Western Port Local Coastal Hazard Assessment
Western Port Local CoastalHazard AssessmentReport 2 (R02) – Data ReviewOctober 2013
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02DOCUMENT STATUSVersionDoc typeReviewedbyApproved byDistributed toDate issuedV01ReportGJR, TJWCLASimone Corby15/03/2013v02ReportJXM, GJRCLAKristina Sestokas(Melbourne Water)28/10/2013PROJECT DETAILSProject NameClientClient Project ManagerWater Technology Project ManagerReport AuthorsJob NumberReport NumberDocument NameCover Photo:2548-01R02v02Melbourne WaterSimone Corby/Kristina SestokasChristine Lauchlan ArrowsmithCLA, KLR, GJR, JXM2548-01R022548-01R02v02a DataReviewTooradin Boat RampCopyrightWater Technology Pty Ltd has produced this document in accordance with instructions from Melbourne Water for theiruse only. The concepts and information contained in this document are the copyright of Water Technology Pty Ltd. Use orcopying of this document in whole or in part without written permission of Water Technology Pty Ltd constitutes aninfringement of copyright.Water Technology Pty Ltd does not warrant this document is definitive nor free from error and does not accept liability forany loss caused, or arising from, reliance upon the information provided herein.15 Business Park DriveNotting Hill VIC 31682548-01 / R02 v02TelephoneFax(03) 8526 0800(03) 9558 9365ACN No.ABN No.093 377 28360 093 377 283ii
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02TABLE OF CONTENTS1.Introduction . 11.11.21.32.Background . 1Scope . 1Reporting & Outputs . 1Data Review . s Studies . 2Aerial Photography and Imagery . 3Historical Aerial Photography . 3Current Aerial Photography. 7Elevation . 7Terrestrial elevation . 7Bathymetry . 7Catchments and waterways . 8Structures . 8Coastal assets and infrastructure . 10Meteorology . 10Wind . 10Rainfall . 11Tide and Sea Level . 11Current Data . 12Inundation mapping . 13Flow Gauging . 13Catchment Models . 16Geology & Geomorphology . 16Ecology. 16Groundwater . 17Cultural heritage . 17Council Reports. 17Gap Identification . 183.13.1.13.1.23.23.2.13.2.24.Data or Information Gaps . 18Structures . 18Erosion rates . 18Knowledge gaps . 19Vegetation . 19Erosion rates . 19References . 20Appendix ABibliography . 21Appendix BAerial Imagery . 22LIST OF FIGURESFigure 2-1Extent of DEM and Bathymetric data received to date for Western Port Bay. . 82548-01 / R02 v02iii
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02Figure 2-2Figure 2-3Figure 2-4Figure 2-5Figure 2-6Figure 2-7Culvert Layer provided by Casey City Council . 10Wind Roses for Cerberus and Rhyll (1991-2011) . 11Example Time Series of Water Level Data at Tooradin and Stony Point . 12Example of a Decomposed Water Level Time Series at Lorne Showing the Total, Tidaland Non-Tidal Water Level Variations . 12Location of ADCP transects in Western Port. 13Catchment and waterway data, rainfall and stream gauges in Western Portcatchment . 15LIST OF TABLESTable 2-1Table 2-2Table 2-3Table 2-4Table 2-5Table 2-6Table 2-7Table 2-8Table 2-9Table 2-10Table 2-11Table B-4-1Table B-4-2Table B-4-3Table B-4-4Table B-4-5Overview of previous Western Port studies . 2Historical Aerial Photography provided by DEPI . 3Initial Aerial Image Interpretation of sites in Western Port (extracted fromC.Sharples, 2012). 4Summary of Bathymetric Data Sets . 7Structure drawings provided by VicRoads (where two drawings were provided forone crossing, these were for dual carriageways) . 9Coastal Mapping GIS Datasets . 10Tide Gauging Stations in Western Port . 11Instantaneous Flow Gauging Stations in Western Port catchment . 14Catchment models available within Western Port catchment . 16Ecological data sets sourced for this project. 16Groundwater data sets sourced for this project . 17Somers Beach (1957-2009) . 23Sandy Point (1957-2010) . 24Tooradin (1967-2010) . 25Lang Lang (1947-2010) . 26Corinella (1956-2010) . 272548-01 / R02 v02iv
