge and wave set-

up + extreme climatic

conditions (e.g. tropical cyclone, 1 in 1000 year east coast

low)

Worst Case of either: 1 in 100 yr. storm surge

and wave set-up + extreme climatic

conditions + 0.4 m SLR and

climate change impacts OR

1 in 100 yr. storm surge and wave set-up + 0.7 m SLR and

climate change impacts

Worst Case of either: 1 in 100 yr. storm surge

and wave set-up + extreme climatic

conditions + 0.9 m SLR and climate

change impacts OR

1 in 100 yr. storm surge and wave set-up

+ 1.4 m SLR and climate change impacts

1 NM = Not Mapped

Table 2-6 Adopted Inundation Levels

Adopted Inundation Levels Immediate (m AHD)

2050 (m AHD)

2100 (m AHD)

Almost Certain 2.5 2.5 2.5

Best Estimate 2.7 3.1 3.7

Worst Case 2.9 3.4 4.2



2.2.3.1 A note on the limitations of the Coastal Inundation Hazards Mapping As described in detail in the Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study (2012), reliable Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) data was not available for the entire study area at the time of this assessment, therefore mapping of the coastal inundation hazard:

is complete for the lower reaches of the Bellinger and Kalang Rivers as ALS data was available for this area; but

is indicative only for Dalhousie and Oyster Creeks, as only coarse, statewide 2 metre and 10 metre AHD interval contour data was available to map these two waterbodies at the time of the assessment. ASL data is now available for both waterbodies and updated inundation extents are currently being determined using a ‘bath tub’ approach. However, this mapping will not be completed in time for incorporation into the present CZMP.

2.2.4 Likelihood of Other Coastal Risks

2.2.4.1 Coastal Entrances during Closed Conditions The coastal entrance hazard refers to existing and future berm height and closure characteristics of coastal lagoons such as Dalhousie and Oyster-McGrath Creeks, which may modify the extent of inundation in back beach areas during closed entrance conditions.

Without reliable data for existing berm heights at these creeks outlets, it was not possible to assess a likely berm height at present or in the future with sea level rise. In this case, a ‘Worst Case’ (or rare) scenario berm height was derived from experience with similar closed lagoons in NSW and supporting literature (BMT, 2012). For future timeframes, berm heights are expected to increase by an amount roughly equal to the rise in sea level (BMT, 2012). Thus, a ‘Worst Case’ scenario berm height was determined by the addition of sea level rise at 2050 and 2100. The ‘Worst Case’ (rare) scenario berm heights are therefore:

An immediate height of 3.5 m AHD;

A 2050 height of 3.9 m AHD; and

A 2100 height of 4.4 m AHD.

For future flood studies undertaken for these creek systems, it is recommended that berm heights be further investigated to determine a more reliable berm height condition, with the inclusion of sea level rise. The ‘Worst Case’ values could be utilised where more reliable data is not available, and qualified as a ‘Worst Case’ scenario.

2.2.4.2 Sand Drift While detailed mapping and likelihood analysis of a sand drift hazard was not possible, there are aspects of this type of hazard that require management attention:

In some locations, ongoing maintenance of existing dune vegetation will ensure the capture of windborne sediments to provide sediment stores for the beach during beach erosion events; and



In the future, careful consideration of how dunes respond and recede with sea level rise will need to be utilised in determining the most appropriate management response for Mylestom Spit. There may be a need to consider removing some of the vegetation cover from Mylestom spit, so that dune sand can be readily mobilised and allow the spit to roll back with sea level rise, rather than be eroded. In this case, the estuary channel may also be forced to migrate landward, resulting in some loss of farm land on the western margin of the channel. Compared with the destabilisation or complete loss of Mylestom spit as a barrier to ocean waves, however, such land loss within the channel may be considered of lesser consequence.

2.3 Consequence of Coastal Hazards

2.3.1 Consequence Scale The other component of risk is consequence. The consequence of impact from coastal hazards largely relates to the land affected by hazards, such as existing or future development and other assets and their values (i.e. aesthetic, recreational, ecological, cultural and economic). The type and duration of impact should also be considered when assessing the consequence of the different coastal risks (e.g. short-term periodic inundation compared with long-term permanent loss of land with recession).

A consequence scale was developed specifically for this study that is relevant to both the type of impact to coastal land and assets and its effect across the entire community and the timeframe (up to 100 years) for coastal risk planning. The consequence scale follows a triple bottom line approach, to determine the consequence to the society and community, environment and economy.

Terminology of ‘catastrophic’, ‘major’, ‘moderate’, ‘minor’, and ‘insignificant’ was adopted for the consequence scale, which is consistent with the terminology adopted by Standards Australia (2004) Handbook Risk Management Guidelines Companion, which accompanies the Risk Management Principles and Guidelines. The consequence scale is shown in Table 2-7.

2.3.2 Register of Public and Private Assets Potentially Affected by Hazards A variety of coastal “assets” representing various land uses, facilities and features (including environmental features) of the Bellingen Coastal zone were identified based upon GIS processing of:

spatial mapping of land zoning, land tenure, cadastre and aerial photography;

mapping of stormwater assets, wastewater and water supply assets, heritage items, parks, dune vegetation, public buildings (particularly surf clubs), roads and community assets (e.g. fishing club, beach access points);

information regarding assets (social, cultural, recreational, economic) from various reports; and

details provided on assets through discussions with Council and stakeholders, (including the Risk Assessment Workshop as described below).



Table 2-7 Consequence Scale for Coastal Hazards

Consequence Society / Community Environment Economy

Catastrophic

Widespread permanent impact to community’s services, wellbeing, or culture (e.g. > 50 % of community

affected), or national loss, or

no suitable alternative sites exist.

Widespread, devastating / permanent impact (e.g. entire

habitat destruction), or loss of all local

representation of nationally important species (e.g. endangered species). Recovery is unlikely.

Damage to property, infrastructure, or

local economy > $15 million*

Major

Major permanent or widespread medium term disruption to

community’s services, wellbeing, or culture (e.g. 50 % of community

affected), or regional loss, or

Few, if any, suitable alternative sites exist.

Widespread permanent or semi-permanent impact, or

widespread pest / weed species proliferation, or semi-

permanent loss of entire regionally important habitat. Recovery may take several

years, if at all.

Damage to property, infrastructure, or

local economy >$2 million

Moderate

Minor long-term or major short-term (mostly reversible) disruption to

services, wellbeing, or culture of the community (e.g., up to 25 % of

community affected), or sub-regional loss, or

Some suitable alternative sites exist.

Significant environmental changes isolated to a

localised area, or loss of regionally important habitat in one localised area. Recovery

may take several years.

Damage to property, infrastructure, or local economy

>$250,000** - $2 million

Minor

Small to medium short term (reversible) disruption to services, wellbeing, finances, or culture of

the community (e.g., up to 10 % of community affected), or

local loss, or many alternative sites exist.

Environmental damage of a magnitude consistent with

seasonal variability. Recovery may take one year.


>$50,000 - $250,000

Insignificant

Very small short-term disruption to services, wellbeing, finances, or

culture of the community (e.g. up to 5 % of community affected), or

neighbourhood loss, or numerous alternative sites exist.

Minimal short-term impact, recovery may take less than 6 months, or habitat affected with many alternative sites

available.


<$50,000

The assets identified across the Bellingen coastal zone are listed in Table 2-9. A series of maps of coastal assets in Bellingen were generated for use in assigning consequence values from coastal hazards (should they occur).



2.3.3 Assigning Consequences from Coastal Hazards The key process for determining consequence values was a Risk Assessment Workshop conducted with personnel from the various departments within Council, the state agencies and other stakeholders who manage land or assets in the Bellingen coastal zone (refer Table 2-8). The workshop covered both the consequence of erosion/recession, as well as coastal inundation.

Table 2-8 Risk Workshop Attendees

Organisation Position

Dept. Premier and Cabinet, Office of Environment and Heritage Senior Coast and Estuary Officer

Dept. Primary Industries, Soil Conservation Service Senior Environmental Officer

Local Land Services, Central North Coast Team Leader

Bellingen Shire Council Deputy General Manager, Operations

Bellingen Shire Council Acting Manager, Planning and Regulated Services

Bellingen Shire Council Strategic Planner, Operations

Bellingen Shire Council Manager, Sustainability & Natural Resources

Bellingen Shire Council Sustainability Engineer

Bellingen Shire Council Sustainability Officer

Bellingen Landcare Local Landcare Officer

Attendees working in groups were required to assign a social, environmental and economic consequence (using Table 2-7), and the overall level of risk (using Table 2-10) to each asset present at the coastal locations in the study area. The overall level of risk could be driven by social, environmental or economic values, or some combination, as deemed appropriate by the group of attendees. The outcomes of the workshop activities are reproduced in Appendix D.

Consequence values must be assessed separately for the erosion and recession hazard compared with the coastal inundation hazard because those types of impacts are different, even though the value of the land may be the same. The impacts from erosion and recession are permanent and irreversible. That is, once recession has undermined a built structure on a sandy dune, the loss of the item is permanent. Even though the beach may recover to some degree from erosion, the built item (and its location) must be abandoned permanently or rebuilt. In contrast, periodic coastal inundation resulting in flooding of land is a short-term phenomenon, as the water recedes after the storm surge and tide ebbs, and is therefore not a permanent consequence of the hazard

The results from the workshop activity for erosion/recession and inundation were used to establish an overall or average consequence value, which was then assigned spatially (using a GIS) to each of the assets mapped across the LGA. Experience of the study team and information from various reports pertaining to the local area (e.g. Flametree’s Vegetation Mapping, refer below) were used to adjust consequence levels compared with workshop outcomes in some isolated cases, as was the community survey results on coastal values and issues. The consequence levels were also refined where appropriate (i.e. workshop outcomes varied from community values). Thus, for each of the coastal assets and hazard(s), a consequence value was established, as given in below.



Table 2-9 Consequences Ascribed to Assets in the Bellingen Coastal Zone

Asset Category / Asset Name Erosion & Recession Consequence Level

Coastal Inundation Consequence Level

Town Centre, Residential and Rural Property Local Town Centre Major

Residential Property Major Moderate

Rural Property Moderate

Essential Community Facilities (e.g. Hospitals) Catastrophic

Various Community Buildings (e.g. Schools, Public Hall) Major

Primary Production, Forestry and Industry Primary Production Lots Insignificant Moderate

Forestry Land Insignificant Minor

Industrial Land Moderate

Infrastructure Land Minor

Transport Infrastructure Major / Arterial Roads Major

Minor/Local Roads (general) Moderate Moderate

Minor/Local Roads (no alternate access) Major Moderate

Laneways Moderate

North Coast Railway Catastrophic Major

Other Infrastructure Water Main Moderate Minor

Wastewater Infrastructure Major

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure Moderate

Community Infrastructure Holiday Parks and Reserves Moderate Moderate

Surf Life Saving Clubs Major

Surf Life Saving Watch Tower Moderate

North Beach Lookout Moderate

Urunga Fishing Club Major

Public Recreation (e.g. sport grounds) Minor

Private Recreation facilities Minor

Amenities / Blocks / Sheds Moderate Minor

Beach Car Park & Picnic Facilities Minor Insignificant

Beach Access (Pedestrian & 4WD) Moderate Insignificant

Boat Ramps Insignificant

Heritage Built Items (sensitive to flooding) Moderate

Urunga Breakwater & Training Walls Insignificant

Landscape/Vegetation Items Minor

Cultural Items Minor

Natural Assets



Asset Category / Asset Name Erosion & Recession Consequence Level

Coastal Inundation Consequence Level

Beaches Major Insignificant

Foredune Major Insignificant

Creek Entrances Moderate Insignificant

Hind Dune Moderate Insignificant

National, State and Local Parks/Reserves Moderate Minor

Environmental Protection Zones Moderate Minor

EEC (saltwater tolerate/adapted) Moderate Minor

ECC (saltwater sensitive) Moderate Moderate

Waterways Creek and Creek Entrances Moderate Insignificant

Bellinger/Kalang Rivers Catastrophic Insignificant

2.3.4 Coastal Vegetation Values Flametree (2006) undertook mapping of the coastal vegetation in coastal public land in Bellingen LGA. The mapping included identification of EEC’s, and the severity of weed infestation was mapped to determine vegetation condition. The mapping project also involved prioritising areas for bush regeneration.

Of particular interest to this CZMS is the assessment of dune vegetation condition, high quality habitat (such as EECs) and regeneration priorities, which are used to determine the value of coastal lands in public ownership, and therefore, consequence from coastal hazards to these ecological values.

Foredune and hind dune vegetation communities were delineated (among many others). Flametree (2006) provide a detailed description (plus photographs) of the characteristics of each vegetation community, including foredunes and hind dunes. This information may provide useful knowledge for actions relating the dune rehabilitation in this plan. Foredunes were noted as not containing any EECs, and having little value to threatened fauna species in the Bellingen region (Flametree, 2006). Hind dunes may contain nectar or fruit bearing plants of some value to threatened fauna, and occasionally have or can support littoral rainforest (in certain topographic areas).

Mapping of EECs by Flametree (2006) illustrated that the foredune and hind dune vegetation communities rarely (if at all) contained EECs. Instead, the habitat value of the foredunes and hind dunes is relatively low, compared with the high value of the EECs. This information has been incorporated into the assignment of consequence values for the EECs compared with the hind dune and foredune vegetation (see Table 2-9). Analysis of weed infestation by Flametree (2006) demonstrated that the foredunes and hind dunes had typically a medium or high level of weed infestation, and this further reduces the relative value of the dunes as ecological assets (compared with other areas in the Bellingen coastal zone). Subsequently, Flametree (2006) nominated all areas of foredune and hind dune as a low level priority for bush regeneration.

Foredunes and hind dunes are essential in terms of the buffering/protection they provide to the EECs from coastal processes, as the dunes capture sediment that can be supplied back to the beach and surf zone during storms. That is, preserving the dunes as a buffer against storm



conditions is a management activity to be considered through this plan, rather than the dunes themselves requiring protection from such processes (i.e. the dunes are sacrificial, improving the resilience of back beach areas such as EECs to coastal processes).

2.4 Analysis of the Level of Risk Within a risk assessment approach, risk is defined as likelihood X consequence. A risk matrix defining the level of risk from the various combinations of likelihood and consequence was developed specifically for this coastal hazards risk assessment, as given in Table 2-10.

As for the likelihood and consequence scales, the risk matrix differs from that used for other risk assessments (e.g. health and safety, operational risk and so on), as it has been designed for the timeframes and considerations involved in coastal hazards planning.

Using the risk matrix to determine the level of risk from the combination of likelihood and consequence ascribed to the different assets, risk maps showing the level of risk from coastal hazards across Bellingen Shire’s Coastal Zone are provided in Appendix F. The likelihood and consequence values were assigned spatially (in a GIS) to the hazard zones and assets, respectively. Using GIS processing, the two spatial values (consequence and likelihood) were combined to produce an overall level of risk, using the risk matrix scores in Table 2-10.

A series of Asset Risk Registers have also been prepared from the risk maps, as given in Section 4.3 and Section 4.5. These tables detail the various assets affected by the coastal hazards (beach erosion and recession, and coastal inundation) and the level of risk at present, 2050 and 2100. The level of risk forms the basis for prioritising which assets require treatment within this plan or future timeframes. Recommended management options are also detailed within the risk register, which is discussed in the following section.

Table 2-10 Risk Matrix for Coastal Hazards

Consequence

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Like

lihoo

d

Almost Certain Low Medium High Extreme Extreme

Likely Low Medium High High Extreme

Possible Low Medium Medium High Extreme

Unlikely Low Low Medium High Extreme

Rare Low Low Low Medium High



2.5 Risk Evaluation

2.5.1 Existing Controls that Mitigate Risk In addition to the legislation pertaining to the coastal zone of Bellingen, there are many other plans, policies and strategic documents that support both the intent of the Bellingen CZMP (to manage coastal hazards) and specific actions that are investigated through this CZMS (see Section 4), as summarised below. Further detail for each document is given in Appendix A.

2.5.1.1 Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve Plan of Management The Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve as an entity is an important existing control upon development of the Bellingen coastal zone. The Reserve’s focus for management is to continue to provide for the environment, as well as recreational use and tourism within the Reserve. Actions in the Plan of Management (PoM) relating to the enhancement of development or income generating enterprises are careful to stipulate that such activities must be sustainable and support the natural, ecological and cultural values of the Reserve (and are typically low key in scale).

An action to be considered in the CZMP will be to encourage use and management of the Reserve to continue in its current manner.

The PoM provides for community use aspects of the Bellingen coastal zone. In addition, a number of actions specified in the PoM will be supported by actions in the CZMP, particularly relating to planning and development control, and dune rehabilitation.

2.5.1.2 Bellingen Shire Development Control Plan (2010) Chapter 8 – Flood and Riverine Processes of the Bellingen Shire Development Control Plan (DCP) is relevant to the management of coastal inundation hazard. This Chapter of the DCP and its associated appendices would need to be updated to incorporate coastal inundation risk, including the combined impacts of coastal inundation and catchment flooding. Flooding Controls within the DCP should not be altered however without the prior amendment of the Lower Bellinger Floodplain Risk Management Plan and Study, which underpins the development controls that are within the DCP.

2.5.1.3 North Coast Regional Environmental Plan Part 3, Division 2 of the North Coast Regional Environmental Plan (REP) relates directly to coastal development. The provisions in this Part for draft Local Environment Plans (LEP) and for development controls are consistent with the purpose of this CZMS (and subsequent CZMP), and support management options relating to review of the LEPs, the preparation of development controls for coastal hazards, and dune management.

2.5.1.4 Four Wheel Drive Beach Access Plan The Access Plan maps clearly delineate those sections of beach upon which four wheel drive vehicles are and are not permitted. This information will be important for consideration in developing dune rehabilitation activities for this CZMS (and subsequent CZMP). The Maps clearly prohibit vehicular access to sand dunes in all areas.



2.5.1.5 Bellingen Shire Growth Management Strategy The Growth Management Strategy indicates that Mylestom should be retained at its current development footprint, as it could not support further development due to its proximity to the river, the environmental values of adjacent land and lack of reticulated sewerage. Mylestom is the only settlement located directly on the coast. This finding provides important support for actions in this plan to retain the open coast in public ownership with minimal future development.

For the South Urunga Urban Release Investigation Area, the strategy recommends further investigation relating to flooding, and the land’s proximity to the river, which may present issues relating to the migration of wetlands and other habitats or permanent inundation of such development due to sea level rise (GHD, 2007). Likewise, the Strategy recommends that some land identified for rural residential development may not be viable given other environmental constraints. These recommendations would be supported by actions in the CZMP relating to flood planning for coastal inundation.

2.5.1.6 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey Rather than the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy providing existing controls for the CZMP, the CZMP will assist in the implementation of the strategy. Actions to be formulated in the CZMP will provide detail at a local scale that would facilitate implementation (at least in part) of many actions within the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. Such actions are listed in Appendix A.

2.5.1.7 Bellingen 2030 Community Strategic Plan Actions in the CZMP for managing the coastal impacts of climate change support aspirational goals for the Living Environment relating to climate change and to protect and enhance the environment. Supporting actions from the CZMP are listed with discussion of the Community Strategic Plan (CSP) provided in Appendix A.

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report 26 Risk Management


3 Risk Management

3.1 Overarching Approach Management options to reduce risk are principally focused on treating erosion and recession hazards and inundation hazards over both the short and long term. The range of options compiled for this study are based on various sources including the NSW Coastline Management Manual (1990), the CZMP Guidelines (OEH, 2013), the First Pass National Assessment of Climate Change Risks to Australia’s Coast (2009), the NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise (2010) and other related coastal management plans and studies.

Risks associated with Future Development are different from those to Existing Development. Therefore, different management approaches are required. Figure 3-1 provides a conceptual framework for application of coastal management tools, as explained below.

Figure 3-1 Conceptual Framework for Application of Coastal Management Options



For Future Development, the management approaches are as follows:

Avoid the risk, by not permitting vulnerable developments within high-risk areas (to be considered

over the full design life of the development);

Accommodate the risk by including provisions that reduce the consequence of impacts (e.g.

having minimum floor levels to reduce property damage resulting from future coastal inundation); or

Accept the risk where appropriate to the level of risk over the design life of the development.

Existing Development is typically much harder to manage as works and infrastructure are already in place which limits the opportunity for effectively ‘avoiding’ or ‘accommodating’ the risk. Thus, risk management options become either ‘protecting’ / ‘defending’ the land or asset, or ‘accepting’ the potential for damage or loss given the expected timeframe and likelihood of impact. Replacement structures should either be relocated landward, thus progressively retreating from high-risk areas; or redesigned to accommodate the risk, where appropriate. Options for managing existing development therefore include the following approaches:

Protect existing coastal development (private or public) from erosion and recession and / or storm

inundation (and wave overtopping). Protection may be in the form of hard coastal defence structures (e.g. seawalls, groynes, offshore breakwaters or reefs, artificial headlands) or soft engineering measures (e.g. beach nourishment). Some protection works can cause impacts to adjacent areas (‘offsite impacts’), and therefore, the decision to implement a ‘protect’ option must consider all potential impacts;

Retreat development, which is a ‘no defence’ approach that aims to preserve beach / shoreline

amenity by allowing natural retreat of the foreshore alignment due to coastal processes, particularly in response to future sea level rise. The options for existing development involve relocating or sacrificing infrastructure, public assets or private property, if and when impacts occur. The retreat option may include compensation to private property owners for a depreciation in landuse value, where feasible and appropriate; and

Accommodate the risk, which aims to retrofit (or redevelop) existing infrastructure, public assets

and private property in a manner that minimises damage and other losses from potential impacts (e.g. stronger foundations).

For existing development, it is essential to identify ‘trigger points’ for future action rather than recommending immediate management action. This approach defers any mitigative action until an identified point or event is reached in the future (such as the erosion extent reaches a pre-defined distance from a development footprint, or a frequency of inundation is experienced). Once trigger points are reached, the appropriate action (protection, accommodation, or retreat) should then be implemented.



Setting a trigger point is not an excuse to “do nothing”, i.e. undertake no coastal management action at the present time. Planning controls, “no regrets” actions and preliminary investigations must still be undertaken to effectively reduce the scale and cost of risk treatment required in the future. That is, setting triggers without taking action in the present timeframe to reduce the intensity of assets and values within known risk areas only enhances the difficult and costly actions required from future generations. Setting triggers must be accompanied by actions now to prepare the funding and resources required and to reduce the scale or costs of impacts in the future.

No regrets and Preliminary Actions have been devised to support the implementation of Protect –

Accommodate – Retreat and Avoid – Accommodate - Accept options associated with existing and future development, and their triggers in the immediate timeframe. Such options offer a range of assessments and works to provide further information (including approvals) required prior to implementing local scale options for specific assets, particularly where a more costly or difficult option may be needed. The “no regrets” options also include activities that will improve resilience and preparedness for coastal risks, without limiting the ability to change a management approach and without negative long-term impact should risks change in the future.

3.2 Risk Tolerance and Priority for Treatment Determining which risks to treat is based upon Council’s (and the community’s) tolerance to risk. A risk tolerance scale was developed (refer Table 3-1) and confirmed during the risk assessment workshop (which involved representatives of Council, the State Agencies and other stakeholders; refer Table 2-8). In the risk tolerance scale:

Extreme and high risks are intolerable and must be treated as a priority;

Medium risks are tolerable, and can be treated where resources are available (or incidentally treated by an action for another risk); and

Low risks are acceptable and can be monitored, rather than demanding valuable management resources.

In addition to the tolerability of risk, the need for management action can also be prioritised to some degree based upon the estimated timing for the risks, i.e. immediate, 2050 or 2100. As in Table 3-2:

present day risks must be treated as a priority; and

For risks not expected until 2050 or 2100, management option(s) should be identified along with a trigger for implementing the option, but it is unlikely that implementation of these options will be necessary within the life of the CZMP (i.e. 5-10 years).

Identifying a management option(s) with a trigger for implementation at the present time enables Council and others to be prepared should an extreme or high risk present itself earlier than anticipated. It does not commit Council or others until monitoring indicates the risk is approaching an unacceptable level and a decision is necessary. Setting the trigger to allow enough time for Council or others to gather the funding and approvals necessary to implement an option is vital to avoid unacceptable risk outcomes.



In the interim and until a trigger for action is reached, Council and others should pursue “no regret” actions that:

build the resilience of assets to future impacts (e.g. planning controls, dune rehabilitation);

collate information to better understand the risk (e.g. beach volume monitoring, depth to bedrock geotechnical assessments);

monitor triggers and coastal processes, and audit existing infrastructure needs and capacity; and

investigate alternative funding sources and designs (e.g. reinstate dune blowout at Mylestom Spit).

The time period between now and when a risk becomes certain shall be used to increase information / data upon which to base future decisions and improve certainty regarding the likely impacts of coastal hazards (particularly sea level rise). This time period may also see an improvement in management approaches and /or funding to treat particular risks.

Table 3-1 Risk Tolerance Scale

Risk Level Action Required Tolerance

Extreme / High Eliminate or Reduce the risk or Accept the risk provided residual risk level is understood Intolerable

Medium Reduce the risk or Accept the risk provided residual risk level is understood Tolerable

Low Accept the risk Acceptable

Table 3-2 Prioritisation for Risk Treatment Based upon Expected Timeframe

Timeframe for Extreme / High Risks

Treatment Approach

Present Day Implement no regrets actions Implement site specific management actions as required

2050 Identify trigger for action. Implement “no regrets” actions Identify potential management option(s) for implementation if the

trigger is reached. 2100

3.3 Options Assessment: Coarse Filtering Options

3.3.1 Multi-Criteria Analysis The list of options investigated is given in Table 3-4, with detailed descriptions provided Section 4 and Appendix E. An initial ‘coarse’ filter to assess the suitability of the options to the study area was



applied (refer Table 3-4). The outcomes of the cost benefit analysis formed the basis for further investigation of the options, either as “no regrets” options or to specifically target the high and extreme risks.

A rapid analysis tool for assessing potential options has been developed, as outlined in Table 3-3 based upon a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) approach. As for every MCA, three factors need to be defined: (1) the criteria used for evaluation; (2) the scoring system for each criteria; and (3) a relative weighting between the criteria.

The following criteria were considered in the analysis:

Capital Cost and Recurrent Cost, with scoring values based upon an order of magnitude difference in expenditure, which would require investigations and approvals by Council before proceeding;

Environmental or Social Impact, to identify where the option may have trade-offs upon the surrounding environment, including beach amenity and access;

Community Acceptability, which is based upon general feedback for this locality and other coastal areas (Council is advised to undertake specific community consultation before proceeding with any major option);

the ability for the option to be Reversible / Adaptable in the Future, which is particularly relevant where there is considerable uncertainty and or long time frames for a future impact;

Effectiveness Over time, to consider where an option presents a long- term solution or a short-term solution that would require additional management action or upgrades in the future;

Legal / Approval Risk, to highlight the legislative and approval requirements (or impediments) to implementing an option within the current legal framework; and

The Technical Viability, to highlight where certain options may or may not be technically feasible or would require significant engineering (or other) investigations and construction / implementation capabilities.

For each criterion in the MCA, a “traffic light” colour system was used to assess the option against that criterion, as either:

“GO”;

“SLOW”, and proceed with caution; or

“STOP”.

The criteria and the limits associated with these three levels are outlined in Table 3-3.