Melbourne urne Water commissioned Water Technology to undertake the Western Port Local CoastalHazard Assessment (WPLCHA) project. The project has come about through a partnership betweenMelbourne Water, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI), South EastCouncils Climate Change Alliance, Bass Coast Shire Council, Cardinia Shire Council, City of Casey andMornington Peninsula Shire Council.The WPLCHA is a component of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries FutureCoasts program, and Western Port is one of four priority sites in which local coastal hazardassessments have or are currently being undertaken.1.2ScopeAs detailed in the project brief, the scope of the WPLCHA is to provide information on the extent ofcoastal hazards and their physical impacts for the Western Port coastal environment. The WPLCHA isfocussed on assessing the physical hazards of erosion and inundation. It does not include anysubsequent assessment of impacts of the hazards on built, economic or social infrastructure, assetsor values and does not include preparing adaptation responses to the physical hazards.The information developed by the project will assist in planning for and managing coastal hazards. Itwill allow management agencies and other key stakeholders to identify and define triggers as thebasis for short, medium and long term management responses. Specifically, the information willprovide information, data and mapping to inform consistent policy and practice and supportagencies in identification and management of risk, and undertake; strategic planning, statutoryplanning, infrastructure maintenance and replacement schedules, natural asset management, andbusiness planning and budgetary processes that are responsive to a changing climate, its impactsand opportunities.The boundaries of the study area for the WPLCHA project are described as follows: Cape Schanck to West Head, along the shoreline of Western Port to the bridge at San RemoInland from the Western Port shoreline will remain undefined enabling the assessment to beas far into the catchment as relevantAll of the coast of French Island and the north side of Phillip Island from the bridge atNewhaven to the western extremity of Phillip Island (Seal Rocks), but excluding the southside of Phillip Island from Seal Rocks to the Bridge at Newhaven.The study itself was split into two components: 1.3Part A - a broad scale Western Port wide coastal hazard assessment, andPart B - four local scale coastal hazard assessments.Reporting & OutputsThis document is part of a series of reports produced as part of the Western Port Local CoastalHazard Assessment project. It should be read in conjunction with the following: Report 1: Summary ReportReport 2: Data ReviewReport 3: Methodology OverviewReport 5: Erosion HazardsReport 6: Critical Locations2548-01 / R02 v021
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02This report documents the available data that has been collected and collated for this project alongwith a brief overview of any specific data gaps identified.The GIS data collated has been compiled into a project GIS in ArcGIS (version 10.1) which is thecentral spatial database for the project team. The project GIS has been continually updatedthroughout the project. The project GIS has been used to undertake analysis for the hazardsassessment and to generate supporting maps and mapping layers.2.DATA REVIEW2.1Previous StudiesA full bibliography of previous studies has been provided by the DEPI and updated by the study teamduring the course of this review. The bibliography is provided in a separate spreadsheet, Appendix A.This spreadsheet was updated during the project and a final version included with the study outputs.Key studies and groups of studies are summarised below.Table 2-1Overview of previous Western Port studiesStudy EraGeneral SummaryPre-Shapiro (pre-1974)A handful of studies were completed on Western Port prior to theWesternport Bay Environmental Study (Shapiro, 1975). The earliestliterature identified is the survey of soils and land utilisation by Goudie(1942). The pre-Shapiro studies were mostly undertaken in the late1960s to early 1970s, and focused on the areas of geomorphology,hydrodynamics, birds, mangroves, invertebrates and fish.Shapiro Studies (1973-76)The Westernport Bay Environmental Study (Shapiro, 1975) was abroad environmental study encompassing land studies, social andeconomic studies and marine studies. A total of 58 separate reportswere made to the Westernport Bay Environmental Study between1973 and 1976. Each report was numbers with an ESS (EnvironmentalStudy Series) number between 52 and 116.The Shapiro studies had a broad-reaching scope includinghydrodynamics, water quality, geomorphology, vegetation seagrass,mangroves, birds, fish, marine mammals, invertebrates, benthos,dredging, soils, climate, and social and economic studies.Post-Shapiro ESS Studies There was an increase in research on Western Port after the(1975-84)completion of the Shapiro Studies. The Environmental Study Series wascontinued with further interpretation of the data from theWesternport Bay Environmental Study. In addition, a number of thesesand journal articles on Western Port were published in this period. Thefocus of research at this time covered the same areas as the Shapirostudies and also extended to sediments, erosion, oil spills,archaeology, and pest plants. The increased volume of Western Portliterature decreased in the early 1980s.Late 20th Century Studies There was something of a scientific hiatus on Western Port following(1985-99)the wind-down of the environmental study series. Only 127 pieces ofliterature on Western Port have been identified during this 15 yearperiod, compared to 240 in the previous 12 years. At this time, policydocuments and strategies were first being developed for the regionand monitoring and condition reports began to be undertaken.2548-01 / R02 v022
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02Study EraGeneral SummaryRenewed research interest in birds, fish, dredging and climate wasapparent at this time, as well as continuing research into water quality,mangroves, seagrass and invertebrates.Recent Studiespresent)2.2(2000- Post-2000, the volume of research again increased, with a renewedinterest in hydrodynamic and water quality models and sedimenttransport studies. Research on seagrass, mangroves, birds andinvertebrates continued steadily, while there was an increase inresearch on saltmarsh, fish, mammals and climate change. There wascontinued growth in policy and strategy documents, accompanied bycondition and monitoring reports.In 2011 the State Government of Victoria, Port Phillip and WesternportCMA and Melbourne Water jointly commissioned a broad overviewstudy of Western Port, titled “Understanding the Western PortEnvironment”. This study sought to synthesise the previous researchand present a summary of the current state of knowledge across anumber of key research areas.Aerial Photography and ImageryBoth historical and current aerial photography were provided by DEPI.2.2.1Historical Aerial PhotographyHistorical aerial photos were provided for five key locations as detailed in Table 2-2. A number ofphotos were available for each location, spanning the years from 1947 to 2008.Table 2-2Historical Aerial Photography provided by DEPILocationCorinella PointLang Lang to Jam JerrupSandy Point2548-01 / R02 lour200815cmColour195750cmB&W196850cmB&W3
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02LocationSomers 0cmB&W197050cmB&W198550cmB&W200635cmColourA mosaic of photographs for each location is provided in Appendix B. The following initialinterpretation of this imagery was provided by Chris Sharples to DEPI prior to the commencement ofthis project (refer notes from 15th September 2012).Table 2-3Initial Aerial Image Interpretation of sites in Western Port (extracted fromC.Sharples, 2012)LocationInterpretationBalnarringSandy beach with sand and some rocky reefs offshore and backed by dune sandsBeach – Somers mantling a rising bedrock backshore; most observed shoreline (vegetation line)Beachchange is mainly erosion and accretion of the dune sands, with the backingbedrock being probably unaffected by any recent shoreline changes as yet. Thislocation has some exposure to swell waves and may be affected by tidalcurrents.Most shoreline changes observed in the air-photos relate to two slightembayments to either side of a slightly protruding point with some bedrockexposure (little change occurred throughout at the point).Western embayment: 1957 – 1974: Accretion (progradation)1974 – 1987: Little change1987 – 2100: Significant erosion and recessionEastern Embayment: 1957 – 1987: Little change1987 – 2011: Significant erosion and recessionOverall, the air photo record shows a stable to slightly accreting shoreline from1957 to 1987, then significant erosion between 1987 and 2011. These changeswould be consistent with the onset of the effects of sea-level rise, howeverother explanations may be available (requires more understanding of local2548-01 / R02 v024