At this stage the criteria used within the MCA are weighted equally and therefore have an equivalent influence on the overall score for each option assessed. The results of the coarse filtering of options are provided in Table 3-4.



Table 3-3 Multi-Criteria Assessment Details

Capital Costs Recurrent

Costs Environmental or

Social Impact Community

Acceptability

Reversible / Adaptable

Future

Effectiveness Over Time

Legal / Approval Risk

Technical Viability

STOP Very expensive

($300K to Millions)

Very expensive ($300K to Millions)

Will impact negatively on environment,

community or beach amenity

Unlikely to be acceptable to

community and politically

unpalatable; Extensive community education,

endorsement by Minister(s) and

Council required

Option is irreversible once

implemented; Option limits alternatives

options in the future

Option does not provide long term

solution; Only effective over

short term

Will require an EIS and/or Govt

program to implement;

There is a residual risk that approval

will not be obtainable for the proposed works /

strategy

Is unlikely to be technically viable

without substantial engineering (or other) design

investigation and capabilities for implementation

SLOW Moderately expensive ($30,00 - $300,000)

Moderately expensive ($30,00 - $300,000)

No net impact

Would be palatable to some, not others (~50/50 response);

Briefing to Councillors, GM and community

education required

Option is reversible or

adaptable, but at considerable cost / effort

Option is only a short term solution,

but has other benefits; or

Option requires further resources /

changes to be effective over long

term

Will require Govt approvals to be implemented, or

assistance through existing Govt program;

Generally approvals /

assistance would be granted assuming

requirements are met

Is likely to be technically viable at the site, but would

require further investigations to

clarify

GO Little to no cost (< $30,000)

Little to no cost (< $30,000)

Will benefit environment,

community or beach amenity (e.g.

improve beach access, recreation,

habitats etc.)

Is very politically palatable,

acceptable to community;

Minimal education required

Option can be easily adapted for

future circumstances or

should impacts not occur, option

would not negatively impact future generations

Option provides a long term solution

No or minimal government approvals required to implement

Is technically viable at the site / location



Table 3-4 Rapid Cost Benefit (Traffic Light) Assessment Criteria

Option

Tre

ats

Eros

ion

Tre

ats

Rec

essi

on

Tre

ats

Inun

datio

n

Cap

ital C

ost

Rec

urre

nt C

osts

Env

ironm

enta

l or

Soc

ial I

mpa

ct

Lik

ely

Com

mun

ity

Acc

epta

bilit

y

Rev

ersi

ble

/ Ada

pt-

abl

e in

Fut

ure

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

ove

r tim

e

Leg

al /

App

rova

l

Ris

k

Eas

e of

Im

plem

enta

tion

Sco

re (

Go

= 1,

S

l = 0

, St =

-1)

Ove

rall

Ana

lysi

s

Comments

Beach Scraping

GO GO GO GO GO STOP GO GO 6 GO Can treat local erosion issues required to protect back beach assets (e.g. Urunga Lagoon)

Dune Management GO GO GO GO GO STOP GO GO 6 GO

Higher priority at: degraded locations (Mylestom Spit area, beach access points etc.) & fronting coastal assets (eg SLSC)

Habitat Management GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 8 GO Prioritise coastal EEC’s

Heritage Management GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 8 GO

Seawalls STOP SLOW STOP SLOW SLOW SLOW SLOW SLOW -2 SLOW

Beach Nourishment STOP STOP GO GO GO SLOW SLOW SLOW 0 SLOW

Artificial Breakwaters STOP SLOW STOP STOP STOP SLOW STOP STOP -6 STOP

Groynes STOP SLOW STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP -7 STOP

Sacrifice Land or Assets GO GO GO SLOW STOP GO GO GO 5 GO

Good long-term option for BSC, due widespread coastal reserves & minimal private land on dunes

Relocate Assets STOP GO GO SLOW GO GO GO SLOW 4 SLOW Suited to coastal assets where relocation is possible

Acquisition STOP GO GO SLOW SLOW GO SLOW GO 3 SLOW



Option

Tre

ats

Eros

ion

Tre

ats

Rec

essi

on

Tre

ats

Inun

datio

n

Cap

ital C

ost

Rec

urre

nt C

osts

Env

ironm

enta

l or

Soc

ial I

mpa

ct

Lik

ely

Com

mun

ity

Acc

epta

bilit

y

Rev

ersi

ble

/ Ada

pt-

abl

e in

Fut

ure

Effe

ctiv

enes

s

ove

r tim

e

Leg

al /

App

rova

l

Ris

k

Eas

e of

Im

plem

enta

tion

Sco

re (

Go

= 1,

S

l = 0

, St =

-1)

Ove

rall

Ana

lysi

s

Comments

Buy Back / Lease Back STOP SLOW GO SLOW GO GO SLOW GO 3 SLOW

Redesign or Retrofit SLOW SLOW SLOW GO GO SLOW GO SLOW 3 SLOW

LEP Clauses and Rezoning GO GO GO SLOW GO GO GO GO 7 GO

Coastal Hazard Development Controls

GO GO GO SLOW GO GO GO GO 7 GO Theoretically suitable, but no private development is within 2050 recession hazard zones

Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation GO GO GO SLOW GO GO GO GO 7 GO

Integration of CZM Planning Within Council

GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 8 GO

Asset Management Planning GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 8 GO

Audit of Existing Council Assets GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 8 GO

Infrastructure Design Elements GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 8 GO

Monitoring GO GO GO GO GO GO GO GO 8 GO Monitoring can both help inform management and educate community of hazards

Community Education GO GO GO GO GO SLOW GO GO 7 GO

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report 34 Risk Register and Recommended Treatment Options


4 Risk Register and Recommended Treatment Options

4.1 No Regrets Actions A range of no regrets actions are recommended for implementation in the immediate future, including:

Monitoring (erosion and inundation);

Beach Access Management (erosion);

Dune Management (erosion and inundation);

Geotechnical Assessment of Depth to Bedrock (erosion);

Habitat Management (erosion and inundation);

Heritage Management (Aboriginal and Non-Indigenous) (erosion);

Community Education (erosion and inundation);

Integration of CZM Planning within Council (erosion and inundation);

Audit of Existing Council Built Assets (erosion);

Asset Management Planning (erosion);

Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation (inundation);

LEP Review and Rezoning (erosion and inundation); and

Further details of the above actions are provided in Appendix E and the assets at risk for which they are specifically targeted are detailed in the risk register tables (refer Sections 4.3 and 4.5).

4.2 Erosion and Recession Risks and Treatment Options The register of coastal erosion and recession risks to assets and options for treating high and extreme risks (which are considered intolerable) are given in Table 4-2. A description of the general approach to management recommended for each of the beaches (based on the risk register) is provided below.

Fortunately, much of Bellingen Shires open coastline is comprised of natural and undeveloped beach, dune and back beach systems that are generally well placed to cope with periodic erosion and natural shoreline recession. As such, a key recommendation coming out of this study is to implement a “planned retreat” strategy for much of the foreshore areas, to ensure that the beach amenity and integrity will be retained into the future. This will consist of sacrificing the natural coastal fringing land to allow the shoreline to respond naturally to sea level rise.

4.2.1 North Valla Beach The northern section of North Valla Beach that lies within Bellingen Shire extends from the Oyster Creek entrance in the south to Wenonah Head in the north. The beach, dunes and creek form an undeveloped landscape that comprises both local and state reserves.



Immediate Actions

The immediate erosion threat is to the beach, dunes and creek mouth. To manage this risk, it is recommended that immediate “no regrets” actions include: maintaining the existing dune vegetation (refer to Dune Management); and conduct base line monitoring of the beach condition (via aerial photography, LiDAR surveys and community monitoring; refer to Monitoring).

Future Options

Under future timeframes (2050, 2100), the dunes, back barrier environment and lengths of Oyster Creek will become increasing threatened by shoreline recession. As the foreshore area is undeveloped, the key future management recommendation for North Valla Beach is to implement a planned retreat strategy (see to Sacrifice / Abandon Land or Assets). This will allow the coastal system to respond naturally to sea level rise and subsequently ensure that a beach is preserved.

EEC’s that fringe Oyster Creek, including Coastal Salt Marsh and Sub-tropical Coastal Floodplain Forest, will become increasingly at risk from recession in the future. Although the future recession risk is considered to be tolerable, it is noted that Flametree Ecological Consulting (2006) identified the management priority for these EEC’s as medium to high. Additionally, there is some uncertainty surrounding how the Oyster Creek barrier dune will respond to sea level rise (i.e. whether it will recede in its current form, or become mobilised and roll back over adjacent EEC’s). Thus to ensure these communities are best placed to deal with future coastal pressures associated with sea level rise, it is recommended that habitat management efforts be conducted to improve the resilience of the Oyster Creek coastal vegetation communities (refer to Habitat Management).

4.2.2 Schnapper Beach Schnapper Beach extends from Wenonah Head to the rocky outcrop known as Second Headland in the north. The primary beach access is via the Wenonah Head precinct, which includes low key facilities that are regularly utilised and highly valued by the local community. This area is informally managed by the Urunga Fishing Club. The site is also located within the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve; however it is subject to a Native Title Claim (NC98/15) that is still undergoing negotiations. The site is unique to the study region in that it provides the only (semi-) protected open coast beach launching site for boats within the Bellingen Shire.

Immediate Actions

The immediate threat is to the beach, the dunes, small sections of the Schnapper Beach Road (i.e. the beach access road) and the Wenonah Head beach access paths. The recommended “no regrets” actions over the immediate timeframe include:

Develop a Precinct Plan for the Wenonah Head that investigates the medium term planning for the Fishing Club Area, considering the following discussion of future management options (see Integration of CZM Planning within Council). A geotechnical investigation of depth to bedrock is also warranted to help define the feasibility of future management strategies (refer to Geotechnical Assessment of Depth to Bedrock; see Figure 4-1).



Figure 4-1 Wenonah Head Precinct Management Strategy: Immediate Actions and Future Options



Rationalise and maintain the beach access paths (particularly following storm events; refer to Beach Access Management);

Conduct base line monitoring of the beach condition (via aerial photography and/or LiDAR surveys; refer to Monitoring)

Maintaining the existing dune vegetation (focussing on the areas fronting the Wenonah Head facilities; refer to Dune Management), and improve health and resilience of coastal EEC’s (refer to Habitat Management)

Future Options

In future timeframes, the Wenonah Head facilities will become increasingly at risk from recession. Under the ‘Best Estimate’ (i.e. unlikely) recession scenario (BMT WBM, 2012), the 2050 shoreline may recede to within 10 – 20 m of the rocky bluff that backs the fishing club area. By 2100, the ‘Best Estimate’ recession scenario indicates that the entire low lying fishing club area at Wenonah Head will be completely lost to recession, such that the headland bluff may indeed become reactivated to form a cliffed - rocky coastline.

Based on the recession modelling undertaken by BMT WBM (2012), it is apparent that at some stage in the future, the existing Wenonah Head precinct will no longer be a suitable site for the fishing club and beach boat launching. Unfortunately due to geographical constraints, there are no local relocation sites that would allow the existing precinct to continue functioning as present. The physical constraints on local relocation include the steep backing rocky bluff and the widespread EEC’s that back Schnapper Beach to the north. Considering the low key nature of the present facilities, as well as the lack of alternate sites, a “manage to fail” approach for the Wenonah Head – fishing club precinct may indeed be the best medium to long-term strategy. Such a strategy would see no significant upgrades to the existing precinct occur and accept that the land and assets will become lost to shoreline recession. However, considering the high community value of this site, it is recommended that the low cost facilities (e.g. toilet and shelter shed) be relocated landwards towards the base of the bluff when the threat of erosion becomes imminent. This will ensure that the longevity and functionality of the site is maximised over the short to medium term. Under the ‘manage to fail’ approach, these relocated items would then eventually become lost over the medium to long-term (refer to Figure 4-1).

If Council does consider the community assets at Wenonah Head worthy of long-term protection, a site specific feasibility study is required to investigate potential engineering solutions to enable this to occur. Long-term maintenance of the existing site and road access would require approximately 350 metres of land to be protected. Possible options for this include a seawall to hold the present shoreline in place (refer to Figure 4-1) and/or an artificial offshore reef to encourage increased sediment deposition on the beach to dampen the impact of storm waves. Not only are the options both prohibitively expensive in most cases (i.e. millions of dollars), they also have significant impacts on the surrounding environment, such as degrading the adjacent beach amenity (refer to Seawalls and Artificial Breakwaters). It is therefore not recommended that a protection option be pursued for Schnapper Beach.

Future recession of Schnapper Beach will also threaten sections of the Sub-tropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (EEC) that backs the dune system. This community has been identified by



Flametree Ecological Services (2006) as having a ‘high’ to ‘highest’ management priority. Vegetation management efforts should be implemented and continued here to improve the health of the community over the medium to long term, thus increasing its resilience to future recession threats (refer to Habitat Management).

4.2.3 Hungry Head Beach and Hungry Head Hungry Head Beach forms part of a sandy barrier dune system that extends from Second Headland in the south to Hungry Head (headland) in the north. The dunes are backed by backbarrier flats and the Dalhousie Creek which is deflected to the north. The creek exits to the ocean via an intermittently open and closed entrance adjacent to Hungry Head. The local coastal landscape is largely undeveloped, with the exception of the North Coast Railway line that backs the beach and dunes, and the Urunga SLSC and associated beach access facilities at Hungry Head.

4.2.3.1 Hungry Head Beach Immediate Actions

At present, the beach and dunes are at threat from erosion at Hungry Head. The recommended immediate “no regrets” action for this beach is to maintain the existing dune vegetation (refer to Dune Management) and conduct baseline monitoring of the beaches condition (refer to Monitoring).

Future Options

Considering the undeveloped state of the dune and backbeach areas, it is recommended that a planned retreat strategy be implemented for the medium to long-term (refer to Sacrifice / Abandon Land or Assets).

Key assets at risk from recession under future timeframes at Hungry Head Beach include the North Coast Railway, Dalhousie Creek and areas of the EEC - Sub-tropical Floodplain Forest that inhabit the back barrier areas. Future management options for these items are as follows:

Under the ‘Worst Case’ (rare) 2100 scenario, a 740 metre length of railway line that backs the Hungry Head Beach dunes is identified to have an unacceptable level or risk. Although the recession hazard is far from imminent, it is recommended that Council inform the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) of this future risk, so that they can suitably plan for its future management. The railway will most likely require ‘protection’ by a seawall in the long-term, as any ‘retreat’ option will be heavily constrained and is therefore unlikely; and

Under future timeframes (2050 and beyond), recession will eventually threaten sections of the Sub-tropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (EEC) community that backs the Hungry Head Beach dunes. This community will have no ability to colonise new areas, as the railway forms a physical barrier to any inland migration paths. Flametree Ecological Services (2006) identified this EEC as having a ‘high’ to ‘highest’ management priority. As such, vegetation management efforts should be implemented to improve the communities health and increase its resilience to the future recession pressures (refer to Habitat Management).



4.2.3.2 Hungry Head (Proper) Precinct Immediate Actions

The immediate erosion risk to Hungry Head encompasses the fronting beach and dunes, the beach access paths, the Urunga SLSC watch tower and a small section of the beach access (loop) road. Over the short term, the watch tower and sections of the beach access road may experience damage and failure during large infrequent storm events if they have not been designed to a best-practice coastal engineering standard.

Recommended immediate “no regrets” actions to manage the erosion risk at present include maintaining the existing dune vegetation to improve the dune ability to capture and store sand, thus providing a better buffer to storms over the short-term (refer to Dune Management); and to rationalise (where possible), upgrade and maintain the existing beach access points to ensure that any pedestrian pressures on the dunes are minimised (refer to Beach Access Management; see Figure 4-2).

With regards to the SLSC watch tower, it is recommended that this structure be sacrificial over the short to medium term, i.e., the structure should be ‘managed to fail’. However, once this occurs (or when replacement is due - whichever comes first), Council should determine if this structure requires replacement as beach visibility from the SLSC may have improved by this stage. If indeed the watch tower does require replacement, one of two options is recommended: 1) Relocate the structure outside of the hazard zone; or alternatively 2) Re-design the tower as a removable structure, such that it can be relocated prior to storm events (refer to Figure 4-2).

Under future timeframes, the recession modelling shows that a number of built and environmental assets at Hungry Head will become increasingly exposed to recession due to sea level rise. Key assets at risk in the future include the Urunga Surf Life Saving Club (SLSC), increasing lengths of the beach access (loop) road and areas of the Bellinger Heads State Park which includes Littoral Rainforest (EEC; refer to Table 4-2).

Prior to adopting any future risk management option for the Hungry Head precinct, an important “no regrets” action that should be undertaken now is a geotechnical investigation of the depth to bedrock across this site. Such an investigation should focus on the existing beach access loop road, the SLSC building site and the adjacent headland fringes (refer to Figure 4-2). Measurements of depth to bedrock will provide the following information:

Improved understand regarding whether the existing built assets deemed to be at risk are indeed susceptible to erosion or recession (as was modelled in the hazard study based on the available geological mapping at that time; refer BMT WBM, 2012);

Provide guidance on the feasibility of a retrofit/redesign strategy for the road and SLSC building, based on the foundation capacity of the existing site; and

Provide information to identify potential local relocation sites that are not at risk of erosion/recession.



Figure 4-2 Hungry Head Precinct Management Strategy: Immediate Actions and Future Options



Future Options

If the geotechnical investigation shows that bedrock is located beneath the existing SLSC building and beach access road, such that erosion and recession would not impact the existing site, then no future coastal risk management options are required for these assets. However, if these assets are built on erodible material, it is recommend that a Hungry Head Precinct Plan be developed with the aim of determining a suitable/preferred medium to long-term options for SLSC, beach access road as associated facilities (see Integration of CZM Planning within Council).

The three potential medium to long-term management options that should be considered include:

Redesigning or retrofitting the existing assets to minimise the future risk of recession (refer to Redesign or Retrofit);

Relocating the assets outside of the hazard zone (refer to Relocate Assets); or

Protection of existing road and SLSC (refer to Seawalls; refer to Figure 4-2).

Retrofitting foundation piles to bedrock may enable the existing assets to withstand the threat of erosion. This option should only be considered if the geotechnical assessment identifies bedrock at a depth that would make such an option practical. However, this option is costly and often hard to implement retrospectively, thus it would be best done when the SLSC requires an upgrade, or the threat of erosion becomes imminent. It should also be noted that retrofitting foundations piles will only help to minimise the impact of single (or few) erosion events, but they do not provide a long-term solution to eliminate the risk of recession.

Regarding the relocation of the Urunga SLSC, due to the very nature and functioning of the clubhouse, any potential relocation sites needs to be situated both adjacent to the coast and have suitable beach access. Ideally the SLSC could be relocated on the bedrock headland such that the risk of erosion and recession is eliminated. Unfortunately site relocation constraints exist on the headland due to the presence of EEC’s (including the Littoral Rainforest community located immediately landwards/upslope of the existing building) and the steep topography of the headlands coastal slopes (which may restrict beach access at some locations).

The SLSC and beach access road could however be potentially protected by a seawall. This would allow the existing precinct to remain in its current location. For this to occur, a seawall length of approximately 250 metres would be required. Indicative costs for seawall of this length ranges between $1.25 – $2.5 million (refer to Seawalls), plus ongoing maintenance and future upgrade costs. These are funds that Council is unlikely to have access to in the short to medium term. Not only are the costs of seawall prohibitive in most cases, they also have associated environmental and social disadvantages. For example, erosion becomes accelerated in front of the wall and at the adjoining beaches, which subsequently impacts on the amenity of the surrounding beachscape. These impacts can be significant, especially considering that Hungry Head is widely valued for its natural and undeveloped site values. If Council does adopt a protection strategy for Hungry Head, it is recommended that any seawall structure be tied into the backing bedrock headland, to reduce the alongshore impacts of erosion that typically occur at the flanks of a seawall structure.



Considering that only two SLSC exist within the Bellingen Shire (both of which provide important beach safety services that are highly regarded by the community), it is not recommended that a ‘sacrifice assets’ option be considered for Urunga SLSC and the associated built assets at risk.

4.2.4 North Hungry Head Beach North Hungry Head Beach and dune system stretch from Hungry Head to the southern Bellinger River training wall. The beach and dunes form a relatively recent sand barrier that protects the Urunga Sandmass and Lagoon wetland area, which has a high conservation value. With the exception of a 4WD beach access, the beach and back beach is an undeveloped and natural landscape.

Immediate Actions

The immediate threat of erosion is mostly to the beach and dunes, thus the recommended immediate “no regrets” actions are to maintain and rehabilitate the existing dune vegetation (refer to Dune Management) and conduct monitoring of the beach condition (Monitoring). It is also recommended that the 4WD beach access be formalised and maintained to ensure that edge effects from vehicular traffic on the adjacent beach and dunes are minimised (refer to Beach Access Management).

Future Options

It is recommended that a planned retreat strategy be implemented for the future management of North Hungry Head Beach (refer to Sacrifice / Abandon Land or Assets). This will allow the shoreline to recede naturally into the undeveloped backbeach area, thus ensuring the beach amenity is preserved for future generations.

Future consideration may be required in the long-term to manage the increasing risk of the barrier dune becoming breached. Although this scenario is not likely to occur (if at all) within the short to medium term (i.e. prior to 2050) period, such an event in the distant future may degrade areas of the environmentally sensitive wetland habitats within the Urunga Sandmass and Lagoon area. These wetlands contain both brackish and freshwater EEC’s. Nature assisted beach management practices could potentially be implemented in the future as needed, to reduce the risk of the dune breaching (or wave overtopping; refer to Beach Scraping).

Beach scraping involves borrowing beach sand reserves from within the existing coastal system to re-contour vulnerable areas of a dune barrier to help increase the height/width of the dunes where required, thereby minimising the dunes susceptibility to erosion (and wave overtopping). A suitable local borrow area would most likely include the section of accreted beach located immediately south of the Bellinger River training wall, however an environmental impact assessment regarding this potential future option will be required prior to its implementation.

Beach monitoring is an important management action that will help Council prepare for this future event (refer to Monitoring). Information on dune scarp position can be used to identify when a future trigger has been reached regarding the implementation of beach scraping works (if indeed this option is adopted in the future). Also, beach volume data (as measured by LiDAR, beach profiles and/or photogrammetric surveys) will help Council with assessing the suitability of any potential borrow sites in the future.



4.2.5 North Beach North Beach stretches from the Bellinger River entrance to beyond Tuckers Rocks (i.e. the northern limit of Bellingen Shires LGA). The beach is backed by a large undeveloped and vegetated sand spit (i.e. Mylestom Spit, or the ‘Spit’) for much of its length. The riverside town of Mylestom is located at the estuaries upstream limit of the Spit. The erosion and recession hazard largely threatens the undeveloped reserves of Bellingen Heads State Park, which also includes the North Beach SLSC precinct and a small section of the Bongil Bongil National Park. A small area of residential land at Mylestom may become affected by recession by 2100 and beyond.

Immediate Options

The immediate threat of erosion is to the beach, dunes and beach access points (pedestrian and 4WD paths). The recommended “no regrets” actions to be implemented immediately are to maintain and rehabilitate the existing dune vegetation (refer to Dune Management), conduct baseline monitoring of the beach condition (refer to Monitoring) and also formalise and maintain the existing beach access points (refer to Beach Access Management; see Figure 4-3).

To ensure that the future management of the North Beach SLSC is undertaken in a sustainable manner, it is recommended that a Precinct Plan be developed for this area in the immediate term, that ensure coastal risk are not introduced or increased over time. This is further detailed under the ‘Future Options’ discussion, below.

Large parts of the Mylestom Spit dunefield have a high prevalence of weeds, including Bitou Bush (Flametree Ecological Consulting, 2006). Little effort has been made in recent times to maintain the coastal dune vegetation of this area. Following the initial planting exercise (circa 1950’s) to stabilise the prevalent blowout dunes and reduce the aeolian sandrift hazard, the Spits dunefield is now reportedly inhabited by many over mature trees. Rehabilitation of this area is recommended, to ensure continued capture of windborne sediments and growth of dunes, thus improving local sediment stores to protect against beach erosion (refer to Dune Management).

Future Actions

Again due to the undeveloped nature and reserve status of North Beach’s backbeach area, the key medium to long-term management strategy recommended is to implement a planned retreat strategy (refer to Sacrifice / Abandon Land or Assets). This will allow the coastal system to respond naturally to sea level rise, thus ensuring that the beach is preserved.

The North Beach SLSC is expected to be exposed to recession due to sea level rise in the future, although this may not occur until after 2050. In general, surf clubs have an expected design life of 40 to 50 years, and thus future redevelopment of the North Beach clubhouse club should (at least) occur landwards of the 2050 ‘Best Estimate’ (Unlikely) hazard line. Considering the club house is presently located between the 2050 and 2100 ‘Best Estimate’ hazard lines, it is recommended that any building extensions or redevelopment do not occur seaward if its existing position. Fortunately, the North Beach SLSC precinct has local relocation options available for lower risk (i.e. landward) sites. Thus a more conservative approach would be to relocate the clubhouse landwards of the 2100 ‘Best Estimate’ (unlikely) hazard line (i.e. only 3 metres or so landward of the existing building



Figure 4-3 North Beach – MylestomSpit Management Strategy: Immediate Actions



footprint). This is recommended if a knock down – rebuild approach is planned for its future refurbishment. Lifeguarding services can be easily and appropriately provided through the use of lifeguard towers / sheds, which are relocatable or sacrificial.

It is recommended that a Mylestom Precinct Plan be developed to ensure an appropriate forward plan is made for this area with consideration to coastal hazards (refer to Figure 4-3; see Integration of CZM Planning within Council and Coastal Hazards Development Controls for guidance on how Council should consider hazard zones and timeframes in the early stages of planning new works not requiring development consent). This should be developed in consultation with the Bellinger Heads State Park Trust, the North Beach Surf Club and the local community.

4.2.5.1 Mylestom Spit Immediate Actions

In the distant future, beach recession modelling shows that a 100 metre length of the Mylestom Spit is at risk of becoming breached by 2100 (BMT WBM, 2012). This would occur in the area south of the township, in the area where the Spit is most narrow (referred to herein as the ‘Spit neck’). The recession modelling undertaken by BMT WBM did not take into account the backing estuary foreshore dynamics. However, a brief review of the photogrammetric (topographic profile) data available for the Spit neck undertaken in this study found that approximately 300 metres of the estuary foreshore has undergone progressive landward recession (up to 20 metres) over the past four decades (refer to Figure 4-4). Additionally, the meandering geometry of Bellingen’s lower estuary channel at this location indicates that it will most likely continue migrating seaward toward the Spit neck over the foreseeable future. This interpretation is consistent with the presence of a locally incised channel profile situated immediately offshore of the receding estuarine shoreline, which indicates that erosion/recession recovery (i.e. foreshore accretion) is unlikely to occur at the Spit neck in the short term (see channel bathymetry in Figure 4-3). If estuarine recession of the Spit neck continues at the recession rate detailed above (i.e. up to ~0.5 m/yr.), the Spit neck may be at risk of breaching as early as 2050 (under the Best Estimate’ scenario conditions). As such, the Spit neck breaching risk is potentially a significant medium term issue that requires attention from Council.

To best manage this estuarine foreshore recession issue, a site specific study of the Spit neck is recommended. A study of this nature would ideally investigate:

the geomorphic history of both the Spit neck (which become reportedly breaches circa 1950) and the estuary channel evolution;

undertake hydrodynamic and sediment transport modelling of the Bellinger estuary channel; and

investigate the various factors potentially contributing the shoreline recession issue.