Melbourne .Sandy PointSandy beach and pro-graded sand spit, evidently subject to dominantly west toeast longshore sand transport, probably driven partly by some attenuated swellas well as local westerly wind-waves; likely to be some tidal current influencehere as well (air photos indicate a major tidal channel sweeping around close tothe tip of the point).West of Sandy Point: 1957 – 2011: Some variability but dominant trend throughout is majorpro-gradation, with the sandy beach growing and also migratingeastwards.Around the tip of Sandy Point: 1957 – 1974: Accretion (point growing) on eastern side of tip,progressively receding on south side of tip.1974 – 2011: Erosion and recession on eastern side of tip, continued andaccelerated recession on south side of tip.North of Sandy Point: 1957 – 2011: Stable shoreline, very little changeOverall the changes at Sandy Point appear characteristic of a prograding sandyspit with accretion west of and around the tip (exposed to longshore sand drift)and stability in the lee (north) of the tip. Phases of erosion around the tip arelikely to be controlled by episodic migration of the tidal channel that sweepsaround the tip, although examination of tidal channel movements in air photosfrom additional dates may be necessary to confirm this or point to alternativecauses.The processes dominating the shoreline history at Sandy Point are probablystrongly localised, hence critical time periods for air photos here would probablynot be relevant to other parts of Western Port.TooradinMainly a muddy estuarine mangrove shore, with a hard artificial shoreline onthe northern side of the township (not considered further), and a sandy beach(also artificial?) on the south-east side of the town. This site is not exposed toswell but receives locally-generated wind waves and river discharges.Mangrove shores: 1968 – 2011: Generally little change, although in many areas thereappears to be a slight shoreline accretion / progradation (of the order ofabout 5 metres) which may or may not be significant depending on theortho-photo error margins.Observed mangrove shoreline stability or slight shoreline accretion(progradation) suggests catchment silt supply is sufficient for mangroves tocapture mud fast enough to keep up with sea-level rise to date and perhapseven prograde a little – this is suggestive of a high sediment (silt & clay) load inthe river, perhaps related to catchment disturbances.Sandy beach south-east of township: 2548-01 / R02 v021968 – 1970: apparent major shoreline recession.5
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02LocationInterpretation 1985 – 2011: apparent shoreline recovery to 1968 positionI assume this little sandy beach is mainly artificial in origin (it would naturallyhave been a muddy mangrove shore like surrounding areas), and I suspect theapparent changes relate partly to some uncertainty about exactly whatshoreline features should be mapped to represent the shoreline here, and partlyto artificial changes on the ground.In terms of understanding shoreline behaviour at Tooradin, the little sandybeach might best be discounted and attention paid mainly to the behaviour ofthe mangrove shores.With stability or slight accretion being the dominant shoreline trend here, thereare no apparent periods of rapid change and thus no particularly critical times(within the 1968 – 2011 period) for air photo coverage of the broader area ofcomparable mangrove shores around northern Western Port (although notethere could be other areas where some more significant changes haveoccurred).Lang LangJam Jerupto Mainly a sandy shore backed by ‘soft’ bedrock (semi-lithified sandstone) terrainwhich is mainly a low profile backshore in the northern area of the ortho-photosbut rises into a high eroding soft sandstone cliff around a point towards thesouthern part of the air photos and continuing southwards (talus and slumpeddebris is abundant around the foot of the escarpment may have contributed tosome confusion over what feature to map as the shoreline in some photos).This site is not exposed to swell but receives locally-generated wind waves.North of the point (mainly a sandy shore backed by a low profile backshore, nowpartly artificial but probably a low natural scarp in the past): 1947 – 2012: Unmodified parts (northernmost area north of artificialseawall) mainly progressively receding throughout the period at roughlyconstant rate. Artificial shoreline section mostly stable since about 1969due to artificial wall, interpretation of earlier shoreline movementsdifficult as artificial filling etc may have occurred when the wall wasbuilt.Around and south of the Point (mainly a high eroding scarp): 1947 – 2012: Digitised shorelines (mainly scarp) unreliable as scarp isnot clear in all photos (see also earlier discussion of this problem).Digitised shorelines suggest some accretion at times but this is highlyunlikely as this sort of shoreline (semi-lithified sandstone bedrock)cannot recover naturally. It is reasonable to assume a progressiveshoreline (scarp) recession has occurred here but careful review andediting of digitised shorelines would be needed to test this assumption.It appears likely the dominant shoreline behaviour trend at Lang Lang – JamJerrup has been a slow progressive shoreline recession in most areas exceptwhere artificial walls have been constructed to halt the erosion. This may inpart be an ongoing long-term shoreline evolution trend (typical of many softrock shores which are still adjusting to the post-glacial sea-levels of the last6,500 years), but an accelerating recession might be expected in response torecent sea-level rise (where the data clearly documents a progressive recession,it could be further analysed to see if the rate of recession has changed2548-01 / R02 v026
Melbourne tly over the air photo period).Short of such additional analysis, the shoreline recession trend at Lang Lang –Jam Jerrup since 1947 appears roughly constant; hence there are no critical timeperiods for air photos of broader surrounding areas to capture phases of morerapid change.Corinella Point2.2.2Not available at the time.Current Aerial PhotographyA complete 1m resolution photo mosaic captured December 2009 to January 2010 was available forWestern Port from DEPI through the Coordinated Imagery Program (CIP). In addition, updatedimagery captured in Dec 2011 was available for the north and western part shoreline of WesternPort Bay.Additional aerial imagery was available to the study team through previous projects (e.g. NevilleRosengren, geologic and geomorphic sites of significance) and was included the analysis.2.3Elevation2.3.1Terrestrial elevationThe Victorian Coastal 1m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was available up to the 10 m AHD elevationfor all of Victoria’s coast line including Western Port Bay and islands. The DEM is derived from LiDARdata captured in 2007-09 for the Victorian Government Future Coasts project. A revised version ofthe Vicmap Coastal 1m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) in the Western Port study area was suppliedby DEPI during the project. The extent of data received to date is shown Figure 2-1.2.3.2BathymetryTwo bathymetric DEM data sets for Western Port Bay were made available from DEPI, while anadditional bathymetric grid was supplied by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Table 2-4Summary of Bathymetric Data SetsData setDescriptionCoastal BathymetryThis dataset is based on DEPIinformation acquired betweenNovember 2008 and April 2009to support the VictorianGovernments Future CoastsProjectNAMultibeam BathymetryBathymetry derived from DEPIMulti-beam Sonar, collected inJune 2010 for sections ofWesternport Bay2011EPA 50m Grid50m x 50m Bathymetric grid of EPAWestern PortNA2548-01 / R02 v02SourceDate Completed7
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02Whilst the combined extent of the data sets cover the intertidal zone there are some gaps in thedeeper channels to the north and west of French Island (Figure 2-1). Furthermore, the data setshave been captured separately and there are vertical elevation differences observed between themwhere they abut and/or overlap. The mean difference is 0.05 cm which is within the verticaltolerance of both data sets. However in some instances the differences were more significant (up to20 m) and may be due to changes in the substrate surface due to the different capture dates and thedynamic environment of the area.The final project bathymetric DEM used in the hydrodynamic and spectral wave model was createdby merging the three data sets described in Table 2-4 and the Vicmap 1m coastal DEM, using aprioritisation routine to apply highest resolution data where