Furthermore, the study should incorporate a feasibility assessment of various bank stabilisation options, based on the outcomes of the previously suggested investigations. Both soft and hard engineering solutions should be considered and any associated impacts addressed. If this study does not occur before the Bellinger / Kalang Estuary Processes Study and Management Plan is



revised (5-10 year period), then the estuary shoreline recession issue should be addressed through the above process as a priority issue.

Figure 4-4 Bellinger River Estuary Foreshore Recession at Mylestom Spit

To reduce the estuarine contribution to the Spit breaching risk in the interim, it is recommended that habitat management practices be undertaken to help stabilise the receding sections of foreshore (refer to Habitat Management). Management and rehabilitation efforts should aim to improve the health of the lower Bellingen Estuary riparian vegetation for the 1 km length of



shoreline located immediately downstream of the Mylestom swimming baths. Efforts should be prioritised for the section of estuary foreshore (approximately 500 metres in length) where the Spit neck becomes the most narrow (refer to Figure 4-3).

Another experimental management approach that requires consideration to manage the estuary foreshore recession issue in the immediate term is to de-vegetate a small section of the Mylestom Spit. The aim of this approach is to remobilise an areas of the Spits dunefield to enable the roll-back of windblown sands into the estuary (via sand drift from the prevailing onshore winds). This may encourage the estuary foreshore and adjacent river channel to accrete sediments where the spit neck is most narrow, such that the seaward migration of the channel would slow of cease (and ideally encourage the channel to migrate landward). If effective, this would see the width of the Spit grow, and thus increase the natural barrier to coastal recession. To ensure that any reinstated blowouts do not become infested with coastal weeds, this option would need to be complemented with dune management efforts that focus on the removal of invasive species. To avoid a sandrift hazard reoccurring at the township of Mylestom, it is recommended that any de-vegetation activities be trailed south of the residential areas (e.g. opposite the northern end of Urunga Island; see Figure 4-3). This is a secondary / non preferred option.

Long-term monitoring of the estuary foreshore at this location should also occur through the collection and analysis of LiDAR and aerial photographs (refer to Monitoring).

4.3 Erosion and Recession Risk Register for Bellingen Shires Open Coastline Options recommended to Council for managing coastal erosion and recession hazards are outlined in Table 4-2. These have been collated and based upon the MCA analysis, then refined to suit the needs of each asset type in the Bellingen Shire context.

Replacement values of key Council assets at risk from erosion are also provided in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Council Asset Replacement Value

Asset # Council Asset Name Value1

25 Urunga Surf Life Saving Club (Hungry Head) $ 1,454,400

26 Urunga Surf Club Watch Tower (Hungry Head) $ 257,500

53 North Beach Surf Life Saving Club (Mylestom) $ 977,800 1 Replacement values are based on the insurance value for each asset as provided by Council.



Table 4-2 Erosion and Recession Risk Register A

sset

#

Location Asset Name Asset Type

Risk Level - Erosion and Recession Man’t

Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1

(recommended) Future

Option 2 2014 2050 2100

NORTH VALLA BEACH Natural Assets

1 North Valla Beach

North Valla Beach Beach Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes Dune

Management; Monitoring;

Heritage Management

Planned Retreat: Sacrifice

undeveloped land to allow beach /

dune / creek system to retreat

2 North Valla Beach Foredune Dunes Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

3 North Valla Beach

Oyster Creek Entrance Waterway High High High Yes

4 North Valla Beach Hind Dune Dunes Medium Medium Medium

5 North Valla Beach

Coastal Saltmarsh EEC #N/A Low Medium Habitat

Management

6 North Valla Beach

Sub-tropical Coastal Floodplain Forest

EEC #N/A Low Medium Habitat Management

7 North Valla Beach

Environmental Management

Environ-mental Protection Zone

High High High Yes

Habitat Management;

Monitoring; Heritage

Management


undeveloped land and dunes to allow

beach to retreat

8 North Valla Beach

Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve

Parks, Reserves and Open Space

High High High Yes

9 North Valla Beach

Jagun Nature Reserve


High High High Yes



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

Waterways

10 North Valla Beach Oyster Creek Waterway #N/A Low Medium

SCHNAPPER BEACH Transport Infrastructure

11 Schnapper Beach

Schnapper Beach Road Road High High High Yes As below As below

Community Infrastructure

12 Schnapper Beach

Urunga Fishing Club (Wenonah Head)

Public Recreation Medium High High Yes Geotechnical

Assessment - Depth to Bedrock; Develop a

Precinct Plan for Wenonah Head Area;

Asset Management

Planning; Audit of Existing Assets;

Monitoring; Dune

Management;

Based on Geotech. Assessment and Precinct Planning Outcomes, the likely

future options include: Sacrifice Land/Assets, Redesign/Retrofit and/or

Protection

If Precinct Planning determines that Protection options are not feasible and no suitable Relocation sites are available, the

preferred future option is:

Sacrifice Land/Assets to allow beach to retreat; and Redesign/Retrofit the Road

when required (i.e. progressive shortening,) to allow for ongoing beach access; and

Relocate the Shelter/Toilets/Club assets to the base of the bluff when required to

maximise longevity of area, then Manage to Fail over the medium to long term.

13 Schnapper Beach

Shelter (Wenonah Head)

Public Recreation Medium Medium Medium

14 Schnapper Beach

Toilets (Wenonah Head)

Amenities / Blocks / Sheds

Low Low Low

15 Schnapper Beach

Car Park & Other Urunga Fishing Club Facilities




Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

16 Schnapper Beach

Wenonah Head - Beach Access (4WD Access)

Beach Access High High High Yes

Beach Access Management;

Monitoring; Dune

Management;

Redesign/Retrofit: Modify as required to provide ongoing

beach access

Sacrifice and remove access, if eroded/degraded

state become unsafe and no alternate options available

Natural Assets

17 Schnapper Beach

Schnapper Beach Beach Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

Dune Management;


Management


undeveloped land to allow the beach

and dune system to retreat

Undertake local feasibility study into protection options for the Wenonah

Head Fishing Club Precinct (only). 18 Schnapper

Beach Foredune Dunes Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

19 Schnapper Beach


EEC Low Medium Medium Habitat Management

20 Schnapper Beach



Low Medium Medium



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

21 Schnapper Beach

Environmental Conservation


#N/A #N/A Medium

HUNGRY HEAD BEACH and HUNGRY HEAD Primary Production, Forestry and Industry

22 Hungry Head Beach

Primary Production - Small Lots

Primary Production #N/A #N/A Low

Transport Infrastructure


North Coast Railway Railway #N/A #N/A High Yes

Inform Railway Managers (ARTC) of Hazard &

Risk; Monitoring

Redesign / Retrofit railway section in current location to withstand erosion

(ARTC responsibility)

24 Hungry Head

Hungry Head Road (Beach Access Loop Road)

Road High High High Yes

Geotech Study - Depth to Bedrock; Develop

Precinct Plan for Hungry

Head; Asset Management


Monitoring; Dune

Management

Based on Geotech Assessment and Precinct Plan Outcomes:

Likely options include: Relocation,

Redesign/Retrofit or Protection

Options will be driven by SLSC Option (see below)



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100


25 Hungry Head

Urunga (Hungry Head) Surf Life Saving Club

Public Recreation Medium High High Yes

Geotech Study - Depth to Bedrock; Develop

Precinct Plan for Hungry

Head; Asset Management


Monitoring; Dune

Management

Based on Geotech Assessment and

Precinct Plan Outcomes:

Relocate SLSC

outside of hazard zone is preferred

option, if a suitable site is found to be

available

Based on Geotech Assessment and

Precinct Plan Outcomes:

Retrofit & Redesign SLSC to retain in

existing location; or Protect SLSC and

associated facilities with Seawall

26 Hungry Head

Watch Tower (Urunga SLSC)

Public Recreation High High High Yes

Monitoring (Community Education Site); Dune

Management, Asset

Management Planning

Sacrifice Assets (i.e. Manage to Fail), then rebuild if required, as per Precinct Plan

outcomes:

Rebuild options will include redesign as removable structure; or relocate outside of

hazard zone

27 Hungry Head

Urunga SLSC Car Park Car Park Low Low Low Incidentally managed through Options for Urunga SLSC

(as above)

28 Hungry Head

Dalhousie Creek & Urunga SLSC - Beach Access



Monitoring; Dune

Management;


beach access



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

Natural Assets


Hungry Head Beach Beach Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

Dune Management;


Management


undeveloped land to allow beach /

dune / creek system to retreat


Foredune Dunes Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes


Dalhousie Creek Entrance

Waterway High High High Yes


Swamp Sclerophyll Forest

EEC #N/A Low Low

Habitat Management



EEC #N/A Low Medium

34 Hungry Head

Littoral Rainforest EEC #N/A #N/A Low


Hungry Head Holliday Cabins - BSC Reserve


#N/A #N/A Low



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

36 Hungry Head

Bellinger Heads Holiday Park (Hungry Head)


#N/A Low Medium

Waterways


Dalhousie Creek Waterway #N/A #N/A Low Yes

HUNGRY HEAD BEACH NORTH Community Infrastructure

38

Hungry Head Beach North

North Hungry Head Beach - Beach Access (4WD)


Asset Management

Planning; Monitoring;

Dune Rehabilitation / Management


beach access

Sacrifice and remove access, if eroded/ degraded

state becomes unsafe and no

alternate options available

Natural Assets

39


North Hungry Head Beach Beach Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

Dune Management;


Management



beach to retreat

40


Foredune Dunes Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

41


Hind Dune Dunes High High High Yes



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

42



EEC #N/A #N/A Medium

Dune Management;


Management

Beach Scraping - long term option

only if section of the barrier dune that fronts the Urunga

Sandmass & Lagoon wetlands

become threatened

43


Urunga Sandmass


Low Low Medium

44


Freshwater Wetland EEC Low Low Low

45



EEC #N/A #N/A Low

NORTH BEACH Town Centre, Residential and Rural Property

46 Mylestom

Residential Block - George St to Winter Ave

Residential Develop-ment

#N/A #N/A Medium

47 Mylestom Residential - Winter Ave to Johnson Ave

Residential Develop-ment

#N/A #N/A Medium


48 Mylestom George Street Minor Road #N/A #N/A Low

49 Mylestom Johnson Avenue Minor Road #N/A #N/A Low



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

50 Mylestom Winter Street Minor Road #N/A #N/A Low

51 Mylestom Unnamed Lane Laneway #N/A #N/A Low

Other Infrastructure

52 Mylestom Water Line - Reticulation Main (SLSC)

Water Services #N/A Low Low


53 North Beach

North Beach Surf Life Saving Club

Public Recreation #N/A Medium High Yes

Develop Precinct Plan

for North Beach SLSC Area; Audit of

Existing Assets; Asset Management

Planning; Integrate CZM

Planning within Council;

Monitoring; Dune

Management;

Relocate outside of hazard zone, when upgrade required;

Support with

removable watch towers if required

54 North Beach

Beach Lookout - North Beach SLSC


Incidentally managed through Options for North Beach SLSC

(as above)



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

55 North Beach

Car Park & Picnic Facilities - North Beach SLSC

Public Recreation Low Medium Medium

Incidentally managed through Options for North Beach SLSC

(as above)

56 North Beach

North Beach (Holiday Park) - Beach Access



Monitoring; Dune

Management;


beach access

57 North Beach

North Beach (SLSC) - Beach Access


58 North Beach

North Beach - Beach Access (4WD)


59 Mylestom Spit

North Beach - Beach Access (4WD)


Natural Assets

60 North Beach North Beach Beach Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes Dune


Heritage Management



beach to retreat

61 North Beach Foredune Dunes Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

62 North Beach Hind Dune Dunes Medium Medium Medium Habitat

Management



Ass

et #



Req'd

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

63 Mylestom Freshwater Wetland EEC #N/A #N/A Low

Habitat Management

64 Mylestom / Repton


EEC #N/A Low Low

65 Mylestom Spit

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest

EEC #N/A Low Low

66 Mylestom \ Repton



High High High Yes Dune Management;


Management


undeveloped land to allow beach and

dune to retreat

67 Repton Bongil Bongil National Park


High High High Yes

68 Repton Environmental Management


#N/A Low Low

Waterways

69 Mylestom Spit

Bellingen River (landwards of Spit, i.e. Spit breach)

Waterway #N/A #N/A High Yes

Site Specific Estuary

Processes and Man’t Study;

Habitat/ Riparian


Dune Management (trial blowout

dunes)



4.4 Coastal Inundation Risks and Treatment Options The register of coastal inundation risk to assets, and options for treating high and extreme risks (which are considered intolerable) is given in Table 4-3.

Much of the sites affected by immediate and future coastal inundation along Bellingen’s beaches, and within the small creek catchments are comprised of undeveloped and reserved lands. For these locations, the risk of coastal inundation is tolerable.

Some private properties are at risk from coastal inundation at present, including two Rural Landscape lots within the Oyster Creek catchment and five Primary Production lots within the Dalhousie Creek catchment. Increasing areas within these lots are at risk under future timeframe scenarios. No built structures are contained within the risk envelopes of these private land parcels. To manage the periodic coastal inundation risk associated with private land, it is recommended Council amends their Floodplain Risk Management Plan to incorporate coastal inundation, and then apply the specified flood controls as appropriate. In the interim (i.e. prior to the Floodplain Risk Management Plan being amended), development applications made within the indicative coastal inundation hazard zones for Oyster and Dalhousie Creeks should be assessed with consideration of coastal inundation risk (see Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation).

There are a few sites where the North Coast Railway line have been identified to be at risk from periodic coastal inundation, both now and increasingly so into the future. Council should inform the ARTC of this identified risk, noting however that the risk mapping is indicative only (due to the course nature of the digital elevation model available for the hazard modelling). The ARTC should undertake a detailed topographic survey of these identified areas (or use any recently collected ASL / LiDAR data that was not available to this study) to refine the coastal inundation hazard for these locations (refer Table 2-6 and Section 2.2.3.1), and manage any identified flood risks to their infrastructure accordingly.

Small areas of Sub-Tropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (EEC) are also at risk from coastal inundation. This risk will be best managed through undertaking habitat management, to improve the resilience of the affected communities (refer to Habitat Management).

4.5 Coastal Inundation Risk Register for Bellingen Shires Open Coast and Coastal Creek Catchments Management options that are recommended to Council for managing the coastal inundation hazard are outlined in Table 4-3. Like for the erosion and recession hazard, these options are based on a MCA analysis and then refined to suit the needs of each asset type in the Bellingen Shire context.

As noted in these tables, the comparatively lower degree of risk associated with the coastal inundation hazard (in comparison with erosion and recession risks) will be adequately managed through “no regrets” actions that can be implemented immediately.

Over the medium to long-term, it will be important to ensure that the implementation of “no regrets” actions is continued.



Table 4-3 Coastal Inundation Risk Register

Location Asset Name Asset Type Risk - Coastal Inundation Man’t

Req’d

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

NORTH VALLA BEACH (including OYSTER CREEK CATCHMENT) Town Centre, Residential and Rural Property

1 Valla Rural Landscape

Rural Landscape High High High Yes

Flood Planning Controls;

Monitoring (LiDAR)


2 Valla North Coast Railway Railway Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

Inform the ARTC of

Hazard & Risk; Monitoring (LiDAR)

3 Valla Valla Mine Road Road Medium Medium Medium

Community Assets

4 North Valla Beach



Medium Medium Medium

5 North Valla Beach




6 North Valla Beach

Unnamed BSC Reserve






Req’d

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

Natural Assets

7 North Valla Beach Valla Beach Beach Low Low Low

8 North Valla Beach Foredune Dunes Low Low Low

9 North Valla Beach Hind Dune Dunes Low Low Low

10 North Valla Beach

Coastal Saltmarsh EEC Medium Medium Medium



EEC High High High Yes Habitat

Management; Monitoring



EEC Medium Medium Medium





Environmental Conservation EEC Medium Medium Medium


Environmental Management EEC Medium Medium Medium

Waterways

16 Valla Beach Oyster Creek Waterway Medium Medium Medium




Req’d

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100


Oyster Creek Entrance Waterway Medium Medium Medium

SCHNAPPER BEACH Community Assets

18 Schnapper Beach

Wenonah Head - Beach Accesses (Pedestrian & 4WD)

Beach Access Low Low Low

Natural Assets

19 Schnapper Beach

Schnapper Beach Beach Low Low Low

20 Schnapper Beach Foredune Dunes Low Low Low

21 Schnapper Beach Hind Dune Dunes Low Low Low

22 Schnapper Beach


EEC #N/A #N/A Low

HUNGRY HEAD BEACHES – (including DALHOUSIE CREEK CATCHMENT) Town Centre, Residential and Rural Property

23 Urunga Rural Landscape

Rural Landscape #N/A #N/A Low




Req’d

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

Primary Production, Forestry and Industry

24 Urunga Primary Production - Small Lots

Primary Production High High High Yes

Flood Planning Controls;

Monitoring (LiDAR)


25 Urunga North Coast Railway Railway Extreme Extreme Extreme Yes

Inform the ARTC of

Hazard & Risk; Monitoring (LiDAR)

26 Hungry Head

Hungry Head Road Road Low Low Low

Community Assets

27 Hungry Head Beaches

Beach Accesses (Pedestrian & 4WD)

Beach Access Low Low Low






Bellinger Heads State Park






Req’d

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100


Hungry Head Holliday Cabins - BSC Reserve



Natural Assets


Hungry Head Beach Beach Low Low Low


Hungry Head Beach North Beach Low Low Low


Foredune Dunes Low Low Low


Hind Dune Dunes Low Low Low



EEC High High High Yes Habitat

Management; Monitoring




37


Urunga Sandmass






Req’d

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100


Environmental Conservation

Environment-al Protection Zone






Waterways


Dalhousie Creek Waterway Low Low Low


Dalhousie Creek Entrance

Waterway Low Low Low

NORTH BEACH Community Assets

42 North Beach

Beach Accesses (Pedestrian & 4WD)

Beach Access #N/A Low Low

Natural Assets

43 North Beach North Beach Beach and

Dunes Low Low Low

44 North Beach Foredune Beach and

Dunes Low Low Low

45 North Beach Hind Dune Beach and

Dunes #N/A #N/A Low

46

Unnamed Creek - Tucker Rocks







Req’d

No Regrets Actions:

Implement Now

Future Option 1


Option 2 2014 2050 2100

47


Bongil Bongil National Park



48


Littoral Rainforest EEC #N/A #N/A Medium

49

Unnamed Creek -Tucker Rocks






4.6 Triggers for Implementation It is apparent from the risk assessment that some intolerable risks are not expected to eventuate until 2050 or 2100. In this case, implementing a management action now, particularly where the option is difficult or costly, may be premature and cannot account for the uncertainty of when or to what extent the hazard may actually eventuate in the future.

While a decision regarding future intent is necessary at the present timeframe for intolerable risks, the action may not require implementation at present. Fisk and Kay (2010) provide a method for setting triggers for climate change adaptation actions along a time continuum. The trigger points are set to flag the ‘level of acceptable change’ where more pro-active or decisive actions must be implemented in order to avoid an undesirable impact. The trigger setting method is demonstrated in Figure 4-5.

Unlike flooding or coastal inundation risks which may occur at any time, recession and erosion tend to occur over years with preceding events giving warning of the approaching threat. Such time warnings can be used to advantage for implementing management options, particularly where the action may be costly or difficult for community to accept or implement.

A triggered approach avoids actions being implemented until it becomes necessary, with time in the interim to improve data/knowledge of the impact, source funding, prepare approvals and formulate designs. It also recognises that some hazard or climate change impacts may not eventuate. If this is the case, then the community has not been unnecessarily burdened by having to adopt costly management responses. Until the trigger is reached, “no regrets” options should also be implemented to reduce the need for management by future generations (e.g. reducing the intensity of development in at risk areas). The approach adopted within this plan is therefore to apply “no regrets” actions at the current timeframe and to set triggers for implementing actions for existing developments.

The majority of options suggested within this study are considered to be “no regrets” options, to assist Council in the period of acceptable risk to plan for future implementation of more substantial actions. For options such as the Asset Management Plan and Audit of Existing Assets, it has been recommended that a trigger be set by Council. Guidance regarding setting of triggers for coastal hazards is given below.

For Beach Erosion and Recession, setting the trigger as a measurable distance (in metres) between an erosion escarpment and an asset is recommended. The trigger distance is set to allow sufficient protection from a typical storm event and a reasonable buffer for an unlikely (infrequent) erosion extent. The buffer should be of a sufficient width to provide the desired treatment option a sufficient time to be funded and implemented, prior to the erosion hazard impacting on the existing asset. Using a distance between the shoreline and a structure is particularly useful for Council, as it does not tie the future action to a specified timeframe. This is relevant to recession impacts due to sea level rise, for which exact timeframes are complicated.

Although this study has not identified any assets at risk from inundation that require specific triggers to be set by Council, there will likely be assets at risk within the lower Bellingen / Kalang Estuary (as being assessed in detail in a separate study) that will require triggers to be set. Setting triggers for Coastal Inundation requires careful consideration of the tolerability of specific assets to



the type of inundation hazard. That is, some assets may become unusable when inundation occurs once a year, others may remain functional with more frequent inundation. The trigger thus needs to be specific to the asset. The trigger may then be defined as a frequency of inundation (e.g. a certain number of times per year), which would require monitoring at individual assets. Alternatively, a depth of inundation may for the trigger, which would be best measured and monitored via water level gauges.

Figure 4-5 Continuum Model for Climate Change Adaption Action

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report 69 References


5 References BMT WBM (2012), Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study, Final Report prepared for Bellingen Shire Council, June 2012.

BSC (2010), Bellingen 2030 Community Strategic Plan, prepared by Bellingen Shire Council.

Climate Risk (2010), Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey, December 2010.

CSIRO (2007), Climate Change in Australia Technical Report 2007. CSIRO Marine and Atmosphere Research and Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

DECCW (2009), NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement, October 2009.

DECCW (2010c), Coastal Risk Management Guide: Incorporating sea level rise benchmarks in coastal risk assessments, August 2010.

DP (2009), Mid North Coast Regional Strategy, Final, NSW Department of Planning, March 2009.

DP (2010), NSW Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise, State of NSW Department of Planning, August 2010.

Fisk, G and R. Kay, 2010. Dealing with uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning and developing triggers for future action [online]. In: Climate Change 2010: Practical Responses to Climate Change. Barton, A.C.T.: Engineers Australia, 2010: [554]-[563].

Flametree (2006), Coastal Vegetation of the Bellingen Local Government Area Mapping Project, prepared for Bellingen Shire Council by Flametree Ecological Consulting, July 2006.

GHD, (2007), Bellingen Shire Growth Management Strategy prepared for Bellingen Shire Council, August 2007.

IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change key finding and uncertainties contained in the Working Group contributions to the Forth Assessment Report.

Lawson and Treloar, (2003), Urunga Lagoon Management Guidelines, prepared for Bellingen Shire Council and Bellingen LandCare, September 2003.

LPMA, (2010), Plan of Management Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve, prepared by the Land and Property Management Authority, February 2010.

NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer (2012), Assessment of the science behind the NSW Government’s sea level rise planning benchmarks, prepared for Minister for Environment, April 2012.

NSW Environment and Heritage (2012) Sea Level Rise web-page available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/climatechange/sealevel.htm. Accessed 1/11/12.

NSW Government (1990), Coastline Management Manual, prepared September 1990.

NSW Government (2013), A New Planning System for NSW White Paper, April 2013

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/climatechange/sealevel.htm

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report 70 References


OEH (2013), Guidelines for Preparing Coastal Zone Management Plans, July 2013.

Standards Australia (2004), Handbook Risk Management Guidelines Companion to AS/NZS 4360:2004, HB 436:2004 (Incorporating Amendment No. 1).

Standards Australia (2009), Risk Management Principles and Guidelines, AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009.

TASMARC (2014) The Tasmanian Shoreline Monitoring and Archiving Project – Tasmarc Survey Instructions – Levelling, available at http://www.tasmarc.info Accessed 09/05/14

Telfer, D and Cohen, T, (2010), Bellinger and Kalang River Estuaries Erosion Study, prepared for Bellingen Shire Council, by GECO Environmental (Damon Telfer) and IRM Consultants (Tim Cohen), February 2010.

http://www.tasmarc.info/

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report A-1 Legislation Governing the Coastal Zone


Appendix A Legislation Governing the Coastal Zone

A.1 Coastal Protection Act 1979 The NSW Coastal Protection Act 1979 (the CPA Act) provides guidance on the use, occupation and development of the coastal zone in NSW. The CPA Act was amended in 2002 to better reflect the purpose of the NSW Coastal Policy (1997) and to incorporate the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

The objects of the CPA Act are to provide for the protection of the coastal environment of the State for the benefit of both present and future generations and, in particular:

to protect, enhance, maintain and restore the environment of the coastal region, its associated ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity, and its water quality;

to encourage, promote and secure the orderly and balanced utilisation and conservation of the coastal region and its natural and man-made resources, having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development;

to recognise and foster the significant social and economic benefits to the State that result from a sustainable coastal environment, including

benefits to the environment, and

benefits to urban communities, fisheries, industry and recreation, and

benefits to culture and heritage, and

benefits to the Aboriginal people in relation to their spiritual, social, customary and economic use of land and water;

to promote public pedestrian access to the coastal region and recognise the public’s right to access;

to provide for the acquisition of land in the coastal region to promote the protection, enhancement, maintenance and restoration of the environment of the coastal region;

to recognise the role of the community, as a partner with government, in resolving issues relating to the protection of the coastal environment; and

to ensure co-ordination of the policies and activities of the Government and public authorities relating to the coastal region and to facilitate the proper integration of their management activities.

The Act allows the Minister for the Environment to direct a council with land within the coastal zone to prepare a Coastal Zone Management Plan, and gives directions as to how such Plans shall be prepared, approved, gazetted and amended where necessary.

The Act also requires Coastal Zone Management Plans to incorporate provisions for emergency beach erosion management and to provide for the unobstructed access to the coastline (beaches, headlands, waterways) by the public.

Recent amendments to this Act are discussed below.



A.1.1 Changes Occurring Via the Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Amendments were made under Part 2A of the CP Act to establish a joint state-local body called the NSW Coastal Panel. The NSW Coastal Panel shall act as a consent authority for coastal protection development applications where a council does not have a certified CZMP and / or requires further technical assistance in assessing such development applications. The Coastal Panel shall also assist the Minister when requested, such as for reviewing CZMPs.

Amendments were made in Section 55M of the CP Act and SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (Clause 129A) that permit any person, including private landholders, to erect long term coastal protection works with development consent, with consent contingent on the application demonstrating that potential offsite impacts can be managed (for example, with beach nourishment). The private landholders who submit such applications would fully fund the coastal protection works, with no requirement for councils or the state to assist with funding.

Amendments were made to Part 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) and SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (Clause 129A) that require a consent authority, in determining a development application for coastal protection works, to take into consideration the provisions of any coastal zone management plan that applies to the land to which the development application relates (in addition to matters given in Clause 8 of SEPP 71). In this case, development applications may be refused where such works are not stated to be an action in the adopted CZMP. If there is no CZMP in place, the NSW Coastal Panel shall determine the development.

For public authorities (e.g. Council), new coastal protection works are permitted without consent under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (Clause 129), provided they consider the provisions of any CZMP relating to the land, or where there is no CZMP, notify the NSW Coastal Panel and take into consideration any response received from them within 21 days of notification.

Amendments were made to Section 553B of the Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) to allow local councils to levy a Coastal Protection Service Charge to maintain and repair coastal protection works or to manage the impacts of coastal protection works. The charge covers Council’s costs for maintaining the works and restoring the beach if the works cause erosion (which may include beach nourishment). Eligible coastal protection works for the CPSC include:

works voluntarily constructed by a benefiting landowner (or landowners);

works constructed jointly by a public authority (e.g. Council) with voluntary contributions from benefiting landowners;

works that existed before section 496B of the LG Act commenced, where the landowner or a previous landowner voluntarily agree (in writing) to pay the CPSC; and

works that existed before section 496B of the LG Act commenced, where the landowner has voluntarily agreed to upgrade the works. A pro-rata CPSC then applies, based on the incremental additional costs of maintaining the works and managing their off-site impacts.

Where works are implemented by a Council and the Council chooses to contribute to the cost of the works then the Council also must accept liability for a portion of the future coastal protection service charge for maintenance for the life of the works.



The annual charge is attached to the land title and becomes the responsibility of all future land owners for the life of the protection works. The amount of the charge is regularly reviewed depending on the cost of maintaining the works and in ameliorating any adverse impacts. The Coastal Protection Service Charge Guidelines provide further guidance, including how it can be used to fund the protection of private property by those property owners deemed to benefit from the works and how the amount of the rate should be calculated over the design life of the works.

Amendments were made under Part 4C of the CP Act outlining emergency coastal protection works that landholders or public authorities are permitted to carry out. The Coastal Protection Amendment Act 2012 has now modified the allowances for such works, as detailed below.

All of the above changes provide a mechanism for Councils to allow the construction of protection works on private land to protect private property, and defer the responsibility and costs for construction to the land owners. Further, Councils can ensure that maintenance and amelioration of any adverse impacts is also borne by the land owners into the future, through the Coastal Protection Service Charge. There is no responsibility on local government or State Government to bear any of the cost for protecting private property.

A.1.1.1 Coastal Protection Amendment Act 2012 This act permitted modifications to Part 4C of the CP Act relating to coastal protection works. The key change was renaming such works from ‘emergency’ to ‘temporary’ protection works, to enable authorised landholders to erect such works regardless of the impending occurrence of a storm, in response to coastal erosion.

The Code of Practise associated with the placement of temporary coastal protection works is currently being revised and is anticipated to be re-issued in 2013. It is expected that the revised Code of Practice will expand the number of ‘authorised locations’ where temporary coastal protection works are permitted (or indeed allow such works in any open coast location). The works are not permitted on estuarine foreshores.

The Amendment Act 2012 also simplified the process for landholders to gain approval to erect such works. Private landowners are now permitted to place temporary coastal protection works on their land without approval or a certificate from the local council or state government. Private landowners are also permitted to place these works on public land, provided they obtain a certificate for these works, and may keep such works in place for up to 2 years.

The fines for inappropriate placement of sand or sandbags (such as associated with the erection of temporary coastal protection works) have been halved, to reflect the lesser nature of such incidences. The heavy fines for placement of other non-beach materials (e.g. rocks, car bodies, bricks etc.) remain as per the 2010 CP Act amendments.

OEH or Councils (if they have authorised officers for this task) may order the removal of the temporary protection works where it is evident that such works are having detrimental impacts upon adjacent land or on beach amenity.



A.1.1.2 Amendments to the Coastal Protection Act 1979 The NSW Government has been in the process of reform of the coastal management process since 2009. The main amendments occurred in 2010 and 2012, as detailed in Appendix B, and are summarised as follows.

The Coastal Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2010 facilitated the following amendments:

The NSW Coastal Panel, a joint state-local body, was established (under Part 2A of the CP Act), and shall be the consent authority for development applications for permanent coastal protection works where a Council does not have a certified CZMP or requires further technical assistance;

Any person (i.e. including private landholders) is permitted to erect permanent coastal protection works with consent, under changes to Section 55M of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. This implies such works would be fully funded by the applicant (private, public or both). Consent for such works requires that off-site impacts of the works can be ameliorated;

Councils are permitted to construct new coastal protection works without consent under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 (Clause 129), provided they take into consideration the provisions of any CZMP relating to the land, or otherwise notify the NSW Coastal Panel and take into consideration the Panel’s recommendations;

In determining an application for permanent coastal protection works, a consent authority must take into consideration the provisions of any CZMP applying to the land in the application, under changes to Part 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to Clause 129A of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007;

Local councils may levy a Coastal Protection Service Charge to maintain and repair coastal protection works or to manage the impacts of coastal protection works, under changes to Section 553B of the Local Government Act 1993. Conditions for applying the charge are outlined in Appendix B;

Part 4C of the CP Act was amended to permit ‘emergency’ coastal protection works to be erected by private or public landholders, and increased the penalties for unauthorised placement of any material on the beach. These amendments have since been modified by the 2012 amendments (see below).

The Coastal Protection Amendment Act 2012 modified Part 4C of the CP Act relating to ‘emergency’ coastal protection works, which are now known as ‘temporary’ coastal protection works. Changes were made regarding the authorisation and certification for such works installed on private and public land, as explained in Appendix A. The amendments also reduced the penalties for the unauthorised placement of sand or sandbags, but retained the existing (2010) penalties for placement of all other materials on the beach.

The Code of Practise for the placement of temporary coastal protection works is currently being revised and due to be re-issued in 2013. It is expected that the revised Code of Practice will expand the number of ‘authorised locations’ where temporary coastal protection works will be



permitted (or indeed allow such works in any open coast location). At present, there are no authorised locations within the Bellingen LGA. Such works are not permitted on estuarine foreshores, and this is not expected to change with the new Code of Practise.

A.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act) is the key NSW legislation for planning and land use. The NSW Government is currently revising the planning system in NSW, as detailed in A New Planning System for NSW White Paper (NSW Government, 2013). Repeal of the EPA Act and adoption of the new planning legislation is expected to take effect in 2014. Until that time, however, the EPA Act remains in force.

The EPA Act provides a system of environmental planning and assessment for NSW, and involves developing plans to regulate competing land uses, through ‘environmental planning instruments’. The EPA Act establishes three types of environment planning instruments (EPI):

Local Environmental Plans;

Regional Environmental Plans (now deemed SEPPs); and

State Environmental Planning Policies.

The objectives of the EPA Act are to encourage:

proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment;

promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land;

protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services;

provision of land for public purposes;

provision and co-ordination of community services and facilities;

protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats;

ecologically sustainable development;

the provision and maintenance of affordable housing;

promotion of the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State;

provision of increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment.

Approval processes for “development” and “works” in NSW are provided for in Part 4, Part 5 and Part 5A of the EPA Act. Key provisions are outlined briefly below.



Part 4 – Development Assessment

Part 4 of the EPA Act lays out the legislative regime for the standard process for lodgement and consideration of development applications. Part 4 processes essentially apply where the local authority (Council) is the consent authority. The majority of land based development within the Bellingen study area will fall within Part 4 of the EPA Act.

The controls and permissibility for development of particular sites and / or uses are found in the Bellingen Local Environment Plan (LEP) and Bellingen Development Control Plan (DCP) (see sections below).

Section 79C under Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 outlines matters for consideration for a consent authority (typically Council) in determining a development application to include the provisions of any coastal zone management plan (within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979) that apply to the land to which the development application relates.

Part 5 – Environmental Assessment

Part 5 outlines the requirements for determining authorities to consider the environmental impact of activities, through an environmental assessment for the proposed activity. The environmental assessment shall outline the effect of the activity on critical habitat, endangered fauna, vulnerable species, conservation agreements (under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974), plans of management, wilderness areas (under the Wilderness Act 1987) and joint management agreements and bio-banking agreements under the Threatened Species Act, 1995, and any other legislation pertaining to the proposed activity.

Part 5 of the Act applies to proposed activities that are permissible without development consent under Part 4 of the EPA Act but require approval from a Minister or Public Authority, or is proposed to be carried out by a Minister or Public Authority (and Council is classified as a Public Authority).

Part 5 obliges the “determining authority” for the proposal to consider the environmental impact of any activity. A determining authority is the public authority which is required to approve an activity, and can also be the public authority proposing to carry out the activity. For example, Council is permitted to undertake certain environmental management activities under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 without development consent, however will still need to complete an environmental assessment (typically, a Review of Environmental Factors) under Part 5 of the EPA Act. In certain cases where an activity is considered to be “designated development”, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.

Part 5A (Development by the Crown) essentially provides a legislative regime for consideration of Development Applications made by, or for and on behalf of, the Crown.

The remaining parts of the EPA Act relate to: Part 6 – Implementation and Enforcement; Part 7 – Finance and Part 8 – Miscellaneous.

A.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection The NSW Government is currently revising the planning system in NSW (refer A New Planning System for NSW White Paper, NSW Government, 2013), which will involve the repeal of all State



Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS), with the new planning legislation expected to come into force in 2014. The SEPPs are expected to be rolled into all local planning provisions (i.e. LEPs) as relevant. Until that time, however, the SEPPs remain in force.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection (SEPP71) aims to protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New South Wales coast. SEPP 71 aims for development in the NSW coastal zone to be appropriate and suitably located, in accordance with the principles of the Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). The policy provides for: the protection of and improvement to public access compatible with the natural attributes coastal foreshores; and protects and preserves Aboriginal cultural heritage, visual amenities of the coast, the beach environment and amenity, native coastal vegetation, marine environment of New South Wales, and rocky platforms.

SEPP 71 applies to all lands within the coastal zone of NSW, which is defined on gazetted maps under the SEPP, therefore, all of the land in the CZMS /CZMP study area. SEPP 71 provides matters for consideration in clause 8 that are to be taken into account: by a council when preparing its LEP for land within the coastal zone; and by a consent authority (e.g. council) when determining a development application on land within the coastal zone.

SEPP 71 also outlines the conditions for which the Minister for Planning becomes the consent authority for ‘significant coastal development’, that is, development on land within 100 metres of and below mean high water mark of the sea, a bay or an estuary. Development applications received by Council on such lands must be sent to the Director-General of Planning, and Council is required to take any additional matters specified by the Director-General into account when determining the application (in addition to the ‘matters for consideration’ given in Clause 8).

SEPP 71 also outlines development controls in Part 4 for which consent cannot be granted to applications that, in the opinion of the consent authority:

will or is likely to impede or diminish to any extent the physical, land based right of access of the public to or along the coastal foreshore;

where effluent is proposed to be disposed of by means of a non-reticulated system, will or is likely to have a negative effect on the water of the sea or any nearby beach, or an estuary, a coastal lake, a coastal creek or other similar body of water, or a rock platform; or

will or is likely to, discharge untreated stormwater into the sea, a beach, or an estuary, a coastal lake, a coastal creek or other similar body of water, or onto a rock platform.

A master plan is to be adopted by Minister for Planning (or otherwise waived the need for a master plan as per Clause 18), prior to Council granting consent for subdivision of land:

within a residential zone or rural residential zone if part or all of the land is in a ‘sensitive coastal location’; or

within a residential zone that is not within a ‘sensitive coastal location’ into more than 25 lots, or 25 lots or less, if the land proposed to be subdivided and any adjoining or neighbouring land in the same ownership could be subdivided into more than 25 lots; or



within a rural residential zone that is not identified as a sensitive coastal location into more than 5 lots.

SEPP71 defines ‘sensitive coastal location’ to mean land within:

100 metres above mean high water mark of the sea, a bay or an estuary;

a coastal lake, or within 100 m of the water’s edge of a coastal lake;

a declared Ramsar Wetland, or within 100 m of a declared Ramsar Wetland;

a declared World Heritage Property, or within 100 m of a declared World Heritage Property;

a declared aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, or within 100 m of such;

a declared marine park under the Marine Parks Act 1997, or within 100 m of a marine park;

coastal lakes (which includes all four of Gosford’s Coastal lagoons), Ramsar wetlands and World Heritage areas;

marine parks and aquatic reserves under the Fisheries Management Act; land within 100 metres of any of the above;

within 100 m of land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;

within 100 m of SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands; and

residential land within 100 metres of SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests.

A.4 SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 The NSW Government is currently revising the planning system in NSW (refer A New Planning System for NSW White Paper, NSW Government, 2013), which will involve the repeal of all State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPS), with the new planning legislation expected to come into force in 2014. The SEPPs are expected to be rolled into all local planning provisions (i.e. LEPs) as relevant. Until that time, however, the SEPPs remain in force.

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 provides a consistent planning regime for infrastructure and the provision of services across NSW, including consultation with relevant public authorities during the assessment process. The intent of the SEPP is to support greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities along with improved regulatory certainty and efficiency for the State.

Division 25 of the SEPP outlines development permitted with and without consent for the purpose of ‘waterway or foreshore management activities’, which are defined as:

‘(a) riparian corridor and bank management, including erosion control, bank stabilisation, resnagging, weed management, re-vegetation and the creation of foreshore access ways, and

(b) instream management or dredging to rehabilitate aquatic habitat or to maintain or restore environmental flows or tidal flows for ecological purposes, and



(c) coastal management and beach nourishment, including erosion control, dune or foreshore stabilisation works, headland management, weed management, re-vegetation activities and foreshore access ways, and

(d) coastal protection works, and

(e) salt interception schemes to improve water quality in surface freshwater systems, and

(f) installation or upgrade of waterway gauging stations for water accounting purposes.

Development for the purpose of waterway or foreshore management activities may be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority (e.g. Council) without consent on any land, which may include:

construction works;

routine maintenance works;

emergency works, including works required as a result of flooding, storms or coastal erosion (noting that this excludes emergency coastal protection works within the meaning of the Coastal Protection Act 1979);

environmental management works; and

new coastal protection works on the open coast or entrance to a coastal lake (despite Clause 129A, see below), provided the public authority considers the provisions of any CZMP relating to the land on which the works are proposed, or where there is no CZMP, notify the NSW Coastal Panel and take into consideration any response received from them within 21 days of notification. The ‘new coastal protection works’ excludes beach nourishment or sand placement, presumably so that councils can undertake beach nourishment without requiring such action to be a stated action in the CZMP or gaining approval from the Coastal Panel.

Thus in the study area, Council is permitted to undertake activities such as beach nourishment, environmental rehabilitation, seawalls (provided this is consistent with the CZMP) etc., provided they undertake a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) (under Part 5 of the EPA Act) and gain any approvals / licences required under any other Acts relating to the land or works (e.g. Crown Lands Act 1989, Fisheries Management Act 1994, Water Management Act 2000 etc.).

Under Clause 129A, development for the purposes of a seawall or beach nourishment may be carried out by any person with consent on the open coast or entrance to a coastal lake. In determining the application, the consent authority must consider the provisions of any CZMP relating to the land on which the works are proposed, the matters stated in Clause 8 of SEPP 71, and any guidelines for assessing and managing the impacts of the works issued by the Director-General (noting that preconditions for granting consent for coastal protection works are stated in Section 55M of the Coastal Protection Act).

A.5 North Coast Regional Environment Plan The aims of the North Coast Regional Environment Plan (REP) are summarised as:



to develop regional policies that protect the natural environment, encourage an efficient and attractive built environment and guide development for a more productive and environmentally sound future,

to consolidate and amend the various existing policies for the region, to make them more applicable, within an overall regional policy context,

to provide the basis for co-ordination of activities relating to growth in the region, and

to initiate a regional planning process.

The North Coast REP implements its aims by:

specifying objectives for future planning and development of land in the region

specifying regional policies to guide the preparation of local environmental plans in the region

specifying regional policies for the control of development in the region.

The North Coast REP is divided into 5 Parts that relate to: Rural Development (Part 2); Conservation and the environment (Part 3); Urban Development (Part 4); Regional Infrastructure (Part 5); Tourism and Recreation (Part 6).

Division 2 of Part 3 relates directly to Coastal Development and its associated hazards, as well as visual, recreational, water quality and natural values. The provisions in this Part for draft local environment plans that are consistent with the purpose of the CZMP, and support management options such as the LEP Review are as follows:

Clause 31 (1) states that “a draft local environment plan for land that is not currently developed should identify any coastal hazard area”;

Clause 32 states that “a draft local environment plan that applies to land adjoining or adjacent to a coastal foreshore area should include provisions that:

(a) restrict development so as to minimise long term risk to life and property and its impact on coastal processes, and

(b) minimise the visual impact of development near the shore, and

(c) require that the impact of engineering works on coastal processes be assessed, and

(d) prohibit development landward from the back beach erosion scarp that is at immediate risk from coastal processes, other than development involved with stabilisation works”;

Clause 32A states that for all land to which the Coastal Policy 1997 applies, a draft local environment plan “should:

(a) include provisions that give effect to and are consistent with the NSW Coastal Policy 1997,

(b) prohibit development of buildings or other structures, except those required for erosion control or beach management, on dunes, beaches or headlands not occupied by buildings or other structures, and



(c) when development applications are being determined, require consideration of the possibility of higher sea levels caused by climate change”;

Clause 32B sets development control for coastal lands, in particular, “(3) the council must not consent to the carrying out of development which would impede public access to the foreshore”; and

Clause 33 sets development control for coastal hazard areas, stating “before granting consent to development on land affected or likely to be affected by coastal processes, the council shall:

(a) take into account the Coastline Management Manual,

(b) require as a condition of development consent that disturbed foreshore areas be rehabilitated, and

(c) require as a condition of development consent that access across foreshore areas be confined to specific points.”

However, Clause 1.9 of Bellingen Local Environment Plan 2010 (BLEP 2010) provides that the North Coast REP does not apply to land to which the BLEP 2010 applies.

A.6 Bellingen Local Environment Plan 2010 The BLEP 2010 was prepared under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and adopts the mandatory provisions of the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006, as per the direction of the Government to all local councils.

The BLEP 2010 aims to make local environmental planning provisions for land in Bellingen LGA in accordance with the relevant standard environmental planning instrument under Section 33A of the EPA Act. The particular aims of the BLEP that are relevant to the management of coastal hazards are:

“(b) to identify land that is suitable for development or environmental protection purposes and to encourage or restrict development accordingly” and

(c) to progressively respond to changes in the natural, social and economic environment in a manner that is consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.”

The BLEP 2010 guides the assessment and approval for Development Applications for lands within the LGA. The BLEP 2010 sets out permitted or prohibited development in Part 2 according to the land use zones that apply under the Plan, and that are shown on the Land Zoning Map that accompanies the Plan. The land use zones applicable to Bellingen are given in Table A-1. For each of the land zones applicable to land under the BLEP, the Plan specifies:

Objectives for development within the zone;

Development that may be carried out without consent;

Development that may be carried out only with consent; and

Development that is prohibited.



The consent authority must have regard to the objectives for development within a zone when determining a development application for land within that zone.

In terms of managing coastal hazards, the LEP contains ‘Part 5.5. Development within the Coastal Zone’, which is a compulsory clause for all LEPs that apply to land within the coastal zone. Part 5.5 sets objectives and matters for consideration by the consent authority prior to granting consent to development on land wholly or partly within the coastal zone. The objectives include implementing the principles of the NSW Coastal Policy.

Table A-1 Land Zones in the Bellingen LEP 2010

Rural Zones Residential Zones Business Zones Industrial Zones

RU1 Primary Production

R1 General Residential

B1 Neighbourhood Centre

IN1 General Industrial

RU2 Rural Landscape

R5 Large Lot Residential

B2 Local Centre

RU3 Forestry

RU4 Rural Small Holdings

Special Purpose Zones

Recreation Zones Environment Protection Zones

Waterway Zones

SP1 Special Activities

RE1 Public Recreation

E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves

W1 Natural Waterways

SP2 Infrastructure RE2 Private Recreation

E2 Environmental Conservation

W2 Recreational Waterways

E3 Environmental Management

E4 Environmental Living

A.7 Bellingen Shire Development Control Plan 2010 A Development Control Plan (DCP) supports the implementation of an LEP by providing additional controls on development. The controls are not statutory, but must be taken into consideration by landholders in preparing a Development Application and by Council when determining a Development Application.

As part of reforms to the planning program under the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006, Council was required to create a single DCP document, which may apply to any one parcel of land in Bellingen Shire. Council compiled the relevant provisions from its former 16 DCPs and new provisions as necessary, to provide a single comprehensive suite of controls in one document to guide development.

There are 16 chapters within the DCP. The chapters of the DCP may address:



a specific zone or development type, to meet the building form and siting objectives for that zone across the LGA (e.g., Single Dwellings, Medium Density Housing, Carparks etc.);

a specific environmental constraint, to meet the objectives for managing the constraint as part of different types of development (e.g. Flood and Riverine Processes); or

a specific local area to meet the objectives for the design and form of development in that locality, which may contain various land zones (e.g. Mylestom in Chapter 15 of the DCP)

The only chapter of the DCP relevant to this Coastal Zone Management Plan is Chapter 8 – Flood and Riverine Processes. Chapter 8 of the DCP defines flood to include “coastal inundation resulting from superelevated sea levels and / or waves overtopping coastal defence (excluding tsunami)” (p107, Bellingen DCP 2010).

The underlying principle for Chapter 8 is “that any new development or modifications to existing development should always, as far as practical, result in an improvement to the existing flood risk and in no circumstances should the flood risk be made worse”. Chapter 8 outlines the requirements for development and buildings on flood prone land (or land potentially affected by flooding and riverine processes), to prevent inappropriate development on flood prone land and promote the use of land in a manner that is compatible with the likely flood hazard to the land. The Chapter also aims to increase public awareness of flood hazards and appropriate development on flood prone land.

The chapter applies to: all land in the Bellingen LEP area that has been determined to be flood prone from an existing flood study (such as already completed by Council); or where a proposed development is within land that is potentially flood prone (as shown on maps in Appendix 8.1 to the Chapter), the proponent is required to undertake a flood study, which shall then be used to determine flood behaviour and thus the applicable requirements for development on the site.

Recommended changes to the DCP chapter that will enable it to also cover the coastal inundation hazard are outlined in the Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation Option.

A.8 Crown Lands Act 1989 The Crown Lands Act 1989 (CL Act) provides for the administration and management of Crown land for the benefit of the people of NSW. The CL Act provides principles for the proper assessment, development, reservation or dedication and conservation of Crown Lands.

Waterbodies such as beaches and foreshores and estuaries / creeks / lagoons below the mean high water mark are designated as Crown Land and managed by the Department of Primary Industries Crown Lands Division (CLD). In addition to this, there are other Crown reserves in the Shellharbour coastal zone for which Council is the reserve trust manager or trustee appointed by the Minister for Lands to care, control and manage the land in accordance with its public purpose and the principles of Crown Lands management (Section 11 of the Act).

The principles of Crown Land management as defined in Section 11 of the Act are: environmental protection principles be observed in relation to the management and administration of Crown land; natural resources of Crown Land (including water, soil, flora, fauna and scenic quality) be conserved wherever possible; public use and enjoyment of Crown lands be encouraged; where



appropriate, multiple uses of Crown land be encouraged; and where appropriate, Crown Land be used and managed in such a manner that the land and its resources are sustained in perpetuity.

In addition to these principles, the objectives of the Coastal Crown Lands Policy 1991 apply to Crown lands within the coastal zone. The policy sets specific objectives for conserving the environmental and cultural qualities of coastal Crown Land, retaining in public ownership coastal lands that are environmentally sensitive and / or required for public purpose, and providing use of coastal crown lands for recreation, tourism, residential and commercial development with due regard to the nature and consequences of coastal processes.

For all Crown land reserves, a Plan of Management (POM) is required to be prepared and adopted (in accordance with Division 6 of the Crown Lands Act 1989). The POM shall identify the key attributes and values of the area, general physical improvements to enhance the values and specify the permissible uses for the reserve.

A.8.1.1 Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve Plan of Management (2010) The Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve (‘the Reserve’) combines 133 parcels of Crown Land along the coastline of Bellingen LGA into a single management unit. The Bellingen Coastal Crown Reserve Plan of Management (POM) provides a systems-based approach to coordinated management of the entire reserve, which is administered by the Crown Lands Division (CLD) (formerly the Land and Property Management Authority (LPMA)). The defined purpose for the Reserve is Access and Public Requirements, Tourism Purposes, and Environmental and Heritage Conservation.

The Bellinger Heads State Park is included within the Reserve, which extends from Mylestom to Hungry Head including Mylestom Spit, Urunga Lagoon and Urunga Sand Mass. In partnership, both Council and the Lands Administration Ministerial Corporation form the Bellinger Head State Park Trust, who is the statutory body responsible for managing the State Park affairs and delivering the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve Plan of Management (POM).

The Bellinger Heads Holiday Parks is also located within the Reserve, and includes the North Beach Holiday Park, Urunga Heads Holiday Park, and Hungry Head Cabins, which provide for holiday and camping accommodation within the Reserve. The NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust is the key stakeholder responsible for the above mentioned Holiday Parks.

The Reserve is separated into 5 management precincts, namely: 1 - Mylestom / Bellinger River; 2 - Urunga / Kalang River; 3 - Urunga Lagoon / Hungry Head; 4 - Dalhousie Creek / Wenonah Head / Oyster Creek; and 5 - Beaches and Ocean Bed. Interestingly, the Bellinger Heads State Park is spilt between precincts 1 – Mylestom / Bellinger River, 2 - Urunga / Kalang River and 3 – Urunga Lagoon / Hungry Head. The reserve lands from Dalhousie Creek south to Oyster Creek on the eastern side of the railway line are subject to a Native Title Claim (NC98/15). Ongoing negotiations regarding this claim continue.

Importantly, the Bellingen CZMP does not provide specific community use actions unless they incidentally address coastal hazard risk management, as these are covered within the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve POM. The POM outlines actions for the provision of beach access, recreational facilities, vehicle management, holiday accommodation and tourism activities. Other



management actions within the POM that specifically align with (and provide support for) actions to be formulated in the CZMP are listed in Table A-2.

In general, those actions within the POM that encourage development are clear to emphasise that such development must be sustainable and in keeping with the values of the reserve (and generally, the development is relatively small scale, for example, caravan park upgrades, new recreational facilities and so on). This will ensure that commercial or income generating enterprises will not be undertaken at the expense of the Reserve’s natural and public amenity values. This approach aligns with the overall objective of the CZMP to maintain the coastal zone in public ownership and limit future development, to ensure that the coast retains its resilience to coastal hazards.

Table A-2 Actions in the POM that will Support Initiative of the CZMS

Management Objective from POM

Action relating to Management Objective

CZMP Option supported by POM action

2 – Acknowledge and accommodate natural processes

Limit development in the immediate coastline hazard zone and flood zones as identified in the BLEP to environmental rehabilitation and appropriate approved structures Implement measures in accordance with Bellingen Council’s position on Climate Change and Sea Level Rise

Integration of CZM Planning within Council Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation

3 – Preserve significant visual amenity

Retain native coastal vegetation, encourage natural bush regeneration and use endemic plant species in any landscaping of reserve areas

Habitat Management Dune Rehabilitation Beach Access Management

4 – Identify and enable multiple purpose and sustainable land and waterway use

Assist Council and land care groups with the sustainable management of terrestrial ecosystems

Habitat Management Dune Rehabilitation Beach Access Management

Considering that much of Bellingen’s coastline is contained within the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve (which includes the Bellinger Heads State Park and Bellinger Heads Holiday Park), Council will need to work in close partnership with Crown Lands and the relevant Trusts to best achieve the management objection and strategies proposed in the CZMS and CZMP.