available. The Vicmap 1m coastal DEMwas used to provided coverage of all of the terrestrial land above approximately 0–1m AHD. TheDEPI coastal bathymetry dataset covered the majority of the intertidal zone and the multibeam dataprovided coverage of the main channels and the Western Entrance and Rhyll segments. Theremaining gaps, including a number of the tidal channels in the upper North Arm were then infilledusing the EPA 50m bathymetric grid.Figure 2-1Extent of DEM and Bathymetric data received to date for Western Port Bay.2.4Catchments and waterwaysCatchments, waterways and drains GIS data sets have been provided by Melbourne Water for theentire catchment, as shown in Figure 2-7.2.5StructuresGeneral arrangement drawings for 23 waterway crossings of major highways in the study area wereprovided by VicRoads (Table 2-5).2548-01 / R02 v028
Melbourne Water2548-01R02v02Table 2-5Structure drawings provided by VicRoads (where two drawings were provided forone crossing, these were for dual carriageways)VicRoads 0/SN6560SN3131/SN6559SN3133/SN6558SN3134RoadBass HighwayBass HighwayBass HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland 55/SN6995SN8354SN8355South Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwaySouth Gippsland HighwayLocationBass River BridgeBay RoadRed Bluff CreekWylies DrainWestern Contour DrainLittle Tooradin CreekAllsop’s InletCardinia Catch DrainLyall’s InletCardinia CreekMoody’s InletLittle Bunyip RiverBunyip RiverYallock Cr
Corinella Point 1956 50cm B&W 1969 50cm B&W 1974 15cm Colour 1981 15cm Colour 2008 15cm Colour Lang Lang to Jam Jerrup 1947 50cm B&W 1969 50cm B&W 1973 50cm Colour 1985 50cm B&W 1990 50cm Colour 2008 15cm Colour Sandy
Doosan Heavy Ind. DP World Cochin JNPT Port of Dubai Port of El Callao Port of Everglades Evergreen Fantuzzi-Reggiane Port of Felixstowe Fels crane FMC Technologies Port of Gioia Tauro Port of Gothenburg Port of Guanghzou Port of Hamburg Port of Heidland Port of Helsinki Port of Ho Ci Minh
NxM ("N by M") switch ! Often N M ! Goals " High throughput ! Best is MIN(sum of inputs, sum of outputs) " Avoid contention " Good scalability ! Linear size/cost growth Input Port Input Port Input Port Input Port Input Port Input Port Output Port Output Port Output Port Output Port Output Port Output Port Switch Fabric
Port of Savannah Port of Jacksonville Port Everglades Port of Miami Port of Tampa Port of Mobile Port of Gulfport Port of New Orleans Port of South Louisiana Panama Canal Port Canaveral. New Orleans. Once 2014 rolls around, however, and the Panama . Canal opens to the post-Panamax ships, the definition of
PUBLIC PORT FINANCE SURVEY FOR FY 2006 39 PARTICIPATING PORTS NORTH & SOUTH ATLANTIC Maryland Port Administration (Baltimore) Massachusetts Port Authority (Boston) Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PA) Port of Richmond (VA) Port of Wilmington (DE) Canaveral Port Authority (FL) Port Everglades (FL) Port of Miami (FL) North Carolina State Ports Authority
RE: Amendment Request No. 2-13 (LCP-5-LOB-13-0229-2) to the City of Long Beach Local Coastal Program, for Commission Action at its February 12, 2015 meeting in Pismo Beach. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2-13 . The Coastal Commission certified the City of Long Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) on July 22, 1980.
a GHS hazard class and category. Signal Words: "Danger" or "Warning" are used to emphasize hazards and indicate the relative level of severity of the hazard, assigned to a GHS hazard class and category. Hazard Statements: Standard phrases assigned to a hazard class and category that describe the nature of the hazard.
to address Louisiana's massive coastal land loss problem and provide for a sustainable coastal ecosystem by the year 2050. These three documents are:! Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, ! Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, An Executive Summary, ! Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana, The Appendices.
Landscape Guidelines For approved design guidelines, tree, and plant species see section 10. 3.0 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of all structures shall be that of Modern Coastal. History & Character The Modern Coastal takes its heritage from the Coastal Farmhouse, Classic Coastal, Coastal Shingle, and Coastal Plantation styles.