Further, close consultation will be required with the Bellingen Coast Regional Crown Reserve Trust, the Bellinger Heads State Park Trust and the NSW Crown Holiday Parks Trust (along with other key stakeholders and community members) as part of the CZMP implementation.

A.9 Local Government Act 1993 The Local Government Act 1993 (the LG Act) creates local governments and grants them the power to perform their functions, which involve management, development, protection, restoration, enhancement and conservation of the environment for the local government area. The functions of the local government are to be performed in a manner that is consistent with and promote the principles of ecologically sustainable development.



The service functions of local councils (defined in Chapter 6 of the Act) includes the classification, use and management of public land, including the objectives for management of the Community Land owned by a Council (i.e. that is not Crown Land).

Plans of Management for Community Land need also to be prepared under Section 35 of the Act. Section 35 of the act provides that community land only be used in accordance with the Plan of Management applying to the parcel of community land; any law permitting the use of the land for a specified purpose or otherwise regulating the use of the land; and the provisions of Division 2 Chapter 6 of the Act.

Community land can be divided into a range of categories under Section 36 of the Act, and each of these categories have their own core objectives specified under the Act. The division of community lands is important as the Act requires Council to only grant a lease, licence or another estate (other than in respect of public utilities) for a purpose consistent with the core objectives of the category of that community land.

A.10 Bellingen 2030 Community Strategic Plan The Bellingen 2030 Community Strategic Plan (CSP) outlines the vision for the Bellingen community and provides the strategic direction for Council to meet the vision. Bellingen’s community vision is defined in the document under the headings of Connected, Sustainable and Creative. The priorities for services and projects that Council will deliver over the 20 years to 2030 are outlined in the CSP. Implementation of the CSP is supported by other strategic documents of Council (e.g. Resourcing Strategy, Delivery and Operational Plans).

Aspirational goals and strategic direction for 2030 were defined in the CSP under the headings of: Resilient Economy, Community Wellbeing; Places for People, Living Environment; and Civic Leadership. The CZMP will contribute to the following aspirational goals and strategic directions identified for the Living Environment:

“We live sustainably and reduce our ecological footprint and contribution to climate change”; and

Aspirational Goal: “We work together to protect and enhance our environment”; with accompanying Strategic Direction: • “Our community is informed and educated on environmental issues, threats and opportunities”,

The CZMP provides for adaptation to coastal hazards at present and that will arise in the future with climate change. The CZMP aims to enhance the resilience of the Bellingen community (and its environment) to these future impacts.

A.11 Bellingen Shire Growth Management Strategy (2007) The Bellingen Shire Growth Management Strategy (GHD, 2007) (‘the Growth Management Strategy’) is a long-term strategic planning document for working towards ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development in partnership with the community. The Strategy also meets NSW Government requirements for land release strategies for residential and rural-residential land, prior to any significant land release.



The Growth Management Strategy investigates the demand for residential, rural-residential and rural land that may be required in the LGA given population and housing demand projections to 2026. The strategy then investigates the potential availability of land for residential, rural-residential or rural development within the existing urban centres of the LGA (towns, villages etc.), and the need for new settlements. The strategy then identifies any constraints on further expansion of existing settlements due to issues including (among other issues): Impact on waterways (lakes, creeks and ocean); and flood prone (and bushfire prone) land.

Mylestom, Repton, Fernmount/Raleigh were identified as constrained from further expansion due to such issues. These areas may be suitable for rural-residential expansion only. Urunga was identified as a settlement with capacity for expansion, providing issues relating to flooding, SEPP14 – Coastal Wetlands and proximity to the Bellinger / Kalang Rivers (which presumably may relate to coastal inundation risk) can be addressed (GHD, 2007).

The Growth Management Strategy also stated that new settlement areas would not be necessary by 2026, given the future development opportunities that are available within the three main towns of Bellingen, Dorrigo and Urunga, compared with both the likely population growth and housing pressure to 2026 and the environmental, servicing and infrastructure constraints across the LGA.

The above findings support actions within to be formulated within the CZMP to restrain development of coastal land, as it may be affected by coastal hazards and the land is then able to respond naturally to sea level rise. This is particularly relevant for Mylestom, as it is the only settlement located directly on the coast. The aim to retain the current development footprint at Mylestom (i.e., restrict it to its current level) provides important support for actions in this plan to retain the open coast in public ownership with minimal development.

Six land release areas were identified for the LGA, adjacent to the existing main towns. Of these, the South Urunga Investigation Area may require further investigation relating to flooding, and its proximity to the river, which may present issues relating to the migration of wetlands and other habitats or permanent inundation of such development due to sea level rise (GHD, 2007). Actions such as Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation recommended in this CZMS would assist with the appropriate development of this land release area.

For rural-residential expansion, numerous lots were identified at Bellingen, Urunga and Dorrigo (325, 122 and 12 lots respectively), however this is well below the expected demand for such lots by 2026 (estimated to be 200, 300 and 56 respectively). The Strategy noted that some of the identified land may not be viable given other environmental constraints. The strategy also recommended consistent monitoring and review of the demand for rural residential development. Once again, the Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation action to be recommended in the CZMP would assist with the appropriate development of this land release area.

The Growth Management Strategy provides an implementation strategy to assist Council to implement its aims for growth management through the existing legislative and policy framework, most importantly, the LEP and DCP (which were prepared and finalised after this strategy was completed). To recognise the impact of natural hazards on future land use and settlements, the Plan recommends implementing the findings of Floodplain Management Studies and Plans, and take localised flooding into account when assessing development applications (refer Section



11.1.9, p 119, GHD, 2007). This action is consistent with the Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation management option to be recommended in the CZMP.

A.12 Four Wheel Drive Beach Access Plan In 2012, Council prepared maps of the areas that are permissible for four wheel drive (4WD) vehicles to access the beach in the Bellingen LGA. No permits are required. The delineation of access and non-access areas should be taken into consideration when determining priority areas for dune care. Furthermore, signage may be required to educate certain drivers that driving on the sand dunes (vegetated or un-vegetated) is not permitted.

4WD vehicles are permitted on the beach at:

North Beach from the 4WD access track north to Tuckers Rocks to the boundary of Bongil Bongil National Park (with advise that National Parks should be contacted for more information on vehicle access in this area);

North Beach from ~100m south of North Beach SLSC at the 4WD track south to the northern training wall;

North Hungry Head Beach, from the southern training wall southwards to the 4WD track entrance;

Schnapper Beach and North Valla Beach, from Second Headland southwards to Oyster Creek entrance.

4WD vehicles are not permitted on the beach at:

North Beach between ~100m south of the North Beach SLSC, north to the 4WD track entrance;

From North Hungry Head Beach 4WD track entrance southwards along Hungry Head Beach to Second Headland.

A.13 Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey (2010) The objective of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey is to provide a “comprehensive strategy to develop climate change resilience and adaptive capacity for the mid‐north coast councils of Nambucca, Bellingen and Kempsey” (page 5, Climate Risk, 2010). The Climate Change Adaptation Strategy identifies 11 higher level risks for Bellingen, from which it is apparent that flooding is the key environment hazard for the Bellingen Shire, and this may be enhanced by coastal inundation plus sea level rise. Only the last risk (11) may have some relationship to the impacts of beach erosion and shoreline recession. The following eight risks may relate to coastal hazards impacts that are being addressed by the CZMP:

(1) Damage to roads from storms and flooding;

(2) Damage to infrastructure from storms and flooding;

(3) Threats to the sewer and water system from sea level rise;

(4) Isolation of the community during flooding events;



(5) Flooding of the Urunga CBD;

(6) Threats to biodiversity from various climate change hazards;

(7) Increased service demands (and operational costs) from various climate change hazards;

(8) Detrimental effects of extreme weather events to the local tourism industry.

The Climate Change Adaptation Strategy outlines a wide variety of actions to treat the above risks. Review of the adaptation actions detailed in the strategy indicates that, rather than the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy providing existing controls for the CZMP, the Plan will assist in the implementation of the strategy. Actions for be included within the CZMP will provide finer scale detail and specifics that would facilitate implementation (at least in part) of many actions within the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Table A-3 illustrates the management options in this CZMS that would address (partly, and with respect to coastal inundation and sea level rise risks) specific actions in the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy. The table is intended to demonstrate the how options proposed in this CZMS may assist in the implementation of the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.

Table A-3 CZMP Management Options that Address Climate Change Adaptation Actions

Management Option in this CZMS

Climate Change Risk* Addressed Climate Change Adaptation Action* Addressed (in part or full)

Integration of CZM Coastal Hazards DCP; Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation

Risk 5 (Threats to the sewer and water system from sea level rise)

Action SRER‐1, Action SRER‐4,

Risk 7 (Flooding of the Urunga CBD)

Action BEER-1, Action BEER-2, Action BEER-3, Action BEVR-2, Action HHER-1, HHVR-2, BERM-1

Risk 9 (Increased service demands (and operational costs) from various climate change hazards)

Action GRER-4, Action GRVR-5, GRRM-1

Asset Management Planning; Audit of Existing Assets

Risk 2 (Damage to infrastructure from storms and flooding); Risk 5 (Threats to the sewer and water system from sea level rise); Risk 1 (Damage to roads from storms and flooding)

Action SRER-1, Action SRVR-2, Action SRRM-1, Action SRRM-2, Action SRRT-1, Action WSVR‐3, Action TSER-1, TSER-2

Risk 7 (Flooding of the Urunga CBD)

Action BERM-2


Action GRVR-5

Community and Stakeholder Education;

Risk 6 (Isolation of the community during flooding events)

Action HHRT

Integration of CZMP within Risk 2 (Damage to infrastructure from storms and flooding); Risk 5

Action WSVR‐3



Management Option in this CZMS

Climate Change Risk* Addressed Climate Change Adaptation Action* Addressed (in part or full)

Council (Threats to the sewer and water system from sea level rise)

Infrastructure Design Elements Risk 7 (Flooding of the Urunga CBD)

Action SRVR-2, Action BEVR-4, Action WSVR‐3, TSVR-1


Action GRVR-5

Habitat Management Risk 8 (Threats to biodiversity from various climate change hazards)

NSVR-1, NSRM-2

* Refer to the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (Climate Risk, 2010) for full description of climate change risks and adaptation actions listed

A.14 Urunga Lagoon Management Guidelines The Urunga Lagoon Management Guidelines (Lawson and Treloar, 2003) provide a suite of management strategies for preserving Urunga Lagoon and addressing issues in the lagoon relating to water flow and quality and habitat quality. While the guidelines do not apply to the open coast boundary adjacent to the lagoon, one guideline is aligned with the options recommended for the open coast in this CZMS. Catchment Land Management Guideline 1 “Retain foreshore land in public ownership where possible and manage as a riparian buffer to control human impact in surrounding areas” supports the overall aim of this CZMS to preserve the public ownership and lack of development that is apparent

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report B-21 Summary of Coastal Processes and Hazard at Bellingen


Appendix B Summary of Coastal Processes and Hazard at Bellingen

B.1 Introduction Coastal processes (both natural and human influenced) are the principal source of risk in the coastal zone, as such processes can generate significant hazards to coastal land, assets and values.

Coastal processes and hazards were assessed in detail in the Bellingen Coastal Processes and Hazards Definition Study (BMT WBM, 2012). The coastal hazards determined from that study have been used within this study as part of determining the overall level of risk from such hazards.

Coastal processes essentially involve the movement of water (i.e. currents) and sediment (mostly sand) within the coastal zone. Sediment dynamics includes sand transport along the mostly dry sandy beaches, in the intertidal swash zone, and in the deeper nearshore waters, and can be both alongshore transport (parallel to the shoreline) and cross-shore transport (perpendicular to the shoreline). Coastal processes are influenced by:

Regional geology (which sets the structure of the coastal zone) and geomorphology (which is both a product of coastal processes as well as affecting processes);

Waves generated offshore in the ocean;

Water levels (due to tides and amplified storms);

Coastal entrances (for creeks, lagoons, lakes and estuaries);

Sediment transport;

Windborne sediment transport;

Stormwater runoff; and

Climate change, particularly sea level rise, which will affect all of the above coastal processes.

Each of these processes interacts to generate hazards such as:

beach erosion and dune slope instability (over the short to medium term);

shoreline recession (over the long term and / or permanent);

Coastal inundation (during high tides combined with storms and sea level rise), which can manifest as both wave overtopping of the open coastline, or inundation of land behind the open coastline via coastal rivers and creeks and stormwater systems connecting to the ocean;

Coastal entrance instability;

Erosion at stormwater outlets / drainage lines (which is not relevant at Bellingen); and

Sand drift.

A brief summary of these elements is provided herein.



B.2 Regional Geology and Geomorphology Regional geology determines the orientation of the coastline, the width and slope of the continental shelf, the type and location of headlands, reefs and other structures, embayment width and sediment grain size and type. The interaction of waves, tides and sea level alters with regional geology, and determines the shape of past, present and future shorelines and coastal barriers.

The sand in the beach and dunes today is virtually entirely sourced from the continental shelf, where it has been reworked onto the shoreline during sea level rise then sea level stabilisation in the Holocene. A small rate of onshore supply from the nearshore zone and inner continental shelf is expected to be continuing at present, and assists stability of the present shorelines. There may be a very small amount of fluvial sediment supply from the Bellinger River into the coastal zone also.

The Bellingen regional coastline has medium to large sized and broad coastal embayments (Troedson et al., 2004), with small and large estuaries in the back barrier region. The general orientation of the Bellingen coastline is east-south-east. The headlands along Bellingen’s coast are not significantly protrusive, and so, the sub-aerial to aerial beach is relatively uninterrupted from north to south along the shoreline. Below the water, rock reefs attached to the headlands do form significant structural features within the nearshore zone that separates the embayments and may impede or modify longshore sediment transport between the beaches. The Bellinger River mouth also forms a significant feature along the shoreline and interacts with longshore sediment transport. Likewise, aerial photographs indicate there to be a substantial portion of rock reef within the nearshore zone. The major headlands, reefs and other structural features include:

Wenonah Head, and its attached rock reef at and just below sea level that protrudes several hundred metres seawards;

Second Headland, which is a series of low rocks and reefs that form the boundary between Schnapper Beach and Hungry Head Beach;

Hungry Head, which is set back from the shoreline by ~ 20 m, and forms a high, vegetated bluff. There appears to be rock reef in the nearshore zone below the headland

Rock reef along the shoreline appears to extend from around Wenonah Head to Hungry Head;

The Bellinger River and its northern and southern training walls, which were constructed between 1890 and 1905. While sand bars (and thus longshore sediment transport) are now observed bypassing the training walls, the shoreline has realigned to the training wall features.

Tuckers Rocks, which is a series of rocks and reef within the surfzone toward the northern end of North Beach, and forms the boundary of the LGA. North Beach extends several hundred metres further north to Bundageree Head.

B.3 Wave Climate Wave climate in NSW is driven by the major climatic patterns off the coast, which generate waves, namely (Short and Trenaman, 1992; Short, 2007):



Tropical cyclones (November to May), tracking towards the Tasman Sea (usually well offshore of the coast) that may generate north easterly waves;

East coast cyclones (typically May, June and July), said to generate the strongest winds, heaviest rainfall and largest waves experienced on the NSW Coast. These small intense storms may form anywhere along the coast, generating waves from south easterly to easterly directions;

Mid-latitude cyclones (occur throughout the year particularly March to September) form in the Southern Ocean and Tasman Sea and generate the predominant south easterly swell experienced along the coast. Mid-latitude cyclones form closer to the southern Australian continent in winter than summer, thus typically forming higher waves in winter;

The subtropical anticyclone produces fine, warm weather on the NSW coast, and particularly during summer, may generate weak north east to easterly swells.; and

Onshore sea breezes forming in summer on hot days (as the land heats faster than the ocean, causing hot air to rise over the land and cooler air from the ocean to move in to replace it), which when persistent over days may generate weak north east to east wind waves.

Based upon analysis of recorded wave data for Coffs Harbour, Byron Bay and Sydney, the highest waves at Bellingen occur from May to July, with the lowest wave heights in spring, and this reflects the dominance and overlap of the wave generation sources outlined above.

Wave direction is predominantly south east throughout the year, as relates the persistent occurrence of mid latitude cyclones year round. Wave direction become much more dominantly east to east-north-east during summer, when tropical cyclones and north-east wind generation patterns occur.

The dominance of south easterly waves along the NSW coast is an important mechanism in the generation of northerly directed longshore sediment transport (also called littoral drift).

B.3.1 Wave Climate Variability Throughout the wave record, the predominant wave direction has remained south east along the NSW coast, however, there are subtle shifts in the wave climate (wave height, wave direction) between years and even decades that relates to the intensity and frequency of storms (affecting wave height) and storm generation sources (affecting wave direction).

Variability in the wave climate is to be expected as the waves are generated by the larger climatic patterns. Variability in Australia’s (land-based) climate over inter-annual periods (2 – 7 years) is known to be related to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and not surprisingly there is correlation between ENSO and wave climate variability over inter-annual cycles. Climate variability at decadal time scales (10-30 years) is also an intrinsic characteristic of the Australian regional climate (Power et al., 1999). A period of dramatic erosion and shoreline retreat over the 1950s and 1970s is well documented, since which time a relatively calmer period of beach recovery and lower storminess persisted to around 2007 (BMT WBM, 2011).

Such shifts in wave climate may manifest on the shoreline as a period of erosion or accretion, and variation in the direction and rate of alongshore sediment transport, both within an embayment



(manifesting as “beach rotation”) and between embayments (which can appear as erosion). A series of storms (and associated water levels) over months to years and even decades will have a cumulative effect upon the shoreline, which may result in greater erosion than a single severe storm alone. Periods of higher or lower storminess in the wave climate (and subsequent cycles of erosion and accretion) can be expected to continue in the future.

B.4 Water Levels Elevated water levels during a storm may comprise the following elements:

Barometric pressure set up of the ocean surface due to the low atmospheric pressure of the storm;

Wind set up due to strong winds during the storm “piling up” water onto the coastline;

Astronomical tide, particularly the Highest Astronomical Tide;

Wave set up, which is the super elevation of the water surface due to the release of energy by breaking waves. It is directly related to wave height, so will be greater during storm conditions; and

Wave run up, which is the vertical distance of the uprush of water from a breaking wave on the shore.

It is generally considered that the highest elevated water levels would occur for a limited time only (several hours) around the high tide.

Sea level rise will also contribute to elevated ocean water levels in the future, and has therefore been included in the assessment of coastal inundation at future time periods.

B.5 Longshore Sediment Transport Waves approaching the shoreline from an oblique angle generate currents alongshore which transport sediment. Depending on the prevailing wave direction, the longshore sediment transport may be directed either north or south along the coast. Longshore sediment transport occurs predominantly in the mid to outer surfzone (3 – 12 m depth), diminishing in strength with distance offshore into deeper water.

On NSW beaches, including Bellingen’s coastline, net longshore sediment transport is directed to the north, due to the predominant south east wave climate relative to the general north to south orientation of the coastline. The net northerly transport is considered to be more pronounced in northern NSW because headlands are less common (and so, the current is unimpeded along the shore).

For Bellingen, the regional average longshore sand transport rate was estimated based upon the assessments for the coastlines both north and south. Coffs Harbour (to the north) experiences an average net transport of 75,000 m3/year, while Nambucca (to the south) is estimated to be 60,000 m3/yr. Sensible results were achieved using a regional longshore transport rate of 60,000 m3/yr. within the Bellingen Shoreline Evolution Model. Given the consistency of this value with rates for the shorelines north and south of the region, the actual rate is expected to be of the order of 60,000 m3/yr.



In any one year, even over years to decades, the net regional longshore transport rate may be greater or lower than the average rate due to variability in the wave climate. Wave climate variability may enhance or reduce the longshore transport rate due to slight shifts in wave direction and may affect the bypassing of sediment past headlands and reefs, which typically occurs during higher waves or even storm conditions. This may result in natural periods of accretion and erosion on a beach over extended periods of time (years to decades).

B.6 Cross Shore Transport During storms, increased wave heights and elevated water levels cause sand to be eroded from the upper beach/dune system (often termed ‘storm bite’) and transported in an offshore direction, typically forming one or more shore-parallel sand bars. As the sand bars build up, wave energy dissipation within the surfzone increases and wave attack at the beach face reduces. During calmer weather, sand slowly moves onshore from the nearshore bars to the beach forming a wave-built berm under the action of swell waves. From the berm, wind blows sand to form incipient dunes and foredunes.

Cross-shore transport does not represent a net loss or gain of sand from the overall beach system. While it may take several years, the sand eroded in the short-term during severe storms is returned to the beach and dune by persistent swell waves and wind, and there is overall balance.

B.6.1 Rip Currents Rip currents facilitate the offshore flow of water from the surf zone, which has been delivered by onshore breaking waves. Rip currents are dominant upon high wave energy beaches, such as in Bellingen, and can form at any location along the beach. During large waves, fewer rips form at greater distance apart, however, the currents are wider and stronger. Topographically constrained rip currents form at headlands or adjacent to reefs, to facilitate the offshore flow of water from breaking waves at the headland or reef.

Rip currents contribute to the extent of beach erosion during severe storms both in terms erosion of the upper beach face at the landward end of the current, as well as transporting offshore the sand mobilised by wave breaking.

B.7 Longshore and Cross Shore Transport at Headlands and Other Structures Longshore transport along longer uninterrupted embayments, such as North Beach, tends to be more continuous over time (months, years). Sediment movement past headlands, reefs and man-made structures, tends to occur as episodic ‘slugs’ of relatively large quantities of sand, requiring short term storm events (hours to days) with high wave energy to activate sand transport past the headland or reef, and into the next embayment.

While the average net longshore flow of sand may bypass a headland or reef over a period of years, thus maintaining beach stability, in the short term there is potential for imbalance in the sediment stores on an individual beach. For example, the downdrift beach may appear eroded, as potentially large quantities of sand moved away by longshore transport and bypassed into the next embayment during the storm are not immediately replaced by sand bypassing into the beach from



the updrift embayment. The starvation of sediment from the beach in this instance may appear as short term erosion of the shoreline. For stable embayments, the longshore transport into and out of the compartment is equal over the long term, enabling an overall balance in the cycle of storm erosion and recovery.

B.7.1 Effects of the Construction of the Bellinger / Kalang River Training Walls The entrance to the Bellinger / Kalang Rivers estuary has been constrained by training walls since their construction was completed in 1905. Prior to this, the entrance migrated north and south, roughly between Hungry Head (the present day Urunga Lagoon is a relict entrance channel) and Mylestom to the north. The southern training wall protrudes 50 m seaward from the shoreline, and extends landward inside the estuary mouth for 2km. The northern wall does not protrude into the coastal zone, and in fact is recessed by 400 m compared with the shoreline position of the southern training wall. The northern training wall extends 1.5 km landward along the estuary shoreline.

Unlike other more protrusive training walls in NSW, the Urunga training walls appear to have had a fairly limited impact on the adjacent shorelines, as the shoreline and estuary quickly adapted. The main impact was stabilisation of the entrance in one location that allowed for stability of the shoreline position, promoting contemporary dune growth.

Stabilisation of the river entrance to a single location allowed the Urunga sand mass (North Hungry Head Beach) to stabilise and grow further seaward through the capture of windblown sands. Accretion of sediment against the southern training wall had limited contribution to dune growth, as sediment transport past the training wall commenced fairly quickly. Based upon the construction of the northern training wall some 400 m further landward than the southern training wall, it appears this section of shoreline was recessed prior to the training wall, likely due river outflows. Again, as the coastal system adapted to the training walls fairly quickly, interruption of longshore sediment transport to the shoreline at Mylestom was limited. Likewise, stabilisation of the entrance in one location permitted the stabilisation of Mylestom spit with dune vegetation.

B.8 Bellinger / Kalang River Entrance Shoals Shoals within the entrance have always been a feature of the Bellinger system. Entrance training works did little to modify the formation of the shoals, and dredging was required when the entrance was used for commercial shipping to allow ships to enter.

Over the long term, sediment influx under tides and outflow during floods largely balance each other so that the coastal sediment budget is in equilibrium. The shoals inside the estuary form a short term sink for sediments from the open coast. Shoals form inside the Bellinger and Kalang River entrance as the incoming tidal flows (flood tides) are greater than the outgoing tide (ebb tide) and so the amount of sediment transport in is greater than that transported out of the estuary under typical tidal flows. During floods, the increased river flows from catchment rainfall erode the sediments in the shoals, which are deposited back in the ocean offshore of the river outflow.



B.9 Aeolian (windborne) Sediment Transport Aeolian, or windborne, sediment transport originates from the dry upper beach face and berm and un-vegetated incipient dunes and foredunes, supplying sediment to landward foredunes. Dune vegetation combined with Aeolian transport is the key builder of foredunes, as the vegetation assists to capture and stabilise the windblown sediment. The captured sediment is stored within the active beach system, rather than being transported further landward and removed.

Loss or damage to vegetation on sand dunes, (e.g. the creation of informal tracks by walkers or four-wheel drive vehicles), may initiate sand blowouts and subsequent destabilisation of the dune system. This may have consequences for the retention of sediment within foredunes and therefore, the protection available to beaches during periods of erosion by waves and high water levels.

Historically there have been issues relating to aeolian sediment transport in Bellingen. During the 1950s, concerns were raised over the perceived siltation of the river channel immediately landward of Mylestom spit. Sand blown from the unconsolidated dunes on Mylestom spit did deposited in the channel, but was then periodically eroded during floods and deposited back offshore, forming a closed system. To address concerns however, the then Public Works Department Soil Conservation Service advised that, rather than dredging the channel, vegetating the dunes would capture and prevent sediments from blowing into the channel. An extensive vegetation program was undertaken with much success, and today, Mylestom spit is heavily vegetated.

During the 1970s, it was reported that Aeolian transport was causing in significant volumes of sand to migrate into a number of homes that are adjacent to the dunes at the end of Johnson Street, Mylestom. Stabilisation of the dunes with vegetation resolved the problem, as sand drift problems have not been reported since (pers. comm., Ian Turnbull, formerly Bellingen Shire Council).

B.10 Climate Change The key climate change impact of relevance to the assessment of future coastal hazards is sea level rise. Previously, the NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement prescribed benchmarks of 0.4 m and 0.9 m above 1990 mean sea level by 2050 and 2100 should be used in all coastal assessments (DECCW, 2009). These benchmark levels were used in the assessment of coastal hazards for Bellingen (BMT WBM, 2012). While the NSW Sea Level Rise Policy Statement has since been repealed, the benchmark levels remain the best available projections for sea level rise on the NSW coast.

For other influences of climate change on coastal processes, McInnes et al. (2007) provide the latest projections for impacts upon wave climate (height and direction) and storm surge. The projections for changes in wave height are too uncertain, and for wave direction, the projections remain within the natural variability of the wave climate at present. Therefore, investigation of climate change impacts to wave climate was not pursued for Bellingen at this time.

Modelling by McInnes et al. (2007) suggested a minor change (-3 to +4%) in the height of storm surge water levels, which may add peak ocean water levels and resulting coastal inundation. The potential minor increase suggested by McInnes et al. (2007) was utilised in the coastal inundation assessment for Bellingen (BMT WBM, 2012).



B.11 Beach Erosion and Recession Hazard BMT WBM (2012) assessed the hazard of beach erosion as the potential landward shift in the shoreline over the short to medium term, in response to both short storm events and the longer periods of beach change driven by wave climate variability over years to decades. Unlike permanent recession, the response to short term storm events and medium term wave climate variability does not represent a permanent loss of sediment from the coastal system, but may have dramatic effects on the shoreline position over that time.

The severity of beach erosion during any one storm is dependent on wave height, elevated water level and preceding beach condition (i.e. if the beach is accreted or eroded prior to the storm). Sequential storms therefore may produce greater erosion than a single, larger storm. The series of storms may be part of a medium term (decades) period of enhanced storminess, with various wave directions and heights.

Geomorphology is also important, as depending upon the orientation of the coastline relative to the direction of an incoming storm, the beach may either experience unimpeded wave power, or may be shadowed and protected from incoming wave energy. Likewise, orientation will also determine the direction and strength of longshore currents, and which may promote erosion at the ends of beaches (even where they are not experiencing the full extent of wave energy). Over the medium term, geomorphology will affect the rate of regional longshore sediment transport along and between embayments that may manifest as erosion at the ends of beaches, and will affect cross shore transport (i.e. offshore transport during storms, and onshore transport during lower energy periods).

BMT WBM (2012) analysed photogrammetric data to determine the most landward position of the beach in the historical record, and to determine the likelihood of eroded shoreline positions that may recur in the future (i.e. beach erosion not including the influence of sea level rise or climate change). Without the need to define the storm wave height, water level, beach state etc. over the short or medium term, the photogrammetric data is instead used to investigate the average and most landward position of the shoreline in the historical record. This forms a more reliable basis for estimating likely beach erosion for planning purposes than attempting to quantify the storm and beach state parameters without suitable data.

In accordance with a risk based approach, the historical data was used to estimate a range of ‘probable’ or likely beach erosion extents. This approach considers the uncertainty involved in estimating beach erosion, and enables consideration of conditions for which there is no recorded data. Beach erosion estimates for the immediate time period were applied at future time periods, as there is as yet no reliable data regarding the influence of climate change on the future wave climate. The approach to defining the likelihood of beach erosion is detailed in Section 2.2.2.

Mapping of the beach erosion hazard also encompassed the coastal entrance hazard. Historical data demonstrated that entrance berms have been eroded frequently in the past, thus hazard lines were drawn assuming entrances were eroded and open.

Shoreline recession is defined as a permanent loss of sediment from the coastal system over the long term. The beaches of Bellingen were not found to be experiencing shoreline recession over the long term to present.



In the future, shoreline recession is expected to manifest as a result of sea level rise, as discussed below. Recession due to sea level rise is discussed below.

B.11.1 Shoreline Evolution Model for Future Recession Estimates With a higher water level, waves act upon a higher part of the shoreline and initially erode that section of shoreline, with the formation of the beach berm and incipient dunes then occurring further landward in response to the higher water level.

BMT WBM’s Dean Patterson developed a Shoreline Evolution Model (SEM) (as part of his research based PhD at the University of Queensland). The model is the first of its kind able to predict shoreline evolution in response to sea level change and / or changes in shoreline structure, such as the construction of training walls at Urunga. The model includes regional longshore transport, onshore transport, and internally calculates both longshore and cross shore sediment transport driven by wave time series. The model includes the effects of natural coastal structures such as headlands and reefs in determining the response of the shoreline to rises in sea level. The SEM provides a significant advance on the coarse, first-order approximation with the Bruun Rule of 1962, as it caters for the three dimensional structure of the coastline and sediment transport.

The model results for the entire Bellingen coast with sea level rise indicated the following.

The model suggests typically 50 to 70 m of recession due to sea level rise by 2100. This is within the range of recession that would be calculated with a simple Bruun Rule approach for Bellingen.

The model results suggest that the high hind dunes may play an important role in supplying sediment with sea level rise. Model results show an initial accretion of the shoreline adjacent to the training wall on North Hungry Head Beach with sea level rise. Likewise, the rate of recession of the southern end of North Beach is initially subdued. This is apparently a result of sediment supply into the surfzone from the erosion of high dunes (6-9 m in height) present along the shoreline south of Hungry Head.

Otherwise, it is apparent that the Urunga training walls do not significantly impede sediment transport with sea level rise.

Other parts of the NSW coast modelled with the SEM have demonstrated an enhanced rate of recession at the southern ends of beaches due to sea level rise (as the greater water depths at updrift headlands means that greater wave energy is required to transport sediment past the headland) and a reduced rate of recession at the northern ends of beaches (due to the longshore supply of sediment being impeded / trapped by the adjacent downdrift headlands). This phenomenon was less evident in the model results for Bellingen, likely due to the more easterly orientation of the shoreline and less pronounced headlands. It is also likely that the enhanced sediment supply from eroding hind dunes enables sediment bypassing of headlands and other structures to recommence more quickly in response to the rise in sea level.

For future time periods, the hazard of recession due to sea level rise was added with the beach erosion hazard. Mapping of a combined beach erosion and recession hazard for future time periods again adopted a ‘likelihood’ approach, including consideration of a higher than predicted sea level rise as ‘Worst Case’ scenarios



B.12 Coastal Inundation The main impact of the coastal inundation hazard refers to the inundation of estuary foreshores, lake and lagoon foreshores (closed or open) and low lying back beach areas hydraulically connected to the ocean. The elevated ocean levels cause inundation by either propagating into entrances or acting as a tailwater level precluding outflow from the creeks (such as during rainfall and flooding in the catchment), and this results in similarly elevated water levels within the creeks, rivers and lagoons.

Elevated water levels during a storm, which may result in coastal inundation, comprise of: barometric pressure set up; wind set up; astronomical tide; and wave set up. Sea level rise will contribute to elevated ocean water levels in the future, and has been considered in the assessment of the coastal inundation hazard.

The approach to hazard definition again considered the likelihood of different coastal inundation extent was applied. Ocean water levels alone (i.e. without a catchment rainfall event) would be attenuated through the estuary entrance and channels upstream, resulting in a lower estuary water level. However, a ‘bath tub’ approach was used to map the coastal inundation hazard, as this approximates the impact of ocean water levels acting as a tailwater condition during flooding from catchment rainfall (which may fall as part of the same storm that produced the high ocean water levels) resulting in similarly high water levels within the estuary.

Wave breaking processes on the shoreline will cause wave run-up onto the beach face and during elevated water levels, wave run up may overtop dune crests. Wave overtopping at an extreme level during a storm is likely to occur for a limited time (several hours) around the high tide. Wave overtopping occurs in combination with beach erosion, and may contribute to erosion, and so, was assumed to be captured within the beach erosion hazard zone. Wave overtopping by 2050 and 2100 cannot be reliably estimated as it is unknown where the shoreline will be, at what height dune or other barriers will be, or the slope of the future nearshore zone and dune, all of which contribute to the height of wave run up and volume of overtopping.

B.13 Coastal Entrances The coastal entrance hazard refers to existing and future berm height and closure characteristics of coastal lagoons such as Dalhousie and Oyster-McGrath Creeks, which may modify the extent of inundation in back beach areas during closed entrance conditions. It was not possible to assess a range of probable berm heights as there was no reliable data for the creeks. Assumptions regarding a ‘Worst Case’ (rare) scenario were derived, and are described in Section 2.2.4.1.

For the typically open Bellinger /Kalang river entrance, the entrance does not appear to have any bedrock constraint within the entrance channel, therefore, it is likely that the entrance area will move upward and landward in response to sea level rise, but remain similarly open as at present. Sea level rise will cause a corresponding increase in mean water levels within the Bellinger / Kalang estuary through the open entrance. As such, tidal water levels shall penetrate further into the estuary, and there may be changes to flow velocities and sediment transport within the river channels associated with this. There is likely to be an enhanced extent of inundation at foreshore



edges, which will require the migration of species to their zone of tolerance to salinity and inundation levels.

Discussion of the potential impact on entrance characteristics from projected changes in rainfall with climate change was given by BMT WBM (2012).

B.14 Sand Drift Hazard Much of the dunal region of Bellingen appears to be well vegetated. Ongoing maintenance of existing dune vegetation provides for the capture of windborne sediments to promote continued accretion and growth of dunes, which provides sediment stores to protect the beach during beach erosion events. Consideration of the recession of dunes with sea level rise is an important consideration for the management of dune vegetation in the future, as discussed in Section 2.2.4.2

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report C-32 Summary of Community Survey Results


Appendix C Summary of Community Survey Results A community survey for Bellingen Coastal Zone was conducted, with hard and electronic copies of the survey being distributed to a wide range of identified stakeholders. The survey was also made available to the broader community online, via the Council website.

The survey was designed to gather information about how the community uses the beaches in Bellingen Shire. The information collected will assist Council in designing (and replacing) public facilities appropriate to the needs of the community.

The survey was also designed to gather information about what the community values about the coastal zone, what they would like to retain as is, and what they would like to change to improve the value of the beaches. On face value, these questions may not appear to directly relate to coastal hazard management, however, understanding the ways in which the community use and value the beach is essential input for determining the appropriateness of particular management options for the BSC beaches. For example, if the community values naturalness and a lack of development, it is likely to be inappropriate to consider hard engineering structures such as seawalls and groynes.

Over 30 responses were received, and the responses are summarised below.

C.1 Values A range of community values were noted in the survey (refer to Figure C-1).

Both the beaches in Bellingen Shire and the recreational opportunities that the coastal zone provides were found to be the most valued coastal assets by the community. All beach locations within the Shire received notable mentions in the survey responses. Recreational activities found to be most popular include walking & running; surfing; picnicking; and sightseeing & nature appreciation. Swimming, fishing and playing with children were also well represented within the survey responses.

Figure C-1 Community Values regarding the Bellingen Coastal Zone



Much support was also noted for a range of additional values, notably including the aesthetic values and naturalness of the coast (in general), as well as the coastal vegetation habitats and wildlife. Community facilities and public access opportunities were highly regarded. Cultural heritage, presence of threatened species and commercial opportunities were also noted.

C.2 Issues There was a mostly equal weighting between the range of issues identified as important by the community. These included:

coastal erosion (and accretion) impacting public access to the beach

environmental values threatened by beach use

peak holiday recreational usage of facilities

threats from sea level rise (erosion and inundation) on coastal dunes and foreshore reserves

conflict between land users

public access ways and facilities quality and maintenance

conflict between beach and waterway users

Specific mention was given to issues including: an apparent lack of and / or inadequate community facilities to accommodate beach / river use; dogs on beaches; and 4WD on beaches (both for and against).

C.3 Vision

C.3.1.1 What community want to kept the same about the coast Areas that the community want to keep the same about the coast are shown in Figure C-2.

Figure C-2 Community vision regarding what they want retained on the coast



There is considerable support by the community to retain the naturalness of the coastal landscape, and maintain the dune care / weed management efforts that occur at present. There was a general sentiment in the community of wanting everything to be ‘kept the same’; including the beaches themselves; the style and prevalence of the beach access opportunities and facilities; and the character of the coastal settlements as well.

Respondents also noted that they would like to see the following retained in the future: existing walkways; bush setting; general facilities / amenities; education signage / interpretation; dog friendly beach areas; and 4WD access.

C.3.1.2 What community want to see improved on the coast A range of responses were received regarding what improvement the community would like to see on the coast in the future. Some of these included changes to the beachscape (that are relevant to this study) and others focused on the rivers / estuary environment.

Four wheel driving (4WD) on the beaches was a key topic of interest, with people wanting to see the existing policy changed - some wanting a blanket ban on 4WD beach use and others wanting 4WD beach use to be limited and / or better patrolled. There was also a strong response with regards to the improving community and volunteer support for coastal projects, and also improving resources for formal vegetation and weed management on the beaches (notably at Tuckers Rocks and Wenonah Head). There was also some support for the provision of additional, and upgrading of existing natural swimming opportunities in the River / Lagoon; increased education and interpretive signage; and improved (clear and cooperative) governance of the coastal zone.

Figure C-3 Community vision regarding changes they want made to the coast

Other improvements noted include: 4WD beach access (to minimise impacts on dunes); greater estuary foreshore access; improved recreational facilities (generally); policy on coastal retreat; ban on speed boats/jet skis form the river; more picnic facilities; improved walkways / cycleways; reduced road speeds in coastal villages; ban on commercial fishing; and improved water quality in the rivers/estuary.

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report D-35 Risk Workshop Completed Activity Sheets


Appendix D Risk Workshop Completed Activity Sheets

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report D-36


Table D-1 Risk Assessment Workshop Results: Coastal Erosion and Recession

Coastal Erosion and Recession Worksheet Results GROUP 1 - Consequence Levels GROUP 2 - Consequence Levels

Asset Name Asset Type Summary: Workshop

Results Notes Social Environ-

mental Economic Overall Social Environ-mental Economic Overall

Town Centre, Residential and Rural Property

Residential Property (6 Lots - Mylestom)

Residential Development Major

The final consequence rating was increased to become comparable with other CZMP - Risk Assessment outcomes

Insignificant Insignificant Moderate Minor Moderate Insignificant Moderate Moderate


Primary Production Lot Primary Production Insignificant

It was generally agreed that the impacts of erosion/recession were insignificant due to the relatively very small areas of land affected

Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

Forestry Land Forestry Insignificant as above Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant


George Street Minor / Local Roads Moderate Major N/A Moderate Moderate

Winter Street Minor / Local Roads Moderate Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor Insignificant Moderate Minor

Johnson Avenue Minor / Local Roads Moderate Insignificant Insignificant Minor Moderate

Schnapper Beach Road Minor / Local Roads Major

Adopted consequence is higher than noted in workshop because unlike other minor roads, this road provides the only access option and there is minimal (to zero) potential for rerouting.

Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor

Minor roads (no alternate access) Minor / Local Roads Major as above

Unnamed Laneway(s) Laneway Moderate

North Coast Railway Railway Catastrophic

Increased consequence rating to ensure that the risk assessment triggers a management response; also there is restricted potential for rerouting of this major service

Catastrophic Moderate Catastrophic Moderate Major Moderate Major Major

Other Infrastructure







Water Line Water (Mains) services Moderate Insignificant N/A Insignificant Insignificant Major Insignificant Moderate Moderate

Community Infrastructure Hungry Head Holliday Cabins - BSC Reserve

Caravan Park Moderate Major Major Major Major Insignificant Moderate Minor Minor

Bellinger Heads Holiday Park - Urunga

Caravan Park Moderate Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Major Insignificant Moderate Minor Minor

North Beach Surf Club Public Recreation Major Major Minor Moderate Major Major Minor Moderate Major

North Beach Lookout Public Recreation Moderate

A moderate level adopted, as opposed to minor, as communication with council following the risk workshop identified that this community facility is highly valued by the community

Minor Moderate Insignificant Minor

Urunga Fishing Club - Wenonah Public Recreation Major Minor Minor Minor Major Minor Minor Insignificant Minor

Urunga Surf Club - H/Head Public Recreation Major Major Minor Moderate Major Major Moderate Moderate Major

Beach Access Car Parks (various) Car Pak Minor

Watch Tower (Urunga SLSC) Public Recreation Moderate Minor Minor Minor Major Moderate Insignificant Minor Moderate

Walkway - Boardwalk Public Recreation Major Major Minor Moderate Major

Shelter @ Wenonah Public Recreation Moderate

A moderate consequence level adopted, as it is considered that these low cost community facilities can be readily replaced (in comparison with a SLSC for example, which has a high consequence rating)

Minor Minor Minor Major

Toilet Block @ Wenonah

Amenities / Blocks / Sheds Moderate as above Minor Minor Minor Major

Beach Access (various) Beach Access Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate







Beach Access - 4WD (various) Beach Access Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Natural Assets

Beaches Beach and Dunes Major Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Catastrophic / Major

Catastrophic / Major Major Major

Foredune Beach and Dunes Major

Also rated to have a high consequence (as per beach rating), considering that foredunes form an integral part of BSC natural beach systems

Hind Dune Beach and Dunes Moderate


Parks, Reserves and Open Space Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Moderate


Parks, Reserves and Open Space Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate


Parks, Reserves and Open Space Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate

Bongil Bongil National Park

Parks, Reserves and Open Space Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate

Environmental Conservation and Management Zoned Land

Environmental Protection Zone Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate

Coastal Saltmarsh Endangered Ecological Community

Moderate Minor Major Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Minor Moderate

Freshwater Wetland Endangered Ecological Community

Moderate Minor Major Moderate Moderate

Littoral Rainforest Endangered Ecological Community

Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate


Endangered Ecological Community














Themeda Grassland on Headland



Heritage

Natural and Cultural Heritage Local Heritage Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor

Boardwalk Pedestrian Footbridge

Local Heritage Moderate Major Minor Moderate Minor Moderate Insignificant Moderate Moderate

Waterways

Bellinger River (Entrance) Waterways Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate

Bellinger River (i.e. Landwards of Mylestom Spit)

Waterways Catastrophic

Dalhousie Creek Waterways Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate

Oyster Creek Waterways Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate

Other Assets Nominated at Workshop

Beach Access Points Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate



Table A-2 Risk Assessment Workshop Results: Coastal Inundation

Coastal Storm Inundation Worksheet GROUP 1 - Consequence Levels GROUP 2 - Consequence Levels




Town Centre, Residential and Rural Property

Local Town Centre Local Town Centre Major

Major consequence assigned as an average of both groups consequence ratings. A catastrophic rating is not considered warranted, considering the impact is not permanent.

Moderate Minor Major Moderate Catastrophic Major Catastrophic Catastrophic

Ambulance Station and Hospital Community Facilities Catastrophic

Catastrophic consequence assigned, considering loss of access to important services may serve a serious risk to health and wellbeing of community

Various Community Buildings (Schools, Public Hall + Buildings)

Community Facilities Major

Residential Development

Residential Development Major Moderate Minor Major Moderate Catastrophic Major Catastrophic Catastrophic

Rural Property Rural Development Moderate Average of both group results Minor Minor Moderate Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Major


Primary Production Lot Primary Production Moderate

Moderate consequence rating appropriate, as land will recover following periodic flooding event

Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Catastrophic Catastrophic Catastrophic Catastrophic

Forestry Forestry Minor Insignificant Minor Minor Minor General Industry General Industry Moderate Moderate Insignificant Major Moderate Moderate Minor Major Moderate

Infrastructure Infrastructure Minor

Mostly includes land zoned as infrastructure where no built assets exist (e.g. road ride reserves); flood DCP would ensure any future assets built to mitigate flood risk.


Major / Arterial Roads Major / Arterial Roads Major

Would cause major short term disruption to transport network, but the impact is not permanent

Moderate Minor Major Moderate Catastrophic Minor Catastrophic Catastrophic







Minor / Local Roads Minor / Local Roads Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Major Insignificant Major Major North Coast Railway Railway Major Major Minor Major Major Moderate Insignificant Catastrophic Major Other Infrastructure

Water (Mains) Services Water (Mains) Services Minor

Temporary flooding of water services unlikely to impact access to water as system is pressurised

Minor Minor Minor Minor Catastrophic Moderate Catastrophic Catastrophic

Sewer Pump Station - Sewer Services

Sewer Pump Station - Sewer Services Major

Temporary loss of sewer services is considered to result in a greater impact than loss of stormwater

Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Catastrophic Moderate Catastrophic Catastrophic

Sewer Line - Sewer Services

Sewer Line - Sewer Services Major

Temporary loss of sewer services is considered to result in a greater impact than loss of stormwater

Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Catastrophic Moderate Catastrophic Catastrophic

Wastewater Treatments Works

Wastewater Infrastructure Major

Stormwater Drainage Services

Stormwater Drainage Services Moderate

Temporary loss of stormwater services is considered to be inconvenient, but not a major consequence

Minor Minor Minor Minor Catastrophic Moderate Catastrophic Catastrophic

Community Infrastructure Hungry Head Holliday Cabins - BSC Reserve Caravan Park Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Major Moderate

Boat Ramp Public Recreation Insignificant Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

Car Parks (various) Car Park Insignificant

Public Recreation - various (Various Sports Grounds)

Public Recreation - various (Various Sports Grounds)

Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor

Private Recreation Private Recreation Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Amenities / Blocks / Sheds

Amenities / Blocks / Sheds Minor

Beach Access (+/- 4WD)

Beach Access (+/- 4WD) Minor

Natural Assets







Beaches Beach Insignificant Minor Minor Minor Minor Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

Foredune and Hind Dune Beach and Dunes Insignificant


Parks, Reserves and Open Space Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor


Parks, Reserves and Open Space Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor

Jagun Nature Reserve Parks, Reserves and Open Space Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor

Bellingen Shire Council Reserve (unnamed)

Parks, Reserves and Open Space Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor

Environmental Conservation and Management Zoned Land

Environmental Protection Zone Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor

Coastal Saltmarsh Endangered Ecological Community Minor Minor Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Major Moderate

Freshwater Wetland Moderate Periodic salt water inundation likely to impact of functioning of freshwater ecosystem


Endangered Ecological Community Moderate Minor Major Minor Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Moderate


Endangered Ecological Community Minor

Periodic salt water inundation not likely to impact of functioning of flood adapted coastal EEC

Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Major Moderate


Endangered Ecological Community Minor as above Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Major Moderate

Heritage Built Items - Heritage Built Items - Heritage Moderate Minor Minor Minor Minor Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Moderate Urunga Breakwater & Training Walls Built Items - Heritage Insignificant

Landscape/Vegetation Items - Heritage

Landscape/Vegetation Items - Heritage Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

Cultural Items - Heritage Cultural Items - Heritage Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Minor Minor Minor







Waterways

Dalhousie Creek Waterways Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor Minor Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

Oyster Creek Waterways Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor Minor Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

* not located in Dalhousie or Oyster Creek Hazard Zone

Waterways - Rivers, Lagoons Insignificant Minor Moderate Minor Minor Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant

Other Assets Nominated at Workshop Caravan Parks (Long term residential impacts)

Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate

Italicised assets in above table are those not located in Dalhousie or Oyster Creek catchments (and thus not relevant to the CZMS / CZMP); these items were assessed in the Coastal Risk Assessment workshop and are presented here so that this data may be used in the subsequent Bellinger/Kalang River Estuary Risk Assessment Study

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report E-44 Coastal Management Options


Appendix E Coastal Management Options This appendix details the list of management options that were considered for the Bellingen Shire Coastal Zone (as summarised in Table E-1, below).

Table E-1 Coastal Management Options Considered for the Bellingen Shire Coastal Zone

Coastal Management Options Page Treats Erosion & Recession?

Treats Coastal Inundation?

Monitoring E-45

Integration of CZM Planning within Council E-47

Asset Management Planning E-49

Audit of Existing Council Built Assets E-51

Geotechnical Assessment of Depth to Bedrock E-53

Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation E-55

Heritage Management (Aboriginal and Non-Indigenous) E-56

Community Education E-57

Coastal Hazards Development Controls E-58

LEP Review and Rezoning E-64

Land Acquisition E-65

Buy Back / Lease Back E-67

Sacrifice / Abandon Land or Assets E-69

Relocate Assets E-71

Redesign or Retrofit E-73

Dune Management E-75

Habitat Management E-77

Beach Access Management E-78

Beach Scraping E-80

Beach Nourishment E-81

Seawalls E-83

Artificial Breakwaters E-85

Groynes E-87



Monitoring Conduct long-term baseline monitoring and event based monitoring following storm erosion and inundation events.

Type of Option No Regrets / Preliminary Action: Existing Development

Details Monitoring can be conducted for multiple purposes with regards to managing coastal risk.

The general approach adopted for the management of existing assets and infrastructure at risk is to wait until the risks have materialised to a level that is no longer considered tolerable (i.e. it reaches a ‘trigger’ level) before acting. Monitoring of key indicators is therefore necessary in order to determine when the ‘trigger’ has been reached.

Monitoring of beach profiles and volumes at Bellingen is necessary to determine likely beach erosion extents in response to storms and to identify any underlying recession signals. In addition, monitoring of triggers at specific assets should be undertaken and reviewed regularly to determine when a trigger is reached.

The results of monitoring should be published, for example, in yearly State of the Environment reports and with reviews of the CZMP (every 5 – 10 years). When the CZMP is reviewed, monitoring results also provide suitable data to re-run the risk assessment and revise management responses if the risk level changes (i.e. an increase or decrease in level of risk) or where a management action has not been effective.

Both a baseline and event-based monitoring is recommended:

Survey profiles should be established at regular intervals (~100 m) along key section of foreshore and/or in front of significant assets (e.g. surf clubs). The profiles must run perpendicular to the beach/shoreline with regular survey points measured to the waterline (refer to TASMARC Survey Instructions – Levelling (2012) for example guidance). Preferably, profile measurements should coincide with the existing photogrammetry profiles available for Bellingen (refer to BMT WBM, 2012).

For asset monitoring (e.g. SLSC’s), the survey profile data should be used to calculate the distance between the erosion escarpment and the asset. Monitoring of triggers at specific assets should be immediately analysed upon collection of beach survey data, to determine if and when a trigger is reached.

The beach profile monitoring should be augmented with 2-3 yearly LiDAR data collection runs (priority) and 1-2 year aerial photography (secondary). The survey profiles can be used to extract topographic information from both datasets, for comparison with the land based surveys.

Initially, surveying of profiles every 6-12 months plus after storms is recommended. Depending upon the trends identified in the monitoring, the regularity for profile surveys could be reduced to storm event only (i.e. offshore Hs > 3 metres), with LiDAR processed to provide baseline monitoring.

Monitoring of erosion escarpment



Community based educational monitoring is also recommended:

There is opportunity to utilise monitoring programs as a community education tool. This can be done by placing visible survey markers (e.g. posts or stakes with signage), or utilising excising coastal structures, to enable the community to see the changes to the beach through natural seasonal and storm fluctuations, and sea level rise induced recession in the future.

Photography should be utilised to help with this program. It is recommended that Council conduct photo monitoring of key prominent foreshore structures that are risk from erosion and recession, including the Hungry Head SLSC watch tower and the Wenonah Head Shelter Shed. Photos should be taken from the same aspect, on a yearly basis (but preferable every 6-12 months plus after storms). These photos should be stored on a Council managed database that is accessible to the public. Overtime, this photo database would enable effective public educational material to be created. For example, this could include signage at beaches or information documents on the Council website. Council should also consider engaging and subsequently facilitating a local high school(s) to help with this task, thus maximising the education output of the exercise.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Monitoring provides essential data regarding coastal processes, to assess the likelihood of coastal impacts particularly at key beaches / assets (for triggers).

Monitoring may be costly and time consuming

At the time for review of the CZMP, monitoring results will provide key data to re-run the risk assessment to determine changes to risk levels (increase or decrease) and revise risk treatment.

Monitoring can inform effectiveness / appropriateness of management actions to manage coastal risks over time

Monitoring as an education tool, may help the community accept future tough management decisions that Council undertake.

Potential Applications Data Collection and Adaptive Management based monitoring

Council wide LiDAR, every 2-3 years and aerial photographs every 1-2 years.

Regular beach profile monitoring, focusing on erosion scarps at Wenonah Head and Hungry Head to inform future coastal management decisions

Monitoring the condition of beach access ways after storms

Educational – photograph monitoring

Hungry Head SLSC watch tower

Wenonah Head shelter shed



Integration of CZM Planning within Council Ensuring that coastal hazards are considered and incorporated into other Council planning and works activities, such as PoMs, REFs, masterplans, and facilitated through internal education.

Type of Option No Regrets / Preliminary Action: Existing and Future Development

Details This strategy involves the following actions:

Conduct internal BSC training to educate the different BSC departments about coastal hazards zones and the CZMP, to support greater consideration of coastal hazards in BSC planning, engineering works and other activities;

Consider coastal hazard zones and timeframes in the implementation, preparation and revision of Community & Crown Land Plans of Management, Masterplans and DCPs;

Consider coastal hazards for BSC works not requiring development consent (e.g. SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 activities), and Part 5 assessments (e.g. REFs); and

Consider coastal hazards when planning new infrastructure, conducting strategic planning (e.g. designing new road networks, sewer networks), at the early stages of planning (i.e. prior to preparation of development applications).

Consideration for hazards could be facilitated through an internal BSC checklist or guideline for exempt developments, masterplan and PoM preparation, REFs, and so on.

Now that coastal hazard zones have been mapped and a CZMP is being implemented, all future planning activities by BSC should consider the hazard extents and timeframes prior to specifying actions within such plans. Further, the coastal hazard DCP chapter (see Coastal Hazard Development Control option) will contain relevant advice in preparing PoMs or Masterplans. For example, depending on the expected life of a facility it may or may not be appropriate to specify construction of that facility within a 2050 hazard area in a Masterplan or PoM.

Likewise, it is important that potential coastal hazards impacts are part of the decision making process for works undertaken by BSC where development consent is not required (for example, works under SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, or environmental assessments such as REFs). This is also the case for strategic planning and major infrastructure design, particularly for major upgrades or new additions to road, sewer, stormwater networks and so on.



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Easy to implement as the hazard information is already available to BSC

Low coast option, as conducted as part of normal BSC activities

Ensure that funds are not ill spent in at risk locations

Potential Applications

Most Suited

All of Council Assets, including:

larger Council assets such as roads, stormwater infrastructure, sewer and water infrastructure, buildings; and

small Council assets such as car parks, beach viewing platforms, amenities etc.



Asset Management Planning Identify and document the risk (low to high), type of hazard (erosion or inundation) and timeframes for impact (immediate, 2050, 2100) for all coastal assets in Councils Asset Management Plan. Account for such coastal risks when prioritising asset maintenance and replacement.


Details Councils Asset Management Plan shall be updated to make note of which assets lie within a coastal hazard area, detailing: the type of hazard i.e. erosion / recession, or inundation; and the estimated risk over each timeframe (i.e. immediate, 2050, 2100). This information shall then be included as part of prioritising asset replacement and developing maintenance schedules. In this manner, the most appropriate management action is implemented at the time of asset replacement or, asset replacement may be brought forward where impacts are imminent.

Any indicative management actions that are specified in the CZMP should be noted upon the Asset Management Plan, for inclusion in asset replacement calculations. The Asset Management Plan shall also include outcomes from the Audit of Existing Council Assets option (see below) that will further identify appropriate management for assets, i.e. “relocate”, “redesign”, “relocatable”, or “manage to fail”. For example, local roads that are specified as sacrificial by the CZMP/Audit would be noted as “manage to fail”.

At the present time, the management of assets does not take into consideration the risk to an asset from coastal hazards when prioritising asset replacement or maintenance, nor are replacement assets flagged as requiring redesign to accommodate coastal hazards. Implementing this action will be particularly important for the larger, more costly assets such as stormwater infrastructure, sewer and water infrastructure and public buildings, where sufficient prior planning (e.g. 3 – 10 years and sometimes more) is required to secure adequate funding for asset replacement.

Maintenance for assets in the short term prior to sacrifice / relocation (e.g. to provide continued services to residences) must avoid the use of hard protection works (e.g. dumping of rock, use of concrete) that will negatively affect beach amenity. The requirement for use of soft protection works (e.g. geotextile sand bags) should also be noted in the Asset Management Plan.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Easy to implement as the hazard information is already available to Council



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Enables coastal hazard to be flagged in Councils decision making processes

Ensures funds are not ill spent in at risk locations / assets

This preliminary step is required prior to understanding best futures management approach (i.e. redesign, relocate, manage to fail)


Most Suited

All of Council Assets, including:

larger Council assets such as roads, stormwater, sewer and water infrastructure and buildings;

small Council assets such as car parks, beach viewing platforms, amenities.

Recommended

This option should also be facilitated by Council (including provision of hazards information) to be undertaken by the relevant asset owners that may be affected by coastal hazards, most notably: Australian Rail Track Corporation who manages the North Coast Railway line.



Audit of Existing Council Built Assets Conduct audit of infrastructure (services, local roads), public buildings and other assets to determine future action (relocate or redesign/retrofit), based upon land availability for relocation, foundation capacity, and location needs of the asset type.


Details This option shall determine the most suitable future action to address coastal risks for Councils assets and specify this in the Asset Management Plan. In addition to including coastal hazards as part of Asset Management prioritisation, it will be important to investigate the constraints upon the site or asset to determine the appropriate replacement option, that being to either:

relocate the asset;

replace the asset in its current location with a redesigned or relocatable asset; or

accept loss of the asset without replacement (i.e. manage to fail).

The audit should also prioritise assessment of assets at extreme/high risk at the immediate timeframe, then at future timeframes, before assessing assets at lower risk.

The replacement option (i.e. “relocate”, “redesign/retrofit”, “replace” or “manage to fail”) should be signalled in the Asset Management Plan, so that appropriate approvals and funding can be sourced well in advance of either the occurrence of a hazard impact or when asset replacement is due. It may also be the case that for some assets consideration of the entire network link will be necessary (e.g. roadways or wastewater network).

In general, it is recommended that relocation of an asset be implemented in preference to other options. This is because relocation permits the beach to naturally retreat so that the sandy beach is retained. Furthermore, relocation of an asset does not impact upon or constrain the approach to managing adjacent assets, which may include private assets, public reserves, important habitat or the beaches themselves. For less costly assets such as beach viewing platforms, accepting that the structure is sacrificial or relocatable (after or before a storm event, respectively) may also be cost effective solution that permits future beach retreat and does not constrain options for adjacent assets.

Constraints upon the replacement option will include:

the availability of land in an alternative location for the asset (particularly for roadway assets) or;

North Beach SLSC, carpark and beach access facilities



the need for proximity to the coast for the asset (e.g. stormwater outlet);

the foundation capacity of the site, to provide suitable foundations to withstand erosion;

the floor level height required to withstand wave overtopping;

the ability to provide the same service from the asset with a relocatable instead of permanent structure; and

The cost of the structure such that damage can be accepted and a replacement structure built, as a cost effective alternative solution compared with providing foundation stability (for example, this is likely to be a suitable approach for a beach viewing platform etc.).

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Provides preliminary information required to determine more substantial management actions (i.e. relocate vs. retrofit).

Low cost option, which may save money for future investments.

Ensures substantial public investments are not made in high risk locations


Most Suited Wastewater, stormwater and water infrastructure assets at high or extreme risk by 2050,

Substantial / expensive public buildings / assets at high or extreme risk by 2050 (e.g. roads), and

Those assets within the 2050 ‘Best Estimate’(i.e. unlikely) erosion and recession zone (i.e., at all risk levels) likely to be replaced or built within next 10 years that have a long expected lifespan (> 50 years).

Possibly Suited Where Council’s resources are available, the audit could be extended to include those assets at high or

extreme risk by 2100 (refer risk register tables).



Geotechnical Assessment of Depth to Bedrock Conduct detailed geotechnical assessment for depth to bedrock where assets located at toe of cliffs/bluffs, to investigate stability of areas and determine foundation capacity potential of sites.

Type of Option No Regrets / Preliminary Action: Existing and Future Development

Details A key limitation of any hazards assessment is that there is typically little to no detailed geotechnical information regarding depth to bedrock landward of beaches. Bedrock at suitable depth may either constrain the extent of erosion, or provide for suitable foundations for existing or future structures.

This option shall involve a geotechnical assessment to determine the depth to bedrock in areas shown to be at risk of erosion and recession by 2100, focusing on areas containing built assets fronting coastal cliffs and bluffs. Investigation should focus on the Hungry Head – Urunga SLSC precinct, and also extend to the Wenonah Head – fishing club precinct, if resources permit. The study shall determine a recession maximum limit, based on the subsurface bedrock elevation, as well identify other substrates that may provide suitable foundation capacity to withstand erosion and recession hazards.

The outcomes of the study would be used to identify which existing assets determined to be at risk in this study are indeed at risk (or otherwise), and also to determine the area of buried bedrock (or other substrate) at a suitable depth that would provide foundation stability (such as piles to bedrock as a retrofit to an existing structure or as part of construction of a replacement structure). The geotechnical information shall also be used to constrain hazard extents during future revision of the hazard estimates, which is intended to be done every 5 to 10 years as part of the CZMP review.

This assessment should ultimately allow Council to determine the most suitable medium to long-term option for the Hungry Head (and potentially Wenonah Head) precincts. This geotechnical assessment shall not replace the need for site-specific geotechnical assessments to accompany development applications in coastal hazard areas, as per the requirements of a Coastal Hazards DCP. The assessment shall, however, provide a useful tool for use by Council, to cross-check against the recommendations of such site-specific geotechnical assessments.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Provides preliminary information required to determine more substantial management actions (i.e. relocate vs. retrofit).

Bedrock outcropping through beach at Hungry Head may extend landwards to elevations that provide stability to the Urunga SLSC and access road



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Low cost option, which may save money for future investments.

Provides enhanced information for use in defining the erosion and recession hazard.


Most Suited Hungry Head precinct

○ This assessment should focus both on the sites where the existing built assets are located, but also extend to the slopes and toe of the headland elsewhere to enable potentially suitable relocation sites to be identified; and

○ This may be best achieved through targeted drilling/boreholes, coupled with high resolution geological mapping and geomorphic interpretation.

Possibly Suited Wenonah Head precinct, if Council resources permit.

○ This assessment should focus on the low-lying backbeach area that fronts the Wenonah Head coastal bluff (i.e. the entire fishing club precinct), extending for the coastal cliffs some 250 to 300 metres northwest along the base of the rocky bluff, and extending seaward to the present shoreline; and

○ The geography of Wenonah head is potentially well suited to applying Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) for a depth to bedrock survey. If conducted, the GPR survey should be accompanied by a series of auger/boreholes to ground truth the substrate material and depth measured by the non-invasive survey technique.



Flood Planning for Coastal Inundation Amend the Floodplain Risk Management Study to enable management of coastal inundation flooding events for future development and re-development of existing properties, as appropriate.

Type of Option Avoid/Accommodate/Accept: Existing and Future Development Sites

Details This option includes amending Council’s Floodplain Risk Management Plain, to include areas affected by coastal inundation which are outside the existing flood planning area, so the flood risk within these areas can be managed accordingly.

For Bellingen Shire Council, this amendment should include the revised flood modelling that has recently been completed (various studies). Further, the amended Floodplain Risk Management Plan should clearly document the linkages between the fluvial, estuarine and ocean inundation, and specify the most appropriate policy response.

In the interim, development application made within land that falls within the indicative coastal inundation mapping of Oyster Creek and Dalhousie Creek (but sits outside of the existing flood planning area, as identified in the Floodplain Risk Management Plan) should be assessed with consideration to coastal inundation risk.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Low cost option for community and Council – noting that the initial costs incurred by the property owners for implementing the controls, will be lower than the costs associated with a development being impacted by the hazard.

Flood controls do not address present and future risks to existing properties, unless they become redeveloped.

Ensures that suitable development of flood prone land occurs.

Development controls can be revised in future with continued improvement to inundation hazard modelling.

Potential Applications All coastal / estuarine waterways

Coastal Inundation Hazard at 2100, BSC southern creeks



Heritage Management (Aboriginal and Non-Indigenous) Develop a decision framework for managing Aboriginal and Non-Indigenous Heritage Items discovered / uncovered as a result of coastal hazards.

Type of Option No Regrets / Preliminary Action: Existing and Future Assets

Details In cooperation with local Aboriginal Groups NPWS and OEH, prepare a Decision Framework for managing heritage sites and items that are uncovered by erosion or affected by inundation where such sites are previously unrecorded. Such site (e.g. middens) may become uncovered within Bellingen Shires dune systems as a result of shoreline recession. The plan should provide clear direction as to the consultation and approvals required and options relevant to the type of item. This may include relocating the item, burying the item (for example as is done for midden sites), sacrificing the item or protection the item (as is done for midden sites also), requiring the relevant approvals (e.g. an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1974 where harm to an Aboriginal object or place cannot be avoided). This option therefore requires the following steps:

Consult with Local Aboriginal Groups as to the preferred methods for managing different types of heritage assets (middens, burials, rock/cave art, places of significance, etc.) and

Develop a decision framework giving a clear pathway of action and approvals to manage sites as they are uncovered by hazards impacts.

It is noted that all aboriginal sites are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, whether known or unknown.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Option enables pre-planning and consideration of appropriate management response for different asset types, well in advance of impacts.

Unable to provide preventative / pre-emptive asset management, as assets may not be found until impacts occur.

Enables appropriate actions to be smoothly implemented at the time assets are uncovered.


Most Suited All beach / dune systems in Bellingen Shire

Midden exposed in dune from wave and wind erosion, TAS



Community Education Conduct education activities to inform the community about coastal risks and intended future actions – to build community acceptance and resilience for managing future impacts.


Details To support the implementation of actions within the CZMP, there will need to be ongoing community education about coastal risks and the intended future response. It is important that community understand the risks from coastal hazards, how such risks may change in the future with sea level rise, and how Council and others propose to manage the impacts. Education regarding coastal risks and intended management responses should be repeated frequently (e.g. every 1 – 2 years).

This action supports the overarching approach to implement “no regrets” actions now and delay more difficult or costly actions for when impacts are imminent. There may be many years before impacts eventuate. Over that time, the community should be informed about the risks from coastal hazards, consulted about the costs and benefits of management options, so they understand why particular management action have been selected. This will make tough and/costly actions more palatable for the community. Through education, difficult or costly management actions will have been signalled years in advance, so the community will be better prepared to accept and implement these actions when required.

Ongoing education regarding coastal hazard is required to build the resilience of the community for when impacts occur (see Monitoring). Education enables the community to make their own judgements regarding how they perceive the risk from coastal hazards, and prepare or make decisions accordingly (e.g. selling a property versus choosing to accept the risk many years in advance of the likely impact).

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Improves resilience and preparedness of community for future when impacts do occur.

Improves acceptability of more difficult or costly actions.

Improves the implementation of appropriate options in the future by preparing community (thereby avoiding reactive management decisions)

Potential Applications Entire LGA



Coastal Hazards Development Controls Apply controls to developments (infill, greenfields, re-developments) as appropriate to the expected life of the development and the likely impact from coastal hazards.


Details A Coastal Management Development Control Plan (DCP) is an option to manage existing development and future development, as development applications are made for existing and undeveloped sites. Development applications may consist of either:

complete redevelopment of an existing structure, including subdivision;

major alterations or refurbishments to existing structures; or

subdivision and / or new developments on previously undeveloped land.

The re-development of existing developments offers an opportunity to apply development controls that mitigate or accommodate coastal risks to an extent that is consistent with the expected lifespan of the development and the level of risk over that lifespan.

The Coastal Management DCP is aimed at managing erosion and recession. The backwater inundation component to the Coastal Inundation Hazard can be managed through floodplain development controls, as the hazards are similar in impact. Erosion and recession impacts are different to flooding impacts, and so cannot be managed by existing floodplain controls.

The following recommendations are made for preparing a Coastal Management DCP to manage future and re-developments. The actual format and content of a Coastal Management DCP would be determined by Council at the time of its preparation.

Determine Development Controls applicable to the Level of Risk and Type of Development

The DCP would apply to all land potentially affected by coastal erosion and recession (which may be specified as a Coastal Risk Planning Area that accompanies the Local Environment Plan). Therefore, it is recommended that the criteria specified within the DCP be applicable to the development type and level of risk to the land.

The development controls should relate to the probable hazard extent (i.e. ‘Almost Certain’, ‘Best Estimate, ‘Worst Case’) over the expected lifespan for the proposed development type. Development controls should relate alterations and additions to existing buildings, in addition to re-developments or new developments. For coastal hazards, the likelihood of impact (and so, level of risk) increases over time in relation to sea level



rise. Therefore, the expected life of the development can be used to determine at what timeframe (i.e., immediate (e.g. 2014), 2050 and 2100) the hazard should be applicable to the proposed development. The type of development shall then determine the probability of hazard (i.e. ‘Almost Certain’, ‘Best Estimate, ‘Worst Case’) that is applicable to the hazard. The expected life for particular types of development should be determined by Council. A suggested timeframe and hazard probability for different developments is given in Table E-1.

Given that development controls would apply to the entire Coastal Risk Area, this approach ensures that land is not unnecessarily sterilised, nor is unsuitable land (re-)developed inappropriately. Should residential or other property be damaged during a storm event, the development controls ensure rebuilding of the site is subject to consideration of the probable hazard extent, which may mean that the same type of development is no longer appropriate. Examples for land use categories and the different timeframes and hazard zones applied is given below.

A residential development may be expected to exist on a site for up to +50 years. Therefore, the hazard extents by 2050 would apply. In determining controls, the ‘Best Estimate’ (unlikely) line at 2050 is considered to be the defining line landward of which residential property may be permitted. The ‘Best Estimate’ hazard line incorporates both the potential for storm erosion accounting for rip cells, different wave directions and so on that may occur at any location along a beach plus sea level rise induced shoreline recession based upon the NSW Government’s sea level rise benchmarks.

Essential facilities and infrastructure may also be expected to be on a site for 100+ years and by its very nature needs to be conservatively sited for coastal risks. Therefore, the ‘Worst Case’ (rare) line at 2100 is considered to be the line landward of which development may be permitted without controls. The ‘Worst Case’ line is similar to the Probable Maximum Flood (i.e. PMF) used in flooding, and is thus is an appropriate hazard boundary for ensuring essential services are located beyond potential impact risk area. The only exception to this may be stormwater outlets which by their very nature are located on the shoreline. Consideration for impacts can be included in the structure design.

A surf club is intended to be refurbished with an expected design life of 40 to 50 years, thus the 2050 hazard lines should apply. To ensure that the lifeguarding services are easily and appropriately provided, but that the club can be utilised for other activities (including commercial functions such as function centres, restaurants, cafes and so on), it is recommended that the club house is sited further landward, and supported by lifeguard towers / shed that are relocatable or sacrificial.

Lifeguard towers necessarily must be located close to the shoreline for practical reasons. Such structures can be designed to accommodate the high probability of impact, for example, being designed to be sacrificial (i.e. simple structures that are expected to be damaged, then replaced swiftly when impacts occur) or relocatable (i.e. can be moved prior to a storm event, but also provide power, water and so on). Recreational facilities such as picnic shelters are expected to have a short lifespan. In both cases, the immediate hazard probability zones may apply, rather than the more conservative 2100 estimates.



Table E-1 Suggested Timeframe and Hazard Likelihood for Development Types

Land Use Categories Hazard Timeframe

Examples

Residential 2050 Attached dual occupancy; Bed and breakfast establishment; Boarding houses; Camp or caravan park site – long-term sites only (1); Child care centre; Community facility (other than Essential and Sensitive Facilities); Detached dual occupancy; Dwelling; Dwelling-houses; General store; Group homes; Home industry; Home Occupation; Multiunit housing; and Utility installations (other than Essential Facilities, e.g. non-submersible or readily removed components of sewage pumping stations)

Commercial, Industrial

2050 Abattoir; Brothel; Bulky goods salesroom; Business premises; Entertainment facility; Heliports; Hotel; Industry; Light industry; Medical centre; Motel; Motor showroom; Office premises; Passenger transport terminal; Permanent group home; Place of worship; Recreation facility; Restaurant; Rural industry; Sawmill; Service Station; Shop; Transport terminal; Vehicle body repair workshop; Vehicle repair station; Veterinary clinic; Veterinary hospital; and Warehouse or distribution centre.

Subdivision 2100 Subdivision of land which involves the creation of new allotments

Essential Community Facilities

2100 Community facility which may provide an important contribution to the notification and evacuation of the community during flood events; Hospitals, SES, Ambulance, Police and Fire Stations.

Sensitive Facilities 2100 Communications facility; Hazardous industry or storage establishment; Offensive industry or Storage establishment; Liquid fuel depot; Educational establishments, Nursing homes, Housing for Aged, Disabled and Special Care Homes, Transitional Group Homes

Concessional Development: Additions/ Alterations/ Extensions

Immediate An addition or alteration to an existing dwelling or building

Recreational and Non-urban

Immediate SLSC buildings; Beach kiosks/ pavilions; Marina; Recreation areas and minor ancillary structures (e.g. toilet blocks or kiosks); Retail plant nursery; Wharfs; Boardwalks

Tourist Related Development

Immediate Camp or caravan site – short term sites (1) only; Ecotourism, Holiday cabins; and Tourist facility

Infrastructure Immediate Infrastructure that is required to provide public utilities to the community such as roads, water and sewer supply, gas, power and communication services.



Table E-2 Example Prescriptive Controls Matrix for Development Types in Difference Hazard Areas

Development Activity Hazard Timeframe

Controls Worst Case (Rare)

Best Estimate (Unlikely)

Almost Certain

Residential (New dwelling) 2050

Floor Level Setback Carpark Structural Soundness Coastal Impact Evacuation Management and design

Commercial, Industrial 2050


Subdivision 2100

Floor Level Coastal Impact Evacuation Management and design

Essential Community Facilities 2100 Not Applicable

Sensitive Facilities 2100 Not Applicable

Concessional Development (Additions/ Alterations/ Extensions)

Immediate


Recreational and Non-urban Immediate


Tourist Related Development Immediate

Floor Level Carpark Structural Soundness Coastal Impact Evacuation Management and design

Infrastructure Immediate Coastal Impact Structural Soundness Management and design

Development not permitted Development permissible with the use of strict design criteria



Specify Assessment or Performance Criteria for the Development (based on Risk Level and Development Type)

A DCP may provide guidance, specific development standards, prescriptive controls or performance criteria for achieving the clause requirements of the Coastal Risk Planning Area that is attached to the LEP. It is recommended that the criteria specified within the DCP be applicable to the development type and level of risk to the land, such as in Table E-2. Example considerations include:

Setbacks for development landward of either a specified hazard zone (e.g. ‘Best Estimate’ hazard line), proposed seawall alignment or other line (e.g. a Foreshore Building Line);

Only temporary or re-locatable structures are permitted to be located in hazard areas seaward of a setback or building line;

Minimum floor levels, and guidance on either filling of land or use of foundation piles to accommodate current and future hazard from inundation;

Maximum floor area for buildings and for alterations and additions;

Foundation capacity requirements, triggering a geotechnical assessment for depth to bedrock, to provide for foundation piles down to bedrock that increase ability of the structure to withstand erosion and wave processes;

Particularly where foundation capacity cannot be provided (based on a geotechnical assessment), alternative/additional criteria that may be applied includes:

o Alternative building design, for structures to be temporary, sacrificial or relocatable, as considered suitable for the type of development (e.g. relocatable structures are likely to be suitable for SLSCs, lifeguard towers, caravan park cabins etc.);

o Alternative locations for the structure (particularly for public assets, or for private assets within property boundaries); and

o Distance-Based Development Approvals, which provides new developments/redevelopments with consent until the eroding shoreline reaches a certain distance to the property, at which point the development may have to be abandoned (to allow retreat). This may apply where the risk over the expected life is high, but development could be accommodated until that time.

The criteria set within the Coastal Management DCP offers a method to control the expansion (or even require a reduction) in development footprints for existing sites applying for redevelopment in high hazard areas. A DCP does not prohibit existing landholders from remaining on their land until such time as an impact occurs. However, the Coastal Management DCP may specify that further expansion of the development footprint (e.g. extensions or renovations, subdivision, change of use) is not permitted, thereby avoiding the intensification of asset values and therefore risk in high hazard areas over time.



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option

Life of developments is prolonged as the development controls ensure development is compatible with the risk level on the land.

May be difficult to implement for redevelopments where owners have an expectation to have the same rights for a new building as they had with the old building.

Applying controls does not affect future ability to retreat from (or protect) properties.

Development controls facilitate a reduction in the intensity of development and therefore risk levels overtime.

The development controls can be revised in the future in line with improved estimation of coastal hazards and level of risk.

The controls facilitate the use of land parcels in an appropriate form until such time as hazard impacts manifest (i.e. land is not unnecessarily sterilised where impacts may not manifest for many years; or rebuilding is not permitted where damage from coastal processes has occurred)

The sandy beach is retained because it can recede naturally

For Distance-based Approvals, the property owners are aware of lifespan and risk to their development, so there is no need for compensation. This is low cost to the general community.

May be difficult for owners to abandon developments with Distance-based approvals when required (e.g. where new owners are not aware of the requirements, where a development has lasted for a long time such that the approval requirements are forgotten, etc.).

Low cost option for general community and Council. Costs for implementing controls are borne by the property owner, but are included as properties are redeveloped, which is likely to be lower in cost than retrofitting or retreating from a development.

Potential Applications Coastal Hazard Development Controls may not be formally suited to Bellingen Shire at present,

considering that no private land is likely to be affected by erosion or recession until after 2050.

Guidance within the Option should however be used by Council internally to facilitate consideration of coastal hazard zones and timeframes in preparation and revision of: PoM, Masterplans, REFs, early stages of planning new infrastructure and any other works not requiring development consent.



LEP Review and Rezoning Retaining existing land use zones or rezone of land to a more appropriate zoning, to ensure the land is not developed inappropriately in the future.


Details At the time that land zones are revised as part of a review of the Local Environment Plan, land that is known to be at high or extreme risk from coastal hazards, particularly where such land is currently vacant, should be rezoned (or existing zoning retained) to Environmental Management, Environmental Conservation, Public Recreation or similar. Rezoning / zoning of vacant lands at risk ensure the land is not considered for development at any time in the future.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option

Avoids inappropriate development of high risk vacant land.

Compensation of existing landholders may be required where rezoned land is not in government ownership.

Low cost option, as is conducted as part of normal Council business.

Reduces the overall level of risk to land by reducing the potential for intensification of land value.


Most Suited During subsequent LEP reviews, the most current hazard information and monitoring data for land should

be used to identify at risk land for rezoning (or to keep an appropriate zoning in place).

Much of Council’s at risk land is appropriately zoned to ensure it does not become inappropriately developed



Land Acquisition Private properties at highest risk are bought at market rates and then demolished to become public land.

Type of Option Planned Retreat: Existing assets

Details This option involves the purchase of private property at risk by Council / State / Federal governments, where funding is made available for purchase. Once the property is purchased, it is demolished and returned to public land, regardless of timeframe before hazards may occur. Acquisition can be voluntary or compulsory. The purchase price shall be based on market value. This means that should the owners wait until erosion impacts manifest before accepting the offer, the purchase price may be lower (for voluntary acquisitions).

The sacrifice of private properties allows beach amenity to be retained because the shoreline can retreat without obstruction. This is the most effective option for retaining a beach over the long term. Furthermore, this option enables owners to be appropriately compensated.

Fortunately for Bellingen Shire, no private properties are likely to be at risk from recession until sometime after 2100.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option The public retains a sandy beach and gains public land Residents and visitors (including tourism industry) benefit from continuing access to sandy beaches

The public (Council / State Govt.) must fund full purchase price up-front This is unlikely to be possible for multiple properties (see Other Considerations)

Private property owners are adequately compensated

Rate payers may consider it unfair to spend public funds on private property

Particularly suitable for individual properties (where adjacent land uses would otherwise be permitted to retreat to retain beach amenity)

Many freehold coastal land owners will never accept the arrangement voluntarily. There is a preference to protect freehold land

Provides a long term solution

Other Considerations The Coastal Lands Protection Scheme has been used to purchase isolated residential blocks but is

predominantly used for rural land repurchase and addition to national park estate.

NSW Government annual funding for the Coastal Lands Protection Scheme and Coastal Management Program is very limited. Typically, the fund is not sufficient for purchase of multiple properties.



This option has been offered in other locations along the NSW coastline with limited success. While the option provides an incentive to relocate outside of the hazard area, coastal land is typically viewed as too valuable and the risks too remote at present.

Potential Applications This option is unlikely to be implemented due to the constraints on State government funding.



Buy Back / Lease Back Private properties at highest risk are bought at market rates, then rented out at market rates, until the hazard impact is imminent. When hazard is imminent, the property is demolished and land returned to the public.

Type of Option Planned Retreat – Existing Assets long term solution

Details This option would involve Council applying for funding through typical mortgage arrangements to acquire affected property(s) at market rates, on a voluntary or compulsory basis. The property would then be leased out at market rates until such time as the hazard impact is imminent. At that time, the development shall be demolished and land returned to Community Land, to enable continued retreat of shoreline and for use by the community. Council would absorb any profit/loss over that period.

By offering the market rate for a property, the purchase price shall be discounted in accordance with the length of time remaining before the property becomes uninhabitable due to erosion. This is necessary because the option is dependent upon Council leasing the property at market rates to assist loan repayments in the period prior to erosion impacts. Therefore, those owners who sell earlier will be better compensated than those who wait until impacts are imminent. The existing owners may lease back their property from Council until the hazard is imminent, and continue to enjoy the benefits of their coastal property without bearing the risk from coastal hazards. A mechanism for enabling Council “first right of refusal” when properties are put on the market (i.e. Council has the first option to purchase the property), would assist in implementation of this strategy.

The sacrifice of private properties allows beach amenity to be retained because the shoreline can retreat without obstruction. This is the most effective option for retaining a beach over the long term. Furthermore, this option enables owners to be appropriately compensated.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option The public retains a sandy beach and gains public land. Residents and visitors (including tourism industry) benefit from continuing access to a sandy beach

The public (Council / State Govt.) must fund full purchase price up-front This is unlikely to be possible for multiple properties (see Other Considerations).

Private property owners are adequately compensated

Rate payers may consider it unfair to spend public funds on private property

Particularly suitable for individual properties (where adjacent land uses would otherwise be permitted to

Many freehold coastal land owners will never accept the arrangement voluntarily. There is a



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option retreat to retain beach amenity) preference to protect freehold land


Other Considerations

State or Federal assistance, such as through providing low interest loans and deposit payments to councils, is required to assist Council in purchase of multiple properties in key location;

Low interest loans would enable the majority of the mortgage repayments to be funded by rental return;

Further negotiations with State and Federal governments, such as through a case study scenario, is required to implement this option on a larger scale / across many properties;

At the present time, this option has not been tested in the context of coastal zone management (although, properties are regularly purchased by RTA and rented out well in advance of highway developments).

Should no action be taken at present, it is likely that State or Federal government funding to assist in the full purchase of properties in the future may not exist, as such funds will be under high demand across the country as sea level rise impacts occur.

Potential Applications This option provides a technically feasible outcome that can cater for environmental provisions and meets community concerns regarding potential future land devaluation as the shoreline starts to recede. For financial reasons, however, this option is unlikely to be practically implemented by Council given limitations on finances and suitable government grant funding.



Sacrifice / Abandon Land or Assets Accept loss of land or assets following the hazard event (i.e., once affected, the assets or land is not replaced or relocated).

Type of Option Planned Retreat: Existing Assets

Details Planned retreat such as by sacrificing the land or assets affected by recession is the most effective option for retaining a beach over the long term. This is because the beach can move landward without obstruction. Repairs and removal of assets as they are damaged forms part of this option, to ensure ongoing public safety and beach access.

This option may be particularly suitable for the following land uses:

Parks, public open space and coastal dunes, as the remaining land is still able to be used even if it is reduced in size through erosion. Existing low cost recreational infrastructure such as picnic shelters, footpaths, BBQs and amenities buildings would be relocated as impacts occur;

Local roads or carparks where alternative routes and access to residential property (and the beach) is available, allowing the road to be lost to erosion (may be suitable for Wenonah Heads, where beach access road could be progressive shortened by recession, but still remain functional as a beach access road);

For creek / lagoon entrances, the impact of erosion and recession due to sea level rise upon the entrance is best managed by allowing the system to respond naturally, without intervention. This will manifest as increasing flood levels behind a closed entrance. Constraints upon entrance changes (e.g. landward migration of the berm) due to surrounding land uses should also be managed; and

Low key public facilities, such as viewing platforms, SLSC watch towers, amenities – such as those located at Wenonah Head and Hungry Head.

Economic analysis has shown that the asset of greatest economic value to a locality is the beach itself (Gillespie Economics, 2011). There are many intangible economic benefits associated with both resident and visitor use of the beach, including cafes, restaurants, kiosks, accommodation and many other activities (e.g. surfing lessons and tours, fishing tours and so on) which all occur adjacent to a beach. Tourism is a particularly important industry for many coastal locations, and most tourism centres around access to and enjoyment of the beach. As such, the cost of sacrificing assets and land adjacent to the beach as the shoreline retreats is far outweighed by the economic as well as social and environmental gains from ensuring a sandy beach is retained.

House intended for demolition after abandonment, USA



Considering that much of Bellingen’s beaches are indeed backed by undeveloped land that includes reserved of varying status, it is considered that the majority of coastal locations would be suitable for this option.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option The sandy beach asset is retained because it can recede naturally

The community may lose other public facilities or land

Residents and visitors (including the tourism industry) benefit from continuing access to a sandy beach

Private landholders are not compensated for the loss of land or property

Particularly suitable for park land and low cost facilities (e.g. access ways, walkways), which are widespread at Bellingen



Most Suited All of Bellingen Shires beach, dune and back beach land, with the exception of the Hungry Head and

Wenonah Head (see below).

Possible Suited Hungry Head and Wenonah Head community precincts (i.e. SLSC and Fishing Club).



Relocate Assets Relocate structure / service / asset outside of hazard zone.

Type of Option Planned Retreat: Existing Assets

Details The relocation of assets allows beach amenity to be retained because the shoreline can retreat without obstruction. This is the most effective option for retaining a beach over the long term.

Relocation will be suitable for:

Easily relocatable structures (e.g. houses on piles);

Assets with a value far lower than the value of beach amenity (e.g. public amenities building);

Locations where it is technically and financially impractical to design a structure to withstand erosion / inundation, for example, for pump stations or water pipelines;

Infrastructure such as stormwater outlets, where the outlet may need to be relocated further landward to avoid ongoing damage from wave action and erosion of surrounding land;

Relocation would be undertaken either:

when an asset needs to be replaced, or

when the hazard impact is imminent (as determined through monitoring), whichever occurs sooner.

Implementing this option when public asset replacement is required enables rejuvenation of a failing asset for the public in combination with the reduction of risk from coastal hazards. This is a “win-win” solution for community. Plus, the cost of mitigating erosion impacts through relocation is shared with the cost of asset replacement. This reduces the overall cost compared with relocating an existing asset that has remaining life / functionality.

Maintenance for roadway or other assets in the short term prior to relocation must avoid the use of hard protection works (e.g. dumping of rock, use of concrete, etc.) that will negatively affect beach amenity. Soft protection works (e.g. geotextile sand bags) are to be utilised.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option The sandy beach is retained because it can recede naturally. A suitable alternative location must exist

Residents and visitors (including the tourism industry) benefit from continuing access to a sandy beach

Private landholders must pay for the relocation of private buildings (and which may not yet need replacement / are still functional)

House being relocated out of hazard area



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option The relocation can mean a brand new building / road / facility in replacement of an old one



Most Suited North Beach Surf Life Saving Club;

Hungry Head SLSC Watch Tower;

Beach access structures, viewing platforms/shelter sheds, amenities and associated facilities; and

Beach car parks.

Possibly Suited Urunga (Hungry Head) Surf Life Saving Club; and

Hungry Head Access Road.

Not Suited Wenonah Head fishing club precinct, due to lack of alternate sites that would provide continued function

(boat launching) of existing area in medium to long term.



Redesign or Retrofit Make modifications to an existing structure or rebuild a structure with suitable design to withstand hazard impacts.

Type of Option Accommodate – short of long term, existing assets

Details Where relocation of a structure is not possible due to site constraints, further redesign or retrofit options may need to be considered. Retrofit refers to modifications to an existing structure, while redesign refers to replacement of an existing structure in its present location with a structure that has been designed to withstand coastal hazard impacts. Thus, the redesign or retrofit should include provisions for managing wave overtopping and inundation, as well as erosion and recession impacts.

This option is not suitable for residential dwellings at high risk in the immediate timeframe (i.e. seaward of the immediate ‘Best Estimate’ hazard zone).

Aspects that may be included in the retrofit or redesign of a structure may include:

Foundation piles to bedrock (done retrospectively or as structure is built);

floor levels (raising of an existing structure, or as new structure is built);

changing of site use to ensure lower floors may withstand occasional wave inundation and occupied / inhabited areas are elevated; and

relocatable structures, such as lifeguard towers, caravan park cabins, beach viewing platforms that are designed to be moved prior to storms, but still provide water, power, sewer and other critical services.

Redesign or retrofit is applicable to structures where it is not appropriate or possible to relocate the structure further landward. Similarly, stormwater infrastructure, beach access structures or major road redesign where there are no alternatives for redirection of the road, may also be suitable for redesign or retrofit in their current location.

In some cases this option can be implemented when asset replacement is required, enabling a rejuvenation of a failing asset in combination with the reduction of risk from coastal hazards (e.g. improved roadway, new stormwater outlet). The cost of mitigating erosion impacts through redesign may be shared with the cost of asset replacement. This reduces the overall cost now and in the future, as retrofitting an existing asset is far more costly than implementing the risk treatment as it is being built.

Relocatable structures are relatively inexpensive, especially compared with hard structures (e.g. foundation piles to bedrock). Ongoing monitoring is essential to ensure that later changes (renovations, supply of



services, ancillary structures/landscaping) do not compromise the speedy and efficient removal/return of the structure during and following storm events.

A mix of relocatable structures and solid structures outside the hazard zone may provide the best outcome, e.g. a relocatable viewing platform and beach car park located landwards of the hazard zone.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Allows extended life for existing assets or replacement assets.

Over the long term, modification will not be able to reduce likelihood that impacts will occur.

Does not limit the ability to retreat and remove structure in future – i.e. the option is adaptable to future scenarios.

Increased frequency of impacts in future may still require retreat at some point in future.

Design modification may be more expensive than retreat and removal of the asset – this should be determined through Asset Management Planning for public infrastructure / buildings (see Asset Management Planning Option).


Most Suited Low key community facilities, including SLSC watch towers (Hungry Head), beach viewing platforms and

shelter sheds (Wenonah Head), amenities;

Stormwater outlets, if possible; and

Wastewater Assets (e.g. pump station, rising mains).

Possible Suited Roadways (depending on availability, or otherwise, of alternate sites – Wenonah Head and Hungry

Head); and

Residential or public buildings (depending on site constraints and design or existing/future dwellings – Hungry Head).



Dune Management Implement dune care / revegetation programs at locations where vegetation is degraded, limited or overcome by weeds.

Type of Option Protect / “No Regrets”: Existing Assets

Details Dune care programs allow for ongoing retention of sand by dune vegetation, which may otherwise be blown out of the beach system. This ensures sand volumes are retained on the beach to buffer landward areas from erosion during storm events over the short term. The increase of dune height which occurs as dune species capture sediments within the beach system additionally provides a higher barrier to mitigate wave run-up extents and overtopping effects. Dune rehabilitation incidentally resolves and prevents issues relating to sand drift.

The option involves expanding the formal dune care program to extend the priority areas. If not currently present, Council should investigate the introduction of an environmental levy (as per many other councils) to fund such activities. The dune care programs should be accompanied by community education regarding the role of dunes and dune vegetation to provide a buffer to storms, in addition to ecological benefits.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option In short term, ensures sand is retained in beach system to buffer from storm erosion

Short term only - will not manage long term recession as dunes will continue to erode. Recession will outpace dune building over the long term.

Additional environmental benefits where native species are used

No irreversible long term impacts

Can form part of other solutions (e.g. stabilising sands placed as beach nourishment or from beach scraping).


Most Suited All Bellingen Shire beaches, but should be prioritised for the areas where important backbeach assets at

risk including Wenonah Head, Hungry Head, Mylestom; and areas with a high prevalence of weeds, such as at Mylestom Spit.

Foredune vegetation, Hungry Head (FEC, 2006)



To limit the future impact of wave run-up and overtopping, or indeed barrier dune breaching, at Hungry Head Beach North, which forms the defence barrier against salt water intrusion into the Urunga Sandmass and Lagoon (i.e. important habitat brackish and freshwater EEC’s habitat).

If an area of Mylestom Spit becomes actively de-vegetated, to encourage sand drift into the Bellingen River as an experimental estuary recession measure (refer to Section 4.2.5.1), dune management efforts should occur to monitor and limit the invasion of weed species into the blowout.



Habitat Management Assess all EECs and important habitat areas within hazard zones and determine appropriate action to ensure suitable areas are retained, and build their resilience to coastal hazards and sea level rise.


Details This option involves combining coastal hazards mapping with ecological habitat / vegetation mapping, to:

Idenitfy communities that require priority management / rehabiliatation. Priority communities may either include:

○ Communities with a realtively higher risk – the management aim here being to improve the health of these areas to subsuequently improve their resilience to increaseing coastal hazard pressures; or

○ Communities with lower risks, to ensure these are protected and enhanced considering they have a higher likleihood of longivity.

Consider mechanisiims to improve resilience of valuable habitats where natural migration is prevented (e.g. by back beach development) and alternative nearby habitat is not available; and

Identify important flora/fauna species that, due to their limited distribution, will need to be translocated.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Ensures prioritisation for habitat management and considers potential impacts of sea level risk and coastal hazards

Focuses finite environmental resources towards habitats as appropriate to their level of resilience to climate change

Potential Applications Endangered Ecological Communities identified in the coastal hazard zone through Council mapping

(Flametree Ecological Services, 2006).

Littoral Rainforest near Urunga Lagoon (FEC, 2006)



Beach Access Management Rationalise, maintain and improve beach access ways to protect beach / dune health providing a quality and safe public access to the beach.


Details This option involves managing beach access paths and facilities to: promoting public pedestrian access to the coastal region; minimise the impacts of pedestrian and 4WD traffic on the dunes and beach; and reducing the public saftey risks that occur at degraded beach access (notably following erosion events).

Beach access management tasks include:

Formalising and upgrading the beach access paths. Beach access should be desinged and constructed promote public access to the beach. This should occur with consideration for all persons, and include the provision of disabled friendly beach access / beach lookouts, in suitable locations (e.g. North Beach)

In addtion, beach access facilities should be designed and constructred to reduce the environmental impacts of pedestrain and 4WD traffic on the beach / dune landscape. Adequate dune fencing and suitable ground cover protection is required to achieve this. Dune fencing ensures that the adjcent dunes and dune habitat does not become trampled, degraded and eroded. Adequate ground cover materials prevents the formation of erosion gullies that can occur from concentrated and unprotected pedestrain and 4WD use. This may include the board and chain style paths have proven to be longlasting in some Bellingen locations. New recylceled materials that are both versitale and durable are becoming increasingly used for this purpose aswell;

Rationalising the exsisting beach access paths and eliminating informal access points. Reducing any surplus beach access paths will act to minimise the environmental impacts of pedestrian/4WD traffic on the dunes. This will also allow Council to be better target their beach access management resources;

Regualr monitoring of beach access conditon. This should be undertaken on a yearly basis and also after storms. Effective monitoring is required to maintain the beach access ways and manage the public saftey risks that are associated with degraded conditons.

In the event that unsafe beach access condtion occur, due to the formation of a large erosion scarp following a storm event (or succession of storms), the eroded beach/dune access way should be recontoured to provide afe access to the beach (refer Bellingen Emergency Action Sub Plan, Appendix B of the CZMP).

Quality Design Elements for Beach Access Points: Durable and versatile ground cover that permits wheelchair beach access while protecting the underlying dune environment; note also the effective dune fencing



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Reduces environmental impacts of pedestrian and 4WD pressure on beach / dune system, thus improving the beaches resilience to erosion events

Manages public safety risk associated with degraded access conditions, such as those typically occurring following large storms

Ensure the beach amenity is maintained and the continued provision of quality public beach access


Most Suited All Bellingen Shire beaches



Beach Scraping Beach scraping or nature assisted beach management.

Type of Option Protect: Existing assets over short term

Details The option involves managing beach sands through re-contouring and scraping sand into the upper beach. The objective is to redistribute sand from areas of accretion to depleted areas or areas at risk, to assist in the accumulation of sand within dunes. Re-contouring of dunes should be undertaken to a level that also mitigates wave overtopping, where possible. For example, low areas along a dune barrier could be re-contoured to increase the height, providing a consistent shoreline barrier.

Beach scraping is carried out when the beach begins to recover following beach erosion events, as sand is accreted in thin layers above the intertidal zone and moved above the area of fair weather wave action (i.e. into dunes). The dunes then form a buffer against storm erosion and wave overtopping. Beach management should be undertaken in combination with dune revegetation (see Dune Management Option) to minimise wind-blown sand losses.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Relatively cost effective and unobtrusive – single scraping events are ~$5,000 - $10,000.

Short term solution – beach scraping does not add to overall sand volumes on the beach.

Over the short term, promotes the building of dune buffers behind the beach.


Possibly Suited Hungry Head Beach North at a distant future timeframe, if and when recession threatens to locally breach

the barrier dune. If the barrier did become locally breached, it could have significant implications for the backing Urunga Sandmass / Lagoon wetlands region, which includes brackish and freshwater EEC’s at present.

The beach scraping sand source for this practice should be from the far northern end of the beach, adjacent to the southern training wall where sand will become trapped from northerly longshore transport.

Beach Scraping at Byron (New Brighton Beach), NSW



Beach Nourishment Placement of sand in the surf zone, on the upper beach face or dunes, to re-establish a sandy beach.

Type of Option Protect: Existing Assets

Details Beach nourishment often involves placement of beach sands on the upper beach face and dunes, to re-establish a sandy beach after a storm event and to provide a sediment supply for subsequent storm events. Nourishment can also involve the placement of sands offshore of a beach within the surf zone, where it is reworked naturally onto the shoreline by swell waves. Nourishment can address wave overtopping in the design profile adopted for placement of sand in dunes. Another option for nourishment (currently untested) is building large hind dunes (i.e. behind the frontal dune) to provide a future sand buffer and sediment input.

Where the objective is to increase the overall beach width, the whole profile must be nourished from the offshore base of the profile (10 – 15 m water depth) to the dune. Nourishment costs have been estimated at around $25/m3, with typical volumes of up to 200 m3/m length of beach required to restore or widen the beach by 20 metres (equating to a cost of at least $5,000/m).

Suitable sand sources need to be available in the local area for large scale beach nourishment, otherwise, costs may be significantly higher than estimates above. This option may be limited to localised spots or to protect individual assets on an as needs basis.

The first nourishment event is typically larger, followed by ongoing smaller nourishment episodes (as required to maintain the agreed level of protection/amenity). As sea level rises and the shoreline attempts to retreat, if the beach alignment and width is to be maintained in its current form, nourishment requirements and therefore cost will substantially increase (particularly if a local inexpensive sand source is not available).

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Retains a sandy beach in current position Very expensive option ($1-2 million for first episode,

$1 million for ongoing episodes), with typical costs of $25/m3 of sand.

Largely retains beach amenity Needs to be continually repeated (i.e. every 5 to 10 years now, may be once a year by 2100 due to shoreline retreat in response to sea level rise)

Suitable sand sources need to be available in the local area, otherwise the option is not economically viable.

Nourishment of beach with sand, UK



Other Considerations

In NSW, there has historically been a government stance against the sourcing of sand from offshore, and sand for nourishment must be sourced from licensed sand extraction operations on land; and

Under NSW legislation, Council can apply a Coastal Protection Service Charge to landholders who directly benefit from this action where private property (e.g. residences) or state-owned assets (e.g. RTA road, ARTC) is being protected by nourishment or the nourishment is addressing the impacts of a protective structure on beach amenity or adjacent property. The percentage of the levy individuals can be required to pay for this option relates to the extent of property protected. Council may also contribute where the community is considered to benefit from retaining the sandy beach.


There are presently no suitable locations in Bellingen Shire for this practice as a solution for beach erosion/recession management.



Seawalls This option involves the construction of a seawall at the back of the beach to hold the shoreline in its current position


Details A seawall can be built along an entire beach embayment, or a section of the beach. If built for a section of beach, the seawall design must be “tied” to bedrock or otherwise designed to minimise erosion at the end(s) of the structure.

Seawalls can be constructed from a variety of materials, particularly rock, concrete armour units or sand filled geotextile bags. The most effective designs are sloped with a rough surface, which minimises wave run up and overtopping. The design can incorporate other elements such as walkways / cycleways, steps and seating, and parapets.

Rock armour seawalls are the most common because they are well understood from a design perspective, easy to construct, typically absorb wave events bigger than the design condition with comparatively little damage, the slope and roughness of the rock placement reduces wave run-up and overtopping, and repairs and upgrading are relatively straightforward.

Seawall costs are of the order of $5,000 - $10,000 per metre length of wall, not including the costs of beach nourishment, ongoing maintenance and future upgrading. If the seawall is intended to be abandoned at some time in the future, the costs for removal and repair of the beach must also be considered as part of this option. Restrictions on re-development (i.e. DCP) should be applied until protection works are in place.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Holds the shoreline in current position over medium term (i.e. land behind the beach is protected, ultimately at the sacrifice of the beach).

Loss of the sandy beach as sea levels rise and the shoreline retreats – there is no beach.

May be appropriate where the land and assets behind the beach are more valuable (economically, or otherwise) than the beach front.

Expensive capital outlay ($ millions) plus ongoing maintenance. Maintenance costs will also include re-design in the future to accommodate to sea level rise. Need beach nourishment in the future to provide a sandy beach, increasing cost of the option.

Cannot be built at an individual property scale because the beach and land will continue to erode next to the seawall. Must be built along major segments of beach at a time.

Seawall on Stockton Beach, Newcastle, showing lack of beach at high tide



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option In cases where private property is protected, it may

be considered unreasonable to spend public money on protection of private property, especially if the public beach amenity will be sacrificed due to the seawall.


Possibly Suited Hungry Head (far south Schnapper Beach), for protection of Surf Life Saving Club and beach access loop

road (assuming that these assets are constructed on erodible substrate – geotechnical assessment of geology required); and

Wenonah Head (far south Schnapper Beach), for protection of fishing club precinct including Schnapper Road (i.e. areas of low lying land that fronts the Wenonah Head bluff).



Artificial Breakwaters Construct a nearshore artificial reef or breakwater in the surfzone to reduce shoreline wave impacts.


Details Artificial reefs can be submerged (such as multi-function reefs) or emergent (such as detached breakwaters or islands, see adjacent photo). They can be constructed from a range of materials and in a range of shapes, sizes and locations depending on the outcome required. Emergent reefs effectively block wave energy, absorbing wave impact on their seaward side. They create a lower wave energy environment on the beach immediately in the lee of the reef, thus sand will accrete and form a salient (or wider ‘bump’) along the beach. They are rarely favoured in Australia due to their obtrusive appearance and interference with beach surf conditions.

Submerged reefs act to refract waves and cause waves to break in the lower water depths over the reef, also reducing wave energy on their leeward (landward) side. They are less effective than an emergent reef as they do not block the waves entirely. During storm events, water depths over a submerged reef may be sufficient to allow waves up to several metres in height to pass over the reef without breaking, reducing their effectiveness in protecting the beach from erosion. They do offer the opportunity for other objectives such as creating marine habitat and improving surfing conditions. An example of an artificial submerged reef is at Narrowneck, Gold Coast.

Both types of structures are more suited to embayed coastlines where there is little to no alongshore sediment transport, to reduce the potential for impacts on the beach further downdrift of the structure. They are difficult to design and operate effectively across a range of wave directions and conditions and varying water levels.

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Suitable to protect short sections of shoreline only (salient only forms behind the reef)

Very expensive to build and maintain ($ millions…), because the structure must be built in a high wave energy and water environment.

The location of bedrock close to the surface provides an opportunity to reduce scour and slumping of the reef once constructed, reducing maintenance costs.

Multi-function (e.g. surfing reefs) have not been successful in other locations because the design for surfing is different to the design needed to protect the shore during storms.

Emergent breakwaters, low wave energy environment, UK.



Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Will not stop impacts of sea level rise unless the

reef is continually raised, meaning ongoing expense, more $$. (ability of reef to dissipate waves is reduced due to higher water levels over the reef with sea level rise)

Other Considerations Costs (capital and maintenance) are usually well beyond the resources of an individual or group of

individuals and such structures elsewhere in Australia and around the world are constructed as a part of a regional strategy with Local, State or National funding.

Potential Applications Conceptually, an offshore breakwater could provide a medium term solution for the Wenonah Head

precinct, by a) reducing shoreline recession; and b) ensuring a continued sheltered environment to launch boats from (noting that rising sea levels will progressively raise water level over existing offshore reef, thus increasing wave exposure with time).

However, breakwater structures are prohibitively expensive and environmentally intrusive structures; such a structure would not be in keeping with pristine coastal Bellingen environment. As such, an offshore breakwater is not considered to be a suitable protection option for Wenonah Head (or any other Bellingen Shire location for that matter).



Groynes Construction of a groyne or series of groynes perpendicular (90°) to the shoreline to capture longshore sediment transport and build a beach.


Details Groynes are shore normal structures constructed from the beach through the surf zone to a sufficient depth to stop or restrict the movement of sand around the end of the structure. They can be constructed from a range of materials and in a range of shapes, sizes and locations depending on the outcome required.

They are usually employed on high littoral drift coastlines to trap sand on the updrift side to provide a sand buffer to protect property and assets behind the beach. However, the groyne will cause erosion on the downdrift side until full bypassing of the groyne occurs. A number of groynes (in a ‘groyne field’) may be needed along the beach, to continually trap longshore drifting sands and reduce erosion effects at the end of the groyne field. This substantially changes the nature and appearance of the beach.

On coastlines with little or no longshore sediment transport, the groynes need to be closely spaced and (usually) nourished to provide the required sand buffer between the groynes. As such they are obtrusive and expensive by comparison with seawalls or nourishment options

Advantages of Option Disadvantages of Option Retains sandy beach in current location over the short term.

Substantially change in nature and appearance of the beach - groynes are obtrusive.

Very expensive to build ($ millions), as groynes need to be built in the surfzone. Cost is well beyond the means of individual or local Council. Such structures elsewhere in Australia and around the world are constructed as a part of a regional strategy with Local, State or National funding.

Unlikely to be effective for long term sea level rise (groynes don’t increase sediment budget for beach).

Potential Applications There are no suitable locations for this option in Bellingen Shires LGA at present, or in the medium term.

If long term recession threatens to beach the Mylestom Spit (i.e. 2100 and beyond), a groyne field may include one hard engineering solution worthy of consideration in the distant future.

Groyne field, Portugal

Bellingen Coastal Zone Management Study – Final Report F-88 Risk Mapping


Appendix F Risk Mapping

























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 Suite 1, 138 Wood Street, Mackay 4740 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 Suite 6, 29 Hood Street, Subiaco 6008 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